The Air Jordan 1 has become an it shoe within mainstream consciousness over the last four years, but it was once banned by the NBA. (It was actually the Nike Air Ship that was regulated by the league, but the Swoosh was trying to push Michael Jordans first sneaker.) Jordan Brand fully-embraced that nugget of history with the release of a Black/University Red colorway of the pair by the same name in 2011 (denoted by x marks at the heel). For its latest walk down memory lane, however, the subsidiary has ostensibly sprawled the words narrated in a commercial from 1985 about the banning onto a black and grey retro.

Immediately reminiscent of the silhouettes original Shadow colorway, the newly-surfaced pair features light grey overlays at the ankle, profile swooshes and bottom heel. Surrounding smooth leather, then, indulges in a pitch-dark tone that matches the Wings insignia on the collars lateral side. Both components arguably play secondary roles to the Jordan 1s most distinct detail: ostensibly hand-written text applied in all-over fashion.

While an early look at the pair makes deciphering the message difficult, the phrases stop and wearing them can be made out across the sneakers lateral profiles. More than 35 years ago, Nike aired a commercial (narrated in a similar style as Apples 1984 spot) addressing how the NBA disapproved its revolutionary new basketball shoe. The 32-second advertisement concludes with the following message: Fortunately, the NBA cant stop you from wearing them. Its possible the text scribbled onto the first Air Jordan sneaker refers to another part of MJs legacy, only time will tell.

No Nike SNKRS launch details are currently known, but this pair is likely to land in 2022. In any case, enjoy a first-look at the shoes ahead.

In confirmed Jordan release dates, the Jordan 12 Royalty is expected November 13th.

UPDATE (10/07/2021):An early mock-up and more in-hand images have been updated in this post. The pair is currently dubbed Rebellionaire, a cheeky nod to Michael Jordans now billionaire status. To think, it was made possible by not adhering to the NBAs rules.

Where to Buy

Make sure to follow @kicksfinder for live tweets during the release date.

Mens: $170Style Code: 555088-036

Images: @zSneakerHeadz, @shawnleekix

See more here:

This Air Jordan 1 Remembers The Infamous Ban Imposed By The NBA - Sneaker News

What is shadowbanning?

When someone is shadowbanned, their posts on that platform are virtually invisible to everyone but themselves. Their presence on that platform is limited, and their voice effectively suppressed. If were being technical, the patents complete abstract reads:

Users of social networking system are provided with user interface elements permitting the user to post comments on pages within the social networking system. Pages may be provided for any non-user entity, including for example, pages for businesses, products, concepts, etc. Embodiments provided herein permit page moderators to ban certain content from being displayed on a page. For example, the social networking system may receive a list of proscribed content and block comments containing the proscribed content by reducing the distribution of those comments to other viewing users. However, the social networking system may display the blocked content to the commenting user such that the commenting user is not made aware that his or her comment was blocked, thereby providing fewer incentives to the commenting user to spam the page or attempt to circumvent the social networking system filters.

The primary message that their patent is sending is that Facebook reserves the right to moderate what content people see. Proscribed means prohibited or forbidden by law. So, if Facebook sees proscribed content, it may limit the visibility of such content. This content is displayed only to the sharing user, and in many cases, they wont be aware that theyve been shadowbanned. Facebook does this to prevent the user from spamming the page and finding loopholes in the filtering system.

The main purpose of shadowbanning is supposedly to keep feeds clean and social media users happy. Facebook does not want people spreading content that comes off as spammy, or worse, offensive.

Because Facebook does not inform you of this shadowban, you wont really know if youre experiencing it. You could go about your day, routinely posting and sharing content, and you could not notice anything wrong. However, the telltale symptom of a shadowban is a dip in engagements. Youll see that your posts or comments arent getting as many reactions or replies as they usually would. Whereas your posts would normally reach 1,000 interactions, you find that youre struggling to reach 50.

Another way to tell if youve been shadowbanned is to use another friends account to see if your posts show up on their feed. Shadowbans will typically hide these posts from other people, and youll have to visit the banned persons profile to view these posts.

Anyone. No matter who you are or how many friends and followers you have, you can receive the Facebook shadowban. Legit accounts following rules could be just as much at risk as a malicious account abusing the platform. Shadowbanning is still a work in progress, so you can expect to have some outliers here and there. Facebook apparently uses this to enhance the overall customer experience, so you shouldnt take it personally. In some cases, the platform may have committed a simple mistake in banning you even when youve done nothing wrong.

A shadowban can be detrimental for businesses relying on Facebook as their primary platform for conducting transactions. But for personal accounts, this may not be as severe. There are a few things you can do to remedy this situation.

If you suspect youve been shadowbanned by Facebook, there are some things you can do to smooth this problem over.

Here are some things you can practice to reduce your odds of receiving a Facebook shadowban:

More:

How to Tell If Your Content Is Being "Shadow Banned" on ...

A former Shadow Hills High School boys basketball coach is scheduled to be arraigned on Tuesday on charges of sexually assaulting a teenage girl he coached.

Ryan Leron Towner, 35, was arrested June 10 stemming from a Riverside County Sheriffs Department investigation. The alleged conduct occurred between May and July 2018, according to the Riverside County District Attorneys Office.

More: Former Shadow Hills basketball coach charged with raping teen

More: Shadow Hills hires new basketball coach, a former Banning coach who also won a 2020 CIF-SS title

Towner is charged with one felony count each of lewd acts on a child under 14 years old with force and unlawful intercourse with a minor, who was identified in court papers only as Jane Doe.

Towner, who remains free after posting $55,000 bond, is scheduled to be arraigned at the Larson Justice Center in Indio on Tuesday.

Investigator Joshua Reinbolz said authorities began investigating Towner in April.

Towner coached the girl on a travel basketball team, according to Reinbolz, who did not go into the circumstances of the alleged crimes.

It was unclear how old the girl was when Towner allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Towner coached the Shadow Hills boys team from 2018 through most of the 2021 season. The Knights won the Division 3-A championship in 2020.

Towner did not coach the team for its final 10 games during the 2021 season and was fired by the Indio school a few days before his arrest, the Desert Sun reported. It was unclear whether his firing stemmed from the allegations.

Towner has a prior felony conviction for credit card fraud.

Visit link:

Ex-Shadow Hills coach charged with sexually assaulting teen due in court on Tuesday - The Desert Sun

Today lets talk about Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugens testimony before the Senate: the good, the bad, and what ought to happen next.

For more than three hours on Tuesday, Haugen addressed a subset of the Senate Commerce Committee. She appeared calm, confident, and in control as she read her opening remarks and fielded questions from both parties. While she brought more nuance to her critique than most Facebook critics she supports Section 230, for example, and opposes a breakup of the company she also said the company should declare moral bankruptcy.

This is not simply a matter of certain social media users being angry or unstable, or about one side being radicalized against the other, Haugen told Congress. It is Facebook choosing to grow at all costs, becoming an almost trillion-dollar company by buying its profits with our safety.

The Senate largely ate it up. Long frustrated by Facebooks size and power and, one suspects, by its own inability to address those issues in any constructive way senators yielded the floor to Haugen to make her case. During the hearing titled Protecting Kids Online: Testimony from a Facebook Whistleblower, Haugen walked senators through most of The Wall Street Journals Facebook Files, touching on ethnic violence, national security, polarization, and more during her testimony.

For their part, senators sought to paint the hearing in historic terms. There were repeated comparisons to Big Tobacco, and a Big Tobacco moment. This research is the definition of a bombshell, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who led the hearing.

Over at Facebook, the strategic response team lobbed a half-hearted smear at Haugen, noting bizarrely that while at the company, she had no direct reports and never attended a decision-point meeting with C-level executives. If theres a point in there, I missed it.

Ultimately, Haugen said little on Tuesday that wasnt previously known, either because she said it on 60 Minutes or it was previously covered in the Journal series.

What she might have done, though, is finally galvanize support in Congress for meaningful tech regulation.

Lets walk through Haugens testimony.

One, Haugen identified real harms that are taking place on Facebook services. For example, she talked about documents which indicate that using Instagram can contribute to eating disorders in some teenagers. Too often, discussions about the harms of social networks is either abstract or emotional. The primary benefit of Haugens leaking is to bring some empirical rigor to those discussions and to highlight the degree to which these issues are known, but not discussed, by Facebook executives. Thats powerful.

In response, Facebooks Monika Bickert told CNN that the same research shows that the majority of teenagers find that Instagram improves their well-being. But one of the hearings most powerful moments came when Haugen noted that only about 10 percent of cigarette smokers ever get cancer. So the idea that 20 percent of your users could be facing serious mental health issues, and thats not a problem, is shocking, she said, citing leaked data.

Two, Haugen highlighted the value of research in understanding problems and crafting solutions. For years now, weve watched Congress interrogate Facebook based on spurious anecdotes about who was censored or shadow banned, or what publisher was or wasnt included on a list of trending topics, to no constructive end.

It was refreshing, then, to see members of Congress wrestling with the companys own internal data. Sen. Ted Cruz, rarely seen operating in good faith on any subject, largely set aside his questions about censorship to ask Haugen about data exploring the link between Instagram and self-harm. Facebook will say, not unfairly, that senators were largely just cherry-picking with these questions. But we have to ground these discussions in something why not Facebooks own research?

Third, and maybe most potently, Haugen helped to shift the discussion of platform problems away from the contents of the speech they host and toward the design of the systems themselves. The problems here are about the design of algorithms of AI, Haugen said, in response to a question about whether the company should be broken up. That wouldnt solve anything, she said the same engagement-based algorithms would likely create similar issues within the new baby Facebooks.

Haugen posited regulation of algorithms specifically, banning engagement-based ranking like Facebook and Instagram use today as a way to avoid the First Amendment issues that come with attempting to regulate internet speech. As the scholar Daphne Keller has written, attempting to regulate speech algorithms will likely trigger First Amendment scrutiny anyway.

Still, Congress seemed receptive to the idea that it ought to focus on broader system incentives, rather than stunts like the recent efforts in Florida and Texas to force platforms to carry all speech regardless of content. The details get tricky, but that shift would be a welcome one.

For all its positive aspects, Haugens testimony had some unfortunate aspects as well.

One, Haugen came across as a solutionist: someone who believes that any problem created by tech can therefore also be solved by tech. This comes across most strongly in her advocacy for a reverse-chronological feed, which she argues would remove incentives to share polarizing or harmful content.

It seems possible that this is true but only marginally. Polarizing and harmful content was often shared on Twitter and Instagram during the many years that those services used reverse-chronological feeds. Thats not to say reducing algorithmic amplification is a bad idea, or that Facebook shouldnt research the issue further and share what it finds. But given the broad range of harms identified in the Facebook Files, I found it surprising that Haugens pet issue is feed ranking: I just dont believe its as powerful others seem to.

My second, somewhat related concern is that Haugens testimony had tunnel vision. Those of us who opine about social networks are forever at risk of attempting to solve society-level problems at the level of the feed. To avoid that, we have to bring other subjects into the conversation. Subjects like how the US was growing polarized long before the arrival of social networks. Or the research showing that long-term Fox News viewership tends to shift peoples political opinions more than Facebook usage. Or the other reasons teenagers may face a growing mental health crisis, from growing inequality and housing insecurity to the threat of climate change.

Its possible to consider a subject from so many angles that you find yourself paralyzed. But its equally paralyzing to begin your effort to rein in Big Tech with the assumption that if you can only fix Facebook, youll fix society as well.

Finally, Haugens testimony focused on the documents, rather than her own work at Facebook. I cant have been alone in wanting to hear more about her time on the Civic Integrity team or later working in counterespionage. But senators were more interested in the admittedly fascinating questions raised by the research that she leaked.

Thats understandable, but it also meant that Haugen had to regularly remind the subcommittee that they were asking her questions in which she did not have expertise. In my own talks with current Facebook employees, this is the point on which I hear the most exasperation: just because you found some documents on a server, they tell me, doesnt mean you are qualified to describe the underlying research.

Theres an obvious fix for that summon more qualified employees to testify! But in the meantime, I wish Haugen had taken more opportunity to discuss what she saw and learned with her own eyes.

Platforms should take the events of the past few weeks as a cue to begin devising ways to regularly share internal research on subjects in the public interest, annotated with relevant context and with data made available to third-party researchers in a privacy-protecting way. Facebook regularly tells us that most of its research shows that people like it, and the companys market dominance suggests there is probably evidence to back it up, too. The company should show its hand, if only because soon enough governments will require it to anyway.

Congress should pass a law requiring large platforms to make data available to outside researchers for the study of subjects in the public interest. (Nate Persily argues here that the FTC could oversee such a design.) I think sharing more research is in Facebooks long-term self-interest and that the company ought to do so voluntarily. But to get an ecosystem-level view, we need more platforms to participate. Unless we want to rely on whistleblowers and random caches of leaked documents to understand the effects of social networks on society, we should require platforms to make more data available.

What Congress should not do is pass a sweeping law intended to solve every problem hinted at in Haugens testimony in one fell swoop. Doing so would almost certainly curtail free expression dramatically, in ways that would likely benefit incumbent politicians at the expense of challengers and marginalized people. Too many of the bills introduced on these subjects this year fail to take that into account. (Unless they are taking it into account, and quashing dissent is their ulterior motive.)

Instead, Id like to see Congress do a better job of naming the actual problem its trying to solve. Listening to the hearing, you heard a lot of possibilities: Facebook is too big. Facebook is too polarizing. Facebook doesnt spend enough on safety. Facebook is a national security risk. There still appears to be no consensus on how to prioritize any of that, and its fair to wonder whether thats one reason Congress has had so much trouble advancing any legislation.

In the meantime, right or wrong, Haugen appears to have persuaded Congress that Facebook is as bad as they feared, and that the companys own research proves it. Simplistic though it may be, that narrative Facebook is bad, a whistleblower proved it is quickly hardening into concrete on Capitol Hill.

The question, as ever, is whether our decaying Congress will muster the will to do anything about it.

This column was co-published with Platformer, a daily newsletter about Big Tech and democracy.

Read more from the original source:

Whats good, bad, and missing in the Facebook whistleblowers testimony - The Verge

The Vaska Theatre in Lawton will be showing Hocus Pocus with a shadow cast on select dates through the month October. If you've never experienced Vaska's Shadow cast it's a great time and fun for the whole family. Hocus Pocus will be a "Hex-A-Long" with the shadow cast and feature all kinds of interactive segments throughout the movie. The opening night will be this Friday, October 15th (10-15-21) at 7:00pm.

They'll also be showing it on Saturday, October 16th (10-16-21) at 7:00pm so make plans now to catch Hocus Pocus at the Vaska. If you can't make it this Friday or Saturday they'll be showing it on October 29th, 30th, and on Halloween night showing at 6:00pm. I can't think of a better way to celebrate All Hallow's Eve.

It's great to finally see some of our all-time favorite Lawton Halloween happenings return in 2021 after last year's cancellations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We're definitely making up for lost time this year and it's looking like we'll have all kinds of fun family events between now and All Hallow's Eve.

The Vaska Theater has all kinds of great movies to help get you into the Halloween spirit. Not only will they be doing the Hocus Pocus "Hex-A-Long" the Vaska will be showing the new Halloween Kills movie starting this Thursday (10-14-21) and Sunday (10-17-21). Click here for showtimes and details.

Another great movie experience at the Vaska Theater will be the Rocky Horror Picture Show complete with the shadow cast. They'll be showing that on October 22nd (10-22-21) and October 23rd (10-23-21). You can get all the details by clicking here. The Vaska has all kinds of Halloween fun planned throughout the month.

Some of the other Lawton Halloween happenings that are returning for 2021 include: Lawton's Spooktacular and Park-O-Treat and of course trick or treating. Here's the best part, they're all on different days!

25 Scaredy Cat-Approved Halloween Movies

LOOK: How Halloween has changed in the past 100 years

SWEET: Here are the most popular Halloween candies

Continue reading here:

Vaska Theatre Will be Showing Hocus Pocus With Shadow Cast - KLAW101

Here we are in the eighth week of the high school football season in the Coachella Valley and the games seem to be just as difficult to predict. Last week, after two weeks without missing a game, I was correct on just three of the seven games.

Our sports columnist, Shad Powers, was correct on four of seven. So, yeah, it was rough week. Congratulations to the winners and particularly to those whoprovedus wrong.

My overall record for the season is 47-14-1 and Shad's is 43-18-1.

All you probably care about here is our picks this week, and seeing who can toss these on the old bulletin board. So, let'e get to it.

Palm Desert 28, La Quinta 14

Palm Springs 31, Rancho Mirage 7

Xavier Prep 21, Shadow Hills 20

Twentynine Palms 28,Coachella Valley 21

Cathedral City 56, Banning 7

Indio 29,Yucca Valley 28

Desert Mirage 30Desert Hot Springs 27

Palm Desert 27, La Quinta 7

Palm Springs 26, Rancho Mirage 8

Shadow Hills 33, Xavier Prep 31

Coachella Valley 34, Twentynine Palms 27

Cathedral City 56, Banning 7

Yucca Valley 27, Indio 21 (You're welcome Rajahs)

Desert Hot Springs 37, Desert Mirage 21

Read the rest here:

High School football picks: With several big games this week, here are our Week 8 predictions - Desert Sun

Have you ever been captivated by the words of a book? Lost in a world created or reflected by the mind of an author? Has a book ever challenged your ideology?

A challenged book is one that has faced a great deal of discourse or received a proposition for a ban. A banned book is one that is made unavailable in libraries or stores including public libraries, school libraries, regions and sometimes even nations.

Banned Books Week 2021 was Sept. 26 Oct. 2. According to the American Library Association, Banned Books Weekis an annual event celebrating the freedom to read.

In honor of Banned Book Week 2021, the David L. Rice Library staff created displays featuring and providing infographics on banned books.

Marna Hostetler, director of David L. Rice Library, said Banned Books Week is an opportunity for authors, librarians, publishers and book lovers to unite over a common cause the freedom to read.

The most common reason for banned books today, according to the American Library Association, is the inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters and issues, alongside religious values, sexual themes, racial issues, profanity and stories being deemed inappropriate for their intended age group.

Recently, several authors of beloved books have rightfully faced criticism for insensitive remarks. This has led to question whether or not books can stand alone from their authors, or if a book with a morally wrong perspective can be appreciated for its literature without condoning its content in the modern world.

In my opinion, there are little to no books that deserve to be banned.

There are no doubt books with vile, condemnable content but simply censoring or banning them ignores the issue rather than addresses it. We can use controversial literature to better understand the past and challenging, uncomfortable ideas without the danger of bringing them into the real world.

Because book banning is a modern issue, I reviewed eight banned books to show how literature of all types is censored like classic literature. Reasons for these bans are in accordance with the American Library Association.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky

Reason for ban: LGBTQ+ characters, sexual content, drug and alcohol abuse, abusiverelationships, abortion, suicidal themes, sexual abuse, bullying.

Synopsis: The Perks of Being a Wallflower is told through a series of letters written byCharlie, a high school freshman who is struggling to find his place in his school and the world. To cope with his familial issues and mental health, the aspiring writer Charlie, who aspires to be a writer, writes about the upperclassman known as wallflowers who teach him about the nature of the human mind and heart.

Despite the very emotionally troubling topics the book covers such as suicidal ideation and abuse, the book was strangely most widely banned across high schools for having a homosexual character. Its a perfect example of the dangers of censoring important issues rather than addressing them.

It is important that we have conversations about the topics in the novel rather than ignoring them. This book has been a favorite of mine for many years, and I would recommend it to anyone who knows what its like to feel out of place in the world.

And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson

Reasons for ban: features a same-sex penguin couple.

Synopsis: This sweet childrens book follows two penguins, Roy and Silo, who couple up anddo everything together. One day, a zookeeper notices that another penguin couple were unable to take care of their egg, and so he gives it to Silo and Roy. The egg hatches into baby Tango, and together the three become a family. The picture book is based on a true story of two male penguins from the Central Park Zoo.

Obviously as the only picture book on this list, I doubt many college students would be interested in reading it for leisure. However, this book is important to put on the radar for potential elementary education teachers who wish to include diverse, quality childrens literature in their classrooms.

The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas

Reasons for Ban: profanity, being anti-police, racial sensitivity

Synopsis: Starr lives between two worlds: the impoverished mostly black neighborhood ofGarden heights and the rich white population of her private school. Thus, Starr has two identities. Her worlds shatter when her friend is killed unjustly by a cop. Starr can no longer pretend to be somebody shes not.

The Hate U Give released in 2017 is the winner of the Coretta Scott King and Carnegie book awards. It addresses relevant issues including police brutality and racial injustice in an understandable way. It is one of the more popular young adult books addressing serious issues, and one I think everyone can benefit from reading.

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Reasons for ban: racism including racial slurs, strong language, violence

Synopsis: To Kill a Mockingbird follows a young family set in the Great Depression as theylearn empathy, humanity, and how to take a stand. While their father struggles to defenda black man accused of raping a white woman, Jem and Scout are fascinated by their reclusive, mysterious neighbor.

To Kill A Mockingbird is the winner of multiple prizes including the Pulitzer and has been a staple for classic American literature for decades. It is one of the most popular fictional narratives of what life was like in the segregated United States as well as the oppressive nature of the judicial system and society towards black Americans.

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie

Reasons for ban: profanity, sexuality, religious conflict, political conflict, underage drinking, unsuited to age group

Synopsis: Arnold Spirit Jr. Has spent his entire life on the Spokane Indian Reservation,surrounded by the only culture and family hes ever known. Junior leaves the reservation school to follow his aspirations and desires to be a cartoonist at an all white school in a farm town. There, his efforts to fit in make an enormous impact on his peers and community.

I read this book many years ago on a whim and couldnt put it down. It is humorous and emotional all at once with characters anyone would grow to love. I personally am not familiar with many other books with a perspective on modern Native American life and feel that this book is worthy of a recommendation for that element alone. It has been in the top 5 of most challenged books for eight non-consecutive years.

Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling

Reasons for ban: negative family relationships, witchcraft, Satanism, occult, religious conflict, violence. Recently, the series was challenged in light of transphobic statements made by the author.

Synopsis: Harry Potter is a perfectly normal boy, living a miserable life with his aunt anduncle in a small respectable town in England. He has resigned himself to his aunt and uncles scorn and living in his cousins shadow forever until he is informed that he is actually a famous wizard. Potter is invited to attend a school that will allow him to learn magic.

Harry Potter has been controversial since its release in 1997 because of its depiction of a magical world. Despite the enormous protest that the book was met with, it has become a beloved part of popular culture and one of the largest franchises of its kind.

In addition, the Harry Potter series has fallen subject to modern day book burning due to the authors recent transphobic remarks. While I do not agree with supporting Rowling financially in light of her aggression towards the transgender community, the Harry Potter story lives in my heart.

George by Alex Gino

Reasons for ban: LGBTQ+ characters, LGBTQ+ themed childrens book

Synopsis: George features a fourth grade girl Melissa who was born a boy and known by thename George. Only Melissa knows of her true identity and is caught between the fear of being misunderstood and the desperation to be seen. A school play of Charlottes Web gives Melissa an idea for a plot to be seen by her school and community as the girl that she is.

This book is one of the most widely banned books in schools and has been at the top of the banned book list for several years. The writing style for George is simplistic, making it easier for younger children to understand but not so enthralling for adults. While I wouldnt recommend this book to any college peers, the story is important to share with children to allow them to understand and empathize with others or themselves.

The Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller

Reasons for ban: sexually explicit, vulgar language.

Synopsis: The Tropic of Cancer is a dramatized autobiography of Henry Millers life. He laments the struggles of being a writer in 1900s Paris. It follows narratives of Miller, aswell as his friends and colleagues, as they seek to find a place in the world and betterunderstand their passions.

Likely the least recognizable book on this list, the Tropic of Cancer stands out on lists of banned books as it caused a large-scale court proceeding, questioning what content America can label as obscene or pornographic. As a result, American censorship laws were challenged for years thereafter.

This story is definitely a tough read due to its explicit nature and extensive use of racial and sexist slurs, but if you can overlook those elements, Tropic of Cancer may be a worthwhile read if only for its historical significance.

Continue reading here:

Banned Book Week highlights the dangers of censorship - Shield

Later that night, the clear-up began. Fifteen vehicles were taken away for forensic examination. Seventy-eight bullet holes were found.

Mrs Pascoe, safe with her neighbours in a community centre, was playing cards with the children to distract them from the horror outside.

At about 02:00 she looked out of the window and saw the bodies from South View being collected and driven away.

Later, police told her they believed her life had been saved by the fact she'd kept her curtains drawn as she pottered about, doing her housework in her nightgown.

She was still wearing it, soaked now with Lisa Mildenhall's blood, when she was finally allowed back home.

In the ambulance on the way to hospital in Swindon, Ivor Jackson's heart had twice stopped beating.

He had lost lots of blood, had bullets in his head and chest, his lung had been shot through and his arm was barely attached to his body.

He needed numerous operations and still suffers, both physically and mentally.

His wife, who had a bullet in her spine, was not expected to walk again.

It's testament to her own strength of mind that she did.

"I just thought to myself, I'm a mother. I need to get better and I will walk again. I knew I had to be the strong one of the family, I knew Ivor wouldn't cope."

Even now Mr Jackson has not been back to South View. He cannot even pass the end of the road.

He can barely speak about his friend, George White.

"He was a good man. We were good friends," he says.

"Ill never forget what I saw that day, what happened to him, but I can't tell you.

"Nothing's been right since."

The Jacksons had loved their home on South View, with its large garden, and were in the process of buying it.

But, although the house was cleaned and modernised and made available for them, they could not bear to return.

The couple and their two grown-up sons now live in a two-bedroom council house a few streets away.

"After what happened, lots of people split up," says Ivor Jackson. "They couldnt cope. But we've stuck by each other."

The couple have been married for 60 years and celebrated their diamond wedding anniversary in January.

"We got a letter from the Queen," Mr Jackson adds. "My daughter arranged it."

The letter, complete with golden tassel, is still in its recorded delivery envelope and is kept in a basket in the Jacksons' kitchen.

They keep meaning to frame it and put it up on the wall.

Their younger son Trevor, who had been 18 in 1987, is being treated for PTSD while his older brother Peter, who was in the same year as Ryan at school, refuses to talk about that day.

If it comes up, he leaves the room or goes to sit in the greenhouse.

Trevor Jackson had first heard of the shootings when a colleague asked: "What's happened to your parents?"

He returned to South View to find bodies on the ground and was asked by police to identify them.

Then he and his brother Peter went into their home, released the dogs from the cupboard, and started to clean the blood and glass from their kitchen.

As the brothers were cleaning up, a reporter burst in. There was a police guard on the front door so he had sneaked through the garden and into the house through the back door.

Another reporter followed their sister home from the hospital.

I just broke down in tears."

Press intrusion is something the Jacksons continue to feel very strongly about. They usually hang up if a journalist approaches them and refuse to have their photograph taken in connection with the shooting.

Similarly the Whitings, for years, simply drew their curtains and refused to answer the door.

When, in March 1996 Thomas Hamilton shot dead 16 schoolchildren and their teacher in the Stirling town of Dunblane, Trevor Wainwright decided to write to the Scottish police.

He explained who he was and his experience, and offered sympathy. Then he tore his heartfelt letter up.

"I just thought: 'They dont want outsiders. They'll do what we did. The help will come from within the community'.

"Writing the letter did me good, but I don't think it would have helped the people of Dunblane."

A few days after the murders, Mr Wainwright - who had carried out the routine checks for Ryan's firearms licence - was astonished to see the Today newspapers front page splash.

"PC Signs Own Fathers Death Warrant".

"I just broke down in tears," Mr Wainwright says.

"It hit at the heart of my professionalism, of everything I'd ever done for the town. I probably did three or four of these checks a week.

"It was just routine. Hungerford is a big shooting area, farmers and gun clubs and that sort of thing. I mean, there's no legitimate reason anyone would need to have a Kalashnikov - but it was legal.

"There was a picture of my dad, dead in a car with a blanket over him.

"And I kept thinking, if it was true that I'd signed my dad's death warrant, it meant I'd also signed all those other people's too. At the time, the idea crucified me.

"At the hospital, where my mum was, everyone who'd been shot had been put into the same ward. I was due to go and visit her, but I thought I couldn't.

"I thought: 'How the hell can I go and see her if they're all blaming me?'

"She told me to get my arse straight down there. No-one blamed me."

He says he was helped by a discovery made at the post-mortem examination - that his father had developed lung cancer.

"If he had the choice - to die from a horrible disease like that, or be shot, I know he'd choose the bullet. Every single time."

He is still haunted, he says, by the photograph of his father dead in his car. If there is a shooting elsewhere in the world, he braces himself for his phone to ring.

"As soon as there's been a shooting, some journalist will call.

"And I hear the arguments of the gun lobby, who want to preserve the right to bear arms, and I think: 'You should come here and see what guns did to Hungerford.'"

The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 was passed in the wake of the massacre. It banned the ownership of semi-automatic firearms and pump-action weapons and made registration mandatory for shotgun owners.

A Thames Valley Police report to the Home Office found that - given the limitations imposed by the remote location and the difficulties in radio and telephone communication - the force's response "went well".

The local police station had only two working phone lines that day and the police helicopter was being repaired, delaying its deployment.

Further delays were caused by the firearms squad being in training about 40 miles away.

The report also said the operation was hampered by press helicopters making so much noise it was difficult for police on the ground to hear or relay instructions.

Hungerford is a pretty canalside town famous for its antiques shops and upmarket boutiques.

Its inhabitants refer to the shooting as "The Tragedy", almost as if it were a natural disaster.

The names of the 16 people who were killed are listed on a stone set into the wall of the town's war memorial garden, with no mention of how they died.

The town had long been a tourist destination. After the murders, though, visitors were less satisfied by remaining in the attractive main street.

"The tourist buses would just park where they usually did and then people used to come up here on foot," Trevor Jackson says.

"They were looking for bullet holes and spent shell cases to collect. Whenever they asked me where it all happened I'd say it was down the A4. Sent them away."

The description of the shootings as a "tragedy" doesnt sit well with Mrs Jackson.

"It was a massacre," she says. "Theres no two ways about it.

"We cope by taking every day as it comes. It's difficult. Healthwise, we're struggling.

"Ivor has very limited mobility, and his lungs are damaged from the bullet. I still get dreadful pain in my back. Trevor can't move out to his own place.

"It hasn't got any easier. Were just waiting until life gets back to normal.

"It hasn't happened yet."

Originally posted here:

INCCCCC - BBC News

For more than a decade, Texas native Don Kirchoff has used Facebook to share news and information with fellow conservatives. The longtime Heritage Foundation supporter and Heritage Action Sentinel frequently posts articles from The Daily Signal as well as content from other conservative organizations and media outlets.

But is anyone seeing them?

Many of Kirchoffs Facebook posts have zero likes or comments, prompting him to take his case directly to Facebook. While that worked in the past, he has noticed the problem more often.

Kirchoff captured screenshots and shared them with The Daily Signal, which is Heritages multimedia news organization, as well as Facebook. He joins The Daily Signal Podcast to explain the situation and raise awareness for other conservatives.

Listen to the interview or read a lightly edited transcript below.

Rob Bluey: You and I first met at a Heritage Foundation event back in 2018. At which point, you shared some of the troubling experiences you had at Facebook, and I attempted to intervene and put you in touch with some folks there to help sort this out.

Sadly, three years later, it seems that youre still fighting to make sure that your content is being seen on the platform. Can you tell our listeners your story?

Don Kirchoff: I had learned how to use Facebook probably at least 10 years ago, and Facebook continued more and more to prevent me from posting things. I would be blocked three days at a time, a week at a time. And then eventually, I think it was in April of about 2018, they just completely shut down my account. It was as if I never existed on Facebook.

And Rob, thats of the time I spoke with you and you put me in touch with a person in Facebook, and two or three days later, I was back up posting as normal, as if I had never been shut off.

And for the last two or three years, most of my posts have not had difficulty, unless I crossed, I guess, values with a group of liberals out there. And I believe what they would do is they would send messages to Facebook that I was doing something against their community standards, and Facebook gradually, more and more, began, I believe, shadow banning me.

So when that would happen, I would simply do a screenshot of the evidence I had and Id send it to this contact I have, you gave me, in Facebook and things would seem to get better, but in the last couple of months, this shadow banning has become severe.

In fact, some of the just outstanding information, fact-based conservative information, that I would post would get no views, no attention whatsoever. So Ive, again, in the last couple months, began sharing screenshots of that type of information with Facebook. And I really dont know what theyre doing about it because I dont know whats being done behind my screen.

Bluey: Don, for our listeners who might not know the term shadow banning, its something that members of Congress here in Washington have experienced, as well as users like yourself. Can you explain what you are sharing when you contact Facebook and what you mean by shadow banning?

Kirchoff: When I contact Facebook, its because [of] a post of mine, which could be an article prepared by The Heritage Foundation or The Daily Signal, or the New York Post, any of these really great fact-based conservative pieces of information.

And I believe shadow banning to me means that when I post it, theres no activity. There are no likes, no dislikes, no comments, no shares, or very, very few. To me, thats what shadow banning is. In other words, I put something out there, but nobody can see it or do anything with it.

Bluey: Youre absolutely right. And well share some of those screenshots, so our users can log onto dailysignal.com and see for themselves what you mean. Youve shared them with me, and its really interesting. We certainly appreciate that you help sharing Daily Signal stories and Heritage Foundation content.

My question for you is, does it appear to you that Facebook is taking issue with the specific sources of news and information, or is it posts from conservatives like yourself, as you said earlier, whose values might not align?

Kirchoff: I really believe its both. I think some of the material Ive posted such as The Daily Signal or New York Post, from what I hear and read in the media, those sources are already being censored by Facebook. So its not a surprise to me that when I post them, they are also censored on my Facebook page, but I think they are censoring me personally.

And I think thats driven most of the time when there is an issue or contentand it might be on socialism or the border problem. If I post something like that on a more liberal Facebook page, its then that I can associate with that a higher frequency of censorship on my own page.

So I think that part is personal because I become too visible out there in the liberal posting groups.

Rob Bluey: I think thats interesting because youve said youve investigated some of these liberal or left-leaning Facebook groups, and youve discovered that in looking at some of their own posts and the content in those groups, the same type of thing isnt happening.

So what did you discover as you poked around yourself on the platform, and what did you find?

Kirchoff: What I find is on those liberal groups, postings on the same content but a liberal-leaning view, there can be hundreds and even thousands of activity actions on those posts. Whereas if I post conservative content on my Facebook page, it is what I call banned. Nobody can see it, therefore, theres no action on it. Same issue, just a different point of view.

Bluey: Don, taking a step back, you mentioned that youve been active on Facebook now for about a decade. Why is Facebook an important platform for you to be sharing this type of political or policy type of information?

Kirchoff: Thats a great question because on Facebook, you could put out more information and you can engage people. These discussion threads become very educational. For example, my view is that I need to help push back on false information on some of these subjects put out by the liberal media, and therefore, engage people in discussions, both who have the same view as mine or who have an opposing view. Thats welcome on my Facebook page.

Its really interesting how people with both my view and a more liberal view on a subject will get engaged in Facebook discussions, but if the conservative view is shadow banned or prevented from reaching the public, those intellectual discussions cant even take place.

Bluey: Thats so true, and we appreciate you taking the time, that you want to engage with your fellow users on Facebook, those friends and others who may be in Facebook groups with you, to have those types of conversation and discussions. Ive noticed a change myself on Facebook, and Im wondering if you can pinpoint a moment when you feel that Facebook started to change in terms of how it was allowing you to share content?

Was it sometime during the Trump presidency? Was it before that? Was it just recently? Or has this been changing over the course of the last five years, in a way that is increasingly restrictive?

Kirchoff: I think its been changing gradually over a long period of time. I think it got significantly worse this summer. Why? I dont know. I just dont know why, because I cant see whats going on in Facebook. All I can see in my view is what the outcome is, as impacting conservative information I try to post.

Bluey: Facebook, unlike some of the other social media platforms, has created an Oversight Board. Its separate from the company. It makes big decisions, including things like, should President [Donald] Trump be banned from the platform? Of course, that was a decision earlier this year that they said, Facebook cant indefinitely do that. They have to come up with some criteria.

Do you think that something like an Oversight Board is a good development, and have you thought about appealing some of your cases to the Oversight Board, to see if maybe you can escalate it to that level?

Kirchoff: Well, the answer is yes. In fact, I have been sharing some information, the same information that I send to the Facebook content. I also am copying an attorney in Washington, D.C. And you may not remember, Rob, but it is the same attorney who you put me in touch with in 2018. And for a while, he would respond every time I provided information.

He even got me involved with a Facebook questionnaire that was helping to sort of, I guess, define who would be on this kind of board. And I continue to send that information to him, but I dont know what, if anything, is being done with it.

Bluey: Well, I think that thats the frustration. They do take a limited number of cases, and usually the ones that they do take are fairly high profile. But Don, whatever we can do to help, certainly, consider us. I know youre sharing a lot of content that we produce, so we certainly have a stake in this game as well.

I wanted to ask you what your advice is to others who might find themselves in a similar situation and be listening to this interview today?

Kirchoff: Again, thats a good question, too, because I see people making comments about being banned themselves or blocked completely. So when that happens, I direct message them and ask them to contact me on my email address. And when they do, I give them the contact in Facebook to whom they can send detailed information on whats happening to them.

So yes, I can be contacted by email. The problem is there are so many direct messages every day, I just cannot see them. But if I know somebodys going to direct message me in a narrow window of time with a problem and can contact me by email, I happily put them in contact with this Facebook person.

Bluey: Well, Don, we appreciate the work that youre doing to help others, and also to spread the conservative message. As we wrap-up the interview here, I want to give you a moment to just share what it is about conservative principles and the values that you believe in that inspired you to become active. As a grassroots activist, involved with Heritage Action and The Heritage Foundation, was there something in your life that motivated you to take this step?

Kirchoff: Yes. When it became apparent that the only two nominees for president of the Democrat Party was going to be either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, that got my wifes and my attention. Up until that point, we simply had our careers. We raised our family, we minded our own business, and we voted, and that was the extent to which we became politically involved.

But when the Democrats were going to have only one of those two as a candidate, we joined tea parties. And we began traveling, particularly to Washington, and attending conferences on how to become an activist. Its there that we became involved with The Heritage Foundation.

It is at that time they set up Heritage Action. We joined immediately. We were among the first to join. This group, more than any others we became in contact with, [was] action-oriented. We wanted to do something, not just talk about it. And thats what were enabled to do in Heritage Action because of the great resources we get in that group.

Bluey: Well, and of course, Heritage is the parent organization of The Daily Signal, and Heritage Action is a strong, independent partner of ours. So Don, we appreciate your leadership and your efforts there in Texas, and well continue to keep in touch.

Thank you for speaking out and giving voice to some of the concerns that I think so many other conservatives have experienced on platforms like Facebook.

Kirchoff: Well, Rob, thank you for being there when we needed help. We really appreciate everything Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action provides for us.

Bluey: Thank you, Don.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email[emailprotected]and well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Read the original post:

Conservative Activist Calls Out Facebook for Suppressing His Posts - Daily Signal

Photo: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images

In August, Mayor Bill de Blasio made an enormous bet to reopen New York City schools for in-person learning. By requiring all of the citys 150,000 public-school employees to get a shot, he hoped to prevent a third academic year from going remote because of the virus. Employees who did not, he warned, would be suspended without pay.

So on Monday morning, the first day the mandate was enforced, about 8,000 employees were unable to report for work because they refused to be vaccinated. De Blasio took a victory lap at a press conference where he announced that 95 percent of employees were vaccinated, including 96 percent of teachers. A surge of last-minute vaccinations seemed to have avoided the sort of mass suspensions that officials feared and the relative few who were suspended, de Blasio said, had been replaced by vaccinated substitutes. As of today all of the employees in our 1,600 schools are vaccinated, he triumphantly said.

The Department of Education reported that 43,000 shots have been administered since the mandate was announced in August, with 18,000 coming in the past 10 days alone. About 1,000 teachers were vaccinated over the weekend, according to Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, which held its own press conference on Monday. (Mulgrew added that UFT members who are vaccinated before the end of the month will be able to return to work the following day.) Teachers who choose to remain unvaccinated will have to make a decision at the end of the month: voluntarily resign or remain on unpaid leave for a year. Both options allow teachers to retain health insurance benefits until early September, 2022. Teachers who choose neither option will be fired in December, according to an email sent to employees who had yet to comply.

Although the mayor had said all employees must be vaccinated by Friday at 5 p.m. or be placed on unpaid leave, the Department of Education told staff they could be vaccinated as late as Monday morning and still show up for work. While its unclear exactly how many teachers were unable to report for work on Monday morning, the mandate did trigger concerns about staffing shortages. The citys substitute-teacher portal listed thousands of slots available over the weekend, while the city said roughly 9,000 vaccinated substitutes were standing by to fill in. Mulgrew said staff shortages could hit some areas of the school system particularly hard, especially those that work with children who have special needs and school safety agents.

Of particular concern was Staten Island, where the vaccination rate has lagged behind the citywide average. Chancellor Meisha Ross Porter allayed fears about staffing shortages at schools there, such as New Dorp High School. Twenty staff members in a school of that size, while not insignificant, was fully covered by the work of the superintendent, by the work of the central staff, and by the work of the subs, she said at Mondays press conference.

This is going to be a total nightmare, said Rachel Maniscalco, 36, who taught English and special education at Concord High School in Staten Island. Maniscalco received an email from the DOE on Saturday notifying her that she had been placed on unpaid leave. Maniscalco said she would not be getting a shot before the end of the month because she did not feel drug manufacturers had been transparent about the makeup of their vaccines. The mayor wants to say that were replaceable, but the truth of the matter is that this week is going to be so detrimental to the DOE employees, their students, and their kids families, she said.

The school systems mandate comes nearly a week after New York began requiring vaccinations at health-care facilities statewide. That order resulted in a surge of vaccinations but left some hospitals with staffing shortages, forcing administrators to cancel elective surgeries in some instances. In Brooklyn, SUNY Downstate Medical Center postponed radiology appointments and canceled elective C-sections, according to Gothamist. Unlike mandates in other states and cities, New Yorks mandates do not allow for educators or health-care workers to rely on regular testing as an alternative to vaccination.

I never considered getting the shot at all. I dont even do flu shots, said Jo Rose, 30, a teachers assistant in the Bronx who was suspended over the weekend. Rose said she was one of only a handful of holdouts at her school; most of her unvaccinated co-workers caved to the pressure the mandate had placed on them since it was announced. Rose has not been vaccinated because she believes the government has too much control over people.I had to tell my kids on Friday that I was leaving. They thought I was cracking a joke on them, she said. They really thought I wasnt being serious. They were like, Why dont you just go get it? And I just tried to explain to them that I have a right to decide over my body.

The mandate survived a number of legal challenges, including a last-ditch appeal to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, which was denied. About 3,000 UFT members applied for religious exemptions or medical accommodations, Mulgrew said, but only 1,000 had been granted. Michael Kane, 43, a teacher in Queens, was originally denied a religious exemption but is in the process of appealing that decision. As of Monday morning, Kane was not allowed inside his school building, but he has yet to be placed on unpaid leave.

Its been very conflicting, said Paulette ONeal, a 52-year-old teachers assistant at P.S. 307 in Brooklyn, who said she was denied a religious exemption. ONeal said she had not gotten vaccinated because she was concerned about the shadow-banning and censoring of information about vaccines. They dont want us in the building. Or to let us talk to our children or their parents. They just want us to disappear, she said.

De Blasio said he was considering whether to extend the mandate to other city employees but would not say which departments might be next.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Excerpt from:

De Blasios Vaxx Mandate Led to an Avalanche of Shots for Teachers - New York Magazine