It is often the case that those who are the least entitled to complain about something do so the loudest. So it is with conservatives and so-called "cancel culture" firing or de-platforming individuals because of their views. Hardly a day goes by when some conservative somewhere doesn't warn Americans that the lefty "cancel crew will come for you" or that a "new purge" reminiscent of "Stalin" is underway from which "no one is safe."

But those conservatives need to take a deep breath and mind their own house. When it comes to the politically correct left, liberals are themselves rising to defend old-fashioned tolerance, showing that a free marketplace of ideas when left to its own devices can regulate itself.

To be sure, it is an open question, as notes Ross Douthat, The New York Times' uber thoughtful conservative columnist and no friend of the woke left, whether the progressive camp's new censoriousness towards real or imagined disrespect toward marginalized groups would necessarily be more illiberal than the old Protestant consensus they seek to replace. Even liberal polities firmly committed to protecting free speech, after all, impose cultural limits on what ideas they admit in respectable company. And it is inevitable that an ethnically and religiously homogeneous society with one dominant group would draw the lines very differently from a more diverse one. Indeed, as more women and minorities enter the public space, they'll question old rules of social interaction. Many norms that were previously acceptable would no longer be so and vice versa.

But the trouble with the new left is that instead of letting these norms shift spontaneously at a natural pace, after due sifting and sorting, it wants to overthrow all of them, all at once. And to accomplish that, it has developed a strategy of pushing hard on power nodes corporate human resources departments, university bureaucracies to engineer institution-wide, top-down change.

The upshot is excesses. One does not have to buy the right-wing hype that politically correct activists are modern-day Jacobins thirsting for cultural revenge to be deeply troubled when they go after an obscure graphic designer for sporting blackface to mock a celebrity years after the actual event. Or a data analyst for tweeting a study by a black professor showing that non-violent tactics are more effective in affecting social change than violent ones. Or a museum curator who wouldn't spurn art just because it came from white people. All these people were liberals and they lost their jobs for running afoul of PC sensibilities.

Social change inevitably hurts some people. But progress depends on minimizing the collateral damage, the cost to innocent parties. Progressives, however, are leaving too many victims in their wake, including on their own side. But the good news is that now liberals are joining conservatives, who've been railing against PCism for decades, in pushing back.

New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait has been warning for five years that the left is on a censorious path. But in recent months his fellow liberals have started joining him in noticeable numbers. Chait's colleague at New York Magazine, the celebrated centrist gay writer who spearheaded the gay marriage movement, Andrew Sullivan, quit two weeks ago because, as he noted in his parting column, he no longer felt that its growing ideological narrow-mindedness had space for him. He has already reignited his old blog with the express purpose of critiquing precisely this tendency in the left. Meanwhile, some leading progressives joined public intellectuals on the other side of the ideological spectrum to sign an open letter in Harper's magazine expressing alarm at the culture of "intolerance of opposing views" and "a vogue for public shaming and ostracism" that was engulfing their movement. Among them, notably, was firebrand professor Noam Chomsky who is arguably one of the foremost inspirations of the modern left. And then there is the enthusiastic reception that Johns Hopkins professor Yascha Mounk's new venture Persuasion has received from across the ideological spectrum. Mounk, a centrist liberal, has founded this subscription newsletter to explicitly debate, articulate, and defend the values of a free society and pry open space for the expression of a wider array of opinions than the mainstream media is allowing.

Meanwhile, young conservatives like Ben Shapiro who act like cancel culture is some new left-wing invention are forgetting that right-wingers themselves have been its main practitioners through most of American history. One does not have to go back to pre-Revolutionary America when Puritans were engaging in the ultimate cancellation and hanging "witches" to find examples of cultural conservatives "canceling those who defied their moral strictures. In living memory, employers regularly fired those suspected of being atheists, gays and, of course, communists (remember the McCarthy era?). Only a short time ago, allowing gays in the military on a "don't ask, don't tell" basis, a policy hesitantly implemented by a Democratic president against stiff conservative opposition, was considered progress.

The patriotically inclined right also still has its own list of cancellation-worthy offenses. NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick found himself blackballed from the league after President Trump berated him for taking the knee during the national anthem and asked the league to "get that son of a bitch off the field right now." The right's uproar over comments by lefty stand-up comic Bill Maher (that the 9-11 terrorists were brave compared to American forces that launched bombs from a safe 2,000 mile distance) got his show, Politically Incorrect, canceled in the wake of the attack on the World Trade Center. The band Dixie Chicks was likewise canceled after its members voiced public disgust at the Iraq War.

With respect to Kaepernick, Trump is now saying he should get a second chance, but his habit of viciously attacking Republican lawmakers who oppose him has prompted scores of them to remain silent or permanently quit politics in other words, self-cancel. And he has explicitly called for the firing of journalists and dissenters that stand up to him. Even before he became president, he was into cancellation, calling on the Scots to boycott Glenfiddich because the brand honored a farmer who refused to sell his property for a Trump golf course.

But Trump is hardly alone. The conservative establishment itself is doing a masterful job. Far from allowing the full range of opinions to be expressed about the president, conservative publications are canceling anti-Trump voices left and right.

One of the raps against liberal cancel culture warriors is that, unlike in the past when the pressure to fire writers came from irate readers, now woke colleagues on the inside are pushing out dissenters. As proof, critics point to the recent departure of conservative editor Bari Weiss from The New York Times. She published a scathing resignation letter slamming her liberal colleagues for "constant bullying" in response to her heterodox views. But Weiss was also a refugee from the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal that she along with several of her anti-Trump colleagues quit after Trump's nomination made their views verboten. Meanwhile, Sol Stern, a former fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, has revealed that he resigned in protest two years ago after the institute's flagship publication, The City Journal, started muzzling anti-Trump voices, thanks to donor pressure. Indeed, David French, a former writer for National Review and current editor at The Dispatch, notes that "every single dysfunction you've observed from the Online Left and progressive media more broadly applies to the Online Right and conservative media as well. Except in conservative media, the focus isn't on intersectionality and social justice but rather Trump and his followers."

Of course, that conservatives are no strangers to quashing debate and discussion hardly makes the left's zeal to cancel people and viewpoints more palatable.

In the rough and tumble of the marketplace of ideas it is never clear that the "right" side is prevailing until it does. However, what these vigorous defenses of old-fashioned liberal values of debate and discussion from within the progressive camp itself make clear is that free societies defend themselves in unexpected and unpredictable ways. Conservatives should take note of these trends and let liberals police their own side while they get to work on theirs. With this president, they have plenty to keep their hands full even without a pre-occupation with the liberal enemy.

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.

Link:

Cancel culture and conservative glass houses - The Week

How should online hate and misinformation be dealt with? When Wiley launched a tirade of anti-Semitism, his social media accounts were removed, as have the accounts of hate actors like Katie Hopkins, and Alex Jones in recent years.

In response to the growing following of the QAnon conspiracy theory, Twitter has deleted over 7,000 accounts dedicated to it. Some deride this as a sign of an emerging cancel culture and an attack on free speech, but it should also be asked whether deplatforming actually works?

Earlier this year, David Icke was the king of a profitable conspiracy empire. Within weeks of the pandemic reaching the US and UK, he had become the single greatest producer of coronavirus misinformation anywhere in the world.

As an organisation focussed on tackling the growing online myths about coronavirus, we could see Icke was a huge problem, but targeting him for deplatforming was not an easy decision. We asked ourselves in advance is this going to work, or might it backfire?

After all, publicly challenging those who spread hate and lies comes with the risk that you might just give them fresh exposure, making the problem worse, not better. The Center for Countering Digital Hates own research on online trolling shows that engaging with a claim in order to refute it can often help amplify and entrench it, both as a result of the technology and human psychology.

That said, there are consequences to inaction, too. Ickes poisonous misinformation about coronavirus had already been viewed 30 million times.

Every week his social media accounts attracted another 22,000 followers. And all of this was helping make Icke and the tech giants who both powered and profited from him millions of dollars in revenue.

Obviously David Icke has the right to spout whatever nonsense he likes, but he doesnt have the right to an audience of millions. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of reach.

The key was to focus our call on the tech giants themselves, highlighting their moral failings in enabling Icke, to deplatform him and take away the megaphone that they had given him.

We knew this approach could work from the research that our friends at Hope Not Hate conducted following the removal of Tommy Robinsons anti-Muslim hatred from mainstream platforms, as well as research from the academics JM Berger and Jonathan Morgan showing that the suspension of extremist Twitter accounts limited the ISIS networks ability to grow and spread.

Now our own investigation has laid bare the devastating effect deplatforming has had on Ickes ability to spread his coronavirus misinformation and anti-Semitic hate.

Icke is now having to rely on BitChute, a YouTube alternative for the far right, where he has just 42,000 subscribers compared to the 890,000 he had on YouTube before his ban.

His use of BitChute makes for a case study in why deplatforming works. Since 2017, Icke has backed up all of his YouTube videos to BitChute, allowing for a direct comparison of how hate actors fare when they are robbed of the vast reach that tech giants can give them.

Our report examined 64 of Ickes YouTube videos that had been viewed 9.6 million times the same videos on BitChute have been viewed just 430,000 times. On average, just 6,711 people watch Ickes BitChute videos, compared to 150,000 before his ban from YouTube.

Importantly, another nine videos that had been viewed on YouTube 3.9 million times were not backed up to BitChute. It means that the spread of these videos, including one that was YouTubes most popular video promoting the Agenda 21 conspiracy that the UN is intentionally depopulating the world, has been halted completely.

There are encouraging signs that Icke is reaching less people through his network of collaborators too. When our report launched in April, most people who had viewed Ickes coronavirus misinformation had done so on the London Real YouTube channel, attracting 15 million views. While that channel still exists, all of its videos of Icke have been removed.

It shows that deplatforming works even when it is partial. Unfortunately, Instagram and Twitter have yet to follow Facebook and YouTube in removing Icke and his content.

Icke, of course, has complained that our campaign was just another part of the global Zionist conspiracy arrayed against him.

The truth is that professional conspiracy theorists like him will always come up with new conspiracy theories.

The difference is that there are now 1.6 million fewer subscribers listening to him, and you cant believe a conspiracy theory if youve never heard it.

Imran Ahmed is CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate

Originally posted here:

Deplatforming Works, Just Ask David Icke HAMZALA Inc.

The dust is still settling after Alex Joness InfoWars was more-or-less simultaneously banned by YouTube, Spotify, Apple, and Facebook. The move has spawned thousands of takes about whether deplatforming Jones was the right move or a slippery slope toward more censorship. But just as important to consider: Will it work?

This is called "deplatforming" or "no platform,"social media companies (sans Twitter, which says he hasnt broken its rules) have decided to stop being complicit in spreading Joness conspiracy theories and hate. And weve seen no indication Jones will stop. But will his business remain viable and will his influence wane?

The knee-jerk reaction, among Jones and some parts of the conservative movement, is that banning Jones will only make him stronger. InfoWars noted (correctly) that Google searches for InfoWars skyrocket after tech purge, and added that Silicon Valleys censorship campaign backfires as interest in InfoWars goes through the roof. The Ringer, meanwhile, noted that the paradox of Alex Jones, Infowars, the alt-right, and this whole unfortunate orbit of web-taught, forum-dwelling eugenicists: They are nothing without YouTube, and yet theyre nothing without getting banned, dramatically, from YouTube (or wherever else).

Its true that Silicon Valleys lethargy on the far-right, aided by endless press coverage, helped amplify their message and turned the far right into a real, powerful political force in the United States. And the Streisand Effect is definitely a real thing: Trying to censor somethingeven if that censorship is warrantedis only going to drive interest in it.

But the belief among people who have studied deplatforming is that, in the long term, it does work, though it may have some unintended consequences that have not been fully understood yet.

Weve been running a research project over last year, and when someone relatively famous gets no platformed by Facebook or Twitter or YouTube, there's an initial flashpoint, where some of their audience will move with them Joan Donovan, Data and Societys platform accountability research lead, told me on the phone, but generally the falloff is pretty significant and they dont gain the same amplification power they had prior to the moment they were taken off these bigger platforms.

Theres not a ton of research on this, but the work that has been done so far is promising. A study published by researchers at Georgia Tech last year found that banning the platform's most toxic subreddits resulted in less hate speech elsewhere on the site, and especially from the people who were active on those subreddits.

Early results from Data and Society sent to an academic listserv in 2017 noted that its unclear what the unintended effects of no platforming will be in the near and distant future. Right now, this can be construed as an incredibly positive step that platforms are making in responding to public complaints that their services are being used to spread hate speech and further radicalize individuals. However, there could be other unintended consequences. There has already been pushback on the right about the capacity and ethics of technology companies making these decisions. Weve also seen an exodus towards sites like Gab.ai and away from the more mainstream social media networks.

There are lots of examples of people who have been deplatformed and have seen their power wane. After he lost his Fox News show, Glenn Beck couldnt sustain his influenceThe Blaze reaches only a fraction of the people he used to. Milo Yiannopoulos, the former Breitbart personality, was permanently banned from Twitter for inciting targeted harassment campaigns against actress Leslie Jones, and he resigned from Breitbart over comments he made about pedophilia on a podcast. His general prominence in public discourse has waned ever since.

I think the anecdotes are what makes a difference hereeach individual, when you add them up, you get a net effect. You dont need much data behind it to point out that with Milo, he lost Twitter, and the result was he lost a lot, Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters, which monitors conservative media and is studying deplatforming, told me on the phone. He lost his ability to be influential or at least to project a veneer of influence.

Deepfakes, the AI-assisted technology used to create fake celebrity porn, grew in popularity after Motherboard reported on it. When Reddit, Pornhub, Gfycat, and others banned it, there were brief cries of censorship, and a brief spike in interest. But today, deepfakes are only being made and shared on the margins, in private forums and smaller, 4chan-like image boards.

"Yes, we must take away the kinds of coordinative power theyre able to gain on platforms"

One of the most important things to keep in mind when predicting what may happen to InfoWars is to consider how most people consume media these days. These platforms are so powerful for a reason: the vast majority of Americans use them every single day, and many people use social media as their only source of news. Social media is designed to be habit forming and many thousands of hours of research have been put into making sure these platforms are a daily habit; the question is whether Alex Jones and InfoWars is going to remain a daily habit after the initial Streisand Effect spike.

A lot of Joness programming is impromptu, where hes doing emergency broadcasts drunk in his house at 1 AM, Carusone said. Without YouTubes push notifications or algorithms, theres no way anyone would be watching that.

Of course, getting banned from his major platforms wont make Jones disappear, just like it hasnt made Milo or Beck completely disappear. As platforms have begun to ban certain types of content, alternative platforms like Gab.ai and Voat have popped up, where more-or-less anything goes. These platforms, too, were hyped as potentially powerful alternatives to the big social media players, but are largely struggling and arguably no more relevant than standard message boards that have been used by the far-right to organize for decades.

Nonetheless, the concern among academics is that, as hate moves to the darker corners of the internet, that some of their old followers may move with them and become further radicalized.

The good that comes with deplatforming is, their main goal was to redpill or get people within mainstream communities more in line with their beliefs, so we need to get them off those platforms, Robyn Caplan, a PhD student at Rutgers University and Data and Society affiliate, told me on the phone. But now weve put them down into their holes where they were before, and they could strengthen their beliefs and become more extreme.

The question is whether its more harmful to society to have many millions of people exposed to kinda hateful content or to have a much smaller number of ultra-radicalized true believers.

Donovan believes that, ultimately, its important to deplatform people when their rhetoric is resulting in negative, real-world consequences: The way Jones activates his audiences has implications for people who have already been victimized, she said. We have always had groups of white supremacists, misogynists, and violent insurrectionists joining message boards. But social media has made these tools much more powerful. So yes, we must take away the kinds of coordinative power theyre able to gain on platforms.

"Alex Jones is not the only person being deplatformed or who has been deranked"

There are a couple other things worth mentioning. First, Jones has been deplatformed before, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when he lost his radio shows. Jones was able to build something of a dedicated, organic audience long before YouTube in part by executive producing and distributing the 9/11 conspiracy theory documentary Loose Change. InfoWars was streaming video on its own website before it was streaming on YouTube. He is nothing if not persistent.

Second, the people who will stay on YouTube but wont follow Jones are not suddenly going to be earnestly consuming the New York Times. Jones became popular on social media because he was vitriolic, and because social media algorithms favor vitriolic, high-velocity content.

Not only did Jones threaten and pantomime shooting Robert Mueller, the reason he did is because he said Muellers a demon, Carusone said. If youre already plugged into the demon algorithm on YouTube, theres plenty of other people spewing demon stuff for you there.

Most importantly, we need to remember that Joness banning, and to a lesser extent Milos, only became major national news because it fits into a false narrative that Silicon Valley censors only conservatives, which has been posited by Ted Cruz, Congressman Jim Jordan, and, recently, Donald Trump.

Deplatforming works best when the people being deplatformed dont have any power to begin with. Nor are we talking about people from marginalized communities who have self-censored or left social media because of far right harassment and hate campaigns (and could, in theory, come back with more proactive moderation by large platforms.)

Alex Jones is not the only person being deplatformed or who has been deranked, Caplan said. We need to puncture this myth that its only affecting far-right people. Trans rights activists, Black Lives Matter organizers, LGBTQI people have been demonetized or deranked. The reason were talking about far-right people is that they have coverage on Fox News and representatives in Congress holding hearings. They already have political power.

See more here:

Deplatforming Works - Vice

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz

(JTA) Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinzaltz, the acclaimed scholar whose landmark translation of the Talmud enabled a vast readership to access one of Judaisms most canonical texts, has died.

Steinsaltz died Friday at 83 in Jerusalem.

Steinsaltzs monumental translation of the 63 volumes of the Babylonian Talmud made the arcane rabbinic debates and folkloric tales easier to comprehend, unlocking the wonders of Talmud study for those lacking a high-level Jewish education. The project took 45 years to complete.

Steinsaltz not only rendered the forbidding Aramaic text into modern Hebrew, but integrated his own commentary into the sparse language of the original, filling in gaps in the text that had previously required deep familiarity with the internal mechanics of talmudic discourse to decipher.

A new English version of the Steinsaltz Talmud by the Koren publishing house, and a free version of the translation available on the website Sefaria, further expanded Steinsaltzs reach.

The Talmud was never meant to be an elitist book, said Arthur Kurzweil, the author of two books about Steinsaltz and a board member of the Aleph Society, which raises funds to support the rabbis work. It was meant to be for everybody. So Rabbi Steinsaltz spent 45 years trying and succeeding to make that happen.

Described as a once-in-a-millennium scholar, Steinsaltz was renowned for his prodigious intellect and tireless work ethic. He was reputed to put in 17-hour workdays.

Authoring a comprehensive commentary on the Talmud alone put him in a category alongside Rashi, the medieval French scholar whose commentary on the Bible and the Talmud, composed 1,000 years ago, is considered the most authoritative. But Steinsaltz also wrote another 60 books on topics ranging from Jewish ethics to theology to prayer to mysticism. He also helped establish educational institutions in Israel and the former Soviet Union.

Born to secular parents in Jerusalem in 1937, Steinsaltz embraced Jewish practice as a teenager. Though his father was an irreligious socialist, he sent his son to study Talmud with a tutor at the age of 10. Steinsaltzs intellectual gifts were evident early, when he became the youngest school principal in Israel at 23.

In 1965, Steinsaltz founded the Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications, the same year he began his Talmud translation. His work was driven by a desire to educate large numbers of Jews about their heritage. Let my people know, was his favorite slogan.

The Talmud is the central pillar of Jewish knowledge, important for the overall understanding of what is Jewish, Steinsaltz told JTA in 2010 on the occasion of the completion of the translation. But it is a book that Jews cannot understand. This is a dangerous situation, like a collective amnesia. I tried to make pathways through which people will be able to enter the Talmud without encountering impassable barriers. Its something that will always be a challenge, but I tried to make it at least possible.

The completion of the translation was accompanied by a global day of Jewish learning connecting 360 Jewish communities in 48 countries. The event has since become an annual affair.

Steinsaltzs work was long deemed controversial. His Talmud departed from longstanding conventions, introducing punctuation and paragraph breaks, altering the pagination and placing his own commentary in the space around the main text that had previously been the domain of Rashi.

Rabbi Elazar Shach, a leading haredi Orthodox rabbi in Israel, called Steinsaltz a heretic and forbade his followers from reading his works, apparently out of concern for some passages in two works on the Bible that Steinsaltz subsequently agreed to modify. Shach insisted that all of Steinsaltzs work was heretical, however, another eminent 20th-century authority, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, approved of the Steinsaltz Talmud. In 1998, Jacob Neusner, a Conservative rabbi and noted scholar of Judaism, published a 250-page book entitled How Adin Steinsaltz Misrepresents the Talmud.

Steinsaltz was also criticized for accepting the leadership of a modern-day Sanhedrin, a recreation of the ancient rabbinic body. Steinsaltz resigned the post in 2008 out of concern for potential breaches of Jewish law.

But none of that slowed Steinsaltzs embrace as an unparalleled scholar of Judaism, both in the Jewish world and beyond. He was awarded the Israel Prize, Israels highest cultural honor, in 1998, along with the inaugural Israeli Presidential Award of Distinction, the French Order of Arts and Literature, and a 2012 National Jewish Book Award. He was invited to deliver the prestigious Terry Lectures at Yale University and was a scholar in residence at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. In 2016, he was invited to a private audience with the pope.

Among his best-known works beyond the Talmud translation is The Thirteen Petalled Rose, an introduction to Jewish mysticism first published in 1980. A follower of the Chabad Hasidic movement, Steinsaltz also authored several books on Tanya, one of the groups core texts. In 2018, he published a translation and commentary on the Five Books of Moses.

Despite his massive intellectual achievements, Steinsaltz often appears slightly disheveled in public and had a playful streak. Kurzweil recalled an appearance at a Long Island yeshiva at which Steinsaltz encouraged the students to do everything they could to make their teachers lives miserable, and even suggested a source book where they could find difficult questions sure to flummox them.

Hes a troublemaker and hes got a gleam in his eye at all times, said Kurzweil, who served as Steinsaltzs driver during his visits to New York. Hes up to mischief sometimes. He likes to question everything.

Long plagued by ill health, Steinsaltz suffered a stroke in 2016 that left him unable to speak.

Jewish learning is created by the Jews and is also creating the Jews, Steinsaltz said in 2010. When you learn, you learn about yourself. So learning one page of the Talmud is equivalent to two or three sessions with a psychoanalyst. Thats why people are interested Jewish learning is a mirror into our soul.

The post Adin Steinsaltz, acclaimed scholar who made the Talmud more accessible, dies at 83 appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Adin Steinsaltz, acclaimed scholar who made the Talmud more accessible, dies at 83

Continue reading here:

Adin Steinsaltz, acclaimed scholar who made the Talmud more accessible, dies at 83 - Forward

Auschwitz, a concentration camp in Poland.

(JTA) The state of Delaware will require the teaching of a Holocaust curriculum in middle and high schools starting with the 2021-22 term.

A bill signed into law late last month by Gov. John Carney mandates that public schools implement curriculum on the Holocaust and genocide for students in grades 6 through 12. Each district can develop its own curriculum, according to the Delaware State News.

The Halina Wind Preston Holocaust Education Committee of the Jewish Federation of Delaware, an interfaith volunteer group comprised of Holocaust survivors and their families, Holocaust scholars, teachers, clergy and community advocates will provide guidance and resources, according to the report.

The bill passed the state legislature unanimously.

Ann Jaffe, a Holocaust survivor living in Delaware, participated in the signing via videoconference. She spoke to the House and Senate about her experiences and has regularly spoken at schools in the state for several decades.

I am the last generation of first-hand witnesses, and I am 89-years-old. I am glad to know that when I will be gone, the schools will continue our work, Jaffe said in a statement at the signing, WDEL reported. The importance of teaching the Holocaust and about genocide in Delaware schools is great. How can we expect our children to remember and learn from history they did not know?

The post Delaware to require teaching of the Holocaust and genocide appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Read the original:

Delaware to require teaching of the Holocaust, genocide - Forward

Its a perfect storm of mass public health crisis, geopolitical rivalry, xenophobia, technology, and timing.

The whispers began as soon as the virus made its way to US shores. Back in March, the singer Keri Hilson gave it a public voice: People have been trying to warn us about 5G for YEARS. Petitions, organizations, studieswhat were going thru is the affects [sic] of radiation. 5G launched in CHINA. Nov 1, 2019. People dropped dead.

Later that day, her management had her delete the tweets, but it was just the beginning of the conspiracy that the launch of 5G caused the spread of COVID-19. After percolating around the internet for months, and building on countless legitimate concerns and anxieties about 5G, this conspiracy went as mainstream as it gets both the US and UK governments are now working to ban Chinese 5G from their infrastructure.

In a digital ecosystem plagued by the spread of misinformation, the ease with which these theories can circulate is pronounced, and has never before been so effective. Suddenly, amid such confusion and inconsistency with information surrounding the coronavirus, it may not seem so ridiculous that 5G radiation could be weakening our immune systems (harkening back to conspiracies about electromagnetic fields and power lines causing cancer and other illnesses in the 1970s), thereby making us more vulnerable to the virus.

One thing about the pandemic is the number of contradictions and policy reversals, the general climate of uncertainty, Dr. Joseph Downing, who co-authored a recent study into the origins and spread of 5G conspiracies, tells Observer. Theres actually no shortage of reliable public information, but in this polarized context of distrust, its going to be difficult.

From there, it can be a slippery slope to imagining that George Soros or Bill Gatescommon targets of QAnon and other conspiracistsplayed a role in both 5Gs launch and COVID-19s spread as part of an effort on behalf of Big Pharma, perhaps in order to inoculate citizens with a vaccine that would insert tracking chips into our bodies (as propagated by the viral film Plandemic).

Put another way, its easy enough to understand these theories as the latest versions of longstanding tropes within these circles (the far-right, anti-vaxxers, etc.), taking advantage of a global phenomenon and peoples desperation to know more in order to emphasize their pet obsessions (as argued in a May report by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue).

See Also: Why the UK Hung Up on Huawei 5G and What Happens Next

Dr. Wasim Ahmed, who co-authored the same 5G study, said, Twitter experimented with fact-checks on COVID tweets, and they ended up mislabelling so that any tweet [that mentioned COVID] came with the notice, which fed the conspiracy even more. TikTok took a similar approach, inserting a notice for information about COVID-19 underneath any video uploaded with a related hashtag (whether or not the video itself referenced the pandemicusers may include the hashtag just to help it get seen).

As Ahmed and Downing argue, were faced with a kind of cross-pollination of ideas and perspectives, each more or less agreeing on the basic premise that COVID-19 is man-made or otherwise indicative of something nefarious, but each also approaching it with their own specific conspiratorial spin (they found that YouTube personalities and InfoWars were, rather predictably, some of the main spreaders). They are opportunistic actors when it comes to making their voices heard (anti-vaxxers are perhaps the best example in this case, effortlessly bringing more attention to their cause by raising alarmist questions about the eventual COVID vaccine).

Ahmed, who has studied infectious disease outbreaks like swine flu and ebola through Twitter content, notes that there werent any influential voices countering these narratives, particularly health-based accounts. We think these accounts should be more vigilant about this and take that responsibility to penetrate that network. At the same time, jokes or tweets making fun of them can backfire: Youre helping that trend. You should just report it rather than quote-tweet it because youre defeating the purpose of what you want to do, Ahmed explained.

There are some scientists that believe 5G poses a legitimate risk, or at least that it deserves further examination.

In 2017, a group of scientists and doctors signed an appeal to the European Union warning of potential serious health effects of 5G and requested a moratorium on 5Gs rollout until the effects of its radiation and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) could be fully investigated. They point, for example, to people already suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (reminiscent of the vague affliction suffered by Carol White, played by Julianne Moore, in the 1995 film Safe). These scientists and doctors are in the minority, but they add credence to anyone just asking questions.

Even Jack Dorsey, Twitters CEO, owns a sauna with an EMF-shielded tent.

Who is most susceptible to these theories, then? People are understandably concerned about their role under capitalism and the force that an innovation like 5G can have on working-class jobs around the world. Greatly intensified by the pandemic and the precarity it has wrought, with millions losing their jobs in quick succession, these anxieties are not only reasonable but entirely logical.

Theres an idea that we live in a democratic process, Downing points out. But in the rollout of these technological infrastructures, were not consulted and that breeds a certain amount of distrust. They feel that something that is unproven is pushed on them.

While this is true about many things, particularly new technologies, theres something particularly troubling for some people about an infrastructural change, one that will have a major impact on the modern workforce. Socioeconomic status or education level are not accurate predictors of conspiracy susceptibility. Ahmed suggested one of the only reliable predictors is digital literacy, or having knowledge of communication systems and technology which can help you discern what is and isnt true. Downing, on the other hand, simply suggested that there are those that are susceptible, and those that arent.

The obvious question, especially following Twitters fudged attempts at labeling, is what platforms can actually do. One approach is the one Twitter took in July to combat QAnon specifically. Twitter deleted thousands of accounts, designated QAnon as coordinated harmful activity, and changed their algorithm so that QAnon terms will no longer trend or appear in search results. In effect: deplatformization. Facebook appears to be taking similar steps.

See Also: How QAnon Will Fight Back Against Twitters Ban And What Happens Next

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to make a game-changing difference. Its the taking-a-sledgehammer-to-an-acorn approach, Downing said. Deplatforming accounts just adds on to the sense of distrust, and then no one can track these users. And they just move platforms, they go to Telegram or Signal, which use end-to-end encryption.

Perhaps something subtler. Rather than addressing the most active culprits, Ahmed suggests, we could target those that are on the edge, because they will be easier to reach. A less-formal technique can also helpDowning previously looked at fake news surrounding the London Grenfell Tower fire, and found through a massive data set that it was largely random social media users that helped to stamp down the conspiracies. Ahmed also points to the personal responsibility of regular users, who can report anything they see that they think is suspicious, so the platforms can more quickly detect misinformation.

At any rate, we all risk getting stuck within an echo chamber, struggling to utilize our critical faculties to disseminate everything coming at us. In a state of perpetual confusion, anything and everything can become collateral damage. In contrast with the Arab Spring, in which things happened and then people tweeted about it, in this case people have tweeted their anxieties and theories and phone towers were then attacked, just as the Luddites attacked factory machinery during the Industrial Revolution.

As all of this is occurring, inequality is rising, the political climate is severely polarized, and we cannot assume that there is a causal link between putting out information and having it be believed. You get the rebound effect, Downing said, where the harder you try, the more entrenched they become. You need a more general civic response, educate people about conspiracies and fake news, and hope that people are sensible enough that the vast majority will adhere.

Is it that simple? As Downing himself puts it, Theres a whole host of concerns about these [tech] giants that control so much of our lives that we have no power to dictate. After all, it takes only a tiny fringe to change things for everyone, like the bad kid who ruins the birthday party for everyone by dropping the cakeare you sure they didnt do it on purpose?

At the same time, people know that the dominance of 5G will unquestionably allow unprecedented levels of surveillance, and they are not entirely comfortable with the loss of privacy accelerated by increased automation and centralization facilitated by this new infrastructure.

In some ways, then, this is a bleakly familiar story: people are frustrated by their lack of control, and in their desperation, they look for answers, and that frustration is intensified and weaponized by trolls or other interested parties, resulting in a thick soup of garbage that is practically impossible to find your way through. Grab a spoon.

See the article here:

Why Extreme 5G Conspiracy Theories Have Gone Viral in the Age of COVID-19 - Observer

Image by ICE

ICE

(JTA) A Jewish woman who was in ICE custody and was scheduled to be deported has been released following a push by Jewish advocates, immigration activists and a local official.

Nylssa Portillo Moreno, who came to the United States as an undocumented immigrant at age 8 from El Salvador in 1993 and grew up in Houston, was recently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to RAICES, a nonprofit that provides legal services on immigration and is representing Portillo. She was originally scheduled to be deported this week.

After RAICES tweeted about her case, a coalition of Jewish advocates sprung to Portillos aid.

Nelly is a Jewish immigrant. Nelly is locked up by ICE. Nelly is a cancer survivor, Rafael Shimunov, a progressive Jewish activist, tweeted Monday, adding the hashtag #FreeNelly.

RAICES, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, confirmedthat Portillo was detained after being charged with theft, a charge that was later dropped.

Although she qualifies for DACA, the program that allows undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to remain in the country, she has not applied, according to RAICES. New applications are currently not being accepted. RAICES also said that Portillo is a cancer survivor, making her more vulnerable to the worst effects of COVID-19, and that she has been denied kosher food while in custody. According to RAICES, she has lost 60 pounds while in custody.

In the weeks since RAICES initial Twitter thread, Portillos case has attracted the attention of Jewish organizations. An open letter to ICEs San Antonio Field Office on Portillos behalf, written by the National Council of Jewish Women, was co-signed by 18 other groups, including the Union for Reform Judaism and the Anti-Defamation League.

The letter, sent Monday, said, As organizations inspired by Jewish values, we unequivocally believe that Ms. Portillo Moreno should be home in her community, where she can receive needed medical care, have access to kosher food, and be with loved ones.

Sheila Katz, CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women, said that Portillos case also sheds light on wider allegations of mistreatment and denial of religious rights to ICE detainees. ICE detained more than 140,000 people last year.

Its pretty outrageous, she said. This is just another notch in the real and inhumane treatment of people in custody, and we felt that Ms. Portillo Morenos story it was important for us to speak out about her in particular, but also to bring awareness to the fact that this is likely a pattern.

On Sunday, Never Again Action, a Jewish group that protests on behalf of immigrants at ICE detention centers, organized a phone bank that called ICE asking for her release, in addition to calling friends to raise awareness of her case. The group also placed calls to New York Sen. Chuck Schumers office because he is the Senate minority leader and a Jewish senior official. Stephen Lurie, an organizer with the group, told JTA, We think its crucial that Democratic leadership start paying attention and taking serious action on immigrant justice.

In addition, a Texas state representative in Austin, Gina Hinojosa, wrote a letter to ICE calling for Portillos release. Andiola said other elected officials advocated on Portillos behalf as well.

The advocacy appears to have worked: As of last night, a spokesperson for RAICES confirmed, Portillo was released on an order of supervision, which means she is free from custody but is still subject to proceedings in immigration court.

The situation that we would want is for USCIS to open the application for her to apply for DACA, said Andiola, referring to the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service. Other than that, shes going to have to seek other ways of being able to stay here with her attorneys.

Katz said she hopes Jewish organizations keep speaking out for undocumented immigrants who are detained, particularly during the pandemic.

I think the Jewish voice has been loud around humanity issues happening at the border, she said. We need to be louder always.

The post Jewish woman released from ICE custody following national advocacy campaign appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

The rest is here:

Jewish woman released from ICE custody following national outcry - Forward

A college in Maine withdrew its invitation from a conservative speaker over "issues many community members had with his values.

According to the Bangor Daily News, the College of the Atlantic was set to host Federalist Society co-chairman Leonard Leo for a virtual event but rescinded the conservative leader's invitation. College spokesman Rob Levin told the local newspaper that the decision to withdraw Leo's invitation was made for both logistical challenges associated with holding the Institute remotely and for issues many community members had with his values.

"for both logistical challenges associated with holding the Institute remotely and for issues many community members had with his values"

Levin further cited the "moment of reckoning our society is going through" as grounds for withdrawing Leo's invitation.

At the same time, we must value the moment of reckoning our society is going through, and our own work to build a more humanizing human ecology, and understand that we are not functioning in a world of abstract ideas the policies and actions espoused by people and organizations can have a very harmful effect on members of our community," Levin told the Daily News.

Leo was scheduled to introduce Heritage Foundation President Kay Cole James. However, since the event was virtual, and Leo was only supposed to introduce James, Levin told the newspaper that there would not have been an adequate opportunity for attendees to challenge Leo's viewpoints, particularly when it came to his support for conservative judges and justices.

[Related: Some schools ban conservative speakers. This one is taking the opposite approach]

This is not the first time that Leo has been criticized for his conservative beliefs.

Specifically, in 2019, protesters gathered around Leo's home during a private fundraiser with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). The protesters took issue with Leo's support for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who Collins voted to confirm.

Otherwise, the series of lectures included numerous speakers from both sides of the aisle.

Leo and James were slated to take part in the college's annual Champlain Institute event. During the event, which occurred July 27-31, COA President Darron Collins introduced James, rather than Leo.

The events other speakers included former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine), federal appeals judge Douglas Ginsburg, and New York Times food editor Sam Sifton.

[Related: Campus Reform reporters, professor targeted with death threats, online harassment]

COA Dean of Institutional Advancement Lynn Boulger stated that the event bridges the political divide by bringing speakers of different political affiliations together: This intolerance is not only hurting the fabric of civil society, our democratic process and any possibility of civil discourse, but is also hurting us personally by dehumanizing us and leaving us with a very distorted understanding of each other.

Communications and Membership Coordinator at the National Association of Scholars Chance Layton told Campus Reformthat "It is encouraging to hear that the College of the Atlantic has a lecture series 'to engage with people of varying political viewpoints,'" but that "The 'cancelation' appears to be more of a de-platforming, the intent being to not give Leonard Leo a place to speak, as a result of the 'moment of reckoning our society is going through.'"

"This is obviously wrong," said Layton. "It is likely the college's mistake for inviting him in the first place, knowing that he would not receive the same Q&A treatment as formal speakers. However, I wonder if the university had someone left of center giving the introduction for Hillary Clinton or the other democratic speakers. If so, the hypocrisy is self-evident. Either way, the de-platforming appears to be the result of poor planning and politics. Both of which are discouraging for such a promising lecture series."

Read the rest here:

College disinvites conservative speaker over 'issues' with his 'values' - Campus Reform

Everyone should take note of Roger Ailes, the movie. The late founder and CEO of Fox News, media visionary and GOP strategist is now the subject of Man in the Arena, a meticulous and carefully crafted documentary which aims to offer an accurate and candid portrait of the man with the message that all views and political beliefs should be a part of news coverage. The film also addresses the heavy price that those who value free speech can pay when they champion it.

The project was written and directed by Michael Barnes, who bolstered his the content with exclusive interviews and commentary from President Trump, Mitch McConnell, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh, Bill OReilly, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, along with Ailes widow, son and brother. Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight narrates the film.

Mr. Barnes also had access to the personal library and audio records of the news magnate, ultimately producing a definitive portrait of the powerful political kingmaker and cable news legend. It stands in contrast to previous portrayals which dwelled on controversy and drama. Actors Russell Crowe and John Lithgow both portrayed Ailes in recent feature films.

I think that Man in the Arena and the life of Roger Ailes give insight to our current political debates, Mr. Barnes tells Inside the Beltway.

Should society reform things, or should everything be burned down? And with respect to media censorship, bias and de-platforming, is the search for truth still worthwhile? And is truth advanced by hearing other points of view? These themes underpin Man in the Arena, he says.

Mr. Barnes also has insight into the pivotal origins of Fox News, which has remained the leading cable news network for 18 consecutive years, according to Nielsen.

I had not realized the extent to which Roger Ailes, decade after decade, tended to side with underdogs, often against powerful interests. For example, I didnt know that when Roger Ailes founded Fox News, it had no audience and was anticipated to be a failure. There is a powerful lesson there for entrepreneurs and people of action: Keep fighting, Mr. Barnes says.

He has a reminder.

Mitch McConnell said, If I were to pick the three most consequential conservatives of the modern era, it would be Ronald Reagan, Charles Krauthammer, and Roger Ailes, Mr. Barnes said and he also recall one of Ailes mantras.

What they called me is opinion. What Ive done is on the record, the newsman once said.

No worries about waiting until theaters open to view this unique film. Man in the Arena is being distributed digitally on PrimeVideo and other online platforms, and also can be accessed via ManInTheArena.com.

NOW THERES A THOUGHT

If you can protest and riot in person, you can vote in person.

This public message was issued Tuesday by Students for Trump, an interest group co-chaired by Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk and founded by political analyst Ryan Fournier.

PERILS OF A MAIL-IN VOTE

The Democratic Partys obsession with mail-in voting could backfire.

The Democrats are obviously committed to using the COVID-19 pandemic as the latest pretext for achieving their longtime goal of widespread voting by mail. They may, however, end up outsmarting themselves, writes David Catron, a columnist for the American Spectator.

Acting on the assumption that Congress is unlikely to pass legislation requiring every state to send mail-in ballots to all registered voters, a number of Democrat-controlled states are moving to pass bills that will mandate vote-by-mail schemes within their own borders. The obvious problem is that Election Day is only three months away and the logistical difficulties of expanding mail-in voting are legion, he says.

Mail-in voting is a greater risk for Joseph R. Biden than President Trump, however.

States attempting to convert to all mail-in voting are controlled by Democrats. Consequently, they are far more likely to encounter general election problems comparable to the disarray that characterized recent primaries in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In both of those states, mail-in voting disfranchised tens of thousands due to postal delays, signature match problems, and voter errors, the columnist says.

It could happen. A recent ABC/Washington Post poll found that 51% of Democrats plan to vote by mail.

IN SCHOOL, OR NOT?

The debate over reopening schools has a distinct partisan divide.

Attitudes are shaped to a large degree by politics: 85% of parents who identify as Democrats and 29% who identify as Republicans are worried about their child getting COVID-19. About two-thirds of Republican parents, versus 13% of Democrats, want full-time in-person instruction for their children this fall. Democratic parents are mostly divided in their preference between full-time remote learning and a modified system, says a new Gallup poll.

Among all parents, 46% worry about their child getting sick while 36% want their offspring to attend full time, in-person learning. The poll of 1,028 U.S. parents of K-12 students was conducted July 13-27 and released Monday.

FOXIFIED

Fox News remains the most-watched network in the cable kingdom, besting both news and non-news competition for 30 consecutive weeks according to Nielsen. It is the most-watched cable network of the summer, Fox noted in a statement.

Fox News enjoyed 3.2 million prime-time viewers last week, compared to MSNBC with 1.9 million, CNN (1.4 million), HGTV (1.3 million) and TLC (1.2 million).

Prime-time host Tucker Carlson is the ratings king, drawing 3.9 million viewers. Indeed, both Hannity and Tucker Carlson Tonight topped ESPNs Major League Baseball coverage and the National Basketball Association on TNT for the second week.

POLL DU JOUR

83% of U.S. adults support government funding of a COVID-19 vaccine to make it available to all Americans.

76% support a state law to require wearing a mask in public.

62% support a single national strategy to determine when businesses can reopen.

60% support a single national strategy to reopen schools.

55% support a temporary ban on travel between states.

Source: An NPR/IPSOS poll of 1,115 U.S. adults conducted July 30-31.

Kindly follow Jennifer Harper on Twitter @HarperBulletin.

Go here to see the original:

Inside the Beltway: Roger Ailes, 'The Man in the Areana' - Washington Times

There is an argument going on in Scotland at the moment about freedom of speech. It is not entirely new, and has been simmering away for some time, in the background, over university de-platforming of unpopular speakers. Now it is in full flood with the conclusion of the consultation period over the Scottish Governments proposed extension of criminal law protection for new groups, including the elderly. The Scottish Governments legislation is clearly well-intentioned, but has attracted vociferous criticism from a wide range of public bodies, including the Law Society of Scotland and the police neither of these being known for a tendency to cry wolf. It will be interesting to see whether the Government heeds these expressions of concern. It definitely means well here and deserve credit for indicating its firm rejection of stirring up hatred. But the use of the criminal law to control the expression of views involves a delicate balance if the law is not to become repressive.

Authors are affected by this, as are those who possess books and are in the habit of passing them on to others. Speech amongst friends will also constitute a communication for purposes of this legislation. An ageist remark, uttered innocently and without intention to stir up hatred against old people, may be the subject of criminal investigation if the person to whom it is addressed is offended and makes a complaint. Of course, one would hope that restraint will be shown in the application of the legislation, but what if the police and prosecution authorities feel compelled by public outcry to respond to an unjustified complaint? The legislation provides for defences based on reasonableness, but the damage may be done well before that stage if a person who has no intention to stir up ill-feeling is subjected to investigation.

Even in the second half of the twentieth century, authors have been accustomed to the powers that be telling them what they can or cannot write. The publishers of D.H. Lawrences Lady Chatterleys Lover, a work of charming innocence by todays standards, eventually won a legal battle to bring the novel to the public. The same publishers entered the fray again with the Salman Rushdies Satanic Verses, with the author himself being driven into hiding. Graham Greene was another victim: he incurred the disapproval of Papa Doc Duvalier for his portrayal of life under dictatorship in Haiti. There are countless other examples of writers who have struggled against the censorship of repressive regimes such as the former Soviet Union and its satellite states, or of various right-wing dictatorships. Suppression of freedom of speech, and even freedom of belief, is something that both right and left are capable of doing with equal enthusiasm.

Our current debate in Scotland is a bit different. The legislation here is aimed at stopping people from abusing or threatening others and that is by no means the same as outright political censorship. Nobody should be allowed to intimidate others or insult them in such a way as to cause real distress and hurt. That is the equivalent of a physical assault indeed it is often worse. If the criminal law tackles that, it is just doing its job of protecting the vulnerable. The issue, though, is the nature of the offence caused and, in particular, the extension of the law to include the punishing of those who did not intend to stir up ill-feeling of any sort.

For authors, these changes may put a question mark over fiction itself. Characters in fiction are the creation of their authors but are not the same things as the authors themselves. That may sound trite, but it is a point that needs to be made. The artistic work may also be viewed as something separate from its creator. Wagner stands accused of anti-Semitic attitudes, but should that prevent the performance or appreciation of his music? David Hume may have been complicit in investments in Caribbean plantations at a time when slavery in such enterprises brought immense suffering, but does that mean his work should no longer be studied? Regretting the wrongs of the past and indeed apologising for them (in deeds and words) is entirely laudable, but obliterating that past and its creations is another matter altogether.

Fiction will inevitably give offence to somebody, unless it is exceptionally bland. When an author creates a character, she or he may need to describe that characters attitudes through dialogue. That means that the character will have to say something. Nice characters will say nice things that should cause no offence to anybody, but nasty characters and fiction must have at least some of those may say nasty things. That is because fiction often sets out to paint a realistic picture of how people are and how they behave. If these things cause offence to some readers, then those who take offence may argue that the book is liable to stir up hatred against a protected group of people even if that was not the authors intention. That is where the police come in.

The difficulty is that there are people who do not appear to appreciate that the views expressed by fictional characters may differ from the views held by the author. You may think that unlikely, but I suspect that most authors will be able to recount incidents where they have been blamed for what their characters do or think. Some years ago, I include in my Scotland Street series of novels a scene in which Bruce, an oleaginous narcissistic, makes disparaging remarks about his home town (discretion and fear of prosecution requires it not to be named here). Thats the sort of person Bruce is: hes prepared to look down his nose on his own home town a charming place with its Hydro and its surrounding Perthshire hills. My own feelings for the town in question are unreservedly warm, but Bruces remarks were attributed to me and I was hauled over the coals for expressing views that I certainly never held. One local politician suggested that I be required to visit the town and publicly apologise.

That was a case of over-sensitivity, but the point is this: any legal restraint on what authors can write must be very carefully calibrated, because there are those who will claim offence only too readily and will seek to shut down voices they may not like. The Scottish Government is right to protect people from abuse, discrimination and hatred. They deserve credit for that. But they must also protect artistic and intellectual freedom.

Continue reading here:

It's important that Scotland protects its tradition of literary and artistic freedom - iNews