#Media Processing Solutions Market

[globalinsightsservices]

Media Processing Solutions Market Overview by Rising Demands and Scope 2021 to 2031 – Kaltura, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Pixel Power Ltd.

The Global Media Processing Solutions Market Report by Global Insight Services is the single and trusted source of information for the Media Processing Solutions Market. This report provides an analysis of the market impact of the latest market disruptions such as the Russian-Ukraine War and Covid-19. The report provides a qualitative analysis of the market using various frameworks such as Porters' and PESTLE analysis. The report includes in-depth segmentation and market size data by category, product type, application, and region. The report also includes a comprehensive analysis of recent events such as key issues, trends and drivers, restraints and challenges, competitive landscape, and M&A activity in the market.

Get Free Sample Copy of This Report –https://www.globalinsightservices.com/request-sample/GIS23788/

Media processing solutions are designed to help businesses manage and process their audio and video files more efficiently. These solutions often include features such as transcoding, media asset management, and automated workflows. By automating repetitive tasks and providing a central repository for media files, media processing solutions can help businesses save time and money.

Key Players

The global media processing solutions market includes players such as Kaltura, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Pixel Power Ltd, Vantrix Corporation, Synaptics Incorporated, Blazeclan Technologies, Akamai Technologies, Synamedia, Amagi, Apriorit, and others.

Key Trends

Some of the key trends in Media Processing Solutions technology are:

1. Increased use of AI and machine learning: Media processing solutions are increasingly using AI and machine learning technologies to automate various tasks such as video transcoding, content moderation, and targetted advertising.

2. More focus on user experience: There is a growing focus on providing an excellent user experience, with media processing solutions that are easy to use and offer a great user interface.

3. More cloud-based solutions: There is a trend towards more media processing solutions being offered as cloud-based solutions, as this can offer greater flexibility and scalability.

Key Drivers

The key drivers of the Media Processing Solutions market are the increasing need for enhanced video quality, increasing demand for real-time video processing, and the need for better compression techniques.

The other drivers include the need for low power consumption and high-performance media processing solutions.

Free Customization Available –https://www.globalinsightservices.com/request-customization/GIS23788/

Market Segments

The media processing solutions market is segmented by type, solution, end-user, and region. By type, the market is classified into real-time, and on-demand. Based on the solution, it is bifurcated into platform, and services. On the basis of the end-user, it is divided into TV broadcasters, content providers, and others. Region-wise, the market is segmented into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and the Rest of the World.

Purchase This Market Research Report –https://www.globalinsightservices.com/checkout/single_user/GIS23788/

Global Insight Services can help you:

A 10-year forecast to help you make strategic decisions

Deep segmentation that can be customized according to your requirements

Free consultation with the chief analyst of the report

Excel data pack included with every report purchase

Robust and transparent research methodology

About the Global Insights service:

Global Insight Services (GIS) is a leading multi-industry market research firm headquartered in Delaware, USA. We are committed to providing the highest quality data, analytics and tools to meet all of our clients' market research needs. With GIS, you can be assured of the quality of your results, robust and transparent research methodology, and excellent service.

Contact us:

Global Insight Services LLC

16192, Coastal Highway, Lewes DE 19958

Email:  info@globalinsightservices.com

Website:  https://www.globalinsightservices.com/

Phone:  +1–833–761–1700

[impossibledeanmakerwombat]

Media Processing Solutions Market to Latest Research, Industry Analysis, Driver, Trends, Business Overview, Key Value, Demand And Forecast 2022 to 2032

According to FMI Analysts, the media processing solution market was valued at US$ 15.8 Bn in 2022 and is predicted to reach US$ 52.1 Bn by 2032, growing at a 12.7% CAGR. The demand for media processing solutions is predicted to grow during the forecast period due to technical improvements and funds for research & development increase.

The sales of media processing solutions are rising as the media processing solutions market’s players and vendors use their solutions to publish video and relevant media material so that it can be accessed by consumers on multiple platforms and from numerous sources.

In the global media processing solutions market, the demand for media processing solutions is growing as they are utilized to ensure that consumers can watch videos without latency, even if their viewing devices change. One of the most important factors driving the global media processing solutions market is an increase in investment targeted at expanding infrastructure to supply high-quality movies.

Request a Sample of this Report @  https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/sample/rep-gb-14612

Other important drivers for the sales of media processing solutions are the expanding demand for multi-device accessibility, increased internet connectivity in emerging economies, rising preference for live streaming content, and rising digital advertising spending through videos.

Furthermore, the demand for media processing solutions is rising due to increased access to improved internet services in many nations.

The global media processing solutions market is expected to grow in the approaching years due to increased technological developments and the modernization of digital solutions. On the other hand, one of the major challenges to the global media processing solutions market’s growth is the growing complexity of processing media content from multiple sources.

However, the rising adoption of cloud platforms that reduce resource waste and provide effective solutions to end users is likely to boost demand for media processing solutions. Attaching watermarks, terminal device adaption, and video identification capabilities are all features of solutions in the media processing solutions market.

Over the years, numerous prospects for growing revenue from media (video) processing solutions have emerged, such as the expansion of live video streaming with an increasing number of users.

One of the key factors driving viewers to multi-screen or cross-screen services is the increasing acceptance of online multimedia content. Live video services with high-speed network connectivity and various connected devices, such as tablets and smartphones, are attracting consumers’ attention.

Ask An Analyst @  https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/ask-the-analyst/rep-gb-14612

KEY TAKEAWAYS: 

During the forecast period, the dynamic ad insertion(real-time) segment is projected to dominate the media processing solutions market with a CAGR of 12.9%. 

On the basis of solutions, the platform segment is anticipated to lead the media processing solutions market with a CAGR of 12.9%. 

The United States is forecasted to dominate the media processing solutions market with market size of US$ 12.1 Bn. 

Due to rising demand for ultra 4K video on-demand streaming and increased video surveillance in countries such as India, Australia, China, and Japan, Asia-Pacific is expected to develop at the fastest rate in the global media processing solutions market. Only India and China, with over 1.2 billion internet users, are likely to provide a huge potential for video processing solution vendors in the region. India, in particular, has tremendous growth potential in the next years, with only 27% of its people using the internet.

COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE: 

With the presence of many global and regional companies, the market for video processing solutions is expected to remain fragmented. Some of the major players in the current market include Akamai Technologies, Amagi Media Labs Pvt. Ltd, Apriorit Inc., ATEME SA, BASE Media Cloud Ltd.  

According to the market analysis, all of these companies will be involved in competitive strategy developments such as alliances, new product inventions, and market growth in the next years in order to attain leadership positions in the worldwide video processing solutions market. 

Recent Developments 

The US Army has awarded SRI International a contract to supply a sensor-integrated bespoke camera module for enhanced night vision video delivery in April 2019. SRI’s expertise in image and video processing solutions for defence applications is expected to be highlighted through this contract.

Morpho, Inc. announced a partnership with Nekojarashi Inc., a major cloud service provider for creative purposes, to develop a sophisticated video processing tool on the cloud platform in January 2019. Morpho’s cloud-based video processing capabilities will be enhanced as a result of this agreement.

Request Methodology @ https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/request-report-methodology/rep-gb-14612

Key Segments

Solution:

Platform

Services

Component:

Video Upload and Ingestion

Dynamic Ad Insertion

Video Transcoding and Processing

Video Hosting

Content Rendering

Content Type:

Real-Time/Live

On-Demand

Enterprise Size:

Small and Medium Enterprise

Large Enterprise

[ai-innova7ions]

Revolutionize Your Workflow: Meet Krater AI Today!

Krater AI is revolutionizing task management by offering a suite of benefits that significantly boost efficiency and productivity. Imagine automating those repetitive, time-consuming tasks that often bog us down—Krater AI takes care of them for us! This allows us to redirect our focus to more complex responsibilities, enhancing overall work performance and satisfaction.

But the advantages don’t stop there. Krater AI brings technical innovation to the forefront with advanced tools for creating engaging content, whether it’s presentations or social media management. Its user-friendly interface ensures everyone can leverage its powerful features, making it an invaluable asset in today’s fast-paced world.

#KraterAI #ProductivityTools

[neturbizenterprises]

Video Automatically Generated by Faceless.Video

Agentic AI signifies a groundbreaking evolution in artificial intelligence, transitioning from reactive systems to proactive agents.

These advanced AI entities possess the ability to comprehend their surroundings, establish goals, and operate independently to fulfill those aims. In this video, we delve into how agentic AI is revolutionizing decision-making processes and taking actions autonomously without human oversight.

A prime example includes environmental monitoring systems that identify and respond to threats such as forest fires. Discover the implications of this technology on our future!

#AgenticAI

#ArtificialIntelligence

[invictusoutsoucrcing]

Discover Comprehensive Outsourcing Solutions with Invictus

In the competitive business landscape, partnering with a reliable outsourcing provider can make all the difference. Invictus Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. offers a comprehensive suite of services designed to streamline your operations and drive success. Here’s how our diverse offerings can benefit your business.

Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) Services

Maximize efficiency and reduce costs with our Business Process Outsourcing Services. From customer service to data management, we handle your business processes with precision and expertise.

Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO)

Leverage our specialized knowledge and analytical skills with our Knowledge Process Outsourcing services. We provide insights and solutions that support your strategic decision-making processes.

Software Development

Transform your ideas into reality with our Software Development services. Our team of skilled developers delivers innovative software solutions tailored to your business needs.

Healthcare Solutions

Improve patient care and operational efficiency with our Healthcare Solutions. We offer a range of services designed to meet the unique challenges of the healthcare industry.

Customer Interaction Service

Enhance your customer relationships with our Customer Interaction Service. Our experts ensure every interaction is positive, helping to build lasting customer loyalty.

Digital Marketing

Boost your online presence and reach your target audience with our Digital Marketing services. From SEO to social media marketing, we craft strategies that drive results.

Website & Mobile App Development

Stay ahead in the digital world with our Website & Mobile App Development services. We create responsive, user-friendly websites and apps that enhance your brand’s visibility and engagement.

Why Invictus?

At Invictus, we are committed to transparency, integrity, and excellence. Our team works collaboratively with clients to provide tailor-made solutions that meet their unique needs. By leveraging cutting-edge technology and industry best practices, we ensure a seamless outsourcing experience that propels your business forward.

Join Hands with Us

Partnering with Invictus Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. means more than just outsourcing tasks; it means driving growth and achieving success together. Explore our services and discover how we can support your business goals.

For more information, visit Invictus Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

[cinnamonest]

With this whole 'rape fantasies are a result of misogyny as they allow women a guilt free sexuality cos they have no autonomy'

Surely that means your writing and fantasies are contributing to misogyny? Adding to it and normalising it?

Like isnt the answer to write and encourage fantasies of empowerment? Not abuse and rape?

Just seems crazy to me like 'we do this because of misogyny. And we'll keep doing it'

Obviously some behaviour come from misogyny and exist to combat it. This... really doesn't

I just don't think it's a feminist win when your writing is indistinguishable from that of a misogynistic man's.

This isnt an attack on you it just really seems like common sense that if something exists because of misogyny the last thing we should do is feed into those ideas

(I assume this is coming from this post, so I might reference that a bit here)

No worries, I fully understand how this can come across negative to those who do not have the same experiences and I appreciate you approaching the matter in a non-attacking way with genuine desire to have dialogue on the subject. I'll do my best to address these points individually.

>Surely that means your writing and fantasies are contributing to misogyny? Adding to it and normalising it?

In the past few years fandom culture has become a bit obsessed with the idea of "normalization" to the point that the definition of the term has been a bit skewed, which creates issues with these discussions.

There is no concept of which existence of content containing it alone constitutes normalization, by the actual definition of the word. Normalization is the process by which it is distributed and way in which it is presented, and intent of its creation.

Normalization via fiction is a process in which a creator, generally intentionally, creates content that presents a concept as, well, normal. That is, not reprehensible or problematic to replicate, and presents this to a population with the intent of them accepting the idea as something acceptable in reality. Generally it also necessitates that the creator will try to ensure the media is viewed by mainstream general audiences who would not normally seek the content out, since the purpose of normalization is to make an idea acceptable amongst a population.

That is the opposite of what I am doing, which is creating a private space filled with warnings. I am going out of my way to ensure that people who do not want to see this content, have the foreknowledge to opt to avoid it.

By definition, if you’re creating content and ensuring that it is heavily warned, and marketing it as such that only a niche group who likes such content seeks it out, that’s not normalization by any reasonable metric.

>Like isnt the answer to write and encourage fantasies of empowerment? Not abuse and rape?

For some people, I’m sure that would help them, and in that case, that is a great solution for them.

But people are different, and certain things that help some, don’t help others. The types of fantasies that would probably be called “empowering,” personally do nothing for me but make me uncomfortable, in the same way that the sort of content I write makes some people uncomfortable. It does not have the same positive effects on my mental health that this form of content does.

>Obviously some behaviour come from misogyny and exist to combat it. This... really doesn't

That's fair — but it doesn't have to.

It is not intended to directly combat misogyny in any way, there are other ways to do that, and this does not have to be one. It's primary purpose is catharsis and the ways in which it benefits me and, as is my hope, those who choose to consume it.

>I just don't think it's a feminist win when your writing is indistinguishable from that of a misogynistic man's.

Again, I never had any intention for it to be a "win" — misogyny is the reason for why I have these desires, but in making what I make, my purpose is to provide catharsis for myself and others.

But also, I would heavily contest that it is indistinguishable from male fantasies. As someone who has seen actual men's misogynist fetishization fantasies, they are very different.

Female disposability and the complete worthlessness of women’s very being — that is, women being non-human objects that are interchangeable, and made to be used temporarily and replaced — is the core defining characteristic of male fantasy/sexuality. Male fantasies almost always involve multiple women to one man, largely because he does not have any actual bond with women, they are items to be collected, no interpersonal relationship actually exists.

The lack of interpersonal connection and lack of personableness itself is fetishized by men, what men get off to is the power they feel from completely disregarding the woman as a person in any way. The very act of the woman being thrown away after being used is fetishized.

In male fantasy, there is no interpersonal connection or affection of any kind, whereas that is one of the defining themes of content like mine.

Tl;dr — while misogyny impacts all women, the severity and form of it in different upbringings, environments and cultures can create misunderstandings and strong reactions when different people react so differently to the same content and thus form misconceptions about each other's perceptions and intentions, but I believe both sides of this argument are usually coming from a place of good intent.

While I fully understand how it would be difficult for those who do not have the same experience to grasp mine, I just ask for mutual understanding that some forms of content help some people, in the same way entirely different forms of content help other people.

[sindri42]

What is capitalism if private ownership and monopolization are out

This is about the insulin thing, right? Let me walk you through the steps.

The current situation is, there are three big corporations making insulin. They make it for super cheap, like $2 a dose or something including packaging and distribution and all that jazz, but they know that people need this stuff in order to not die, so there's no reason to restrain themselves as far as pricing goes. So they sell the stuff for like $500 a vial, earning a tidy 25,000% profit, because what are customers gonna do, not buy it?

In a capitalist system, this is a huge opportunity for anybody with a few thousand in seed money and a smidge of ambition. The process of making insulin is hardly a secret. I might not have the economy of scale going and I need a big up-front investment for equipment, but even if it costs me five times as much per dose to produce the stuff, that's still less than 2% of the current market price. So I start making and distributing the stuff for $10 a vial, and selling it for $400, and all the customers see that they can get the same product for $100 less so they stop buying from those three big companies and start buying from my startup. Then a month later, somebody else comes along with the same idea but undercuts me, and I lose all my customers to sombody willing to sell the stuff for $350, but that's fine I just change all my labels to sell for $300 and they come rushing back, and I'm still making $290 pure profit on every vial. Fast forward a couple years, and the market price of insulin is like, $12 a vial tops, because if you try to get profit margins any bigger than that you're the most expensive option and nobody buys from you. There was never any altruism involved in that process, no magic, no glorious savior who figured out a way to impose their will upon the world in order to save lives, just ordinary greedy humans fighting each other to make more money for themselves, but the end result is that the people who need this stuff to survive get it for a tiny fraction of what they used to be paying.

In the system that we're actually using, the three big corporations go to the government with three big suitcases full of cash, and the government passes a law that says anybody who tries to make insulin who isn't one of the three big corporations goes directly to prison forever. All the competition vanishes, and without the risk of somebody selling the same product for less they're able to keep raising the price as much as they want. I mean, if you get up to the point where the majority of your customers literally can't buy it anymore and they die then you have fewer customers, so going up into the millions per vial would be counterproductive, but as long as the majority of people who need insulin can just barely scrape together enough, you maximize your profits. And all it costs is widespread human suffering and a few surprisingly affordable bribes.

And then here's the really funny part: the corporations that benefit most from government interference in the market? They're the ones that fund all the media that convinces kids that the solution to all their problems is to give the government even more control over every aspect of life. They're the ones who pushed the narrative that 'libertarian' is synonymous with 'pedophile'. They're the ones who bury stories about corrupt politicians so you never question how a congressman can have a salary under $200,000 a year, go into the position with a net worth of a million dollars, and come out eight years later as a billionaire. Almost every "anti-capitalist" movement out there, if you follow the chain of evidence back, is funded directly by the corporations it claims to oppose, because shifting the balance of power further away from the individual and more toward the State means more profit for the people who are in a position to manipulate the state.

Now, this isn't to say that a free market is without problems. If there was zero regulation of the production of insulin, then a particularly unethical person could undercut the legitimate sources by making a loose approximation of the product people need for much cheaper by using dangerous or ineffective methods, and then sell it at prices that legitimate manufacturers can't compete with because the purchase price is lower than the manufacturing price. Which means that when you buy insulin, you would need to do your own research into who's got a reputation for quality, and there would be people who straight up die because they decided to go for the $4-6 "insulin" instead of the $12-15 insulin. But I'm pretty sure that would still be better than the only option being $500.

[embracing-the-ineffable]

Good Omens, staying skeptical, and the mystery and the lie at the heart of Gravity Falls

-Neil Gaiman, 29 June 2023

I recently came across this post by @apathetic-revenant, which goes into extensive detail about a whole secret meta lie generated by Alex Hirsch, creator and head writer of Gravity Falls, midway through the show.

It went like this: the show was very focused on mysteries, codes, ciphers, etc, and early on a character discovered a mysterious journal with an unknown author, and this drove the plot. There were clues placed in the show so that people could solve the journal author's identity, or more probably so that it would all make sense in hindsight after the big reveal. However, the show ended up with a larger-than-expected fandom who started organizing online in a way the creators hadn't expected or planned for, and they were worried everyone would collectively solve the mystery too easily, too soon, and the suspense and appeal of the story gradually unfolding would be lost.

So they took a fake BTS photo that appeared to reveal the journal's author and "leaked" it online. To give it credibility, the show's creator posted "Fuming right now" and then deleted the post soon after, once they were certain it had been seen and screenshots taken. The Gravity Falls fandom then stopped trying to solve the mystery, as they believed the answer had already been revealed. It was a solution "targeted toward delaying that group problem-solving, without actually affecting the experience of any individual person watching the show."

Ok, Good Omens fandom. Are we Gravity Falls all over again? Are we also experiencing meta lies?

Is it possible that Amazon's marketing department has just released a new promotional video about Aziraphale & Crowley's "timeline of interconnectedness" (discussions here and here ) where they honestly:

got several of those timeline dates wrong, including labeling the entirety of seasons 1 and 2 as belonging to the same year?

mixed all the season 1 and 2 clips together so they're completely interconnected and out of the order they were presented to us so far?

didn't consult with Neil Gaiman for even a moment to be sure they had their facts straight? (Or literally anyone else who's spent years working on it? Or even someone who has just watched it once while paying attention?)

didn't understand the way most series tell a story by moving through time in a realistic linear fashion?

When Neil said today that "time is fine" in response to questions about the timeline of interconnectedness video, was he trying to misdirect the fandom away from the mystery that's clearly hidden throughout both seasons (and especially season 2)?

The Good Place seems suddenly more relevant than I'd imagined:

Neil has told us that his Tumblr posts aren't canon. He's also said:

"Never trust the storyteller. Only trust the story."

"Writers are liars, my dear, surely you know that by now? And yet, things need not have happened to be true. Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot." -Both quotes are from The Sandman [link]

So here's my plea to whichever part of the fandom might read this: Stay Skeptical. It's wonderful to talk to Neil about his characters, the worlds he's created, his writing process, his views on world events, his sense of humor, his kindness, his compassion and empathy, and his good advice & encouragement for the entire range of the human experience. I respect him very much, and I'm thrilled he's here on social media talking to all of us. (Except he doesn't have social media, obviously. He's like Schrödinger's Social Media Neil-cat.)

I'm looking forward to all the surprises I'm certain are in store for us (and Aziraphale and Crowley) in Good Omens season 3. I trust Neil (and Terry!) to deliver our beloved characters to a very satisfying ending. But I don't trust Neil to honestly answer all of our questions on social media - and neither should you.

Especially not when he's already blamed obvious season 2 changes to the Bentley on the "lighting" (as just one example).

With lots of thanks to the members of the @ineffable-detective-agency - including @bbbitchvibbbez, @kimberleyjean, @maufungi, @noneorother, @theastrophysicistnextdoor, and @thebluestgreen for all their excellent fact-checking, ideas, and discussions!

Interested in diving further into all the Good Omens mysteries? I have more posts plus Clues and metas from all over the fandom, here.

[lemonhemlock]

it’s beginning to boil my blood how the narrative only half way acknowledges things to the detriment of team green but goes back to being blind as soon as it’s team black.

we’re supposed to forget about jaeherys being beheaded and b&c cuz oh war is so pointless they don’t even remember why they’re fighting but would you look at that in the same scene rhaenyra is allowed to remember Luke and demand ‘a son for a son’ with literally no pushback from Alicent and please can people stop overly intellectualising a sigh from Alicent like at this point we need to dialogue okay especially when rhaenyra is so willing to skip past b&c

now it would’ve been interesting how rhaenyra doesn’t acknowledge b&c but the narrative also wants us to forget as well so it’s like she gets to have the best of both worlds. She gets to be appalled initially and say ‘I would never do that to helaena’ so the audience knows that rhaenyra would never commit something so heinous but then she also gets to brush past that easily and forget about it and invite the man responsible for this back into her team and we’re again not supposed to acknowledge the implications of that for her character cuz she needs the stronger team and she gets to be righteous af the same time. Like please let her do these things but you have to acknowledge that it very well appears that that ‘outrage’ for helaena wasn’t entirely real and she truly only cares about her throne.

we need team green crippled so let’s let team black go through with the blockade but no wait we don’t actually want the audience to reconcile this with how much of an indication it is of how truly little team black also cares about the small folk but no actually rhaenyra gets to go through with the blockade but narrative also praises her for having such a big heart to send in food and she’s so politically savvy.

a member of team black burns hundreds of people on the coronation of the king of one side but the narrative never acknowledges that but we give wait to scenes acknowledging how killing the rat catchers is to the detriment of team green.

Alicent gets to allow the resentment to fester and think the only solution is getting her children beheaded but she’s not allowed to direct even the slightest of resentment towards viserys cuz oh no that might suggest interesting things about the characters of rhaenyra and daemon cuz how are they still able to put that man on a pedestal after what he has done the selfishness it takes to be able to do that.

Alicent is given lectures of how she toils in the service of men but oh let’s ignore the fact that one of those men was viserys cuz we’re supposed to think he’s cool.

I had initially thought this teams angle was marketing cuz the same thing happens all the time eg hunger games peeta and gale teams but that the narrative won’t fully buy into that but no they want for us to watch this as if it’s a football match and we’re supposed to be fully be on one team cuz look the teams actually aren’t team black and green, they’re actually team good and bad.

^^^^ this so much and especially this:

you can't write an entire season skipping important characterisation work and expecting people to "fill in the gaps" SO OFTEN and for SO MANY important characters

i'm sorry but at which point do you draw a line and say enough? question for the defenders of this season: can you indicate the ballpark in which a piece of media that does this ceases to be conducive to <contemplation> and ~discussion~ and "invite multiple interpretations" and becomes just plain incompetent storytelling?

after how many "fill in the gaps" sequences in the space of 8 episodes? 5? 6? after how many characters repeatedly being subjected to this process? give me a number. really, i'm asking.

[sgiandubh]

The ripple effect

So finally, it would seem the news from Hollywood are not good at all. A press release from SAG-AFTRA informs us that AMPTP/TPTB chose to drop the towel after a very long negotiation process (not a good sign, in my book), that continued even after their latest unacceptable offer, as you can read down below (https://x.com/sagaftra/status/1712368110253285730?s=20):

The mainstream media (always NYT, in this house) reported also on the studios' offer, which may or may not be helpful for understanding what exactly is at stake (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/12/business/media/actors-strike-talks-suspended.html?searchResultPosition=2):

Now that is a very hardball, completely insolent position. I am peeling my eyes in disbelief at the idea of offering 'further protections around the use of A.I.', when it was hoped that the use of A.I. would be treated as an exception, not as future reality the industry should work 'around'. This is what really is at stake, not the almost abusive allegation of 'unbearable economic burden' (that is a mafioso pretext) an 800 million USD yearly viewership bonus would supposedly entail. The real financial impact of such a compromise solution, as disclosed by SAG-AFTRA, is negligible: 'less than 57 cents/subscriber'.

And, to make things worse, it would seem the studios deliberately lied to the press, too (it would not be the first time - we shippers know it so well, eh?):

All this circus, despite a cataclysmic impact on California's economy:

(Sourced at: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/21/realestate/writers-strike-rent-ny-la.html).

And that was the situation three weeks ago, when I found this article and promptly set it aside, waiting for the right moment to share it with you. And you know the situation is serious, when news like these are to be found not in the business, but in the real estate section of the newspaper. Along with this kind of comments, likely to suggest the possibility of unrest, if things go on like this:

People living in their flats without electricity or sleeping in their cars: it would seem this strike added unwanted insult to the drastic COVID injury in this particular sector of the labor market.

But what interested me the most about this whole affair was the ripple effect on the British film industry, in an attempt to see what is next for OL's Season 8. Thankfully, I didn't have to go very far and speculate more than the NYT did itself. Oh, and before Mordor starts shouting insanities, their LHR's correspondent paper, back in September, is called 'Hollywood Strikes Send a Chill Through Britain’s Film Industry' (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/19/business/hollywood-strikes-uk-filmmaking-industry.html):

Despite my unflappable optimism, I have to say that doesn't sound good at all, especially when you know this is precisely the case for OL, a production 'with stars who are SAG-AFTRA members' (or at least compelled to stand in solidarity with the strike, by SAG-AFTRA's own statement of conduct). I predict a very late start for the shooting of Season 8. And further unrest in the UK sector 'in the middle of next year' means that UK based and staffed productions may be fewer and less important, since that calendar announced by Equity could seriously compromise their promotion, a risk not many studios are willing to take. So less alternatives for both S&C, at least for the UK alone.

The writers' strike was a very long one - five months. I suppose the studios are willing to play for time and prefer a long stalemate of the negotiations with SAG-AFTRA, in the attempt of breaking the union consensus from the inside. With people's economies gone and the prospect of a dire, uncertain way ahead, there is no way SAG-AFTRA's compensations, mainly aimed at keeping people afloat with their rent costs, could cover the real impact on its members' everyday lives, on the long run. They would also prefer to foolishly cry over a fictitious 800 million USD 'burden' and not see the (at least) six times bigger negative impact on the local economy, which translates both in net losses of profit for thousands of businesses (mainly SMEs) and thousands of lost jobs.

And in the middle of all this, it would seem that Herself is on her way to the NYCC. Whatever for, sweet summer child, I would brazenly ask this strange, diminutive woman who started it all.

[suukee]

✍️ Fic authors self rec!

When you get this, reply with your favorite five fics that you've written, then pass on to other writers you know. Let's spread some self-love! 💛

hello my friend! ☺️ i’m getting to this very late and unfortunately i don’t have any of my fics currently uploaded. i can share the ones i’m in the process of writing or planning to!

HUMANITY’S GUARDIAN

levi ackerman x isekai reader : a media malfunction brings you into a dangerous world filled with humanoid creatures. fortunately, it's a place you recognize. in return, it guarantees your death.

i wanted to blend dimensional travel and one of my favorite shows in one. i feel like levi deserves all the love and comfort after what he went through and i wish i, or someone else, were there to do it. what better way is there than to write a fic about it? it’s slightly reader inserted but not too descriptive.

THE ONE WHO SAVED PARADIS

levi ackerman x isekai reader : a moment ago, you were at the campus library. the next, you’re being escorted to the king of the island for a celebratory feast. adventure awaits beyond the hellish gates, a world of magic and death lies ahead.

this is an isekai fic but more like “the rising of the shield hero” type of universe. it’s medieval. magic and game-like leveling. includes dark content like prostitution, underground market and slavery, alcohol consumption. the reader is a woman, so she goes through catcalling, people calling her rude names, and things as such that adds to the storyline (that said, the reader doesn’t get touched, just yelled at. i don’t have the heart to write that dark of content). this is probably the most darkest fic i have ever written out, so it’s not for the faint of heart.

DEAL BREAKER

ceo levi ackerman x employee reader : the stupid things that people would do for money blows you away. sure, you’re in a desperate need of it, but you wouldn’t do anything insane. something like that would be ruining a blind date on behalf of your friend, completely unaware that man is the ceo of the company you work for. no, of course you wouldn’t make a deal with him, hoping he doesn’t fire you. is the money worth risking your career?

this one is inspired by the k-drama known as business proposal. i wanted to make this comedic but angsty at the right moments. levi strikes me as a workaholic who doesn't want to be in a romantic relationship. i'm trying out love triangles in this one.

A HEAVY BURDEN CALLED FATE

satoru gojo x isekai reader : your mundane life takes a heavy turn when you land up in the world of jujutsu kaisen, a popular shonen manga.

yet another isekai fic but with jujutsu kaisen. satoru gojo is one of the characters that i instantly fell in love with, but this is mostly for comfort with other characters. perhaps we all know what happens in the manga with gojo. but i just want to give so many people a hug, especially nanami. can the reader save people? it’s heavily canon divergent, so i don’t think a lot of people are going to like it if i ever posted it. it’s also slightly reader inserted for the storyline, but again, not too descriptive. also the reader’s technique is literally sung jinwoo because he’s so badass.

last but not least, PROMISE ME

satoru gojo x sorcerer reader : everyone in jujutsu high knew not to mess with the strongest trio. that was you, satoru gojo, and suguru geto. undefeated, one of a kind. a friendship so strong that nothing stood in the way. an intimidating amount of strength combined together. there was always a solution to a problem as long the trio had each other, no matter the horrible things that came by, itching for a fight. but in a world full of curses, nothing was promised except for one thing—an expiration date.

this is a canon fic where you become best friends with satoru and suguru in the early years of jujutsu high, but things happen. you leave to study at your hometown, away from satoru, but you and megumi know each other and keep contact. you’re still trying to find suguru since he left. at some point, you come back as a teacher for megumi’s sake but have to deal with satoru’s shenanigans. does your friendship with him blossoms again? is there more? maybe he ruins it once and for all. maybe you do.

[ephemedux]

First try, baby!

Being loyal to the true meaning of this phrase, I’m starting my “First Ever” blog, again. I will go down THAT lane some other time, but for now, to not overload myself with too much work, and, which is more important, to better sell myself this blog to you, my pretty reader, I will tell you what I’m up to here.

So, if ever you caught yourself being bored with an over-regular, annoyingly consistent, and disturbingly theme-focused blog then I have a solution for you: This Blog.

Nothing has ever been regular with me (pretty sure I have an allergy to this). Consistency is an unforgivable curse in my world (luckily it barely works though). And the variety of my interests and hobbies is scantily marketable for any social media (and hardly manageable for me as well). 

Hi! Hello. My name is Kate and welcome to my corner.

Here I will:

Outline my learning progress with any good tips I came across and handy thoughts if such spurt in Game Design, Creative Writing, Art, and Languages (mainly English and Spanish but if I’ll go wild then also Japanese).

Proudly (though not always) broadcast my creative process within my numerous creative projects (I have two illustrated books, around twenty PC games, five mobile games, half of a dozen novels, and a whole galaxy of multi-themed short stories on my ‘to-make’ list. And also a manga, an animation storyboard, two YouTube series, screenplays for several short films, and two TV shows.).

Share my biased and probably unpopular opinions about Video Games that I have to play (apparently that’s a requirement for becoming a Game Designer, who would know).

Maybe write about my life experience and its influence on what I’m trying to achieve here (though do not believe most of my words because, you know, storytelling).

Also, reposts and comments on my Minecraft blog and AO3 works (Yeah, I’m also a Minecraft Youtuber and mcyt fan, how fancy!).

So, as you can see I am a Jack of many trades and a master of none. Though I actually want to become a master of some of these trades, hence I’m making this blog, aka Master Journal. (How I ended up living almost half of my life up to this point not ‘mastering’ any of the above while constantly dreaming, I’ll tell some other time).

So, get yourself comfortable here, click that fancy blue Follow word (isn’t it annoyingly visible? Just remove it 😋), take my sloppy learning sketches as my gratefulness for your attention, and see you at the next post. 2. Because <3.

Copying Cherri (@cherrifire), Kin (@kinsparkion), and ZloyXP (@askzloyxp)

[ai-innova7ions]

Revolutionize Your Video Production with Faceless AI!

Faceless.Video is a revolutionary tool for content creators who value privacy and ease of use. This platform allows us to produce high-quality videos without showing our faces, making it ideal for those seeking anonymity or digital distance. With its AI-driven automation, we can generate scripts, voiceovers, and select scenes effortlessly—just input your text and watch the magic happen.

Affordability is another key feature; there's no need for expensive equipment or professional talent. Whether we're creating educational content or social media snippets, faceless video supports our needs with constant updates that enhance capabilities.

#FacelessVideo

#ContentCreation

[neturbizenterprises]

Revolutionize Your Video Production with Faceless AI!

Faceless.Video is a revolutionary tool for content creators who value privacy and ease of use. This platform allows us to produce high-quality videos without showing our faces, making it ideal for those seeking anonymity or digital distance. With its AI-driven automation, we can generate scripts, voiceovers, and select scenes effortlessly—just input your text and watch the magic happen.

Affordability is another key feature; there's no need for expensive equipment or professional talent. Whether we're creating educational content or social media snippets, faceless video supports our needs with constant updates that enhance capabilities.

#FacelessVideo

#ContentCreation

[dailyanarchistposts]

E.3.2 How does economic power contribute to the ecological crisis?

So far in this section we have discussed why markets fail to allocate environmental resources. This is due to information blocks and costs, lack of fully internalised prices (externalities) and the existence of public goods. Individual choices are shaped by the information available to them about the consequences of their actions, and the price mechanism blocks essential aspects of this and so information is usually partial at best within the market. Worse, it is usually distorted by advertising and the media as well as corporate and government spin and PR. Local knowledge is undermined by market power, leading to unsustainable practices to reap maximum short term profits. Profits as the only decision making criteria also leads to environmental destruction as something which may be ecologically essential may not be economically viable. All this means that the price of a good cannot indicate its environmental impact and so that market failure is pervasive in the environmental area. Moreover, capitalism is as unlikely to produce their fair distribution of environmental goods any more than any other good or resource due to differences in income and so demand (particularly as it takes the existing distribution of wealth as the starting point). The reality of our environmental problems provides ample evidence for this analysis.

During this discussion we have touched upon another key issue, namely how wealth can affect how environmental and other externalities are produced and dealt with in a capitalist system. Here we extend our critique by addressed an issue we have deliberately ignored until now, namely the distribution and wealth and its resulting economic power. The importance of this factor cannot be stressed too much, as “market advocates” at best downplay it or, at worse, ignore it or deny it exists. However, it plays the same role in environmental matters as it does in, say, evaluating individual freedom within capitalism. Once we factor in economic power the obvious conclusion is the market based solutions to the environment will result in, as with freedom, people selling it simply to survive under capitalism (as we discussed in section B.4, for example).

It could be argued that strictly enforcing property rights so that polluters can be sued for any damages made will solve the problem of externalities. If someone suffered pollution damage on their property which they had not consented to then they could issue a lawsuit in order to get the polluter to pay compensation for the damage they have done. This could force polluters to internalise the costs of pollution and so the threat of lawsuits can be used as an incentive to avoid polluting others.

While this approach could be considered as part of any solution to environmental problems under capitalism, the sad fact is it ignores the realities of the capitalist economy. The key phrase here is “not consented to” as it means that pollution would be fine if the others agree to it (in return, say, for money). This has obvious implications for the ability of capitalism to reduce pollution. For just as working class people “consent” to hierarchy within the workplace in return for access to the means of life, so to would they “consent” to pollution. In other words, the notion that pollution can be stopped by means of private property and lawsuits ignores the issue of class and economic inequality. Once these are factored in, it soon becomes clear that people may put up with externalities imposed upon them simply because of economic necessity and the pressure big business can inflict.

The first area to discuss is inequalities in wealth and income. Not all economic actors have equal resources. Corporations and the wealthy have far greater resources at their disposal and can spend millions of pounds in producing PR and advertising (propaganda), fighting court cases, influencing the political process, funding “experts” and think-tanks, and, if need be, fighting strikes and protests. Companies can use “a mix of cover-up, publicity campaigns and legal manoeuvres to continue operations unimpeded.” They can go to court to try an “block more stringent pollution controls.” [David Watson, Against the Megamachine, p. 56] Also while, in principle, the legal system offers equal protection to all in reality, wealthy firms and individuals have more resources than members of the general public. This means that they can employ large numbers of lawyers and draw out litigation procedures for years, if not decades.

This can be seen around us today. Unsurprisingly, the groups which bear a disproportionate share of environmental burdens are the poorest ones. Those at the bottom of the social hierarchy have less resources available to fight for their rights. They may not be aware of their rights in specific situations and not organised enough to resist. This, of course, explains why companies spend so much time attacking unions and other forms of collective organisation which change that situation. Moreover as well as being less willing to sue, those on lower income may be more willing to be bought-off due to their economic situation. After all, tolerating pollution in return for some money is more tempting when you are struggling to make ends meet.

Then there is the issue of effective demand. Simply put, allocation of resources on the market is based on money and not need. If more money can be made in, say, meeting the consumption demands of the west rather than the needs of local people then the market will “efficiently” allocate resources away from the latter to the former regardless of the social and ecological impact. Take the example of Biofuels which have been presented by some as a means of fuelling cars in a less environmentally destructive way. Yet this brings people and cars into direct competition over the most “efficient” (i.e. most profitable) use of land. Unfortunately, effective demand is on the side of cars as their owners usually live in the developed countries. This leads to a situation where land is turned from producing food to producing biofuels, the net effect of which is to reduce supply of food, increase its price and so produce an increased likelihood of starvation. It also gives more economic incentive to destroy rainforests and other fragile eco-systems in order to produce more biofuel for the market.

Green socialist John O’Neill simply states the obvious:

”[The] treatment of efficiency as if it were logically independent of distribution is at best misleading, for the determination of efficiency already presupposes a given distribution of rights … [A specific outcome] is always relative to an initial starting point … If property rights are changed so also is what is efficient. Hence, the opposition between distributional and efficiency criteria is misleading. Existing costs and benefits themselves are the product of a given distribution of property rights. Since costs are not independent of rights they cannot guide the allocation of rights. Different initial distributions entail differences in whose preferences are to count. Environmental conflicts are often about who has rights to environment goods, and hence who is to bear the costs and who is to bear the benefits … Hence, environmental policy and resource decision-making cannot avoid making normative choices which include questions of resource distribution and the relationships between conflicting rights claims … The monetary value of a ‘negative externality’ depends on social institutions and distributional conflicts — willing to pay measures, actual or hypothetical, consider preferences of the higher income groups [as] more important than those of lower ones. If the people damaged are poor, the monetary measure of the cost of damage will be lower — ‘the poor sell cheap.’” [Markets, Deliberation and Environment, pp. 58–9]

Economic power also impacts on the types of contracts people make. It does not take too much imagination to envision the possibility that companies may make signing waivers that release it from liability a condition for working there. This could mean, for example, a firm would invest (or threaten to move production) only on condition that the local community and its workers sign a form waiving the firm of any responsibility for damages that may result from working there or from its production process. In the face of economic necessity, the workers may be desperate enough to take the jobs and sign the waivers. The same would be the case for local communities, who tolerate the environmental destruction they are subjected to simply to ensure that their economy remains viable. This already happens, with some companies including a clause in their contracts which states the employee cannot join a union.

Then there is the threat of legal action by companies. “Every year,” records green Sharon Beder, “thousands of Americans are sued for speaking out against governments and corporations. Multi-million dollar law suits are being filed against individual citizens and groups for circulating petitions, writing to public officials, speaking at, or even just attending, public meetings, organising a boycott and engaging in peaceful demonstrations.” This trend has spread to other countries and the intent is the same: to silence opposition and undermine campaigns. This tactic is called a SLAPP (for “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”) and is a civil court action which does not seek to win compensation but rather aims “to harass, intimidate and distract their opponents … They win the political battle, even when they lose the court case, if their victims and those associated with them stop speaking out against them.” This is an example of economic power at work, for the cost to a firm is just part of doing business but could bankrupt an individual or environmental organisation. In this way “the legal system best serves those who have large financial resources at their disposal” as such cases take “an average of three years to be settled, and even if the person sued wins, can cost tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Emotional stress, disillusionment, diversion of time and energy, and even divisions within families, communities and groups can also result.” [Global Spin, pp. 63–7]

A SLAPP usually deters those already involved from continuing to freely participate in debate and protest as well as deterring others from joining in. The threat of a court case in the face of economic power usually ensures that SLAPPS do not go to trial and so its objective of scaring off potential opponents usually works quickly. The reason can be seen from the one case in which a SLAPP backfired, namely the McLibel trial. After successfully forcing apologies from major UK media outlets like the BBC, Channel 4 and the Guardian by threatening legal action for critical reporting of the company, McDonald’s turned its attention to the small eco-anarchist group London Greenpeace (which is not affiliated with Greenpeace International). This group had produced a leaflet called “What’s Wrong with McDonald’s” and the company sent spies to its meetings to identify people to sue. Two of the anarchists refused to be intimidated and called McDonald’s bluff. Representing themselves in court, the two unemployed activists started the longest trial in UK history. After three years and a cost of around £10 million, the trial judge found that some of the claims were untrue (significantly, McDonald’s had successfully petitioned the judge not to have a jury for the case, arguing that the issues were too complex for the public to understand). While the case was a public relations disaster for the company, McDonald’s keeps going as before using the working practices exposed in the trial and remains one of the world’s largest corporations confident that few people would have the time and resources to fight SLAPPs (although the corporation may now think twice before suing anarchists!).

Furthermore, companies are known to gather lists of known “trouble-makers” These “black lists” of people who could cause companies “trouble” (i.e., by union organising or suing employers over “property rights” issues) would often ensure employee “loyalty,” particularly if new jobs need references. Under wage labour, causing one’s employer “problems” can make one’s current and future position difficult. Being black-listed would mean no job, no wages, and little chance of being re-employed. This would be the result of continually suing in defence of one’s property rights — assuming, of course, that one had the time and money necessary to sue in the first place. Hence working-class people are a weak position to defend their rights under capitalism due to the power of employers both within and without the workplace. All these are strong incentives not to rock the boat, particularly if employees have signed a contract ensuring that they will be fired if they discuss company business with others (lawyers, unions, media, etc.).

Economic power producing terrible contracts does not affect just labour, it also effects smaller capitalists as well. As we discussed in section C.4, rather than operating “efficiently” to allocate resources within perfect competition any real capitalist market is dominated by a small group of big companies who make increased profits at the expense of their smaller rivals. This is achieved, in part, because their size gives such firms significant influence in the market, forcing smaller companies out of business or into making concessions to get and maintain contracts.

The negative environmental impact of such a process should be obvious. For example, economic power places immense pressures towards monoculture in agriculture. In the UK the market is dominated by a few big supermarkets. Their suppliers are expected to produce fruits and vegetables which meet the requirements of the supermarkets in terms of standardised products which are easy to transport and store. The large-scale nature of the operations ensure that farmers across Britain (indeed, the world) have to turn their farms into suppliers of these standardised goods and so the natural diversity of nature is systematically replaced by a few strains of specific fruits and vegetables over which the consumer can pick. Monopolisation of markets results in the monoculture of nature.

This process is at work in all capitalist nations. In American, for example, the “centralised purchasing decisions of the large restaurant chains and their demand for standardised products have given a handful of corporations an unprecedented degree of power over the nation’s food supply … obliterating regional differences, and spreading identical stores throughout the country … The key to a successful franchise . .. can be expressed in one world: ‘uniformity.’” This has resulted in the industrialisation of food production, with the “fast food chains now stand[ing] atop a huge food-industrial complex that has gained control of American agriculture … large multinationals … dominate one commodity market after another … The fast food chain’s vast purchasing power and their demand for a uniform product have encouraged fundamental changes in how cattle are raised, slaughter, and processed into ground beef. These changes have made meatpacking … into the most dangerous job in the United States … And the same meat industry practices that endanger these workers have facilitated the introduction of deadly pathogens … into America’s hamburger meat.” [Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation, p. 5 and pp. 8–9]

Award winning journalist Eric Schlosser has presented an excellent insight in this centralised and concentrated food-industrial complex in his book Fast Food Nation. Schlosser, of course, is not alone in documenting the fundamentally anti-ecological nature of the capitalism and how an alienated society has created an alienated means of feeding itself. As a non-anarchist, he does fail to drawn the obvious conclusion (namely abolish capitalism) but his book does present a good overview of the nature of the processed at work and what drives them. Capitalism has created a world where even the smell and taste of food is mass produced as the industrialisation of agriculture and food processing has lead to the product (it is hard to call it food) becoming bland and tasteless and so chemicals are used to counteract the effects of producing it on such a scale. It is standardised food for a standardised society. As he memorably notes: “Millions of … people at that very moment were standing at the same counter, ordering the same food from the same menu, food that tasted everywhere the same.” The Orwellian world of modern corporate capitalism is seen in all its glory. A world in which the industry group formed to combat Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulation is called “Alliance for Workplace Safety” and where the processed food’s taste has to have the correct “mouthfeel.” Unsurprisingly, the executives of these companies talk about “the very essence of freedom” and yet their corporation’s “first commandant is that only production counts … The employee’s duty is to follow orders. Period.” In this irrational world, technology will solve all our problems, even the ones it generates itself. For example, faced with the serious health problems generated by the industrialisation of meat processing, the meatpacking industry advocated yet more technology to “solve” the problems caused by the existing technology. Rather than focusing on the primary causes of meat contamination, they proposed irradiating food. Of course the firms involved want to replace the word “irradiation” with the phrase “cold pasteurisation” due to the public being unhappy with the idea of their food being subject to radiation.

All this is achievable due to the economic power of fewer and fewer firms imposing costs onto their workers, their customers and, ultimately, the planet.

The next obvious factor associated with economic power are the pressures associated with capital markets and mobility. Investors and capitalists are always seeking the maximum return and given a choice between lower profits due to greater environmental regulation and higher profits due to no such laws, the preferred option will hardly need explaining. After all, the investor is usually concerned with the returns they get in their investment, not in its physical condition nor in the overall environmental state of the planet (which is someone else’s concern). This means that investors and companies interest is in moving their capital to areas which return most money, not which have the best environmental impact and legacy. Thus the mobility of capital has to be taken into account. This is an important weapon in ensuring that the agenda of business is untroubled by social concerns and environmental issues. After all, if the owners and managers of capital consider that a state’s environmental laws too restrictive then it can simply shift investments to states with a more favourable business climate. This creates significant pressures on communities to minimise environmental protection both in order to retain existing business and attract new ones.

Let us assume that a company is polluting a local area. It is usually the case that capitalist owners rarely live near the workplaces they own, unlike workers and their families. This means that the decision makers do not have to live with the consequences of their decisions. The “free market” capitalist argument would be, again, that those affected by the pollution would sue the company. We will assume that concentrations of wealth have little or no effect on the social system (which is a highly unlikely assumption, but never mind). Surely, if local people did successfully sue, the company would be harmed economically — directly, in terms of the cost of the judgement, indirectly in terms of having to implement new, eco-friendly processes. Hence the company would be handicapped in competition, and this would have obvious consequences for the local (and wider) economy.

This gives the company an incentive to simply move to an area that would tolerate the pollution if it were sued or even threatened with a lawsuit. Not only would existing capital move, but fresh capital would not invest in an area where people stand up for their rights. This — the natural result of economic power — would be a “big stick” over the heads of the local community. And when combined with the costs and difficulties in taking a large company to court, it would make suing an unlikely option for most people. That such a result would occur can be inferred from history, where we see that multinational firms have moved production to countries with little or no pollution laws and that court cases take years, if not decades, to process.

This is the current situation on the international market, where there is competition in terms of environment laws. Unsurprisingly, industry tends to move to countries which tolerate high levels of pollution (usually because of authoritarian governments which, like the capitalists themselves, simply ignore the wishes of the general population). Thus we have a market in pollution laws which, unsurprisingly, supplies the ability to pollute to meet the demand for it. This means that developing countries “are nothing but a dumping ground and pool of cheap labour for capitalist corporations. Obsolete technology is shipped there along with the production of chemicals, medicines and other products banned in the developed world. Labour is cheap, there are few if any safety standards, and costs are cut. But the formula of cost-benefit still stands: the costs are simply borne by others, by the victims of Union Carbide, Dow, and Standard Oil.” [David Watson, Op. Cit., p. 44] This, it should be noted, makes perfect economic sense. If an accident happened and the poor actually manage to successfully sue the company, any payments will reflect their lost of earnings (i.e., not very much).

As such, there are other strong economic reasons for doing this kind of pollution exporting. You can estimate the value of production lost because of ecological damage and the value of earnings lost through its related health problems as well as health care costs. This makes it more likely that polluting industries will move to low-income areas or countries where the costs of pollution are correspondingly less (particularly compared to the profits made in selling the products in high-income areas). Rising incomes makes such goods as safety, health and the environment more valuable as the value of life is, for working people, based on their wages. Therefore, we would expect pollution to be valued less when working class people are affected by it. In other words, toxic dumps will tend to cluster around poorer areas as the costs of paying for the harm done will be much less. The same logic underlies the arguments of those who suggest that Third World countries should be dumping grounds for toxic industrial wastes since life is cheap there

This was seen in early 1992 when a memo that went out under the name of the then chief economist of the World Bank, Lawrence Summers, was leaked to the press. Discussing the issue of “dirty” Industries, the memo argued that the World Bank should “be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries” to Less Developed Countries and provided three reasons. Firstly, the “measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality” and so “pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages.” Secondly, “that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City.” Thirdly, the “demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity.” Concern over pollution related illness would be higher in a country where more children survive to get them. “Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates … Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.” The memo notes “the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that” and ends by stating that the “problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution” in the third world “could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalisation.” [The Economist, 08/02/1992]

While Summers accepted the criticism for the memo, it was actually written by Lant Pritchett, a prominent economist at the Bank. Summers claimed he was being ironic and provocative. The Economist, unsurprisingly, stated “his economics was hard to answer” while criticising the language used. This was because clean growth may slower than allowing pollution to occur and this would stop “helping millions of people in the third world to escape their poverty.” [15/02/1992] So not only is poisoning the poor with pollution is economically correct, it is in fact required by morality. Ignoring the false assumption that growth, any kind of growth, always benefits the poor and the utter contempt shown for both those poor themselves and our environment what we have here is the cold logic that drives economic power to move location to maintain its right to pollute our common environment. Economically, it is perfectly logical but, in fact, totally insane (this helps explain why making people “think like an economist” takes so many years of indoctrination within university walls and why so few achieve it).

Economic power works in other ways as well. A classic example of this at work can be seen from the systematic destruction of public transport systems in America from the 1930s onwards (see David St. Clair’s The Motorization of American Cities for a well-researched account of this). These systems were deliberately bought by automotive (General Motors), oil, and tire corporations in order to eliminate a less costly (both economically and ecologically) competitor to the automobile. This was done purely to maximise sales and profits for the companies involved yet it transformed the way of life in scores of cities across America. It is doubtful that if environmental concerns had been considered important at the time that they would have stopped this from happening. This means that individual consumption decisions will be made within an market whose options can be limited simply by a large company buying out and destroying alternatives.

Then there is the issue of economic power in the media. This is well understood by corporations, who fund PR, think-tanks and “experts” to counteract environmental activism and deny, for example, that humans are contributing to global warming. Thus we have the strange position that only Americans think that there is a debate on the causes of global warming rather than a scientific consensus. The actions of corporate funded “experts” and PR have ensured that particular outcome. As Sharon Beder recounts in her book Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism, a large amount of money is being spent on number sophisticated techniques to change the way people think about the environment, what causes the problems we face and what we can and should do about it. Compared to the resources of environmental and green organisations, it is unsurprising that this elaborate multi-billion pound industry has poisoned public debate on such a key issue for the future of humanity by propaganda and dis-information.

Having substantial resources available means that the media can be used to further an anti-green agenda and dominate the debate (at least for a while). Take, as an example, The Skeptical Environmentalist, a book by Bjørn Lomborg (a political scientist and professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark). When it was published in 2001, it caused a sensation with its claims that scientists and environmental organisations were making, at best, exaggerated and, at worse, false claims about the world’s environmental problems. His conclusion was panglossian in nature, namely that there was not that much to worry about and we can continue as we are. That, of course, was music to the ears of those actively destroying the environment as it reduces the likelihood that any attempt will be made to stop them.

Unsurprisingly, the book was heavily promoted by the usual suspects and, as a result received significant attention from the media. However, the extremely critical reviews and critiques it subsequently produced from expert scientists on the issues Lomborg discussed were less prominently reviewed in the media, if at all. That critics of the book argued that it was hardly an example of good science based on objectivity, understanding of the underlying concepts, appropriate statistical methods and careful peer review goes without saying. Sadly, the fact that numerous experts in the fields Lomborg discussed showed that his book was seriously flawed, misused data and statistics and marred by flawed logic and hidden value judgements was not given anything like the same coverage even though this information is far more important in terms of shaping public perception. Such works and their orchestrated media blitz provides those with a vested interest in the status quo with arguments that they should be allowed to continue their anti-environmental activities and agenda. Moreover, it takes up the valuable time of those experts who have to debunk the claims rather than do the research needed to understand the ecological problems we face and propose possible solutions.

As well as spin and propaganda aimed at adults, companies are increasingly funding children’s education. This development implies obvious limitations on the power of education to solve ecological problems. Companies will hardly provide teaching materials or fund schools which educate their pupils on the real causes of ecological problems. Unsurprisingly, a 1998 study in the US by the Consumers Union found that 80% of teaching material provided by companies was biased and provided students with incomplete or slanted information that favoured its sponsor’s products and views [Schlosser, Op. Cit., p. 55] The more dependent a school is on corporate funds, the less likely it will be to teach its students the necessity to question the motivations and activities of business. That business will not fund education which it perceives as anti-business should go without saying. As Sharon Beder summarises, “the infiltration of school curricula through banning some texts and offering corporate-based curriculum material and lesson plans in their place can conflict with educational objectives, and also with the attainment of an undistorted understanding of environmental problems.” [Op. Cit., pp. 172–3]

This indicates the real problem of purely “educational” approaches to solving the ecological crisis, namely that the ruling elite controls education (either directly or indirectly). This is to be expected, as any capitalist elite must control education because it is an essential indoctrination tool needed to promote capitalist values and to train a large population of future wage-slaves in the proper habits of obedience to authority. Thus capitalists cannot afford to lose control of the educational system. And this means that such schools will not teach students what is really necessary to avoid ecological disaster: namely the dismantling of capitalism itself. And we may add, alternative schools (organised by libertarian unions and other associations) which used libertarian education to produce anarchists would hardly be favoured by companies and so be effectively black-listed — a real deterrent to their spreading through society. Why would a capitalist company employ a graduate of a school who would make trouble for them once employed as their wage slave?

Finally, needless to say, the combined wealth of corporations and the rich outweighs that of even the best funded environmental group or organisation (or even all of them put together). This means that the idea of such groups buying, say, rainforest is unlikely to succeed as they simply do not have the resources needed — they will be outbid by those who wish to develop wilderness regions. This is particularly the case once we accept the framework of economic self-interest assumed by market theory. This implies that organisations aiming to increase the income of individual’s will be better funded than those whose aim is to preserve the environment for future generations. As recent developments show, companies can and do use that superior resources to wage a war for hearts and minds in all aspects of society, staring in the schoolroom. Luckily no amount of spin can nullify reality or the spirit of freedom and so this propaganda war will continue as long as capitalism does.

In summary, market solutions to environmental problems under capitalism will always suffer from the fact that real markets are marked by economic inequalities and power.

[michaelespositostatenisland]

Michael Esposito Staten Island: Innovative AI Solutions for Influencer Marketing in the Digital Age

In the ever-evolving landscape of digital marketing, influencer marketing has emerged as a powerful strategy for brands to connect with their target audience and drive engagement. With the rise of social media platforms, influencers have become key players in shaping consumer preferences and purchasing decisions. Michael Esposito Staten Island — Influence in the Digital Age exemplifies this trend, highlighting how digital influencers can significantly impact marketing strategies and outcomes. However, as the digital space becomes increasingly saturated with content, brands are turning to innovative AI solutions to enhance their influencer marketing efforts and stay ahead of the curve.

AI-Powered Influencer Discovery

One of the biggest challenges brands face in influencer marketing is finding the right influencers to collaborate with. Traditional methods of influencer discovery often involve manual research and outreach, which can be time-consuming and inefficient. However, AI-powered influencer discovery platforms leverage advanced algorithms to analyze vast amounts of data and identify influencers who are the best fit for a brand's target audience and campaign objectives. Michael Esposito Staten Island: An Influencer Marketer Extraordinaire, exemplifies how effective influencer collaboration can transform marketing strategies. By harnessing the power of AI, brands can streamline the influencer discovery process and identify high-potential collaborators with greater accuracy and efficiency.

Predictive Analytics for Campaign Optimization

Once influencers have been identified and partnerships established, brands can leverage AI-powered predictive analytics to optimize their influencer marketing campaigns. Predictive analytics algorithms analyze historical campaign data, audience demographics, and engagement metrics to forecast the performance of future campaigns. By leveraging these insights, brands can make data-driven decisions about content strategy, audience targeting, and campaign optimization, maximizing the impact of their influencer collaborations and driving measurable results.

AI-Driven Content Creation

Content creation is a critical component of influencer marketing campaigns, and AI is revolutionizing the way brands create and optimize content for maximum impact. AI-powered content creation tools can generate personalized, high-quality content at scale, helping brands maintain a consistent brand voice and aesthetic across their influencer collaborations. From automated image and video editing to natural language processing for caption generation, AI-driven content creation tools empower brands to create compelling, on-brand content that resonates with their target audience and drives engagement.

Sentiment Analysis for Brand Monitoring

Influencer marketing campaigns can have a significant impact on brand perception, and it's essential for brands to monitor and manage their online reputation effectively. AI-powered sentiment analysis tools analyze social media conversations and user-generated content to gauge public sentiment towards a brand or campaign. By tracking mentions, sentiment trends, and key themes, brands can quickly identify and address any potential issues or negative feedback, allowing them to proactively manage their brand reputation and maintain a positive online presence.

Automated Performance Reporting

Measuring the success of influencer marketing campaigns is crucial for determining ROI and informing future strategies. However, manual performance reporting can be time-consuming and prone to human error. AI-powered analytics platforms automate the process of performance reporting by aggregating data from multiple sources, analyzing key metrics, and generating comprehensive reports in real-time. By providing brands with actionable insights into campaign performance, audience engagement, and ROI, AI-driven analytics platforms enable brands to optimize their influencer marketing efforts and drive continuous improvement.

In conclusion, as influencer marketing continues to evolve in the digital age, brands must leverage innovative AI solutions to stay competitive and maximize the impact of their campaigns. From AI-powered influencer discovery and predictive analytics to automated content creation and sentiment analysis, AI is revolutionizing every aspect of influencer marketing, enabling brands to connect with their target audience more effectively and drive measurable results. By embracing these innovative AI solutions, brands can unlock the full potential of influencer marketing and achieve success in the digital era.