In just a few months, the legislatures of all 50 states will reconvene at their capitol buildings to set their policy agendas for the year. While the actions of the federal government usually steal the spotlight, state government often has the most significant impact on our everyday lives.

The Supreme Courts recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate 50 years of legal precedent guaranteeing the right to an abortion has given states the green light to wage an all-out war on reproductive rights the latest in a long line of efforts to control the decision making ability of what we do with our bodies. Already, more than a dozen states have passed bills effectively banning abortion, with more soon to follow (and efforts to pass a nationwide abortion ban prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that abortion has always been about control, not states rights).

No one will be more impacted by these attacks on health care than Black women, who, even before Dobbs, faced atrocious reproductive and maternal health barriers. Thats why, to protect essential health care like abortion, we must have Black women representing us in our state legislatures.

Its no coincidence that the states actively working to deteriorate the health of Black women are run by mostly white, male and relatively well-off legislators. Black women, despite being one of the most politically active groups in the country, hold less than 5% of state legislative seats nationwide, meaning their voices are largely excluded from policy discussions. This disparity between political engagement and political power reveals the true inequity in our state legislatures.

The first step to making our state legislatures more representative is removing the barriers to entry for Black women. Heres what the roadblocks look like: today, most state lawmakers are severely unpaid or underpaid, and they are expected to work far beyond the hours of a part-time job, as these positions are often considered. Being a state legislator usually requires a pay cut and prior accumulated wealth, which deters a lot of people from taking up these positions in the first place. This is particularly impactful for Black women, who are the center of our communities the caretakers who arent often afforded the luxury of being able to take up a demanding job for little to no compensation.

Then, we must ensure that once people are elected to the statehouse, they are able to exercise their power. Currently, the Black women who have overcome barriers to take up jobs as state legislators face archaic hurdles within government. They are often relegated to the role of token person of color instead of being able to shepherd legislation or chair committees, inhibiting real change.

They are forced and even expected to show immense grace when their colleagues repeatedly push racist and anti-Black legislation. Without addressing these systemic barriers, people with real lived experience cannot make change as policymakers. It seems impossible to achieve fair and just policies on reproductive justice, affordable housing, and quality health care if we arent represented by state lawmakers who have needed these services themselves.

When Black women are boxed out of the policymaking process for generations, the impact on peoples lives is devastating. For example, Black women are nearly three times as likely to die during childbirth. And thousands of Black women experience near-fatal pregnancy-related complications.

Its well-documented that Black women are less likely to be believed by their health care providers, causing mistreatment and poor diagnoses. And now that abortion is set to be fully banned in states with some of the highest Black populations places like Mississippi, Georgia, and my home state of Alabama many more Black women will have to suffer the consequences of our broken medical system. These are policy problems with policy solutions.

The good news is that this sea change is already happening. 2020 saw the highest-ever number of Black women elected to Congress. Black women are also leading the charge at the state level. In Massachusetts, state Rep. Liz Miranda led the effort to create the countrys first state maternal health commission, which will provide policy recommendations to improve Black maternal health outcomes. Down in Florida, state Rep. Kamia Brown successfully passed her bill in the conservative lower chamber to unlock state funding for projects that work to reduce health disparities.

Even in ruby red states where progressive legislation has a slim chance of surviving, Black women have seen success. Tennessee state Sen. London Lamar introduced a bill to expand access to doulas, an increasingly sought-after service in rural and lower-income communities lacking hospitals and doctors. This was Sen. Lamars first bill, and it passed the conservative senate in three weeks. None of these accomplishments would have been possible had these legislators not brought their unique perspectives as Black women in America, and our nation as a whole is better for it.

Black women are fighting for reproductive justice in statehouses daily, and they need backup. Before legislative sessions start next January, nearly all of the countrys 7,000+ state legislators will face the voters in November. I urge you to look up who yours is.

Do they represent your values? Are they considering the needs of your community? Do you think your state government would benefit from a new perspective?

If so, its time to get involved and fight for the change you want to see in your state. Only when Black women are in significant seats of power at every table where decisions are made will we be able to build toward a more prosperous future for everyone.

Jennifer Driver is the Senior Director of Reproductive Rights at the State Innovation Exchange.

SEE ALSO:

Failure To Advance Womens Health Protection Act Puts Spotlight On Absence Of Black Women Senators

The Black Ballot: Debunking The Myth That Black Women Candidates Are Unelectable

See the original post:

Protect Reproductive Rights By Electing More Black Women - NewsOne

For all the hype around the metaverse, it is easy to forget it is still in its infancy. While the term has only recently entered the broad public consciousness, its impact on how we interact with technology is already expected to be deeply consequential. McKinsey & Company estimates that annual global spending within the metaverse could reach $5 trillion by 2030 across domains as broad as gaming, social, fitness, commerce and remote learning.

The question of how to define and build technology with such broad capabilities is in flux. While a number of games such as Roblox, Fortnite and Minecraft have been hailed as early examples of successful metaverse platforms, a more holistic approach would see unrestricted interaction for players across these games. Interoperability between metaverse platforms is one key component that should be considered.

While only recently entering the public lexicon, the metaverse is not a new concept. The term was originally used to describe a fictional break from reality in Neil Stevensons Snow Crash. The popularity of digital entertainment surged massively during the pandemic. From games like Among Us to services like Netflix Party and Zoom, the opportunity to socialize virtually was highly appealing to many during a time of deep isolation.

Related: AI will help realize the true vision the metaverse hopes to achieve

These changes have fundamentally reshaped our ideas of how we socialize and work together, with enduring habits formed in connecting and collaborating virtually an important factor accelerating engagement with the metaverse. Virtual experiences such as Travis Scotts Fortnite concert have made positive steps forward in developing in-game socially immersive experiences. However, a multi-platform hypersocial virtual experience has yet to reach the market.

Freedom, community and collaboration are all defining characteristics of the metaverse. Achieving this requires infrastructure that can support the transfer of sensitive metadata across different blockchain protocols, metaverse platforms and gaming ecosystems in a blend of social media, crypto wallets and decentralized applications. So, before an interoperable metaverse introduces new business models and cross-platform capabilities, the issue of multichain identity and moderation must be addressed.

Decentralization brings with it the opportunity to experiment with community-led tactics, incentivizing certain behaviors and allowing the collective to dictate its own preferences. PubDAO, a publishing collective launched in conjunction with Decrypt, provides a good example of how these structures can function. Significantly, it makes a clear distinction between moderation and censorship. Pubbers are like-minded individuals, writers in this case, who get screened, onboarded and integrated into the culture of the community.

Scaling this model up to billions of people creates problems, as individual screening is unfeasible. Legacy social media is plagued with this issue, deploying shadow banning and other censorship tools to deal with the issue. A common solution proposed by Web3 advocates involves algorithmic detection and incentivized moderation to counteract abuse, and yet this fails to account for the nature of a multichain metaverse.

Even when done transparently and equitably, far too many abuses would slip through the net. Using the same machinations of the infamous Tornado Cash mixer, the laundering tool of choice for 52% of nonfungible token (NFT) scam proceeds prior to being sanctioned, one would be able to hide the origin of abusive messages in the name of free speech. Even if the perpetrator got doxed on one chain, they could hop to the next. This is not the type of metaverse anyone wants to inhabit.

The potential solution lies in moving moderation tools upstream. Twitter has trialed such a process with success. By providing warning prompts prior to publishing tweets, 9% of users were encouraged to cancel their posts. Overall, the study concluded that there was a 6% reduction in offensive tweets as a result of this mechanism.

Implementing a metadata standard and infusing it with decentralized identifiers (DIDs) could provide an avenue for ethical moderation, one that does not impose on privacy but ensures accountability. Such a multichain technical standard would ensure that tokens minted on any chain can be traced back to their origin within the metaverse. NFTs could be infused with verifiable credentials, enabling platforms to afford privacy to their users and define the terms in which these rights would be forfeited.

Related: Get ready for the feds to start indicting NFT traders

More importantly, at a time where cybersecurity is an increasingly greater concern, a metadata standard would afford individual users more protection. Data breaches in gaming are notoriously common, with more than half of frequent gamers targeted by hacks, according to a 2020 report from Akamai. The wealth of victims and the prevalence of in-game microtransactions make a lucrative target for cybercriminals. On top of that, users tend to use the same password across accounts, making credential stuffing a serious issue with the potential to percolate across industries.

While certainly not a panacea, an interoperable standard would go a long way to consolidating individual security needs. Web3 is set up to accommodate an identity system that removes the need for sensitive data to be stored on centralized servers, making it harder for hackers to access. In the event that personal assets are compromised, a metadata standard imbued with DIDs would enable traceability across the multichain metaverse.

Data standards will dictate the evolution of the web, so it is important that we get them right. Interoperability is easier to set up from the outset than retrofitting it in. By learning the lessons offered by the development of the internet, we can together build a revolutionary metadata standard that fosters a positive, shared techno-social experience on Web3.

Witek Radomski is the chief technology officer and a co-founder of Enjin, a blockchain tech company building products for next-generation NFTs. Witek is the author of the ERC-1155 token standard, the only token standard that enables the configuration of both fungible tokens and NFTs in a single smart contract.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Originally posted here:

Enjin co-founder: Use NFTs to track users in the metaverse - Cointelegraph

At the high school where I last worked, the librarian had what we all understood to be an ironic trinket sitting on her office shelf: an action figure of a librarian that made an amazing shushing action when you pushed a button, providing welcome levity. Thats all the action figure could do; todays librarians, who must confront increasing ranks of violent protesters, could use a lot more features to fight back.

With school politics proving a strategic wedge issue for Republicans from Washington State to Virginia to Florida, more and more school boards are glomming onto the convenient optics of book banning. At least 1,586 individual books were banned from July 2021 through March of this year, PEN America reports, citing an alarming spike compared with previous years.

And yes, they are coming after librarians, too, the people who meet you in public spaces, listen to you and share inspiration in bundles that you can take out free of charge.

These underpaid civil servants are being called pedophiles and purveyors of pornography. They are receiving death threats and termination notices and facing lawsuits and criminal charges over what are perceived as obscene materials.

The tome-length stories they curate, of Tuscan gardens or fantastical undersea worlds, are being subsumed by the temporal template of outrage: headlines, tweets and three-minute local news segments.

Librarians are facing actual danger, but we all face harm if we demand that students reading material be less interesting, challenging and complex than their real-life experiences.

As an educator, I have seen this shadow of book banning shut down conversations, foment distrust among students and parents and put well-meaning school administrators on their heels as they perform lexical jujitsu: Their task is to both sponsor courageous conversations about thought-provoking, topical material and identify books that are perceived to cause undue discomfort. If the broad aim of education is to prepare students to become citizens in a pluralistic, often contentious society, trying to maintain this difficult balance can be stultifying.

Related: OPINION: Why Floridas ban on textbooks is just another scare tactic

I saw these trends play out in real time last year in my hometown, where my daughters go to school. A teacher read a passage from Sherman Alexies The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian to his eighth grade language arts students, saying the full N-word, while offering no trigger warning and little contextualizing before or after.

This upset a student attending the class remotely, and after a few days of muddled conversations among parents, teachers and principals, the superintendent (who has since retired) decided it best to put the book on pause.

Related: COLUMN: A lesson in hypocrisy whats really behind the parental rights movement

Reactions varied from enraged to eloquent, though I felt the most poignant came from the 25 or so eighth graders who formed the group Students for Free Speech, and whose ranks included the student who was initially vocal about being discomfited.

They met biweekly and co-authored a letter to their administrators: Most of us didnt know about the conditions of life on Native American reservations before conducting research . . . and reading the book. Weve managed to go 13 or 14 years, nine years of in-school education, and learn absolutely nothing about this issue. And just after we started learning about it, we stopped.

Had the book not been paused on page 64, they would have discovered that the white character who uttered the racial slur (Roger) to the Native American protagonist (Junior) would have a moral education of his own.

Through my nearly 30 years of teaching high school English, Im hard-pressed to think of a single worthy book that couldnt somehow be perceived as offensive to someone.

This would slowly lead Roger toward respect for and connection with Junior, his basketball teammate. The weeks of classroom discussions that would follow this developing relationship, by turns and degrees, would also have examined Juniors own racial biases as he moved each day between the rez and his predominantly white high school.

In these discussions, students would invariably confront their own biases and learn that forgiveness, redemption and mercy are integral for any community attempting to move beyond surface judgments into something more sustainable.

But these points about the actual book were never mentioned in the public forum, leaving me to wonder who had actually read the book.

This made the next sentence of that student letter really sting: Exposing us, your students, to new ideas is an instrumental part of learning. Whether you or we agree with them or not, we need to be exposed to more perspectives.

Banning books that openly discuss racism, violence and human pain does not protect students from these realities, and only lessens their capacities to contend with them in nonfictional spaces.

Through my nearly 30 years of teaching high school English, Im hard-pressed to think of a single worthy book that couldnt somehow be perceived as offensive to someone. So, avoiding offense is not the point.

My concern when selecting reading material is whether the story moves with good character development and a compelling plot if its teachable. When they find themselves vicariously at odds with the lives they read in context, students learn how to articulate their own beliefs.

To put devices away for an hour, to drill into a passage or two, to wring their connections and suggestions, to move beyond binaries into more subtle degrees: This is the work of English class. Have faith in it.

Amid this noisy volley of book banning, we lose the value of these protracted, deliberate, reflective conversations.

Tim Donahue teaches English at the Ethical Culture Fieldston School in New York City.

This story about banning books was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechingers newsletter.

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn't mean it's free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.

See the original post:

TEACHER VOICE: How the sad shadow of book banning shuts down conversations and lacerates librarians - The Hechinger Report

Last Call A prime-time read of whats going down in Florida politics.

First Shot

Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis is out with his first TV ad of the election cycle, taking aim at Big Tech companies and the liberals in California who run them.

The hottest trade on the market today is you. Big Tech is too powerful, Patronis says in the ad. They know where you are, they know what youre reading, they know what you ate for lunch.

Patronis then introduces himself as the CFO and says he wants to stop them.

These tech liberals in California think they can cancel us on social media, they can sell our data to big corporations and get rich off our backs. We can stop them, he says, calling on viewers to tell Big Tech youre not for sale.

The CFO, a Republican, has often railed against tech companies such as Twitter for allegedly censoring or shadow banning conservative users, though he has also made overtures to lure them to the Sunshine State.

Notably, when Elon Musk announced his intention to buy Twitter, Patronis sent him a letter urging him to relocate the company to Florida. There was no formal response and Musk has since tried to back out of the deal.

Patronis has served as CFO since 2017, when he was appointed to the post by then-Gov. Rick Scott. He won election in 2018 by a comfortable 3.5% and heads into the 2022 General Election with a sizable fundraising advantage over his Democratic challenger, former state Rep. Adam Hattersley.

As of Aug. 26, the incumbent had a little over $1 million in hard money and an added $3.46 million in his political committee, Treasure Florida. Hattersley, meanwhile, has less than $5,000 banked between his two accounts despite facing no opposition in the Primary.

To watch the ad, please click on the image below:

___

Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried sent a letter to the Department of States Office of Inspector General demanding an investigation into the recent voter fraud bust.

The statewide dragnet resulted in 20 arrests of convicted felons who registered to vote and cast ballots. Though voters approved an amendment allowing felons to automatically regain voting rights after completing their sentences, those convicted of murder or sex crimes were specifically excluded.

Fried and others have argued that confusion over the amendment, its implementing bill, and the lack of any mention of the carveout on voter registration forms likely led those arrested to unknowingly violate the law. Fried also noted that the Department of State had approved the voter registrations.

In the letter, addressed to Inspector General David Ulewicz, Fried says the new Office of Election Crimes and Security was overzealous in its enforcement of state election laws and that the bust was essentially a publicity stunt at the expense of those arrested.

While under current law, these individuals were not eligible to vote, the persecution of this predominantly Black group of Floridians who broke the law without intent is not only disproportionate punishment but cruel, she wrote.

That cruelty is even more so as it becomes evident that what should have been investigated was how and why the state provided ineligible voters with registrations and that their traumatic arrests appear to have been done for pure publicity purposes, stoking fear and discouraging others who are eligible from exercising their rights to vote in the future.

Evening Reads

Money talks: Ron DeSantis goes after small-scale voter crimes, is silent on FPL and Matrix via Mary Ellen Klas and Nicholas Nehamas of the Miami Herald

DeSantis targeted LGBTQ Floridians like no previous Governor. Now theyre working to defeat him. via Zac Anderson of the USA Today Network-Florida

Val Demings doubles down on dismissing voters concerns on inflation: What my opponent says are important via Rebecca Downs of Townhall

Budget panel to approve $175M in local projects via Gray Rohrer of Florida Politics

Rick Scott amps up feud with Mitch McConnell about GOP Senate candidates via A.G. Gancarski of Florida Politics

More than 1 in 2 Americans will have an election denier on the ballot this fall via FiveThirtyEight

Florida company pays quick cash to list your home. The catch? A 40-year contract via Rebecca Liebson of the Tampa Bay Times

Rents are starting to come down, but the trend may not hold via Adriana Morga of The Associated Press

Gas prices turn back downward through Labor Day weekend via Scott Powers of Florida Politics

Schools are back and confronting severe learning losses via Scott Calvert of The Wall Street Journal

Number of students in Broward public schools declines for third straight year via Lisa J. Huriash of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Quote of the Day

Powerful people rigging elections is far more dangerous than 20 people allegedly voting illegally. But power gets you privileges and exceptions that dont apply to the rest of us. Money talks. Money is power. The people whove been charged with voter fraud have no power. DeSantis is making them into props for his reelection campaign and his bid for President.

Miami Center for Racial Justice President Marvin Dunn, on the recent voter fraud arrests.

Bill Days Latest

Breakthrough Insights

Post Views:0

Read the original post:

Last Call for 9.6.22 A prime-time read of what's going down in Florida politics - Florida Politics

Advertisement

About 10 days after the U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosis visit to Taiwan, India finally broke its studied silence over both the trip and Chinas consequent unprecedented military exercises and live-fire air and sea drills that encircled Taiwan, heralding the onset of the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. On August 12, while answering questions on these recent developments in the Taiwan Strait as part of a weekly media briefing at the Ministry of External Affairs, Indias Official Spokesperson Arindam Bagchi, without naming any parties, urged exercising restraint and avoiding unilateral actions to change the status quo, so as to de-escalate tensions and maintain peace and stability in the region.

Even as no loud official proclamation was expected, the supposedly non-descript nature of Indias statement was in keeping with the prevalent regional provocation-averse ethos vis--vis China. Even the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) foreign ministers statement on the cross-strait development, while warning about the unpredictable consequences of open conflicts and miscalculations between major powers, reiterated each members support for its respective One China policy. However, Indias short, yet stern, statement was marked by its refusal to abide by Beijings call to reiterate the One China policy, simply because Indias relevant policies are well-known and consistent.

The U.S.-led battle of democracies versus autocracies in a bid to coalesce like-minded partners, through U.S. bilateral military alliances (e.g. in Northeast Asia) and minilateral security frameworks aimed at containing China, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad, comprising Australia, India, Japan, and the U.S.) and the Australia-U.K.-U.S. (AUKUS) defense pact, has further precipitated the steep incline into the Thucydides Trap. The uneven rhetoric and ambiguous policy on Taiwan are only compounding the stress. These exigent circumstances have naturally put the Indo-Pacific states on high alert, especially India due to its ongoing border dispute with China in the Himalayan region since 2020. However, the Wests well-founded fear of Xi Jinpings road to rejuvenation and the ensuing power play, including the recent U.S. offensive in the Indo-Pacific, are also a boon for Indias geopolitical ambitions.

Hence, Indias cautiously bold stance has to be taken in concert with the regions fragile peace, which depends on not provoking China while asserting New Delhis newly ascendant power-parity equation with Beijing, which is strengthened by Indias proactive foreign policy outlook of multi- and pointed-alignment geared to strategic autonomy goals. Against such a non-linear equation, how far is the Thucydides Trap linked to Indias China calculus? Could India be pushed to a war-like precipice to defend its status and security dilemmas?

Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific.

Deterring the New Normal in the Himalayas

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

China has in the past adapted its successful maneuvers in one disputed territory to another: Its South China Sea salami tactics were employed in Ladakh. In the current Taiwan case, besides military tactics, China has intensified its economic, diplomatic, and disinformation maneuvers by banning trade of specific products with Taiwan, crusading for international support for its One China principle, and exaggerating the extent of Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) capabilities. In that vein, India would be worried about this so-called new normal in the Taiwan Strait being replicated along its borders, too, as it is consistent with Chinas policy of using military, political, and economic means to achieve its national interest goals. For example, Chinas call to compartmentalize cooperation and incompatibilities in the bilateral relationship are a tool for such an action.

The recent (post-2020) era spans multiple ongoing crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the Galwan dispute, the Russia-Ukraine war, and the Taiwan Strait new normal. In all of these, a common link is the centrality of China as a revolutionary revisionist power on its way to upend the global world order (by 2049 to be precise) be it via its collusion with Russia and other politically weak authoritarian states like Afghanistan under Taliban or collision with the U.S. and its partners. This makes it imperative to explore the increasingly strategic, adversarial equation between India and China through the lens of the Thucydidian dynamic, which is primarily reserved for describing the only great power rivalry of our times (namely the United States and China).

As a corollary to the China-U.S. hegemonic contest, however, the concept naturally extends to China (a dominant regional power with notions of global supremacy) and India (an emerging regional rival power with global ambitions), especially amid the Russia-Ukraine war, when Indias global prospects are on the rise thanks to its central role as a regional security provider and as a key strategic partner to manage, if not contain, China.

Moreover, Indias diplomatic courting by the West has become important enough that even China is reining in its otherwise fierce hostility (in Chinese media and official rhetoric) and advertising positive signals for reconciliation with India, even as China docks a research ship (also labelled a dual-use spy ship by Indian media) in Sri Lankas Hambantota port despite Indias concerns. Thus, the fragile and certainly temporary thaw only complicates the existing situation, but does not influence Indias core view of China especially post-Galwan as a clear and abidingadversary.

To that effect, India has continued to heighten its strategic deterrence measures against China since 2020, and is unimpressed by Chinas present overtures, showing little inclination to compromise. This is evidenced by Indias External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankars continued stress on the border relations casting a shadow over wider cooperation goals and calling the China-India relationship a one-way street.

Leveraging the Current Trigger: Avoiding or Inducing War?

Taiwans growing importance in Indias foreign policy framework, not just as an economic partner but as a security leverage, is increasingly evident. For example, Indias refusal to reiterate the One China policy in official rhetoric (including joint statements) since 2010 is not just a reaction to stapled visas but also leverage against China. It seeks to remind Beijing that its lack of an independent policy on India and refusal to acknowledge the unofficial yet politically significant One India outlook (e.g. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi echoing the Organization of Islamic Cooperations stance on Kashmirs right to self-determination in March this year) will come at a cost.

So far, Indias sovereignty disputes with China have constrained New Delhis ambiguous approach to Taiwan (restricted to economic engagement), but the heightened global reaction to Pelosis visit and Chinas own fear-inducing military maneuvers might propel the strategic discourse on the changing trajectory of Indias One China policy, which was already underway post Galwan.

Xis potential reunification (and rejuvenation) plans amid attempts to change the status quo around the Taiwan Strait have received a fillip with the announcement of Chinas latest white paper on Taiwan, wherein Taiwans status (a special administrative region) post-reunification would also be conditional under the One China principle: Two Systems is subordinate to and derives from One Country. Whether peaceful or forceful, Chinas potential occupation of Taiwan will bring a complete breakdown of the already low trust level between India and China, and could trigger a military intervention with India, exposing both its status and security dilemmas.

In short, for India, the Fourth Taiwan Crisis might become an extraneous vulnerability that could set up a catastrophic spiral toward a limited war in the Himalayas, especially because it is an intended consequence of Chinas military invasion tactics. Obviously, Indias complicated China dilemma which spans a long-standing mutual mistrust versus the veritable necessity (plus viability) of economic and regional cooperation in concert with Asias fragile, explosive security landscape posits the inevitability of such an event. Moreover, India will note that Taiwans economic cooperation with China has only made coercion more potent; thus, the balancing policy of economic and strategic goals will have to be sharpened.

Go here to read the rest:

Will India and China Escape the Thucydides' Trap? - The Diplomat

Chris Delmas/AFP via Getty Images

Former President Donald Trumps new social media platform TRUTH Social is shadow banning users for posting about certain topics, a new study claims.

The bans of certain types of content are at odds with the principles of free speech the platform was founded on, according to the progressive non-profit group Public Citizen.

Public Citizen, upon hearing complaints from users unable to post about topics such as the Jan. 6 House select committee, or the ongoing fight for abortion access, reported it found numerous instances in which some content was not allowed.

Our own research on the platform confirms that the site engages in shadow banning, which is fully or partially blocking users content without warning, notice, or recourse, Public Citizennoted. This is prevalent with regard to both progressive subject matter and across various other topics.

Cheyenne Hunt-Majer with the group wrote:

In June 2022, Truth Social users reported that any post containing the phrase abortion is healthcare would automatically be shadow banned from the platform. Much of this report describes my firsthand experience on Truth Social.

When I attempted to post the phrase abortion is healthcare, I received the standard notification that my truth had been posted, which would usually signify that my post would now be visible on my personal profile and on my feed. Instead, the post was nowhere to be found.

Hunt-Majer also noted issues with posting about hearings from the Jan. 6 committee.

A number of Truth Social users reported having their accounts permanently suspended after posting about the January 6th Committee hearings, Hunt-Majer wrote. Other users have alleged that their posts were censored or their accounts were deactivated after sharing a video from the January 6th hearings of Ivanka Trump doubting her fathers claims that the election was stolen.

Hunt-Majer noted similar issues with posting about the committees hearings.

In a post about Georgia election worker Wandrea Moss, Hunt-Majers truth was rejected, despite two attempts:

I attempted to post, Trumps defamatory lies about Shaye Moss and her mother were cruel, racist, and dangerous. Time for accountability. #Jan6 #january6th #January6thHearings.

That post was blocked. However, when I copied and pasted the exact text and attempted to post it for a second time, the post became visible. To date, the original post has not appeared on my page.

The study also noted issues with posts that were critical of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Read the study in its entirety here.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Original post:

Trump's TRUTH Social is Shadow Banning Users' Jan. 6 Posts - Mediaite

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Donald Trumps plan to exact revenge on Big Techand make billions by launching his own social media empire and taking it publicwas always going to be a long shot. And while its not yet dead, the obstacles are mounting.

For starters, Trump Media & Technology Group is reportedly not making payments to vendors. Last week,Fox Business reported that RightForge, an internet hosting company that markets itself as friendly to conservative customers who cant find hosting elsewhere, has not been paid since March. Thats no small matter; RightForge is reportedly providing much of the technical underpinning of the TruthSocial platformand the company is apparently owed as much as $1.6 million. A representative for TMTG did not respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones, but it would notbe altogether surprising if TruthSocial is facing a cash crunch. Making money running a social media business is, at best, a dicey proposition. Twitter, which has more than 230 million users, managed to lose $270 million last quarter. TruthSocial has perhaps 2 million active users (Trump himself has 3.9 million total followers).

But the plan was never to have TruthSocial pull itself up by its bootstraps, making its way on whatever revenue it could scrape together. From the beginningthe nascent media business was announced last SeptemberTrumps goal has been to take the whole operation to the stock market, where (theoretically) huge sums of money can be raised from investors. But Trumps toxic post-January 6 reputation has made that more difficult; in the wake of the insurrection, a number of financial institutions cut ties with him, closing his bank accounts and swearing off any more lending. With no big banks to back an IPO, Trump turned to something called a SPACa special purpose acquisition company, or a blank-check companyto take TMTG public. The idea is to merge his company with a company that is already public, but has no business to speak of. That would short-circuit the need to have a lengthy IPO. But it also offers a lot of opportunities for the deal to run into trouble, which is what appears to be happening now.

Last September, Trump announced TMTG would merge with Digital World Acquisition Corp (DWAC), a SPAC company that had gone public and was looking for a partner. After the proposed deal was revealed, DWACs share price rocketed above $97. It has since fallen below $30, where it currently sits. The deal, which caused such excitement initially, was supposed to happen quickly. Like most SPACs, DWAC has rules in its organizing charter that make it clear that the companys founders have to find a merger partner expeditiously, or else give back the money they raised from investors. The deadline for DWAC to make its merger with TMTG happen is Sept. 8.

DWACs founders have asked investors to approve an extension of that deadlineand on Sept. 6, shareholders will be able to vote to give the company another year to complete the deal. There is no guarantee that investors will approve the deadline extensionalthough most would likely lose money if the company was forced to shutter itself and return the funds it had raised in its IPO.

Even if shareholders go along with the founders request, the SEC filing in which DWAC asked its shareholders to extend the deadline is full of even more pitfalls that have to be negotiated.

For starters, as the document makes clear, the Sept. 6 vote will only extend DWACs ability to merge with TMTGTMTG also has to approve an extension. And then there are the PIPE investors. As part of the SPAC process, big-time financial playerssuch as hedge funds, private-equity firms, or bankscan make large investments known as PIPE investments. In the case of DWAC, PIPE investors put in $1 billion, which would be made available to the new company following the merger. But, according to DWACs message to shareholders, those PIPE investors can start pulling their money out on Sept. 22 if the merger hasnt happened. If any of these funders have gotten cold feet, they might be able to just walk away.

The biggest thing holding the merger up right now is the fact that DWAC is under investigation by multiple federal regulators. Another one of the rules of SPACs is that when the founders of the SPAC took the business public, it was supposed to be a truly blank company. There wasnt supposed to be any coordination ahead of time with a venture like TMTG to cook up a scheme to bring the two companies together. Those discussions and that agreement were supposed to happen only after DWAC went public on Sept. 23, 2021. Both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority are investigating the possibility that there were indeed discussions between Trumps camp and DWAC before DWAC went public. Both companies have denied any wrongdoing.

As long as that investigation drags on, DWAC told investors, the merger probably isnt happening.

But thats not all! Along with all those grim possibilities for ways that various groups could sink the whole deal, DWAC also warned investors that Trumps waning popularity might make it difficult for any deal to ever happen.

The success of the Business Combination depends in part on the popularity of TMTGs brand and the reputation and popularity of its Chairman, President Donald J. Trump, DWACs most recent filings says. The value of TMTGs brand may diminish if the popularity of President Trump were to suffer. Adverse reactions to publicity relating to President Trump, or the loss of his services, could adversely affect TMTGs revenues, results of operations and its ability to maintain or generate a consumer base, as well as the outcome of the proposed Business combination.

As much as some TruthSocial users say they love the platform, the reality is there just arent very many of them. While the platform has been busy since the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, with Trump using it to blastout angry messages (and repost QAnon propaganda), it simply isnt a thriving site. There are huge problems with content moderation, with both accusations that the company uses the same shadow-banning tactics that Trump derided Twitter for allegedly using against conservatives (the company denies it does any type of shadow-banning) and huge quantities of violent content being posted freely. In fact, the platforms problems moderating all that violent content led to Google sayingTuesday that it would continue to exclude TruthSocial from its app store.

The big problem, which DWAC acknowledged in its discussion of risks, is that a lot of people just dont want anything to do with Trump or TruthSocial.

According to The Hill, only 30% of people surveyed would use a social media site associated with President Trump. In addition, according to a survey published in The New York Post, only 60% of Republicans would use such a platform, DWACs filing says. In order to be successful, TMTG will need millions of those people to register and regularly use TMTGs platform.

Originally posted here:

Trump's Social Media Business Is a Mess Mother Jones - Mother Jones

SIR Keir Starmer has insisted he is a proud trade unionist.

The Labour leader has come under pressure from some backbenchers over his position on frontbenchers on picket lines.

In July, he sacked shadowminister for busses and local transport Sam Tarry after the MP joined an RMT picket line.

READ MORE:Scotlands brand opens up doors across sectors, business ambassador in America says

Other senior Labour figures, including shadow levelling up secretary Lisa Nandy and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar,took to picket lines over the summer despite Starmer's ruling that frontbenchers should stay away.

And, during theQ&A on BBC Radio 5 Live, in an exchange over the energy crisis, one callertold Starmer:The public is more left-wing than the Labour Party at the moment.

Asked about the sacking of Tarry during the interview, Starmersaid: Nobody has been fired for going on a picket line.

When it comes to those disputes, I completely understand why so many working people feel they need a wage increase.

Tarry was sacked from the front bench after attending a picket line

I completely understand what people are going through and I support the right to strike.

Starmer said it is simply a question of roles.

I want to be the Labour prime minister. I dont think the role of the prime minister is (to) have a Cabinet meeting and then go on to a picket line.

Labour previouslysaid Tarryhad been dismissed because he had broken the code of collective responsibility among the Labour frontbench, which requires senior MPs to have their media appearances approved by party high command.

Starmer then denied Labours energy policy amounts to kicking the can down the road, but acknowledged that something will have to be done early next year to tackle the crisis in the longer term.

READ MORE:SNP 'anticipating early General Election' as candidacy applications open

The Labour leader was quizzed on his plans to tackle soaring energy bills going beyond the middle of next year.

One listener told him: The public is more left-wing than the Labour Party at the moment.

Starmer said: I dont accept that is kicking the can down the road.

He said his partys plan is meeting the concerns of millions of people.

He said he understands the scale of the challenge facing households, adding that many people listening and watching this will be saying I cant afford that'.

The Labour leader insisted he is a "proud trade unionist"

Pressed on his longer-term plans, he pointed to his partys call for a national mission on home insulation.

On the question of what we do long term, I am completely up for that challenge, he told the programme.

I accept the challenge that something has got to be done in April.

Of the Government, he said: I dont think we are approaching this in the right way, because we keep coming up with short-term answers.

The party haspitcheda six-month freeze on energy bills at the current 1971 price cap, funded in part by expanding the windfall tax on oil and gas profits.

Starmer also said during the policy launchthat scrapping the planned increases in the price cap would keep inflation down, seeing it peak at about 9% rather than the 13% the Bank of England is forecasting.

The Labour leader also said in August that his party would not go ahead with the 400 rebate on energy bills that the Government has promised all households in October, saying: Were not going to let the price go up in the first place and so thats how the 400 is catered for.

READ MORE:Nicola Sturgeon to chair emergency meeting over council strikes

The bit were not cancelling is the 650 to pensioners and those on Universal Credit, so that is targeted support we would keep.

Some experts and think tanks have warned that such a plan would prove inadequate to the scale of the cost-of-living crisis.

And, economists warned the plan could cost as much as the Covid furlough scheme if extended, while some on Labours left criticised Starmer rejection of calls for the nationalisation of energy firms in favour of handing them billions of pounds to make up for the difference between rising wholesale costs and what they charge customers.

Read more here:

Keir Starmer insists he is a 'proud trade unionist' - The National

With temperatures and fire danger expected to soar over Labor Day weekend, officials prepared by ordering the states utilities to halt afternoon and evening shutdowns for routine maintenance, and closing dozens of popular parks, recreation and wilderness areas in the East Bay on Sunday and Monday, excluding picnickers and hikers.

Cal ISO, which oversees the states power grid, extended restrictions banning regular maintenance operations that would require shutdowns until Thursday. The restrictions apply from noon to 10 p.m. daily.

Among the 40 East Bay Regional Park District properties shutting for the two days are among those heavily used by picnickers and hikers Tilden, Wildcat Canyon, Anthony Chabot, Redwood, Sibley and Roberts.

The park districts fire chief ordered the parks most of them in the parched hills or eastern reaches of Alameda and Contra Costa counties because the risk of wildfires is expected to rise to dangerous levels as the temperatures climb as high as 110 degrees in some areas.

The cities or Walnut Creek and Concord have also closed their city open spaces Lime Ridge, Shell Ridge, Sugarloaf, Borges Ranch, Howe Homestead, and Acalanes Ridge in Walnut Creek and Lime Ridge and the open space areas within Newhall Community Park until Sept. 6 when the extreme heat warnings are expected to be lifted. The closures, which started Thursday, followed the recommendation of the Contra Costa Fire Protection District.

While the hotter, drier parks will be closed, all of the East Bay Regional Park Districts cooler shoreline parks will be open for those hoping to escape the heat. So will six swimming facilities.

Anthony Chabot (except for its campground)

Bishop Ranch

Black Diamond Mines

Briones Regional Park

Brushy Peak

Claremont Canyon

Contra Loma

Crockett Hills

Diablo Foothills

Dublin Hills

Five Canyons

Garin/ Dry Creek Pioneer

Huckleberry

Kennedy Grove

Lake Chabot

Las Trampas

Leona Canyon

Mission Peak

Morgan Territory

Nejedly Staging Area located in Carquinez Strait

Ohlone Wilderness

Pleasanton Ridge

Reinhardt Redwood

Roberts

Round Valley

Shadow Cliffs

Sibley

Sobrante Ridge

Sunol

Sycamore Valley

Tilden

Tilden Nature Area

Tilden Botanic Garden

Vargas Plateau

Waterbird

Wildcat Canyon

Antioch Oakley Shoreline

Ardenwood Historic Farm

Bay Point

Big Break

Carquinez Strait

Coyote Hills

Crown Beach

Dumbarton Quarry Campground

Hayward Shoreline

Judge John Sutter

Martin Luther King Jr.

McLaughlin East Shore State Park

Miller Knox

Oyster Bay

Point Isabel

Point Pinole

Radke Martinez

Castle Rock Pool

Cull Canyon

Don Castro

Lake Del Valle

Lake Temescal

Quarry Lakes

Michael Cabanatuan (he/him) is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @ctuan

See the article here:

Here are Bay Area parks closing because of the heat wave - San Francisco Chronicle

Conspiracy theorist and US far-right media personality Alex Jones was recently ordered to pay US$45 million (37 million) damages to the family of a child killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting.

Jones had claimed that being banned or deplatformed from major social media sites for his extreme views negatively affected him financially, likening the situation to jail. But during the trial, forensic economist Bernard Pettingill estimated Joness conspiracy website InfoWars made more money after being banned from Facebook and Twitter in 2018.

So does online deplatforming actually work? Its not possible to measure influence in a scientifically rigorous way so its difficult to say what happens to a person or groups overall influence when they are deplatformed. Overall, research suggests deplatforming can reduce the activity of nefarious actors on those sites. However, it comes with a price. As deplatformed people and groups migrate elsewhere, they may lose followers but also become more hateful and toxic.

Typically, deplatforming involves actions taken by the social media sites themselves. But it can be done by third parties like the financial institutions providing payment services on these platforms, such as PayPal.

Closing a group is also a form of deplatforming, even if the people in it are still free to use the sites. For example, The_Donald subreddit (a forum on the website Reddit) was closed for hosting hateful and threatening content, such as a post encouraging members to attend a white supremacist rally.

Research shows deplatforming does have positive effects on the platform the person or group was kicked out of. When Reddit banned certain forums victimising overweight people and African Americans, a lot of users who were active on these hateful subreddits stopped posting on Reddit altogether. Those who stayed active posted less extreme content.

But the deplatformed group or person can migrate. Alex Jones continues to work outside mainstream social networks, mainly operating through his InfoWars website and podcasts. A ban from big tech may be seen as punishment for challenging the status quo in an uncensored manner, reinforcing the bonds and sense of belonging between followers.

Gab was created as an alternative social network in 2016, welcoming users who have been banned from other platforms. Since the US Capitol insurrection, Gab has been tweeting about these bans as a badge of honour, and said its seen a surge in users and job applications.

My teams research looked at the subreddits The_Donald and Incels (a male online community hostile towards women), which moved to standalone websites after being banned from Reddit. We found that as dangerous communities migrated onto different platforms, their footprints became smaller, but users got significantly more extreme. Similarly, users who got banned from Twitter or Reddit showed an increased level of activity and toxicity upon relocating to Gab.

Other studies into the birth of fringe social networks like Gab, Parler, or Gettr have found relatively similar patterns. These platforms market themselves as bastions of free speech, welcoming users banned or suspended from other social networks. Research shows that not only does extremism increase as a result of lax moderation but also that early site users have a disproportionate influence on the platform.

The unintended consequences of deplatforming are not limited to political communities but extend to health disinformation and conspiracy theory groups. For instance, when Facebook banned groups discussing COVID-19 vaccines, users went on Twitter and posted even more anti-vaccine content.

What else can be done to avoid the concentration of online hate that deplatforming can encourage? Social networks have been experimenting with soft moderation interventions that do not remove content or ban users. They limit the contents visibility (shadow banning), restrict the ability of other users to engage with the content (replying or sharing), or add warning labels.

These approaches are showing encouraging results. Some warning labels have prompted site users to debunk false claims. Soft moderation sometimes reduces user interactions and extremism in comments.

However, there is potential for popularity bias (acting on or ignoring content based on the buzz around it) about what subjects platforms like Twitter decide to intervene on. Meanwhile, warning labels seem to work less effectively for fake posts if they are right-leaning.

It is also still unclear whether soft moderation creates additional avenues for harassment, for example mocking users that get warning labels on their posts or aggravating users who cannot re-share content.

A crucial aspect of deplatforming is timing. The sooner platforms act to stop groups using mainstream platforms to grow extremist movements, the better. Rapid action could in theory put the brakes on the groups efforts to muster and radicalise large user bases.

But this would also need a coordinated effort from mainstream platforms as well other media to work. Radio talk shows and cable news play a crucial role in promoting fringe narratives in the US.

We need an open dialogue on the deplatforming tradeoff. As a society, we need to discuss if our communities should have fewer people exposed to extremist groups, even if those who do engage become ever more isolated and radicalised.

At the moment, deplatforming is almost exclusively managed by big technology companies. Tech companies cant solve the problem alone, but neither can researchers or politicians. Platforms must work with regulators, civil rights organisations and researchers to deal with extreme online content. The fabric of society may depend upon it.

Read the original:

Deplatforming online extremists reduces their followers but there's a price - The Conversation