#exploiting children for PR

[thereasons28]

So I had chosen to try to not engage with the stunt content. If it crossed my social media feeds...fine, that's whatever. But I am no longer going to seek it out.

This...this I made an exception for. Because I find this so fucking egregious.

You mean to tell me that a man who made a point to say he didn't want his kid's face out there anymore is "dating" a woman who pretty much used her friend's daughter for ancillary PR?? For a piece in the Daily Mail?? AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN BLUR OUT THE KID'S FACE?? AND THIS KID'S MOM PRESUMABLY LET HER DO IT??

I barely even post my own niece on my social media (and if I do I ask my sister's permission first.) This woman let photos of her daughter be published in The Daily Mail for a fluff piece on her friend??? WHAT.

This woman is a piece of work...as is everyone in her orbit. Louis included.

[akajustmerry]

It's crazy how what Helena Eagan did with innie!mark is some elaborate form of sexual assault. Innies are basically like children with no real knowledge or understanding of intimacy or interpersonal relationships the way their outies have. so, even if they can consent to intimacy between one another as innies, the power imbalance between an outie and an innie is too pronounced for consent to be meaningful. Yes innies have adult brains that may understand sex as a learned skill in the same way that innies can drive, read, etc. But they can't possibly understand it as an outie does. Helena Eagan quite literally exploited innie!mark's lack of contextual knowledge about intimacy to have sex with him. She used her special special Eagan privileges to impersonate someone so she could have sex with a guy who works for her without him realising who she was or what that interaction really means. Ultimately, she's the one with all the power in that interaction which is why the "theories" that Helena is pregnant from having sex with Mark don't hold water to me because when it comes to sexually exploitative relationships between upper management and workers, it's the workers who bear the consequences almost every time. Just google how many kids Elon Musk has with women who used to work for him. Do you honestly think, knowing that severance has already resulted in non-consensual pregnancy, that someone like Helena Eagan would undergo severance without precautions like birth control? The last thing someone like her would want is pregnancy to an innie. That's a PR nightmare for Lumon that would hardly endear her to her father. The prevalence of the Helena is pregnant theory really shows how much people view markhelena as some sort of twisted romance rather than a horror of workplace exploitation. which is crazy because this is the Horror Of Workplace Exploitation Show

[mariacallous]

A groundbreaking work of history and reportage that unveils the stranger-than-fiction world of multilevel marketing: a massive money-making scam and radical political conspiracy that has remade American society. “Gripping and instructive . . . lucid and engaging . . . [Bridget Read] sketches a vivid portrait of a cultish culture.”—The Washington Post Companies like Amway, Mary Kay, and Herbalife advertise the world’s greatest opportunity: the chance to be your own boss via an enigmatic business model called multilevel marketing, or MLM. They offer a world of pink Cadillacs, white-columned mansions, tropical vacations, and—most precious of all—financial freedom. If, that is, you’re willing to shell out for expensive products and recruit everyone you know to buy them, and if they recruit everyone they know, too, thus creating the “multiple levels” of MLM. Overwhelming evidence suggests that most people lose money in multilevel marketing, and that many MLM companies are pyramid schemes. Yet the industry’s origins, tied to right-wing ideologues like Ronald Reagan, have escaped public scrutiny. MLM has slithered in the wake of every economic crisis of the last century, from the Depression to the pandemic, ensnaring laid-off workers, stay-at-home moms, and teachers—anyone who has been left behind by rising inequality. In Little Bosses Everywhere, journalist Bridget Read tells the gripping story of multilevel marketing in full for the first time, winding from sunny postwar California, where a failed salesman started a vitamin business, through the devoutly religious suburbs of Michigan, where the industry built its political influence, to stadium-size conventions where today’s top sellers preach to die-hard recruits. MLM has enriched powerful people, like the DeVos and Van Andel families, Warren Buffett, and President Donald Trump, all while eroding public institutions and the social safety net, then profiting from the chaos. Along the way, Read delves into the stories of those devastated by the majority-female industry: a veteran in Florida searching for healing; a young mom in Texas struggling to feed her children; a waitress scraping by in Brooklyn. A wild trip down an endless rabbit hole of greed and exploitation, Little Bosses Everywhere exposes multilevel marketing as American capitalism’s stealthiest PR campaign, a cunning grift that has shaped nearly everything about how we live, and whose ultimate target is democracy itself.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Don’t you kinda feel bad for Meghan? I just want her to admit she’s not perfect, that she may have treated staff badly, and then quietly go away for a while to get much needed therapy, and then idk she could go on selling stuff and influencing on insta or doing whatever she wants? I really really don’t like her but I’m worried everyone is doing too much in trying to take her down. If only she would give up the pretense that she’s this saintly woman maybe people would stop going so hard on her. Sometimes I wonder if there really is a smear campaign headed by the palace. I kinda feel bad seeing everyone from Vanity Fair to Camilla Tominey to Neil Sean to that Lady C woman to even deuxmoi coming after her. I really don’t like her and I just want her to stop being pretentious, but I don’t really want her life to be ruined, maybe tbh just because I know her stans wouldn’t shut up about their victimhood narrative. At the end of the day, she is a biracial woman who joined the royal family and that couldn’t have been easy, but geez why can’t this woman just take accountability? She treated staff badly because of her own insecurities. All of this would be solved if this woman would just get therapy. I don’t know. I just don’t know how this will end. It all seems bleak.

I do feel a little bad for her, but this is Meghan's own doing. She's so consumed by having fame, power, and wealth that her ambition is nakedly transparent for all to see. She's essentially an influencer version of the coworker who collects certificates but doesn't actually have the skills or know what they're doing (you know the kind - "Jane Smith, Ph.D., PMP, MSLIS, Security+, DBA, Esquire"). She talks a good game with PR, but when push comes to shove, she isn't doing what she says she is and you don't have to look hard to see that.

Criticism from the likes of Lady C, Vanity Fair, and keyboard warriors are not going to ruin Meghan's life. At the end of the day, she's not going to be hungry, destitute, and homeless because of criticism. She will housed because she's the mother of Harry's children and she has friends. She will have money because she's the wife (or ex-wife, should that ever become the case) of King Charles's son and she has proximity to the British Royal Family.

What Meghan may not have is respect and likability. But that isn't going to ruin her life. It's going to make achieving her goals of independent fame, wealth, and power extraordinarily difficult. It will make her hustle for the rest of her life chasing the exhaust from Kate's motorcade.

She definitely hasn't had it easy by any means. It's clear she really had some struggles and for that, she absolutely deserves sympathy. But when she exploits sympathy and empathy to get attention, make money, gain power? That's what people criticize, and rightly so, IMO.

This is going to end in irrelevance and obscurity -- for both of them. Harry isn't the Anne, Andrew, or Edward of his generation. He's actually Charles Spencer; on the outside looking in, invited only to the events about Diana. And Meghan isn't Wallis or Fergie; she's Daisy Buchanan.

[the-empress-7]

Delusional press:

Royal author and journalist Phil Dampier said: “Nothing happens by accident and she would have thought this through and knows putting a photo of her children out at the same time as her clothing line would get maximum publicity.

“It begs the question whether Meghan is exploiting her two children who remain in the line of succession. I’d expect the Palace to take a dim view of this.”

Palace won’t do a damn! They will turn a blind eye and maybe Chuck will put the link of her shop list in the Royal family website 🤡. Maybe in the children’s birthday wishes he will show a link with the children’s fashion.

Dickie Arbiter, former press secretary to the late Queen, said cashing in on her royal links would have broken the terms of the Megxit deal had she been promoting her new collection in the UK

Yea Dickie, this actually broke the Megxit agreement, but again, Chuckie won’t do a damn.

They have broken the agreement too many times to count, each time BP simply wrung its hands and put out PR about being blindsided and disappointed.

This merching is small potatoes when you compare it to their faux royal tours and falsely representing themselves as representatives of the Crown.

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

These First Nation images are infuriating. MeGain still hasn't learned how to hold a child, and they strategically organized this non-Invictus PR engagement to capture photographs with TW exploiting other people's children in a desperate effort to make her seem "maternal."

Fortunately it always FAILS, but it doesn't change the fact that both Sparry & his wife are tragedy vultures. Other people's pain is their gain.

[rottenpumpkin13]

The not so hidden truth about red leather is that Genesis, in a jealous snit, started his own fan club after he found out Sephiroth had his own “silver singles or whatever!” Ironically, his decision to create his own fan club out of spite spiraled to Angeal fans deciding to make a fan club dedicated to him, as it was unfair that Sephiroth and Genesis had one. Eventually, even Zack gets his own “puppy love, or dog walkers anonymous,” and Genesis keeps on feeding his group different gossip about the others to try to make him look better and make his group look the best. People begin joining his group just for workout pics of the others and fun facts.

I think it's believable that Shinra would find a way to profit from something like this. I mean, they're already exploiting everything else they can, why not turn their fan followings into a marketing opportunity? Imagine the PR department getting wind of Genesis' jealousy-fueled hobby and turning it into a full-blown campaign. Selling fan club memberships, merchandise, and exclusive "behind-the-scenes" content for all of them …….. wait a damn minute that's canon.

Angeal: I've been hearing a few rumors floating around... you know anything about that, Genesis?

Genesis: Oh, of course. I've been feeding the fan clubs some interesting facts. Like how Zack can't tell left from right without drawing L's on his hands.

Angeal: That's not true. ….anymore.

Genesis: Or how you spend your free time teaching dangerous sword techniques to children, acquiring a small army.

Angeal: That's definitely not true!

Genesis: Or that time I single-handedly saved a village from a wild beast by reciting Loveless so beautifully that it shocked the creature into submission?

Angeal: That's not true! That never happened! Genesis, you can't keep lying like this.

*Sephiroth walks up to them*

Sephiroth Why did I just hear a rumor from Kunsel that I use Masamune as a back-scratcher?

Angeal: See, Genesis? You can't spread rumors like that! You're only hurting your friends with these lies. How do you think it makes Sephiroth feel when he—

*Sephiroth uses Masamune to scratch his back*

Angeal:

Sephiroth: It's no longer a rumor. I'll be doing this every day from now on.

[tzifron]

Companies like Amway, Mary Kay, and Herbalife advertise the world’s greatest opportunity: the chance to be your own boss via an enigmatic business model called multilevel marketing, or MLM. They offer a world of pink Cadillacs, white-columned mansions, tropical vacations, and—most precious of all—financial freedom. If, that is, you’re willing to shell out for expensive products and recruit everyone you know to buy them, and if they recruit everyone they know, too, thus creating the “multiple levels” of MLM. Overwhelming evidence suggests that most people lose money in multilevel marketing, and that many MLM companies are pyramid schemes. Yet the industry’s origins, tied to right-wing ideologues like Ronald Reagan, have escaped public scrutiny. MLM has slithered in the wake of every economic crisis of the last century, from the Depression to the pandemic, ensnaring laid-off workers, stay-at-home moms, and teachers—anyone who has been left behind by rising inequality. In Little Bosses Everywhere, journalist Bridget Read tells the gripping story of multilevel marketing in full for the first time, winding from sunny postwar California, where a failed salesman started a vitamin business, through the devoutly religious suburbs of Michigan, where the industry built its political influence, to stadium-size conventions where today’s top sellers preach to die-hard recruits. MLM has enriched powerful people, like the DeVos and Van Andel families, Warren Buffett, and President Donald Trump, all while eroding public institutions and the social safety net, then profiting from the chaos. Along the way, Read delves into the stories of those devastated by the majority-female industry: a veteran in Florida searching for healing; a young mom in Texas struggling to feed her children; a waitress scraping by in Brooklyn. A wild trip down an endless rabbit hole of greed and exploitation, Little Bosses Everywhere exposes multilevel marketing as American capitalism’s stealthiest PR campaign, a cunning grift that has shaped nearly everything about how we live, and whose ultimate target is democracy itself.

[theflowergothic]

At the end of the day we (all of us, including myself) will NEVER know the truth about their relationship. So all of this things are just supposition, in my opinion

Yes, they started very bad but i do believe their love is genuine. A small fight doesn't mean anything.

Really, you believe it’s genuine?

Even though she staged pap shots? Even though she pushed PR articles? Even though she looped her children into brand campaigns that just so happen to coincide with Max’s public visibility?

You say “we’ll never know the truth,” but the truth is public record; it has always been public information. It’s just inconvenient for people who’ve decided to romanticize an obviously unhealthy relationship

Sure, a “small fight” at the end of the day doesn’t mean much. But you know what does? Years of press manipulation, boundary violations, and exploitative optics.

But sure. Love. If that’s what helps you sleep at night.

[nerds4life]

Blog rules still apply so someone got a block just now, but I’ve now had a few anons (still with the anons as grown ups..) about whether I was wrong about the beards and the PR fakelationships, so I’m going to address this ONCE and only once.

I believe 1D had beards. People having beards doesn’t mean they need to hate the beard, especially when you mature and realize that any relationship with another person is complex, and you did go through something unique together. So Danielle and Cheryl indicating they care about Liam doesn’t mean they didn’t exploit the partnerships to their own benefit, or that there was respect and even love there.

Also, when death happens, people change their tune. Just look at all the people in this fandom who shat on Liam (I have receipts) who now are claiming he was amazing and are even leading fundraisers and organizing memorials for him. It could be maturity, or it could be the collective grief and need to do something.

I believe that Ziam and Larry were real relationships. Could I be wrong, of course. I was not with those boys 24/7 through the years (nor was anyone in this fandom. We were just interpreting things we saw). And none of us know their sexual identities. I’ve said this for years that we were all guessing.

These boys were thrown into 1D as kids, and had to navigate becoming men and romance with those around them. They had a unique love for each other, and anyone blessed to have close friendships know that lines can be crossed and those can be the strongest relationships when romantic. But they can also be intense when feelings change. And I do think both relationships have ended. Larry long ago, and Ziam after that. That’s life, and life is complicated.

Again, these boys are normal people who had an extraordinary experience together; one where they were scrutinized and only each other could understand.

I’ve said before that anyone can have a kid, and I think that Freddie and Bear and Kai are real. In this day and age, you need a woman to carry a baby, after contributing the egg. This can happen naturally, via a one-night stand or a relationship, or in vitro. I wasn’t there so I don’t know but I always found hating on the innocent children very wrong, and hated when the Larries said inhumane things about poor Freddie, who did indeed look like Louis to me.

So could I be wrong on all counts, yes. I always said anyone in the fandom who claims to know what the truth is about the boys is an absolute liar.

There was an absolute fond between these boys, and the secret touches of their hands is NOT a platonic move. It’s one of comfort; a tender moment between two people who care about each other. It was just caught on camera, but it wasn’t meant for us to see it.

[saintmeghanmarkle]

Timing of Jane Pauley interview and Richard Eden comments by u/Winter-South-7448

Timing of Jane Pauley interview and Richard Eden comments Wow! The timing of Richard Eden's massive attack on the dumb prince just now, and almost at the same moment the announcement of the Harkles shock interview with Jane Pauley, the first big TV interview since their Oprah Lie-Fest.I'm really interested in these two things happening at almost exactly the same time; a really severe attack on the idiot prince by Richard Eden for Harry using Her Majesty QEII to get what he wants, and the announcement of Jane Pauley interview.I think its fair to say all we sinners are much more sophisticated and educated now about how the media works, and the timing of annoucements, and general attempts to manage, manipulate and spin stores.This latest piece by Richard Eden is the most out-there he has been in critisizing the idiot prince. He obviously feels he has licence to do so now, because while normally critical of the wicked duo, he is usually quite restrained and understated, gently suggesting possible opinions people might have about them.Sounds to me like someone in the RF has given Richard Eden the go-ahead to take off the gloves. The idiot prince trying to use Her Majesty QEII for his own ends, exploting her good name and legacy to get what he wants, when she is not in a position to defend herself, may just have been the final straw for The King. Claiming that HMQEII is supporting the idiot prince, looking down on him from heaven and approving his conduct which has been publicly and relentlessly critical of The King, and telling Harry to "see it through to the end" is tastless, vile and exploitative behaviour by the idiot prince.And Eden has taken his criticism to a new intensity, acknowledging the grief Harry caused the dying Monarch, by just coming right out and saying "Shame on Harry for now trying to use the memory of a grandmother he did so much to hurt in her final years.".The unexpected announcement that the Harkles are talking to Jane Pauley smells to me of the wicked duo trying to get ahead of negative news. Forget all the nonsense about their so-called anti-bullying campaign. They are doing the interview because they want to get a message out.Could it be that they have been told by the RF of changes to their status, of the loss of some of their prestige or titles, or some other final action by The King, and they are trying to get ahead of the story, by making the announcement themselves as though it has been their decision? As in, we have decided to relinquish our titles, or we have decided to break all contact with the royal family, or Harry and the two doll-children are relinquishing their place in the line of succession?Harry made those comments about HMQEII one week ago (last Thursday), and there may have been immediate consequences behnd the scenes for the wicked-duo, which saw them making a quick decision to arrange the Jane Pauley interview to try to spin any forthcoming negative annoucement about them by the PalaceJust seems to me that Richard Edens story is laying some useful PR groundwork, finally calling out in no uncertain terms Harry's shocking behaviour, and helping to justify action by the RF to punish or finally cut-off the Harkles.The idiot Prince has exploited, used and abused William's good name, that of Catherine, Camilla, and The King. Maybe going after The King's late mother HMQEII was too much for Charles, and he has finally had enough.Am I wrong? Is this just wishful thinking? post link: https://ift.tt/m2uIvcB author: Winter-South-7448 submitted: August 01, 2024 at 04:34PM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

[vannie429]

I can’t tell you how freeing it is to disengage with things you don’t like.

And I wish we didn’t live in a culture where you can monetize engaging with things you dislike.

I’ve been anti live action Disney movie since maleficent came out because I knew it was going to be the start of a never ending cycle if it succeeded. I didn’t want to be a figure that encourages them to make more.

And so many people I know kept reliving the same cycle, posting in Facebook about how excited they were when Disney announced they were remaking *insert movie here* then posting their dream cast, followed by some arguments over how it ended up being cast. Then to finally see the movie and (surprise!) be disappointed.

Then they repeated it all over again, like gambling, hoping the next try would scratch that itch. Meanwhile their children are not only getting sorry excuses of movies to latch onto as “their generations ‘lion king’” or whatever…but they also lose so much media literacy in learning that these versions their seeing are the “real” ones, not learning to value artistic mediums and instead looking to their parents to learn that “real” is “better.”

But no, cuz fuckin Nostalgia Critic and that annoying red head and every subsequent YouTuber and tiktoker needs to make their bag which is videotaping themselves saying that the obviously bad movie turned out to be bad.

Idk if that last paragraph is just me telling on myself, showing my algorithm, but I need to complain about it. It annoys me when people say they’re film buffs and cry and whine, begging Hollywood to make better movies….and yet they directly support the system with their hate watching.

Same with the Oscar’s. I can’t tell you the last time I watched it, but once I was in college and understood movies a bit more, and saw just how little people cared about Animation as a medium. (Maybe it was Frozen that made me quit the Oscars and eventually all awards shows). It’s so obviously not about merit….its just an asshole licking competition so people can get a few laurels that will earn them more money and faux prestige. The academy is a business first and foremost and is more about projecting an idealization of Hollywood to the masses than it is about truly commending artistic achievement.

It should have been obvious with Greatest Showman and its vapid, nothing message about being true to yourself and your passion for exploiting disabled people. But it wasn’t and we ate it up.

But if this year’s butt-licking over Emelia Perez doesn’t just shine a spotlight for everyone over how BS the Oscar’s are….then there’s no hope that people will ever get out of the cave.

Sorry for this obnoxious rant but I just used to be so passionate about movies and media and I just hate the industry more and more each year….and at the end of the day movies and tv shows are PIVOTAL players in how we learn to understand media (esp since most people just done read anymore). And if you can’t learn to break down messages and themes of a movie… what technical tricks they may use to make it /seem/ like a “good” movie…..what hope do you have of sniffing out the bull shit in real public media. In the PR stunts of Trump and anyone else who is so efficient at weaponizing media to their advantage.

[alicentflorent]

how would you change the writing for Alicent in season 2 if you had the chance?

I’d have to go back to season 1 episode 8 (post driftmark) to have her characterisation and development make sense because 1x08 - 2x02 Alicent is pretty inconsistent and all over the place as if you’ve had different writers writing their own version of her and poorly putting it all together.

After driftmark, although she apologised for almost harming lucerys, a child. Her resentment for Rhaenyra and Viserys grows. Finally Rhaenyra confirmed what Alicent feared, that her children would be in danger and Viserys has proven for the final time that he won’t protect their children, he’ll never treat his second family as equals to his first. Even she lives in Emma’s shadow as Aegon lives in Balon’s.

Alicent has to take matters into her own hands to protect her children and this realisation leads to the formation of the green council. Instead of becoming even more ingrained in her faith she struggles with it, she knows she’s breaking her vows and going against duty and honour when she starts plotting to usurp Rhaenyra.

She also struggles to deal with how Aegon turns out (which did happen in canon. He terrifies her but he’s a monster of her own creation and she needs him ready to take the throne for the sake of all her children and grandchildren.

When she tells Rhaenyra “you’ll make a fine queen” bitch is lying, she wants Rhaenyra to feel security after she watched Rhaenyra order the death of vaemond velaryon for the sake of her own children. Alicent needs to play the game if she wants to take Rhaenyras throne out from under her. Rhaenyra won’t let it go so easily.

When viserys calls her “Rhaenyra, my only child” this is when Alicent snaps. She’s continued to be a dutiful wife and cared for him as he got sicker, she even tolerated being called aemma over the years but now he thinks Rhaenyra is caring for him? Rhaenyra who didn’t visit in 6 years? And not only that, he thinks of her as his only child. “I gave you four healthy children who you ignored, I cared for you, I was loyal to you and you now you can’t even remember our names?!” - Alicent leaves the room upset, comforted by criston. There is no misunderstanding of prophecies. When she is later woken by the news of viserys death, this is when the green council is revealed. When Alicent sits at the head of the table and announces viserys it’s revealed that she’s been actively plotting for years. She announces Aegon is the new king.

Episode 9 probably goes about the same but we see more tension building with Cole as a widowed Alicent still struggles with her faith and who she really is outside of being a wife and a mother. When Larys tries to blackmail her she pulls rank because she’s still the dowager queen and can have his before he speaks a word against her. Alicents final scene of the season is still the same.

Season 2 so far: b&c happens similarly to how it does in the books, Alicent is still in the scene itself (but it’s focused on helaena). We see the moment when Alicent gives into her desires and decides to do something for herself. We get clarity on how how their relationship started after seeing them slowly get closer over the years rather than it just being “so these two religious sexually repressed hypocrites are fucking now”. Alicent and Criston also start scheming to get rid of Otto when she realised she’s just a pawn after being undermined in front of the council

Episode 2: we see her grieve as her crisis of faith returns. It’s jahaerys that she lights a candle for not Lucerys. She still struggles to comfort her own kids and the episode is very much focused on how everyone grieves differently and how the poison of politics and self image is destroying them from the inside. They don’t know how to come together to mourn like the blacks did. They each grieve alone and the only time we see them interact is when Otto is exploiting their trauma for PR and this is also causes conflict within the family. The episode is written in a way that has you empathising with each of them to an extent - it has a similar vibe to the aftermath of Logan Roy’s death. The siblings grieving in different ways both coming together and then pushing each other away as their team are already coming up with PR strategies and focusing on the company and their profits and which grieving child is the best asset etc they really could have as their own version of the Roy’s with the throne as the waystar/royco equivalent. Also they really should have cut down on the Rhaenyra scenes in that episode. The first two episodes as a whole need fixing because every character got screwed.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

This day in history

#20yrsago WIPO notes from day three: democracy == ignoring dissent https://web.archive.org/web/20041124024604/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/002130.php#002130

#15yrsago Britain’s new Internet law — as bad as everyone’s been saying, and worse. Much, much worse. https://memex.craphound.com/2009/11/19/britains-new-internet-law-as-bad-as-everyones-been-saying-and-worse-much-much-worse/

#5yrsago DJ Earworm: 100 songs from the past decade in one mashup https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=UhIte8t6BEg

#5yrsago Leaks reveal how the “Pitbull of PR” helped Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers ignite the opioid crisis https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-purdue-pharma-media-playbook-how-it-planted-the-opioid-anti-story#171238

#5yrsago Beyond the gig economy: “platform co-ops” that run their own apps https://www.vice.com/en/article/worker-owned-apps-are-trying-to-fix-the-gig-economys-exploitation/

#5yrsago Elizabeth Warren’s plan to denazify America https://medium.com/@teamwarren/fighting-back-against-white-nationalist-violence-87b0c550f51f

#5yrsago Youtube told them to use this “royalty-free” music; now rightsholders are forcing ads on their videos and claiming most of the revenue https://torrentfreak.com/royalty-free-music-supplied-by-youtube-results-in-mass-video-demonetization-191118/

#5yrsago The State of South Dakota wants you to know that it’s on meth https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/11/18/meth-were-it-says-south-dakota-new-ad-campaign/

#5yrsago Sand thieves believed to be behind epidemic of Chinese GPS jamming https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/11/15/131940/ghost-ships-crop-circles-and-soft-gold-a-gps-mystery-in-shanghai/

#5yrsago Quiet Rooms: Illinois schools lead the nation in imprisoning very young, disabled children in isolation chambers https://features.propublica.org/illinois-seclusion-rooms/school-students-put-in-isolated-timeouts/#170648

#5yrsago Terabytes of data leaked from an oligarch-friendly offshore bank https://web.archive.org/web/20191117042726/https://data.ddosecrets.com/file/Sherwood/

#5yrsago Naomi Kritzer’s “Catfishing on the CatNet”: an AI caper about the true nature of online friendship https://memex.craphound.com/2019/11/19/naomi-kritzers-catfishing-on-the-catnet-an-ai-caper-about-the-true-nature-of-online-friendship/

#5yrsago Girl on Film: a graphic novel memoir of a life in the arts and the biological basis for memory-formation https://memex.craphound.com/2019/11/19/girl-on-film-a-graphic-novel-memoir-of-a-life-in-the-arts-and-the-biological-basis-for-memory-formation/

[mariacallous]

Discord is facing a new lawsuit from the state of New Jersey, which claims that the chat app is engaged in “deceptive and unconscionable business practices” that put its younger users in danger.

The lawsuit, filed on Thursday, comes after a multiyear investigation by the New Jersey Office of Attorney General. The AG’s office claims it has uncovered evidence that, despite Discord’s policies to protect children and teens, the popular messaging app is putting youth “at risk.”

“We’re the first state in the country to sue Discord,” Attorney General Matthew Platkin tells WIRED.

Platkin says there were two catalysts for the investigation. One is personal: A few years ago, a family friend came to Platkin, astonished that his 10-year-old son was able to sign up for Discord, despite the platform forbidding children under 13 from registering.

The second was the mass-shooting in Buffalo, in neighboring New York. The perpetrator used Discord as his personal diary in the lead-up to the attack and livestreamed the carnage directly to the chat and video app. (The footage was quickly removed.)

“These companies have consistently, knowingly, put profit ahead of the interest and well-being of our children,” Platkin says.

The AG’s office claims in the lawsuit that Discord violated the state’s Consumer Fraud Act. The allegations, which were filed on Thursday morning, turn on a set of policies adopted by Discord to keep children younger than 13 off the platform and to keep teenagers safe from sexual exploitation and violent content. The lawsuit is just the latest in a growing list of litigation from states against major social media firms—litigation that has, thus far, proven fairly ineffective.

Discord’s child and teen safety policies are clear: Children under 13 are forbidden from the messaging app, while it more broadly forbids any sexual interaction with minors, including youth “self-endangerment.” It further has algorithmic filters operating to stop unwanted sexual direct messages. The California-based company’s safety policy, published in 2023, states, “We built Discord to be different and work relentlessly to make it a fun and safe space for teens.”

But New Jersey says “Discord’s promises fell, and continue to fall, flat.”

The attorney general points out that Discord has three levels of safety to prevent youth from unwanted and exploitative messages from adults: “Keep me safe,” where the platform scans all messages into a user’s inbox; “my friends are nice,” where it does not scan messages from friends; and “do not scan,” where it scans no messages.

Even for teenage users, the lawsuit alleges, the platform defaults to “my friends are nice.” The attorney general claims this is an intentional design that represents a threat to younger users. The lawsuit also alleges that Discord is failing by not conducting age verification to prevent children under 13 from signing up for the service.

In 2023, Discord added new filters to detect and block unwanted sexual content, but the AG’s office says the company should have enabled the “keep my safe” option by default.

“Consider me unimpressed by their PR campaign,” Platkin says. He contends that the new features are insufficient and easy to get around, and they are less than what the company has made available to users in other countries. “If you put lipstick on a pig,” he says, “it’s still a pig.”

Discord responded to WIRED's requests for comment after this story was published, writing that the company is “proud” of their efforts to protect children on their platform, and insists that they dispute the claims made in the lawsuit. “Given our engagement with the Attorney General's office, we are surprised by the announcement that New Jersey has filed an action against Discord today,” the statement reads.

“Together, these open design features and default settings make it so that anyone can gain direct, private access to a child user with just a few clicks,” the filings allege. Later, the AG goes further, writing that “Discord promised parents safety but made deliberate choices to design its Application and establish default settings that rendered those promises utterly meaningless.”

The lawsuit lists a half-dozen criminal cases where adults allegedly used Discord to lure and exploited children, including the case of 764, a digital far-right pedophile ring.

The lawsuit proposes several different remedies, including a court injunction requiring that Discord improve its safety features and possible financial penalties if it’s found to be failing to keep its users safe.

While this appears to be the first state-level lawsuit against Discord, a number of private law firms have taken aim at the company on similar grounds. In 2022, the family of a then-11-year-old girl filed a class action lawsuit against Discord, alleging that the platform failed to implement enough safeguards to prevent her exploitation by other users. A similar case was filed in California earlier this year. Both cases are ongoing.

But these lawsuits are growing more and more common: Meta, in particular, is facing two massive lawsuits, led by dozens of states, claiming it harmed its teenage users. A similar lawsuit was filed by a coalition of school boards in the Canadian province of Ontario. The European Union, meanwhile, has crafted a suite of regulations meant to tackle these externalities—but, thus far, it is having trouble getting the American tech giants to comply.

Platkin has filed a number of other lawsuits—most recently against TikTok—in an attempt to force social media giants to improve their child protection measures.

“They can’t knowingly put out a product that’s unsafe for kids,” Platkin says. “I don’t care if you’re a social media company, or an opioid manufacturer or any other company that’s telling the public your product is safe when it’s not. We’re going to hold the company accountable.”

Platkin says he’s hopeful that the Trump administration, which has indicated some willingness to go after major social media companies, is interested in keeping children safe—not just targeting supposed conservative censorship. “Hope springs eternal for me,” Platkin says.

[capn-rikshu]

<Thoughts on previous reblog

No disrespect to OP but the tonal shift/inconsistency might've shaken them to lead to that critique. I see some of what they were getting at but I never had a feeling that the show was saying that 'now that Robbie and Mo have powers, they must be responsible for every adult around them'. That's a bit extreme to me. And ESPECIALLY their thoughts on the violence of the show.

(It's a long read)

Jawbreaker has been remarked on before on not really understanding social cues at times which leads to him roughhousing with Grimlock and causing him to have an outburst. It's neither of their fault in that situation, if anyone I would blame Elita for not pulling Jawbreaker aside and explaining him Grimlock's situation. She did practically benched Jawbreaker aside for he 'could cause more trouble' before running off to stop Grimlock with Hashtag. When JB said 'it's all my fault', she said 'we'll discuss this later'. I don't blame her, it was a time tight situation, but JB may take those words too much to heart; he really does blame himself for Grimlock's rampage. Maybe there could've been a scene where Elita ACTUALLY discussed what happened with Jawbreaker, maybe apologize and tell him that it wasn't his fault but the episode ends abruptly. Maybe there WAS a scene like that somewhere in the drafts but we all know that TFE has a lot of cut content. I would criticize that aspect.

BUT nowhere else did I ever feel that the kids have a responsibility for the adults around them or how they effect them. Earthspark is sort of a 'chosen one' narrative, Quintus Prime CHOSE Mo and Robby to be the legacy of hope of the Terrans. He gave them powers to fight alongside their Terran siblings.

It's more of a kid's power fantasy than anything saying 'kids should have responsibility for the adults around them', which leads me into critiquing OP's critique of the darkness and mature themes of the show.

Again, no disrespect but I don't think OP understands how kids that age (8-15 as OP has stated to be the likely demographic) actually act like and what their likes and dislikes gravitate to. They don't understand that kids those age are going to be curious and contemplating morbid and mature topics. As they get older they'd want to been seen less as kids and more like mature adults (even though they aren't). So they will naturally be more interested in more darker/mature topics; specifically violence, mental health issues, tame gore, but nothing extremely disturbing or traumatising. The problem is that with the internet they may actually come across actually exploitive, psyche damaging stuff. With TV networks there are at least guidelines and mandates that are harder to slip through than, say, something like Youtube. (All those creepy elsagate stuff). They need a safe environment to explore those thoughts.

I was a Warrior Cats kid and anyone in that fandom knew that those books could be violent AF, same can be said about Wings of Fire (unlike Warriors I don't think it ever had a scene where a cat/dragon had their stomach cut open, WoF did have a dragon have her face burnt off with acid). Majority of those fandoms are comprised of kids less than 16 years of age, Warriors had so many fanart by CHILDREN illustrating the cats sometimes brutal deaths.

My point being, if you think most kids in between those ages are going to be traumatised by what they see on a RESTRICTIVE cable network, where they can censor many things (a lot harmless things e.g same sex couples) there is a good chance you may not fully understand children. [I'm not saying that it is impossible that they won't get traumatised by something but I'm saying that it would be extremely unlikely especially nowadays]

Unlike books, where you can only imagine how bad things are, a more visual medium like cartoons have less to the imagination. Let's take a look at the violence in Earthspark shall we?

On level of violence I'd say... it is on level of TF Prime AT TIMES. TFP was pretty consistent with its violence, it shown its characters BLEEDING, from the mouth, from wounds on the Cybertronian character. Meanwhile, I'd say the most bleeding we got from Earthspark characters was from Megatron's arm, from some covered shoulder panel. You could count Brawl dripping blood on the floor but it happens offscreen, I recall. I don't think Earthspark ever shows a Transformer bleed from any wound, or even really show any battle damage except from Bumblebee's arms and Twitch and Thrash in the finale.

The finale is the only thing I'd say could be seen as 'EXTREMELY violent', the stakes were fucking off the charts in those episodes. I see the tone clash critique from a lot people coming from there, some people also say it was rushed. By extremely violent I mean: human death (rip edgy elsa gets evaporated), Twitch getting her head repeatedly bashed against the floor by Mandroid, Nightshade getting stabbed (it is covered by a convenient camera angle and it is revealed to be an illusion), those are the extremes I remember from that episode. But those are MOSTLY ONLY EXCLUSIVE TO THE TRANSFORMERS CHARACTERS. Most violence happens to them. Human characters are harmed but it is not as horrific as how OP describes it '-children cry, they scream, they get bruised, their parents wail when they see them in danger', that makes this show sound so much more mature than it actually is, it's manipulative. There have never been any cuts or bruises ever shown on any of the human models, there are also no scenes in which I recall being extremely distressing.

I really think that the high stakes, barely seen before violence, shift in tone caused OP to go on that tirade. The clash of the finale compared to the season before gave them and many people a whiplash of what they used to perceive the show to be. People were not used to this kind of high stakes and violence in the show before the finale. I'll critique it for that - inconsistency.

One more nit-pick, this line: "1. Steven Universe really ruined a generation of children’s media by making showrunners think they had to tackle issues like PTSD and trauma."

It's completely false. I don't think OP has the knowledge of the trends in cartoons today and from before. So little network cartoons are like Steven Universe, flip on Cartoon Network, look what's playing on the telly: 'The Amazing World of Gumball', 'Total DramaRama', 'We Baby Bears'. Even on Nickelodeon: 'The Loud House', 'Spongebob', 'Monster High'. (Nickelodeon don't air cartoons often except Spongebob or The Loud House, really����). Remember Powerpuff Girls actually having blood in its intro? Remember how the reboot sanitised everything? How they removed even the breasts on some of the female characters designs (God forbid cartoony exaggeration of female anatomy/s).

It is entirely unfair to blame Steven Universe for a supposed trend of cartoons tackling mature and dark subjects. People must remember the trend of the action cartoon back in 2000s to early 2010s: 'Teen Titans', 'Max Steel', 'Scooby Doo Mystery Inc.(not necessarily action but it was mature at times)', 'Slugterra', even 'Transformers: Prime'. Those cartoons could sometimes get "dark". But people love to use Steven Universe as the 'blame for all' because its comedic, dark tone, and tackled mature themes. Neither Earthspark nor Steven Universe, as I recall, go in depth about trauma and mental health issues. Earthspark is pretty surface level in that regard, there is no backbone. I hope for proper exploration of themes in season 2.

I think I'll end it here for now.

[No hate, if OP reads this, once more, no disrespect. I just disagree with your take.]