Today, some 20,000 people on YouTube tuned-in on to a Congressional hearing where the CEOs of Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon attempted to convince the House Judiciary Committee that they didnt engage in anti-competitive practices.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos wasnt even asked a single question before the first recess was called due to technical issues, and prior to that most of the attention was directed towards Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, with little input from Apple CEO Tim Cook.

The hearing took many turns to address censorship, extremism, and the Chinese threat, but anti-competitiveness was a hot topic from the get-go.

In their responses, the big tech CEOs took a page right out of the fictional 5 Ds of Dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge as theydeflected, dodged, or denied accusations of anti-competitive behavior.

Some anti-competitive accusations from House members:

Some big tech CEO rebuttals:

Quick update. pic.twitter.com/iwLYqLqqdb

The Markup (@themarkup) July 29, 2020

This week, The Markup published a report where it examined 15,000 popular search queries and found that Google products and services made up 41% of Googles first page search results.

The report included that at least some FTC staffers had concluded that Googles boosting its own properties in search rankings led to a significant decrease in traffic for the websites of many vertical competitors, according to an internal FTC report, half of which was accidentallyprovidedto The Wall Street Journal.

New investigation: We found Google routinely put its own products before competitors on the search page. In a sample of 15,000 queries, Google content took up 41 percent of the first page and 63 percent of the first screen of search results. https://t.co/pkjRuFyfIt

The Markup (@themarkup) July 28, 2020

When asked if Google shows the most relevant results or results that were most profitable for Google, Pichai responded in todays hearing,Weve always focused on providing users the most relevant information, and we rely on that trust for users to come back to Google every day.

[Google] used its surveillance over web traffic to identify competitive threats and crush them Rep David Cicilline

When asked if he was involved in Googles conversations about the threat of vertical search, Pichai responded, When we look at vertical search, it validates the competition we see.

Rep David Cicilline reminded Pichai that when Google stole Yelp reviews and Yelp complained, Google responded by threatening to take Yelp off its platform completely. The chairman asked Pichai if what Google did to Yelp in 2010 could be considered anti-competitive.

Pichai chose not to answer the question and deflected to saying, We conduct ourselves to the highest standard.

Without getting much information from Pichai, Chairman Cicilline concluded his time by stating:

As Google became the gateway to the internet, it began to abuse its power. It used its surveillance over web traffic to identify competitive threats and crush them. It has dampened innovation and new business growth, and it has dramatically increased the price of accessing users on the internet, virtually ensuring that any business that wants to be found on the web must pay Google a tax.

We wont do any work to politically tilt anything one way or the other. Its against our core values Sundar Pichai

Touching briefly on the subject of election interference, Rep Jim Jordan asked Pichai, Is Google going to tailor its features to help Joe Biden in the 2020 election?

Pichai responded, We wont do any work to politically tilt anything one way or the other. Its against our core values.

Bezos had to wait over an hour and a half before he was asked a single question, but when it came, it came fast and hard.

[Amazon has] access to the entirety of sellers pricing and inventory information past, present, and future, and you dictate the participation of third party sellers on your platform, so you can set the rules of the game for your competitors, but not actually follow those same rules for yourself Rep Pramila Jayapal

When asked if Amazon accesses and uses third party seller data in making business decisions, Bezos dove away, stating that he couldnt give a yes or no answer.

He did say, We have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private label business, but I cant guarantee you that that policy has never been violated, which was about the most direct, open, and honest answer that all but admits guilt that any of the witnesses gave.

Rep Pramila Jayapal laid into Bezos, stating:

You have access to data that far exceeds the sellers on your platforms with whom you compete. You can track consumer habits, interests, even what consumers clicked on but then didnt buy. You have access to the entirety of sellers pricing and inventory information past, present, and future, and you dictate the participation of third party sellers on your platform, so you can set the rules of the game for your competitors, but not actually follow those same rules for yourself.

We have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private label business, but I cant guarantee you that that policy has never been violated Jeff Bezos

Do you think thats fair to the mom and pop third party businesses who are trying to sell on your platform? she asked Bezos.

Bezos was able to blurt out, Im very proud of what we have done for third party sellers on this platform, before Jayapals time expired.

Prior to acquiring both Instagram and Snapchat, Facebook was developing its own similar apps, but was accused of anti-competitive behavior in threatening companies by either threatening to clone their products or buying them out.

Rep Jayabal asked Zuckerberg, Do you copy your competitors?

He responded, Weve certainly adapted features that others have led in, as others have copied and adapted features that weve led in.

Has Facebook threatened to clone the products of another company while also attempting to acquire that company? asked Rep Jayapal.

Not that I recall, said Zuckerberg.

[Facebook] harvests and monetizes our data and then your company uses that data to spy on competitors and to copy, acquire, and kill rivals Rep Pramila Jayapal

Jayapal reminded Zuckerberg that he himself had told Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom that Facebook was developing our own photo strategy, so how we engage now will also determine how much were partners versus competitors down the line, and that Systrom confided in an investor that he feared Zuckerberg would go into destroy mode if he didnt sell Instagram to Facebook.

I want to respectfully disagree with the characterization. I think it was clear that this was a space that we were going to compete in one way or another. I dont view those conversations as a threat in any way.

Commenting on Facebooks acquisition of Instagram after deeming it a threat, Zuckerberg said, I think this is an American success story.

The Facebook CEO claimed that nobody could predict just how successful Instagram would be, but that one reason why it became so successful was because Facebook was backing it.

Rep Jayapal also asked, Did you warn Evan Spiegel, the founder of Snapchat, that Facebook was in the process of cloning the features of his company while also attempting to buy Snapchat?

Zuckerberg responded, I dont remember those specific conversations.

Rep Jayapal concluded, When the dominant platform threatens its potential rivals, that should not be a normal business practice. Facebook is a case study, in my opinion, in monopoly power because your company harvests and monetizes our data and then your company uses that data to spy on competitors and to copy, acquire, and kill rivals.

Cook was spared the hot seat for most of the first half of the hearing, but in the short time he was questioned, he was pressed on why app developers were accusing Apple of arbitrarily making up rules for the App Store review process and selectively enforcing them, making it more difficult for developers to sell their products on the platform.

With over 100 million iPhone users in the United States alone [] you wield immense power over small businesses to grow and prosper. Apple is the sole decision maker as to whether an app is made available to app users through the App Store, said Rep Hank Johnson.

With over 100 million iPhone users in the United States alone [] you wield immense power over small businesses to grow and prosper Rep Hank Johnson

Developers have no choice but to go along with the changes or they must leave the App Store. Thats an enormous amount of power. Also the rules get changed to benefit Apple at the expense of app developers and the App Store is said to also discriminate between the app developers with similar apps on the Apple platform and also as to smaller app developers versus large app developers, Rep Johnson added.

We treat every developer the same Tim Cook

Mr. Cook, does Apple not treat all app developers equally? he asked.

We treat every developer the same, said Cook, adding, we have open and transparent rules. Its a rigorous process. Because we care so deeply about privacy and security and quality, we do look at every app before it goes on [the App Store], but those rules apply evenly to everyone.

Some developers are favored though over others, is that correct?

That is not correct, Cook testified.

The first half of the House Judiciary Committee hearing today was mostly a lesson in dodgeball, but between the dodges, dips, dives, ducks, and dodges, the hearing offered a glimpse into how the big tech CEOs perceive public concerns about anti-competitive behavior by looking at which questions they avoided and which ones they answered directly.

Whats wrong with anti-competitive behavior in big tech?

Facebooks business model is poison & its algorithms amplify misinformation: digital forensics expert testifies

Facebook says it doesnt benefit from hate, but its algorithms tell a different story: op-ed

The rest is here:

Big tech CEOs give Congress the 5 Ds of Dodgeball on anti-competitive behavior - The Sociable

Wednesday, Jul 29, 2020, 4:01 pm editBY Moshe Z. Marvit and Shaun Richman

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

You know what should be canceled? The legal right of most bosses to fire you for a good cause, bad cause, or no cause.

That status quo is so widely accepted that some progressives dont think twice about appealing to the authoritarian power of bosses in the pursuit of social justice: Many high profile social media campaigns have been employed to get people who are caught on video committing racist acts in their everyday lives fired from their jobs. But the desire to hold racists and sexists accountableor the related struggles against sexism, homophobia and fascismneed not be in conflict with the principles of workplace rights.

So-called cancel culture is not well-defined, but its critics frequently use the moniker to refer to an activist program of making individuals who harm their neighbors or coworkers with acts of racism, sexism (and worse) accountable through exposure and de-platformingincluding attempts to get them fired. Liberal critics have been more likely to raise free speech concerns than any about workers rights, while leftists are likelier to argue that free speech doesnt mean freedom from the consequences of speech.

Depending on what websites you read, cancel culture could be portrayed as the biggest threat to society outside of a pandemic with no end in sight, a cratering economy with tens of millions of people out of work and facing eviction, and unidentified men wearing camouflage and carrying machine guns removing protestors from the streets of Portland. The terms of the debate are so problematic that Trump used the occasion of his July 4 speech to complain of leftists that, one of their political weapons is cancel culturedriving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. Then, because theconcept of irony has apparently died of complications from Covid-19, he continued, This is the very definition of totalitarianism.

Three years ago, we published an op-ed in the New York Times explaining how U.S. workers lack a basic right to their jobs that many workers in other countries enjoy as a legal standard. As a solution, we proposed a just cause right to your job law as a badly needed labor law reform. Since then, weve been encouraged to see the issue turn up on many progressives agenda.

In the debate between a right to your job and the need to de-platform bigots, some have raised concerns that without the bosss right to fire an employee for any reason, racists and sexists would getmore of a free pass at work.But this argument misses what just cause means. It doesnt mean that employees cannot be fired, it means they cant be fired for a reason thats not related to work. Racism, sexism, harassment and other forms of conduct in and out of the workplace that make other employees feel unsafe and violate policies around respect and equity are grounds for discipline and terminationbut are also subject to due process. When you look at how just cause plays out in areas where it existsin the public sector, under many union contracts, or in other countriesits clear that racists, sexists and harassers are, in fact,disciplined.

Beyond the pale and unacceptable

American workers stand apart from those in other countries, as theyre governed by a body of judge-made law called the at-will employment doctrine. The doctrine is built around a sort of false mutuality, where the employee has the liberty to quit her job for any reason, and the employer has the right to fire her for any reason. The alternative, commonly negotiated in union contracts, is just cause: the principle that an employee can be fired only for a legitimate, serious, work-performance reason. In a union contractwhere just cause is commonly foundit is usually combined with a progressive discipline system and a grievance procedure to challenge write-ups, suspensions and terminations that a worker feels was unfair.

Progressive discipline typically starts with verbal warning of an infraction or unsatisfactory performance. If, after that warning, a boss thinks that the situation has not improved, it may be followed up with a formal warning in writing, then a suspension without pay and, finally, termination. The progressive steps of discipline reflect an increasing seriousness of infraction, or inability to improve following warnings and remedial supports. Lower levels of discipline might be accompanied by new training or counseling to help the employee improve. Butand this is a key pointwhile some matters might go through the entire progression of discipline, other more serious infractions might go straight to a higher level of discipline.

A vocal or demonstrative racist creates a hostile work environment for her coworkers, and can be punishedor even firedunder a system of just cause and due process. Lets look at a few real-world scenarios. Casually browsing through arbitrators' decisions in New York, we found the case of a professionally-classified employee at a social service agency serving developmentally disabled children and families, who made racist remarks about a supervisor to a fellow worker that other co-workers overheard. Horrified, the co-workers who were subject to an unwelcome racist rant reported it to management, complaining that they were not comfortable working with such an unabashedly racist co-worker. The racist employee was fired. She brought the case to arbitration, arguing that she was not given progressive discipline and was fired without just cause.

The case went all the way up to arbitration and a neutral third-party upheld the termination. The damning judgment: Under these circumstances, I find that the Employer acted reasonably and had just cause to terminate Grievant's employment. In maintaining a respectful, productive and safe working environment for a diverse workforce as well as a proper atmosphere for the Employer's clientele, the use of certain negative language is beyond the pale and is unacceptable, making progressive discipline unwarranted.

Amy Cooper, the entitled white lady who called the cops on an African-American birder in the Ramble of New Yorks Central Park is a slightly more complicated case. Cooper was caught on video reacting in a reflexively racist way to a Black man who just wanted to protect some birds from getting gored by an off-leash dog, threatening to unleash some unpredictable police response upon him. She was quickly doxxed, and angry internet hordes demanded she be fired from the investment firm that she worked for. The firm, Franklin Templeton didnt hesitate to fire her to protect its own reputation.But even Amy Cooper deserved due process.

The targeted campaign against the investment firm arguably made Coopers behavior in Central Park a work-related cause of damage to her employers business. More relevant is how uncomfortable her presence in Zoom meetings and on email CC lines would be for her co-workers in the immediate aftermath of her scandalous behavior. It would not be unreasonable for an employer to move directly to a suspension under those circumstances. It could be a suspension without pay while she cooled her heels and consulted with anyone willing to represent her in an appeal. If the employer decided that her time away from regular duties should be spent in implicit bias training or anger management counseling, then the suspension could continue some form of compensation.

If the goal of cancel culture is to make racists afraid again by making their despicable behavior carry real-world consequences, then Cooper very nearly losing her job would likely have been as effective as her actually losing her job. And under a just cause standard, she probably wouldnt have been immediately fired for this one terrible offense.

Lets look at one more example. In a widely-discussed piece for New York Magazine critiquing cancel culture, Jonathan Chait complained about the firing of a political data analyst named David Shor. In Chaits telling, Shor tweeted a link to a paper by Princeton Professor Omar Wasow, which showed that non-violent protests increased the vote for Democrats, whereas protests viewed as violent increased the vote for Republicans. What followed was a Twitter debate between Shor and several others concerning the propriety of Shor posting the paper, wherein Shor was accused of racism and his employer was tagged. A few days later, Shor was fired from his job.

Chait uses the Shor episode, along with several others, to point to a left-wing illiberalism that seeks to silence people with opposing viewpoints. However, in Chaits examples and his discussion of the problems, he almost wholly lets the employer off the hook. He engages in no discussion of at-will employment or how Shors employer should not have been permitted to fire him for a superficially innocuous tweet, but instead blames leftists and the far left for causing Shor to lose his job. Nowhere does Chait even mention that it was not the Twitter users who fired Shor, but his boss.

The problem for Chait was a cancel culture that included everyone except the powerful arbiter of speech who actually canceled his employmenthis boss.

The cause must be just

In her 2017 book, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don't Talk about It), University of Michigan professor Elizabeth Anderson argues that we think too narrowly about the power and ubiquity of governments. We almost exclusively focus on the power of the politicians we elect while ignoring the far more coercive power of our bosses. All workplaces have a system of government. In the United States, a unionized workplace is like a constitutional monarchy. We have some rights and can petition the King. A non-union workplace is a dictatorship. Left-wing activists need to think twice before appealing to the authoritarian power of a boss. Even if the cause of anti-racism is just, the bosss arbitrary authority to punish his employees for what they do in their private time is a massive restriction of our civil rights.

Corporations are only temporarily embarrassed when right-wing employees spark a controversy. But corporations actually dislike left-wing ideas and are usually all-too-happy to find an excuse to quash them, leaving progressive activists far more vulnerable to campaigns of harassment targeted against their livelihoods. This can be seen in academia, where there has been a multi-year effort to police the speech of academicson anything from the 1619 Project to theBDS movementthats viewed as too far left. Critics have tried to force risk-averse university administrators into firing such professors for tweets that get caught in the right-wing media echo chamber.

All workers deserve just cause protections, and we need to fight for this right as a matter of principle and self-defense. This can be done without endorsing an alliance with the boss that enshrines a broad unchecked power to fire at-will employees.

Originally posted here:

If Cancel Culture Is About Getting Fired, Let's Cancel At-Will Employment - In These Times

Donald Trump Jr. has returned to Twitter, after being temporarily suspended, and is reacting to being booted off the social media site. On Tuesday, Trump Jr. sat down with Fox News' Tucker Carlson to share his thoughts on his Twitter labeling a video he shared about the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for coronavirus as containing misinformation.

"I've been saying this for a long time," Trump Jr. said. "I wrote my first book about justice and censorship coming from the big tech giants from California, as homogenous a group as you could possibly imagine. If they are censoring my account, they are censoring others and they've been trying to do this for a while," He added, "I've been talking about the de-platforming, that demonetization of people that are preaching conservative values, because you have to note, this never happens to someone saying something that benefits the left. It only hurts conservatives." Trump Jr. stated that he was not officially endorsing the video's claims, but that he felt it was something the public should see as it shared an opposing perspective to what "they've been force-feeding us for a little while."

Trump Jr. accused Twitter of taking a hypocritical stance, saying that his account was suspended but that Chinese officials have posted "disinformation" about the COVID-19 but have not been hit with the same consequence. "Because I have a large platform, I'm canceled," Trump Jr. said. "You know who else got thrown out of Twitter for the same offense? Sidney Powell, who happens to be Michael Flynn's attorney and someone who has been sticking it to the left."

Carlson offered his thoughts on the situation as well, saying, "If I see another Republican officeholder backed by Google and the Chamber of Commerce lecture me that it's not really censorship because the government isn't doing it, I'm going to go bananas." Trump Jr. eventually closed his interview with Carlson by taking a verbal jab at House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who reminded the Republicans on the committee to wear face masks, while donning his in an ill-fitting manner. "This is typical Democrat," Trump Jr. stated. "Do as I say and not as I do."

See the original post:

Donald Trump Jr. Returns to Twitter, Reacts to Being Booted Off Platform - PopCulture.com

Donald Trump Jr. joined "Tucker Carlson Tonight" Tuesday to respond to the 12-hour suspension of his Twitter account after he posted a video featuring doctors endorsing the use ofanti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus.

"I've been saying this for a longtime," the presidents eldest son told host Tucker Carlson. "I wrote my first bookabout justice andcensorship comingfrom the big tech giants from California -- as homogenous a group as you couldpossibly imagine. If they are censoring myaccount, they are censoringothers and they've been tryingto do this for a while.

"I've been talking about the deplatforming, that demonetization of people that are preaching conservative values," Trump Jr. added, "because you have to note, thisnever happens to someone sayingsomething that benefits theleft.It only hurts conservatives."

Trump Jr. said he wasn't endorsing the claims in the video, but labeled it a "must-watch" because it ran contrary to a narrative "they've been force-feeding us for a little while." He went on to accuse Twitter of hypocrisy for censoring his tweet while Chinese officials are able topost "disinformation" about the coronavirus with no consequences.

"Because I have a large platform,I'm canceled," Trump Jr. added."You know who else got thrown outof Twitter for the same offense?Sidney Powell, who happens to beMichael Flynn's attorney andsomeone who has been sticking itto the left."

Carlson chimed inthat the issue must be fixed through federal legislation.

"If I see anotherRepublican officeholder backedby Google and the Chamber of Commerce lecture me that it'snot really censorship becausethe government isn't doing it, I'mgoing to go bananas," the host said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The president's son concluded the interview by knocking House Judiciary Committee Chairman JerroldNadler, D-N.Y., for reminding Republicans on the committee to wear their masks even as his hung below his face.

"This is typical Democrat," Trump Jr. said,"doas I say and not as I do."

Read the original:

Trump Jr. bashes Twitter over suspension: 'This never happens to ... the left. It only hurts conservatives' - Fox News

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

You can jail a Revolutionary, but you cant jail the Revolution.

Fred Hampton

As much as academics, celebrities,

friends or anti-capitalists may fret about being deplatformed in various

ways what about activists and unhoused people deplatformed of their

presence and existence by curfews and cops repression?

Tranquil Enes

getting canceled is what happend to heros like Steve Biko. Getting roasted for a Luke warm centrist/fascist take isnt getting canceled, its getting cuckholded

Austin Sankaran

What say the millions of jailed black and brown Americans to the fret over cancel culture? If they could say anything, we would know. But the real cancellation of black lives cannot be ignored as we attempt to assert a white opinion cosmopolitanism. How many Americans are canceled because of their neighborhood or their lack of one? How many Americans have had their literal lives canceled during coronavirus because they cant afford health care or cant afford to not work? How many immigrants are canceled because they cant even report this virus without being deported or caged? How many are canceled because of their record sheet or even specifically their race? Trans folks are canceled with near universality. Women dont have to worry about their abusers being canceled, they have to worry about the opposite. When was the last time a cop was canceled for murder? When was the last time a billionaire was canceled for slavery or ecocide?

The gambit by the right wing is that by pointing to liberal, yet authoritarian ruling class cultural institutions they can claim persecution when in fact the political and economic forces under this oligarchy increasingly favor the right to the point that it is nearing hegemony. Unfortunately, some on the left buy into this corporate cultural identification and fail to prioritize the class war against people of color on the ground. People of color and their allies are being canceled by bullets. Right now. Corporations who embrace cancel culture rejoice and collaborate in this class stratification through racial violence. Corporations may say they want to cancel bigotry but they really want to cancel the radical underclass by any means necessary.

The law is a paradox and merely a reproduction of the class hierarchy in a society with massive inequality. This is why I cant claim to be an ideologue but merely a person interested in the material consequences. The rich have too many police protecting them but not enough cops on the corporate crime beat. The opposite is true for the poor. Likewise the defunding of the police who generally police the poor through violence and jail will only work if we also find some way to hold the rich who cause poverty to be somehow held accountable. This is why we lose absolutely nothing by defunding the police. A new order will be formed. But it will be one that holds the corporate thieves accountable rather than locks up millions of black and brown folks because of the color of their skin.

The United States is a police state with mass incarceration. It has both occupying armies and slave cells to put in those who do not comply with the state. Similar use of force is used through a bloated military budget around the world. While the world is always on the verge of collapse amidst the class contractions of cruel survival for some and absurd excess for others we have the police as a force who cancels any resistance. These police arent on Twitter because they arent suppressing sketchy white twitter people. They have bigger fish to fry. A serious job of containing the underclass who doesnt believe in any of the shit coming from either the corporate duopoly or its cultural apparatus.

Those upset about cancel culture make the mistake of believing in said corporate structure. The underclass are canceled not because of what they say but because of who they are. Blue Lives Matter and cancel culture rhetoric is a defense of jobs that do not fit with their own ideals because of these class contractions and the limitations of democratization of any institution under austerity neoliberal regimes. Black Lives Matter and the states repression of it deals with the barbarity of being a person of the underclass in these times.

I am willing to accept that all of the trends in our society are related to the crumbling Empire, rapidly deteriorating ecosphere and the resulting heightening of class contradictions. I am willing to accept that just as police and the military have become more militarized to suppress the expression of the people neglected by the state, the media too has become a place less tolerant of dissent.

I am also to a point willing to accept the class reductionists claim that co-optation in the form of liberalism is one tactic used to subdue the real class crisis. But who is this propaganda working on? Or perhaps more importantly, how many people would actually classify as leftists in any traditional sense? What we have is a new order on the ground, one that is quite frankly not concerned by cancel culture because the cancellation of real protestors is not just cultural but also material.

The left can avoid getting stuck in a series of meta-narratives by simply saying cancel culture may be unfortunate but it is part of a broader problem of cancellation done by the state not because of political correctness but because of political necessity. The only way to satisfy the racist Republican base is law and order and the only way for Democrats to join in with the politics of austerity and war is to also join in with the law and order of suppressing their own base. This is why Democrats simply dont care that black and Latino people cant vote in this country. If they could the Republican Party would be toast and the Democrats would have to answer for what they do.

Why are people in cancel culture canceled? For some famous people its because they did something racist or sexually harassed somebody. For some like Adolph Reed or Meghan Murphy it is because they arent part of the consensus but clearly are part of the left we should have solidarity with even in disagreement. While we dont always give these people a fair trial it is also true that unless someone from the ground exposes them the corporate state doesnt really want to cancel them. Has cancel culture hurt our intellectual culture? Sure it has but doesnt it relate to a larger problem of solving problems through punishment and isnt cherry-picking the petty liberal cancellations buying into the right-wing narrative that liberalism is itself a repressive cultural apparatus that it is the cause for our problems? Isnt all of this shifting attention away from a non-ideological corporate oligarchy that doesnt believe in anything precisely because its language is force?

Real resistance is met with a real authoritarian state. We have seen this recently. Black people have always been the leaders of the struggle against the last protectors of the corporate state. Many black folks get it more right than white folks because there is no democracy for them to believe in precisely because they were never included in it.

Lets be honest about it. A black radical who can organize is killed in this country. Thats just the facts. Sure we may want an open discourse in society but it never has existed. If youre serious about taking on Empire and the corporations it protects, theyll kill you if they need to. The deadly force used against protesters recently is part of this tradition.

So the question to me isnt so much about free speech because even in this so-called free country the language of freedom itself has never been permitted. Bigotry may be canceled but the genocide of black people isnt. If such a contradiction exists how much can we even value the pure discourse? This is not to underestimate the power of true pedagogy and education. But this teaching is so much more than freedom of speech. Its about citizenship and critical thinking.

If we simply want a variety of opinions to be respected I again have to ask isnt this just a reproduction of the supposedly hegemonic liberalism that accepts diversity but never deals with class inequality? Because if we want the New York Times to add a left face and a right face to their multitudes of centrist ones isnt that just more diversity?

What we need is to organize first and accept debate and disagreement as part of a healthy left. Whether or not we agree hardly matters and therefore putting it as our primary right seems to be wrong. What we need to do is find other people who share our same goals and get together with them to achieve them.

This idea that everyone gets their own opinion is fine but its more or less a reproduction of the individualism of neoliberalism. When Fred Hampton was murdered it wasnt because he was a contrarian. It was because he organized people together under a common interest.

We have to be careful not to diminish the variety of ways human beings express themselves and how important art and music and literature is to any movement or any free life. However, if politics is a form of this aesthetic rather than the product of it then we have it backward. Art should inform our politics. Politics shouldnt be our art.

Politics at the end of the day is about community coming together to assert its class interest in the face of oppression. It involves putting yourself second. Anything less than that leaves a movement divided and weak. Part of the left project must be convincing people that the project of emancipation is bigger than any one of us.

Cancel culture may be a threat to this solidarity but it is only a product of a larger apparatus of repression of dissent. Resistance then is far more than resisting the hegemonic values embedded in corporate political correctness. It involves resisting the hegemonic corporate power expressed in material politics. Discourse alienated from the struggle on the ground is only used as a distraction from or apology for the brutality of the state.

The work on the frontlines then is this resistance to the police and the austerity politics they defend. Getting a word in may be possible down the line but until we address the true hegemony of Empire and corporatism upon the working poor and the environment I see the free speech debate as a distraction from the fundamental economic forces driving the repression of not only white voices in the left press but black bodies in the street. This is why I say give up the ideology and do the political work and we will see what real cancel culture looks like.

The rest is here:

Police Are The Real Cancel Culture - CounterPunch.org - CounterPunch

In the wake of the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Rayshard Brooks, protesters have taken to the streets against the violence of policing and to make demands, including defunding policing.

That demand is gaining traction as organizers have ignited a new wave of interest in the abolition of prisons and policinga concept theorized mostly by Black women and femmes.

But this newfound hunger for abolition is accompanied by questions and concerns about how to implement abolition in practice. People wonder how society would hold people who commit violence accountable for their actions, and in particular, use sexual violence as an example.

One way abolitionists have confronted these questions is through the development of Transformative Justice (TJ) processes. These processes, which have roots in Indigenous practices, model a different set of skills and principles for approaching harmful and dangerous situations.

Abolitionists argue we should eliminate all forms of policing and incarceration, and instead fund life-giving, community-based social services. They understand that properly executing such services requires shifting values and resourcing the development of valuable relationship skills to give communities the tools they need to disrupt and intervene in patterns of harm. Thats where TJ comes in.

Abolition is not a new idea; its been theorized, practiced, and advocated for by Black feminists like Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, and Rachel Herzing for decades. They argue the carceral state emphasizes individual acts of harm, labeling those who commit harm as criminals to justify dehumanization, isolation, and punishment.

As demonstrated by the violence of policing, as well as the demographics of incarcerated populations, this is a mechanism of control over the most marginalized in American society: Black and brown people, Indigenous people, and often those who are poor, trans, sex-working, and/or disabled.

Those same people are proposing ways to exist and solve problems outside of this violent system.

In other words, abolitionists identify the punishment bureaucracy as a source of harm itself. Leila Raven is a queer mama, prison abolitionist, and organizer with Decrim NY and Hacking//Hustling, who points out that a thousand people are killed by police every year, Black people are three times as likely to be killed as white people, and half of those killed are people with disabilities. Sexual assault is also the second most common form of police brutality, primarily used against Black women and women of color who are also frequently criminalized for the strategies that we use to survive.

A police car on fire. Illustration by Dan Nott on Instagram (Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/CBV0i3kD8bl/)

While the state is actively harming folks at the margins, transformative justice seeks to do the opposite.

According to Mia Mingus, a writer, educator, and community organizer for disability justice and transformative justice, the process is a political framework and approach for responding to violence, harm and abuse. At its most basic, it seeks to respond to violence without creating more violence and/or engaging in harm reduction to lessen the violence.

JeKendriaa fat, Black, disabled, non-binary femme who is the Executive Director of Collective Action for Safe Spaces (CASS)argues TJ necessitates an understanding that the carceral system does not actually protect or heal survivors, but rather thrusts [them] into cycles of harm and trauma.

Like other abolitionists, she points out that sexual harm is still so prevalent despite having carceral systems in place. Not only is sexual violence prevalent within the carceral system, but she says that most rapists are not actually incarcerated. Instead, many have prominent positions of power.

Erin Gar-Yun Andriamahefa is a queer, genderfluid, Malagasy, Chinese person, who volunteers with CASS. She describes TJ as a framework through which people can begin to understand and address why harm is happening, while emphasizing collective responsibility to seek accountability when it happens.

It is a humanizing process, she told Shadowproof, that equips us to move beyond shame and punishment to normalize navigating conflict, seeing it as a portal for accountability, transformation, and healing.

CASS facilitates the creation of such a portal to accountability, transformation, and healing. JeKendria describes the organization as a small grassroots group that trains and supports communities, workplaces, bars/restaurants, and collectives in building safer environments that address harassment and assault through an intersectional, anti-carceral lens.

By prioritizing the survivors consent, safety, and healing, TJ ensures that carceral culture and systems arent recreated within communities.

Transformative justice is not one type of response, explains Ejeris Dixon, Executive Director of Vision Change Win.

We use transformative justice depending on what has happened, Dixon told Shadowproof. This can mean accountability processes, ways that we protect and interrupt violence in the moment through de-escalation or bystander intervention, ways that we can support survivors to heal, and structures that we create for communities to address violence, harm, and emergencies outside of the carceral state.

On an individual level, JeKendria explains that survivors lead the process, explaining what they need to feel safe. On a larger community scale, they say it can look like creating consistent containers for people to engage in co-learning, co-processing, and co-conspiring around upholding principles of collective safety and wellness. Communities have to be ready to pause, to assess and be accountable, to [create] shared agreements, principles, and methods that facilitate safety for everyone.

To JeKendria, this internal processing and work is paramount in collectives that organize externally as well.

A common refrain about transformative justice and other alternatives to carcerality is that they would only work in a utopia, or that they have never been used effectively. Though TJ generally requires community buy-in and consent of all of those involved, its untrue that alternatives to state solutions are not being practiced.

Raven points out that trans and queer people of color, especially those who are sex working, disabled, and housing insecure, have always known that we could not rely on policing for safety, and so we experiment frequently with many other strategies to keep each other safe.

Many of these folks may not have known or used the terms transformative justice, Dixon adds. But if we ask folks what they worked on, we will hear these practices in their answers.

Apart from engaging in community accountability and TJ processes, other non-carceral responses to harm can look like shared housing models that provide safety and stability to people by helping them rapidly exit houselessness.

It can also look like public calls for consequences. In these instances, people use the strength and reach of their combined platforms in an attempt to impose consequences on powerful individuals, who will not take accountability for engaging in harm.

Abolitionists are keenly aware that some people who engage in abuse will continue their harmful behaviors. Thats why TJ practitioners still believe in boundaries and consequences.

JeKendria emphasizes that consequences should be a series of steps grounded in minimizing future harm, taking power away from the harm-doer, and increasing the survivors agency and ability to thrive. This is different from punishment because to punish someone is to dehumanize, villainize, and inflict more harm on someone.

She offered examples of consequences, including the harm doer moving out of a housing situation, stepping down from a job, making a statement to every group theyre a part of disclosing the harm they caused, taking a break from social spaces where the survivor is present, dispersing funds to the survivor or to survivor-centered work, moving to another city, and gathering a dedicated group of accountability partners.

These steps require acknowledgment of the harm, as well as intentional and explicit actions to rectify it. According to JeKendria, this is something that punishment does not and cannot accomplish.

Consequences for gendered violence dont naturally occur in a cis heteropatriarchal society, Raven told Shadowproof. We have to actively disrupt oppressive behaviors and create consequences to keep people safe.

To her, such consequences can include the removal of someone engaging in abuse from spaces where they have power or access.

Since many people who engage in abuse are able to continue harming others and avoid taking accountability by expanding their access to important positions on multiple platforms, it can be important to deplatform them on social media, magazines, podcasts, and other media.

But experimentation is still necessary, as are adequate resources, to attempt to refine and increase the capacity of these approaches.

JeKendria sees this as rigorous study and training to continuously evolve in collective understanding of community safety and accountabilityhealing spaces that are proactive and address ancestral traumaradical consent and Black queer feminist trainings as a requirement for entering a movement space (shoutout to BYP100!).

Abolitionists apply these frameworks to their own lives and organizing spaces. To make those spaces safer, abolitionists continually analyze the environments they create and the harm that is perpetuated within them.

By questioning the conditions, environments, and systems that have allowed the harm to happen, Andriamahefa says, we reveal the spectrum and connection between our individual behavior and experiences and larger oppressive systems, including and upheld by the carceral state.

Understanding everyone is capable of committing harm, abolitionists have had to reckon with harms committed by other self-described abolitionists.

JeKendria argues that this should be a wake-up call for us to investigate how often were perpetuating harm in our movement spaces, how often were ignoring the signs of survivors, how easy it is for us to evade accountability, and how some of us weaponize and manipulate each other with TJ language.

A tree and stream appear where a burned-out police car once was. Illustration by Dan Nott on Instagram (Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/CBV0i3kD8bl/)

Its not easy work, as it requires us to focus on killing the cop in our heads and owning when we commit harm or enable others to do so. As we begin to actualize a world without police and prisons, we have to do the work to build communities of trust, with infrastructures of care to prevent the resurgence of carcerality as a solution.

Right now, organizers in New York City are confronting harm in their movement spaces. Lily Mishra, a Brooklyn-based organizer, is part of several organizing collectives in NYC. In response to abuse within one of her collectives, she and others entered a TJ process. (Shadowproof is using a pseudonym for Lily to protect the identity of those involved in the TJ process).

One of the difficult things, she says, is that were all at different points of personal reflection regarding everything that occurred. This makes an already difficult problem even harder, because people are going through their individual processes while realizing there were deeper structural issues that led to..how we collectively enabled abuse.

As Mishra notes, entering a transformative justice process is the beginning of a long journeya journey that takes commitments and consensus. Though these commitments are not always the most comfortable because of differences of opinion, theyre necessary when a group is prioritizing deep collective reflection. She says that this is particularly important in abolitionist collectives, where its important to organize at the scale of interpersonal relationships as well as institutional ones.

As such, its important to center survivors where they hadnt been centered before, such as within this particular collective. If not, the TJ process will not be a vehicle through which we learn how to transform that harm into vigilance and care, says Mishra.

Raven shared that after a recent experience of abuse and assault, she engaged in a process of community accountability with her abuser and their community.

I found myself revictimized and abused all over again by the community of the person who harmed me, and so I turned instead to the broader community to call on this group to be accountable by dissolving their collective and shifting resources toward Black-led abolitionist anti-violence work, Raven shared.

Something that I learned through this process, that now seems obvious, is that people who rape and abuse others are often surrounded by people who enable them.

Raven reiterates that despite the traumatic experience, she is hopeful that we can implement community accountability and TJ processes where we all acknowledge our role in causing harm, echoing JeKendria comments.

Dixon shared that one of the most important things to note is that TJ builds into the framework mechanisms through which we can support people who are navigating intense forms of violence. They note that TJ is as much about creating cultures of consent as it is about encouraging people to hold their friends and loved ones accountable, even when it is them who have committed sexual violence.

Im in a process right now holding a dear friend accountable, says Dixon, and it is both heartwrenching, challenging, and hope-creating.

Harm exists and will continue to exist. But the frameworks communities can use to address that harm are not static and can be improved. Transformative justice provides space to explore and react to individual situations as they arise.

We can use [transformative justice] to interrogate which systems need to be abolished and replaced in order for everyone to have their basic needs fully met, JeKendria said, and to grow communities that are communal, interdependent, and boldly accountable to each other.

Read the original here:

How Transformative Justice Can Address Harm Without Police - Shadowproof

Image by Google Maps

Sataniv, Ukraine.

(JTA) The remains of 286 Jews who were murdered during the Holocaust were found in two basements in a town in southwest Ukraine.

The remains, mostly women and children, will be buried in a mass grave in the ancient Jewish cemetery in Sataniv, Ynet reported.

The town had an organized Jewish community for about 500 years before the Nazis captured it in 1941 and began systematically killing its Jews, according to the Yad Vashem website.

On May 15, 1942, Nazi troops and Ukrainian military police locked the 286 Jews in the cellars and suffocated them.

After World War II, the bodies were left in place in the cellars with a sign indicating that they were Nazi victims. The ruined house above them eventually covered the cellars with a heap of rubble and an outdoor market operated over the area for many years, according Ynet.

Rabbi Alexander Feingold, of the Khmelnytsky and Ternopil districts in Ukraine, told Ynet that his community waged a six-year legal battle with the property owner to search the cellars. Though the community lost in the courts, it eventually reached an agreement with the landowner, according to the report. Some of the bodies were discovered in 2019, and the rest were found about two weeks ago.

Feingold said a park will be established in memory of the victims near the site of the massacre.

The post Remains of 286 Jewish Holocaust victims uncovered in 2 basements in Ukraine appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

See the article here:

Remains of 286 Jewish Holocaust victims uncovered in 2 basements in Ukraine - Forward

Image by Sarasota County Sheriffs...

Vincent Martinez will be charged with vandalizing two synagogues.

(JTA) A Florida man is being charged in connection with the vandalism of two Reform synagogues in Sarasota.

Victor Martinez, 21, was named by the Sarasota Country Sheriffs Office as the previously unidentified man who spray-painted swastikas and hate messages on Temple Sinai and Temple Emanu-El earlier this month. He also has been implicated in a vandalism attack on Temple Emanu-El in April, the Sheriffs Office said in a statement.

All of the incidents were captured on security footage and by security cameras at a nearby ATM.

Warrants for Martinezs arrest were issued Wednesday, according to the statement.

Martinez, who was placed at the scenes of the incidents using cellphone records, faces three counts of criminal mischief by defacing and damaging a synagogue, all classified as felony hate crimes. He is at a secure medical facility pending his arrest, according to the statement.

The Temple Sinai campus was extensively vandalized in the July 15 attack, including many walls made of porous Jerusalem stone, making the removal of the messages difficult. In April, swastikas were spray-paintedon the doors of Temple Emanu El, which was again vandalized on July 15.

The post Florida man will be charged with vandalism of 2 Reform synagogues in Sarasota appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Read the original post:

Florida man to be charged with vandalism of 2 synagogues - Forward

Post Views: 92

This years news cycle has been anything but ordinary. Society has had to tackle questions that are singular and very much new for everyone. In recent months, its easy to understand why so many feel that the world has changed perhaps irrevocably. But some things never change. On the heels of an unprecedented (yet much needed) worldwide reckoning around racial justice, an age-old debate has resurfaced. Cancel culture is once again making headlines, and for good reason.

The question of where to draw the line has taken center stage as a fresh wave of Twitter vitriol has worked to hold celebrities, entrepreneurs and activists accountable for past abuse, hostile language and bad behavior.

Its no surprise that the cancel culture question feels a bit fatigued. Since torches and pitchforks drove supposed witches and heathens out of villages in medieval times, cancel culture has been alive and well in Western society. Its only the landscape that has changed. The digital mob, headed most commonly by Generation Z, has proven equally capable of the volatile banishing from society that cancelling demands.

In the wake of recent protests surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement (and the flurry of statements, apologies and anti-racist wake-up calls that followed), many skeletons were unearthed. And some were bigger than others.

The past conduct of employers toward employees of color have resulted in resignations, such as Adam Rapoports from Bon Appetit. Companies like Nike and Madewell have made public promises to do better in light of criticism. Many celebrities have been cancelled in recent weeks for profiting off of crass, often-racist material, and even politicians like Canadas Justin Trudeau have been criticized for wearing blackface.

These behaviors are all unquestionably toxic. By and large, each of these people has contributed to an environment that has made both implicit and explicit forms of racism increasingly difficult to combat. Companies thrive in spaces where their racist actions have been routinely ignored. In recent weeks, however, critics, and quite a few activists, have begun to rally around an iteration of an old question: Does cancelling those who engage in harmful behaviors actually hold them accountable? And if so, does it actually serve justice, or merely help channel our anger?

The New York Times offers this holistic definition of cancellation: Cancellation, properly understood, refers to an attack on someones employment and reputation by a determined collective of critics, based on an opinion or an action that is alleged to be disgraceful and disqualifying. Workplace practices and policies, noxious language, and abuses of station are all actions that can easily be deemed disgraceful and disqualifying.

The question is not, then, whether certain actions warrant cancellation rather, it should be asked if these behaviors can be unlearned through a restorative, teaching moment after one is called out for them. If so, does cancelling teach people to change, or does it exist purely to punish?

Jameela Jamil, well-known activist and founder of I-Weigh, shared her thoughts after appearing on the cancelled Russel Brands podcast. She explained that she made the appearance after seeing Brands personal progress in his attempt to rectify past mistakes and work toward a culture in which those mistakes are less likely to be brushed aside. On the topic, Jamil states that If we cancel people forever, even after they demonstrate immense change and remorse, we devalue progress.

Evidently, shes not talking about the Harvey Weinsteins of the world anyone who has done irreparable harm can and should be cancelled (and probably jailed) forever. But where do those who cry to cancel an endless litany of celebrities draw the line? And once branded as #cancelled, is there hope for learning and a brighter future?

Cancel culture established its roots as a tool for social justice in the Black empowerment movements of the 60s. Faced with insurmountable structural inequalities, disenfranchised and minority activists have one very important tool left to sway public sentiment their voice.

Cancelling toxic members of society is a collective act in which we bar, ignore and discredit the work of those we can no longer accept. Its a tool for revolution for whom structural, sweeping change is out of reach. Its served as a powerful form of accountability in recent years, especially following the #MeToo movement of 2017. While activists might not be able to take on directly the culture of sexual misconduct in Hollywood, cancel culture has effectively de-platformed predators like Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein and Louis C.K.

More often than not, however, cancelling someone isnt the end of their fame. People like Kanye West, Scarlett Johansson and Gina Rodriguez have all made offensive missteps, and their careers have continued to progress with vigor. Comedians, such as Kevin Hart and Shane Gillis, have received backlash about homophobic, transphobic and racist comments in the past and still they receive acclaim, support and views on Netflix specials and sketch comedy shows.

Offensive jokes, missteps and even plain ignorance are reason enough to cancel someone, according to the internet. But theres a difference between barring someone for life and calling them out punishing them without a path to rehabilitation yields an environment with accountability, but without hope for progress. For many celebrities and public figures, most of whom cite ignorance or evolving standards of decency for their failures, a call out can serve as a catalyst for growth, but only if given the chance to re-engage in the conversation.

Its important to effectively criticize those who have hurt others, especially those who are powerful and economically influential. When that hurt is deliberate, or done by someone with no intention to change, cancelling them is appropriate and necessary. But when growth can occur, a call out can be more effective in building a potential ally rather than a forever foe. Rage has a way of sticking with us, and if society chooses to cancel every person who has done wrong, well identify with that rage forever.

Though well-intentioned, words and actions steeped in ignorance sometimes subvert the rigid standards for acceptable discussion. Things are offensive for a reason, and naturally, they hurt. But, an inability to comprehend the role of education in preventing further transgressions is more than just oversight on the part of the cancel-er.

Cancelling is ruthless and more alienating than necessary. Shaming people who have the potential to change just wears communities down even further. Call outs and the healing, education and self-awareness that follow are part of a restorative justice process one that builds communities, relationships and society back up. Though harm cant be undone, moving forward is possible.

Previously called-out celebs like Alison Roman, Spike Lee and Reese Witherspoon have shown that with sustained, serious action, change is possible (and probable).

Its not quite fair to argue that cancelling has too wide of a net. Frankly, each and every action that has created trauma and harm for a community (yes, even a microaggression) can and should be called out. But legitimizing the de-platforming of a person in their economic and social entirety by just anyone on the internet yields disaster.

According to a New York Times piece on the subject, Most public shaming is horizontal and done by those who believe they have greater integrity or more sophisticated analyses. They become the self-appointed guardians of political purity. With Twitter serving as an ever-volatile breeding ground for this kind of self-righteous action, it becomes apparent that online clicktivism via cancellation may not be the best tool for social justice work.

Audre Lorde once said that The masters tools will never dismantle the masters house. If the aim of internet activism is to rehabilitate and grow, our tools have to reflect that vision. Outright cancellation without consideration does not. In a world where we hope to build empathy, champion healing and achieve justice, we must learn to include even those who have wronged us by calling them out and working for change.

Originally posted here:

Cancel Culture and Call Out Culture Are Not the Same - Study Breaks

Removing large-scale networks of accounts has a different, but no less significant, effect. Changes to the information ecosystem reduce the amplification power of these groups; removing the networked faction of QAnon accounts ahead of the election is notable because they are a significant node in the new MAGA coalition. Without this network of superspreaders on Twitter, it will be more difficult to coordinate the manipulation of search engines and trending algorithms.

But even if they succeed in reducing the spread of conspiracy theories, these actions reveal the twin problems facing online platforms: some speech is damaging to society, and the design of social-media systems can compound the harms.

All these interventions come as Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook have been asked to testify in front of the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee. The hearingnow delayed until Wednesdayis part of a series exploring Online Platforms and Market Power and will call Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Sundar Pichai of Google, and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook.

Republicans have sought to invite others, including Twitter CEO Jack Dorseybut also an outlier, John Matze, the founder of the right-wing app Parler. Parler has built its brand on the back of claims that Twitter censors conservatives, and it recently went on a sprint to recruit Republican politicians. In July, Matze was a guest on a podcast that routinely features white nationalist and misogynist content and had been banned from YouTube in 2018 for hate speech. During the interview, Matze expressed pride that he provides a platform for those who have been removed from other platforms, such as Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Jacob Wohl. On Parler, these figures have their content served alongside contributions from Republican figures the likes of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Matt Gaetz, among others.

Minor apps provide alternative infrastructure for communities trafficking in hate speech.

Research by me and my colleagues on the development of another app, Gab, which gained limited popularity by promoting itself as a safe haven for free speech following the white supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, illustrates the serious limitations of minor apps that provide alternative infrastructure for communities trafficking in hate speech.

See the rest here:

Why Congress should look at Twitter and Facebook - MIT Technology Review