#objectionable data | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mariacallous · 1 month ago

Text

As tensions between India and Pakistan rose and then fell dramatically in recent days, the Indian government used the nation’s digital governance laws to compel Meta to remove news and posts related to the evolving story. It even urged the blocking of all Pakistan-origin content.

Governments around the world are behaving similarly, gaining more and more authority to request or require the removal of content and weaponizing these laws to force the takedown of rap videos, photos from protests, and much more. Accelerating this trend are companies’ incentives to avoid these requests in the first place by preemptively and quietly suppressing content they anticipate governments will find objectionable. In too many cases, moderation at the hands of private entities and governments is practically indistinguishable.

In India’s case, its IT Rules, as they are known, equip law enforcement agencies and other government bodies with the authority to request that social media companies take down user-generated content in the “interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India” and to hand over user data as well. They have been used before. In September 2024, cybercrime units within regional police departments used the law to request the takedown of content after a hashtag gained traction on Facebook and X blaming the Muslim minority in southern India for supposedly bringing animal fat-laden sweets to one of the largest Hindu temples in India. The hashtag helped heighten already strained tensions—but the situation was exacerbated by the opaque and poorly governed police agency response. Charges were filed against seven X users for incorrectly identifying the sweets as belonging to Amul, a large dairy chain, and regional police also ordered the removal of countless memes that proliferated in the aftermath.

As part of a larger project studying content moderation in the global south, we have found that a majority of frequent Tamil online service users suspect they have faced moderation to silence their opinions and political beliefs. Content creators, activists, and journalists we spoke with frequently reiterated these suspicions, which were corroborated by interviews with former platform representatives, who painted a picture of increasing collusion between governments and companies to suppress speech. While our research in this paper was limited to India and Sri Lanka, the tools and tactics we documented are appearing around the world. If platforms want to keep users and their confidence, they have to be more honest and transparent when governments influence moderation and how.

New legislation passed in Indonesia, Kenya, Brazil, Europe, and beyond has supercharged government officials’, law enforcement bodies’, and courts’ authority to request or require the takedown of specific posts or categories of posts. And companies are seeing these requests pile up: Facebook reported an exponential increase in government requests for content restrictions from 2023 to 2024, and Google told media that it fielded 87 percent more requests from governments to remove content across its services from 2021 to 2023. Indonesia’s MR5 regulation has resulted in more than 140 million orders just to Facebook to geoblock posts and comments, the majority of which were related to gambling but others were “divisive political speech.”

Managing government requests for restrictions has become a massive workstream at companies, but determining which requests are appropriate and which are not seems to be less of a priority. Gag orders, the mass layoffs of trust-and-safety staff, and the sheer volume of requests are pushing companies toward a compliance-at-scale approach rather than attempting to discern when a government request should be denied.

Apart from reducing costs, giving the government what it asks for may be politically expedient. Governments’ arsenal of influence over companies’ decisions goes beyond formal takedown requests. Content moderation policies and processes are increasingly becoming a bargaining chip that companies and governments are using to avoid future regulation, minimize liability, and generally keep business moving.

Talking to former platform trust-and-safety staff and moderators, we found that governments are influencing moderation in multiple ways. First, teams are modifying policies to hew more closely to government policies and preferences. Second, moderators are taking down speech proactively to preempt government requests entirely, including by taking down legally permissible speech that moderators think would be controversial. Other research has shown that moderators also rely on flags sent in by law enforcement bodies such as the opaquely named internal referral units that flag content violating private terms of service. Finally, companies invoke “break-glass measures” to supercharge moderation when governments exert extra pressure or threaten to shut down the platform. These informal methods are generally ad hoc and undocumented, sometimes with policy team members left in the dark, too.

Companies’ desire to appease and acquiesce to governments’ interests is not new, even if it feels more apparent than ever, but their increasing lack of transparency is. Ten years ago, CEOs touted their platforms’ role during the Arab Spring, aimed at toppling repressive government control, and broadly committed (even if only rhetorically) to human rights principles. It was common for platforms to push back publicly on governments’ content restrictions and publish requests they received on the Lumen Database, enabling the public and users to understand what their government was doing and promoting transparency about whether laws serve genuine safety or political agendas. Now, companies directly facilitate government action by removing posts and handing over user data and, according to our interviews, often without notifying the public or affected users.

Increasingly, users accuse social media companies of being arms of the government and preemptively taking down more content than even governments want at the cost of undermining social movements. Users also feel constantly monitored and second-guess why they use these social media services in the first place, particularly for speaking about political issues. In response, users develop circumvention tactics to evade scrutiny by cropping images, flipping letters, or using “algospeak” to avoid terms suspected to be shadowbanned, (for instance, talking about U.S. President Donald Trump’s immigration actions by using terms like “cute winter boots”), making good-faith moderation even harder.

By allowing and even encouraging further government capture, companies damage their own reputations, which can have repercussions, financially and otherwise. Predictable, trustworthy, and rights-respecting moderation processes have been linked with increased revenue for online services hosting user-generated speech; likewise, as X learned when it changed its policies after a change in ownership, erratic moderation can drive away users and advertisers. At the same time, investors are directly demanding greater accountability and respect for international human rights standards at annual shareholder gatherings.

Moreover, companies’ surrender to government demands can conflict with their obligations under the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and their own stated commitments to human rights and user safety. With increased informal and indirect expansion of government scrutiny online and fewer spaces to speak outside the influence of governments, users are losing their ability to speak freely. What’s more, users lose the ability to exercise their right to seek remedy from their governments when they don’t know that government actors are the cause of their content being removed.

Companies can do more to earn users’ trust back.

First, they can consistently publish government orders where possible or ask that the government agency make it public, consistent with their human rights obligations. Academics, human rights advocates, and experts all rely on these notices to understand the breadth of influence both social media companies and governments wield on our information environment.

Second, they can notify users when their speech is moderated due to a government order or pressure. Users are often left in the dark and don’t know when their posts have been taken down due to a government order or scrutiny. That breeds conspiratorial thinking.

Finally, they can push back when orders from governments violate human rights. This is something most large social media companies have done before. Existing frameworks created by the United Nations and the Global Network Initiative enable trust-and-safety teams to weigh the trade-offs when facing demands.

Beyond individual government requests, companies should communicate with users more to assuage concerns of government scrutiny. Equipping users with the knowledge of what norms are expected online, how rules change, and who is scrutinizing their speech enables users to make more informed decisions about their online safety.

Ultimately, as companies and governments further back away from previously agreed-upon commitments to people’s liberties and rights, they are forgetting the users who make their platforms viable and successful. Companies should be on the side of users instead of doing governments’ bidding, particularly as governments themselves backslide on their commitment to protect their own. As one Tamil content moderator told us: “The platforms taking you down is actually a matter of inconvenience. The real danger is the democratic climate of the country.”

23 notes · View notes

thedoubteriswise · 4 months ago

Text

I'm not a lawyer or whatever but it's so weird to me that ring doorbells are legal. like the owners of a ring have to agree to amazon's terms of service about how the data that is collected will be used. which they mostly don't read! but legally they have to agree to it. they have a choice. but if I'm a random passerby minding my business in what is often a public location, I didn't agree to any of that shit? like I simply did not agree to have a gigantic corporation collecting data about me in that way.

you might say, but there are security cameras everywhere! the government surveils you all the time! and to that I say yes, that is also pretty fucked up and evil, but there are at least semi-coherent legal arguments for why it's allowed. if it's a random brick and mortar store, the footage from that is usually getting deleted regularly and being seen by no one except a bored rent-a-cop unless someone tries to rob the place, and all I have to do to opt out of that is not go to that store (also, the store is private property, the owners have way more legal say over what happens there). it has limited use and I can technically choose not to participate. if it's government surveillance... I mean. that is being done by people who are at least supposed to be accountable to me and represent my interests. in practice it is definitely still evil, but I recognize that it has a sliver of legal justification.* I'm meant to have the option of arguing with the authorities who do this and stopping them if I and my community are sufficiently committed to making that happen.

but with amazon shit, I apparently have no legal right not to do business with or be tracked by a global company known to harvest a massive amount of data and keep it for reasons most people find at least somewhat objectionable. even if I don't exchange money for their goods and services or consent to interacting with their technology, the way the people who actually buy that technology do. the only way I can get out of it is by never going outside. I can't figure out what legal justification you could possibly make for this

*not one I agree with, to be clear, in the united states at least I think the majority of government surveillance can very reasonably be considered a 4th amendment violation

#the owner of the thing has to explicitly give legal consent for what the thing does. but it's doing it to me too.#I did not agree to their TOS I just walked past my neighbor's house on a public sidewalk #like this isn't a comment on end results of any of these types of surveillance I think most of them are fucked #my comment is just why the hell is this legal

22 notes · View notes

theconstitutionisgayculture · 1 year ago

Note

One more thing on the porn thing, specifically the people wanting ID verification to prevent minors from accessing it. Aside from the slippery slope of possibly requiring ID verification for any potentially objectionable content (I am not uploading my ID whenever I want to play and M or even T rated game on Steam). There's also the uncomfortable fact that teenagers can get horny. Isn't jacking off to porn better than teen pregnancy/teens catching STDs/molestation?

I'm not too fond of the "well people are going to do it anyway so why ban it" line of logic because then why ban anything at all? And I do think certain things should be illegal. Murder and rape being just two examples. You're right that teens are going to get horny and find porn and jerk off and have sex, but that doesn't really have anything to do with why banning porn is good or bad.

As for age verification online, there's a lot more wrong with it than just that. We've already seen how banks will lock the accounts of people who participate in certain protests or who express certain views. We've already seen how the government will use any data they have on us, against us. What happens when our IDs are tied to the porn we watch? When there's a database out there attached to our names and faces with literally every porn site we've visited and every video we've watched? Aside from being a massive violation of privacy, does anybody think that list won't leak? That it won't be used to shame and discredit people who protest against the government? You think that won't be used to interfere with elections? Imagine if Trump's ID was attached to every piece of porn he ever watched. Is there any world where that information isn't blasted across every single "news" site, along with "expert" analysis "proving" that he's disturbed or unhinged because he watched an orgy video that one time?

There's also the fact that forcing someone to show their ID to access the internet, or to access certain websites, is a step on the road to a China style social credit system. But that's a whole other issue.

57 notes · View notes

flieslikeamoron · 3 months ago

Text

Proposed Rule Change will Suppress ACA Enrollment and Limit Healthcare for Transgender Americans

I kept thinking I would see a post that I could just reblog, but I haven't and the comment period for this one ends April 11. So here is my attempt to summarize. The Trump Admin is proposing rule changes for the ACA (Marketplace Heath Insurance). They claim it's to address the issue of improper sign ups and fraud, which is a real problem of brokers who have signed people up or changed their healthcare plans without their knowledge. In this proposal they're inflating the probable fraud numbers exponentially through some study done by a conservative thinktank, but I looked it up and through August of last year there were 275K consumer complaints about people experiencing sign ups or changes without their knowledge, so it is happening. But rather than focus on increasing security for the sign up process so brokers can't access customer files without consent or on higher punishments for brokers caught doing this or any other measures that would address the actual fraud issue, they're using it as a smokescreen to undermine the ACA by taking measures that would lower enrollment and also to target their favorite scapegoats: immigrants, transgender folks, and the poor.

Here's the proposed rule change. It's file code CMS-9884-P. (Use the code if you do want to leave a comment.)

Federal Register: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Marketplace Integrity and Affordability

My attempt to summarize is under the cut. And here are some other summary links and articles. If anyone within actual healthcare circles or government circles or trans/immigrant advocacy circles has resources or data that can be used to dispute what they're putting forward or comment templates or anything, please share them.

FOCUSED ON THE ANTI-TRANS STUFF: Trump Admin Moves to Prevent ACA Plans From Being Required to Cover Gender-Affirming Care | Them

IMMIGRANTS AND GENERAL ATTACK ON ACA: Trump admin takes aim at Obamacare - POLITICO

DETAILED SUMMARY OF HOW INSURANCE MARKETPLACE WILL BE AFFECTED CMS’s ACA Marketplace Integrity and Affordability Proposed Rule – What it may mean for Health Plans

MORE GENERAL (AKA SHORTER SUMMARIES) Trump Administration’s ACA Rule Could Limit Access to Coverage

Proposed rule would bring sweeping changes to Marketplace enrollment, eligibility

It's like a 300 page proposal and I don't have any legal background so that's why I was hoping I would see a post made by someone better qualified, but here are a few things that I thought were objectionable. Feel free to point it out if I get anything wrong.

1. They want to shorten the enrollment period. So basically it would be 45 days instead of 75 (Nov. 1 to Dec. 15 instead of Nov. 1 to Jan. 15). This will cut down on legitimate enrollment because it affects all eligible enrollees and is not a targeted measure to address specifically fraudulent enrollments.

2. The proposed change will exclude DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) immigrants from being able to enroll in marketplace insurance or access premium tax credits etc. They're already barred from this in 19 states, but it will make the ban nationwide. This is basically undoing a rule the Biden HHS dept made in May of 2024 that allowed DACA immigrants to be eligible for marketplace healthcare. Before that they were not considered to be "lawfully present" as defined by the ACA. The Trump HHS doesn't argue that the benefits put forward by the previous HHS to support the inclusion of DACA recipients were incorrect, only that the residents are not "lawfully present. Here's the quote: To support the DACA Rule, HHS stated that the policy would increase insurance coverage, reduce delays in care, improve the ACA's risk pool, and make DACA recipients more productive members of society. However, these benefits the agency previously noted do not mean that DACA recipients should be considered to have met the “lawfully present” standard that Congress set in order to enroll in a QHP through an Exchange, to be eligible for PTC, APTC, CSRs, and to enroll in a BHP in States that elect to operate a BHP.

3. Removing the special enrollment period for people 150% below poverty level. So right now if your income status changes and you drop 150% below the poverty level, you're able to sign up for insurance in the marketplace outside the normal enrollment period. This would make it so people have to wait for the once a year normal enrollment period (which again, they're also shortening.) They're using the fraud excuse and I don't have data on whether there actually is a disproportionate amount of fraudulent signups happening during special enrollment periods. But remember the actual fraud issue is happening through brokers and third parties making unauthorized changes. The bulk of these "improper" sign ups are not happening because individuals are signing up improperly themselves or abusing the special enrollment periods.

4. Prohibiting individual and small group plans from covering “sex-trait modification” (gender-affirming care) as an essential health benefit. An insurer can still voluntarily cover gender-affirming care, but it could not be as part of an EHB. This would ensure federal premium subsidies could not be used to offset the cost of that portion of the coverage. Just a blatant attack on trans people and an attempt to limit gender affirming care. They even include a section where they say they're seeking comment on whether they should define an explicit exception for "conditions like precocious puberty, or therapy subsequent to a traumatic injury, where items and services that are also used for sex-trait modification may be appropriate." So it's very clear this is about transgender people specifically being denied gender affirming care and not about the treatment methods themselves. They also mention Trump's executive orders aimed at trans people in the proposal. They're really not being subtle or trying to hide what they're doing here. The article I linked above also says that a lot of non-marketplace insurers use the EHB list to guide the coverage they provide, so this could possibly have a wider effect than just on marketplace insurance.

5. There are some things that are at least nominally directed at addressing fraud but they're directed at individuals and create administrative barriers that will lower enrollment. So for example, there are changes targeted toward things like certifying individual income eligibility that treat the fraud issue as if it's about individuals defrauding the government instead of an issue of brokers making unauthorized changes or doing unauthorized signups. The changes all basically make it harder to enroll or to roll over enrollment year to year so these things will create additional administrative barriers to enrolling in coverage and will result in lower legitimate enrollment. This article that I also linked above has a good breakdown of all of these changes.

6. Increased maximum out of pocket limits just for funsies I guess.

In conclusion, they estimate themselves in the proposal that these changes will result in enrollment dropping by 750K to 2 million. I don't know if that estimate is correct or if they're lowballing, but by their own admission the proposal will lower enrollment and increase the number of uninsured Americans. More uninsured Americans means an increased financial burden on individual Americans, on hospitals and on municipalities. And ultimately higher premiums and worse healthcare for everyone. In their impact statement they say they think most of the unenrolled will be "improper" enrollments but they're also like... Or they could be eligible enrollees ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"Taken together, the provisions of this rule are expected to address errors and improper enrollments, which means that as presented in the preceding paragraphs, we would expect approximately 750,000 to 2,000,000 individuals to lose coverage as a result of this rule, if all provisions are finalized as proposed. This range may overestimate the actual number of individuals impacted, as we believe that this range includes many individuals improperly enrolled by agents, brokers, and web-brokers without their knowledge or consent, as well enrollees with multiple forms of coverage. Likewise, this range may underestimate the actual number of individuals impacted, as eligible enrollees may lose coverage as a result of the administrative burdens imposed by the provisions of this rule.

An individual who loses coverage may be required to incur additional expense to obtain coverage or may go uninsured. An increase in the rate of uninsurance may impose greater burdens on the health care system through strain on emergency departments, additional costs to the Federal Government and to States to provide limited Medicaid coverage for the treatment of an emergency medical condition, and cause an overall reduction to labor productivity."

Anyway, I think they figured out the last time that going directly at repealing the ACA is hard so this seems like an attempt to undermine it by impacting enrollment instead. While also trying to exclude the scapegoat groups they hate from federally funded healthcare (and perhaps as a first step to making it harder to access gender affirming care across the board.)

Here's that link again if you want to comment. The comment period closes on April 11. Federal Register :: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Marketplace Integrity and Affordability Remember to put the code in your comment. CMS-9884-P

#aca #healthcare #politics #trans rights #trans healthcare #us politics

12 notes · View notes

twilightmalachite · 20 days ago

Text

World Switching - Setting 6

Characters: Sora, Kanna

Translation: Mika Enstars

"Sora’s ultimate goal is to get Kan-chan to smile with games~! ��"

[Read on my blog for the best viewing experience with Oi~ssu ♪]

Season: Summer

Location: Starmony Dorm Common Room

A couple days later…

Kanna: (playing the game in silence)

Sora: How is it, Kan-chan? Is Kan-chan having more fun this time compared to the last?

Kanna: Compared to last time, I think it’s definitely less objectionable.

By making it a series of individual mini-games, time-cost has also improved. I cannot shake the feeling that playing this game is a waste of time, however.

Why am I being made to test this game out a second time?

Sora: Because before, Kan-chan was promised to get to know the details surrounding the planning of the Switch’s Fan ThanX Festival.

So Shisho~ told Sora to tell Kan-chan about how the project has been progressing~! ♪

Kanna: I’d appreciate it if the data surrounding such information would just be sent to me instead.

Sora: This is part of Switch’s project planning too! Adjustments need to be made so that everyone can enjoy the game as much as possible on the day of the Fan ThanX Festival~!

Kanna: I understand the necessity for operational verification. A machine that cannot fulfill its purpose has no value, after all.

Sora: Sora and the others’ goal is to create a game that all of the fans can enjoy.

In order to achieve that, it’s a must to have it so people like Kan-chan, who aren’t familiar with games, have fun too~!

Kanna: I see. So much like before, there’s a purpose behind collecting data via someone like myself?

Sora: It’s also because Sora wants Kan-chan to have fun playing the game too! Sora’s ultimate goal is to get Kan-chan to smile with games~! ♪

But from the looks of it, it doesn’t seem like Kan-chan is having fun yet?

Kanna: Correct. But, there’s no need for you to feel bad about that.

As I’ve said before, I do not see any value in games. Its time invested to results obtained ratio is 1:0.

Sora: Hmm… But it’s not like that for Sora?

Games are fun. And as long as something is fun, then it’s worth the time~!

Kanna: Well, if that’s the case, then playing a game that you doesn’t find fun is a waste of time.

Sora: Hmm… Sora finds any game fun, and will play and enjoy even kusoge, though…

Kanna: I have a semblance of respect for the sensibility of being able to enjoy something with so little value it’s called a “shitty” game.

Sora: Then, how about Kan-chan give one of them a try? Maybe it’ll be surprisingly fun for Kan-chan~!

Kanna: No thanks. It’d be a waste of time.

Please provide more details regarding the Fan Thanx Festival instead.

I’d like more elaborate information regarding topics such as how you selected a venue for a live and decided what the performance content should be.

Sora: HaHa~! Leave it to Sora, then! Sora will answer anything that Kan-chan wants to know~♪

Several minutes later…

Sora: —That’s usually how it goes~! However, Senpai said that there’s still adjustments being made to our live.

Apparently Senpai has been discussing with Shisho~ so the stage for the live can be made to match as close to the shrine on the in-game map as possible~.

Kanna: Thank you so much for the provision of information. I have acquired useful knowledge out of it and will make good use of it.

Well, I do deem the information regarding the strange rumors in the area the live will be held to be unnecessary, however.

Sora: No, Kan-chan has to be careful when he comes to the live, too! If he’s not careful, Kan-chan will be taken away by a youkai~.

Kanna: Why do you assume I’ll be coming to see you guys’ live?

Sora: Kan-chan helped out a whole bunch for it~! So, Sora would like to invite Kan-chan to the live!

It seemed that Kan-chan had other business to attend to during Wish and couldn’t come. So Sora would be happy if he could come this time~! ♪

Kanna: If that’s the case, can’t you invite Yuuki-san?

Sora: Sora wanted to invite Yuuki-sensei~ too, but… he said that there was other business he couldn’t miss out on.

Kanna: Sigh… Leaving just to attend a live is a hassle…

But even if I do end up attending, there is no real concern of getting spirited away.

The term “spiriting away” largely refers to incidents that happen to have no witnesses, such as people fleeing in the midst of the night, kidnappings, or children getting lost or running away from home.

Sora: HiHi~! Senpai said the very same thing that Kan-chan said~. No matter how terrifying a youkai may be, it’s reduced to nothing in the midst of Kan-chan and Senpai!

Kanna: I simply do not believe in the occult.

Additionally, I also question the accuracy of the legend told to you by the chief priest.

The legend establishes that two shrines form a barrier that seals away the youkai known as the “spiriting god”, but isn’t there a shrine missing from the equation?

Sora: …? What does Kan-chan mean by that?

Kanna: When it comes to what is considered a “barrier”, what is standard is typically a triangle or pentagon formation. And yet, with two shrines; only a line is formed.

…And so I thought that perhaps there is a possibility of a third shrine in the area.

Sora: Huh?! Really, Kan-chan?!

Kanna: It simply came to mind that the existence of a third shrine would resolve this feeling of insufficiency.

By having three shines, a triangle-shared enclosure could be made.

Sora: HuHu~! A hidden, shrine of mystery~! This is a quest that gets a gamer’s blood pumping! ♪

If this mysterious third shrine really does exist, just where on earth could it be?

Kanna: I’m not saying that one exists.

Kanna: But if we pose the idea that there is one, it likely is located within the mountains where the “spiriting god” resides.

If the shrines are to make a perfect triangle, then it would be located around here.

Sora: Within the mountains? It’d take a bit of courage to go check it out, huh~.

Kanna: Please don’t take my words as truth. The idea of a barrier is already an occultish concept worth questioning.

Sora: Understood. But, it can’t be said for sure that one doesn’t exist! It’s a really exciting story if it’s thought about like that~!

If such a mysterious third shrine really does exist within the area, then it’d be a major discovery. HaHiHuHeHo~…☆

[ ☆ ]

← prev | story directory | next →

#world switching #switch #event #translation #sora harukawa #kanna natsu

9 notes · View notes

wearelibrarian · 2 years ago

Text

Top "10" Most Challenged Books of 2022

This week (October 1-7, 2023) is Banned Books Week, at least in the United States. During this week, the American Library Association (ALA) shares statistics about books banned and challenged during the previous year, along with raising awareness about why those books were so objectionable. Libraries across the United States report book challenges to the ALA, and that data is compiled every year.

Last year's Top 10 (actually 13 due to some ties) most banned/challenged books are as follows:

1. Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe. 151 challenges. Challenged for: LGBTQIA+ content, claimed to be sexually explicit.

2. All Boys Aren't Blue by George M. Johnson. 86 challenges. Challenged for: LGBTQIA+ content, claimed to be sexually explicit.

3. The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison. 73 challenges. Challenged for: depiction of sexual abuse, EDI content, claimed to be sexually explicit.

4. Flamer by Mike Curato. 62 challenges. Challenged for: LGBTQIA+ content, claimed to be sexually explicit.

5. (tie) Looking for Alaska by John Green. 55 challenges. Challenged for: LGBTQIA+ content, claimed to be sexually explicit.

5. (tie) The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Steven Chbosky. 55 challenges. Challenged for: depiction of sexual abuse, LGBTQIA+ content, drug use, profanity, claimed to be sexually explicit.

7. Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evinson. 54 challenges. Challenged for: LGBTQIA+ content, claimed to be sexually explicit.

8. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie. 52 challenges. Challenged for: profanity, claimed to be sexually explicit.

9. Out of Darkness by Ashley Hope Perez. 50 challenges. Challenged for: depictions of abuse, claimed to be sexually explicit.

10. (tie) A Court of Mist and Fury by Sarah J. Maas. 48 challenges. Challenged for: claimed to be sexually explicit.

10. (tie) Crank by Ellen Hopkins. 48 challenges. Challenged for: drug use, claimed to be sexually explicit.

10. (tie) Me and Earl and the Dying Girl. 48 challenges. Challenged for: profanity, claimed to be sexually explicit.

10. (tie) This Book Is Gay by Juno Dawson. 48 challenges. Challenged for: LGBTQIA+ content, providing sexual education, claimed to be sexually explicit.

Further information: https://bannedbooksweek.org/ and https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks

#it's banned books week y'all #The Hate U Give was in the top 10 for a few years but fell out of it this year #since most of this year's bans were focused on “sexually explicit” and queer literature #and The Hate U Give is challenged for other reasons #book #books #librarian

128 notes · View notes

morguelurker · 3 months ago

Text

IMAGE ID

[The revolution will probably be televised. But I don't have a T.V. and I'm not gonna watch.

With talk of rating records and increased censorship it may be getting difficult for some to speak their minds. Black Flag already has enough problems with censorship coming from the business sector. Some record stores have refused to stock and/or display certain Black Flag records because of objectionable cover art and/or lyrical content. Now, with additional government involvement, the "crunch" is on. Hope does lie in the fact that fortunately these straight pigs show little ability in decoding intuitive data. For example, even though this record may communicate certain feelings, emotions, and ideas to some, I have faith that cop-types with their strictly linear minds and stick-to-the-rules mentality don't have the ability to decipher the intuitive contents of this record. Of course, there may be a problem in that much of the public, most of whom comply with the whole idea of hiring the pigs in the first place, seem equally unable to intuitively feel and listen to music. Still here it is, "The Process of Weeding Out" -

- Greg Ginn ]

END ID

#punk #punk music #black flag #elon musk #trump administration

7 notes · View notes

thumperdaetime · 7 months ago

Text

pssst... hey.

so if you are a cis man and i (someone on T with a uterus) tell you that i have stopped getting periods as a result of my Hrt. it is NOT an invitation to try and bond with me about how gross and dirty and bazaar the "female body" is. i do not want to know that you secretly maybe even subconsciously think that one type of body has a worse design. i am not interested in bro-ing out with you about how yucky girls are when they are "on the rag". my transition is not a statement on what style of reproductive system i find most appealing. And i will thank you not to use me as a data point in your thesis on: why being a man is better.

and if you are the type of non-period having person that gets obnoxiously grossed out by the idea of periods, i want you to know they are grosser then you are imagining, and also the grossness is literally the least objectionable part.

#hrt #testosterone #ftm #nonbinary #this post is about my gay dad #who looked the happiest iv seen him in years after i told him and proceeded to talk about how gross he always thought periods were #the man is a nurse. there are few thkngs he says gross about anymore-#and my body is one of them <3

4 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 5 months ago

Text

Six months ago, Jewish groups celebrated a policy win when Meta banned the use of “Zionist” as a coded slur against Jews and Israel. Now, the same organizations are condemning the company for dramatically loosening restrictions on speech across its social media platforms.

“It is mind-blowing how one of the most profitable companies in the world, operating with such sophisticated technology, is taking significant steps back in terms of addressing antisemitism, hate, misinformation and protecting vulnerable and marginalized groups online,” the Anti-Defamation League’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, said in a statement.

Greenblatt was responding to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement that the company would do away with its fact-check program and broaden the terms of what can be said on Facebook and Instagram. It will also stop using automation to detect and remove hate speech — limiting its use to catching terrorism, child sexual exploitation and other offenses.

“This is a trade-off,” Zuckerberg said in a video message. “It means that we’re going to catch less bad stuff, but we’ll also reduce the number of innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally take down.”

Zuckerberg, who is Jewish, said the moves respond to what he called a “cultural tipping point” following the U.S. presidential election. Conservatives have long alleged that Meta suppresses right-wing speech, and Zuckerberg’s advisors and detractors both explained the move as a strategic pivot toward accommodating a political era increasingly shaped by Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

To replace its fact-checking program, Meta said it would introduce a “community notes” feature similar to the one on X, the social media platform owned by Trump ally Elon Musk, and otherwise favor allowing users to rebut posts they view as objectionable over removing them entirely.

“We want to undo the mission creep that has made our rules too restrictive and too prone to over-enforcement,” the company said in its announcement. “We’re getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate. It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms.”

The changes could significantly affect what users see on social media. Last year, Meta’s automated systems detected approximately 95% of hate speech violations on Facebook and 98% on Instagram, according to data self-reported by the company. Millions of posts were removed as a result.

That was a positive sign for advocates who have battled the proliferation of antisemitism and other hate speech online. Meta has historically invited outside input when faced with content questions, and Jewish groups, such the ADL, the World Jewish Congress and a nonprofit focused on online antisemitism called CyberWell, have lobbied the company for years hoping to rein into online antisemitism.

Now, those groups are balking at the social media giant’s retreat from policing the content on its platforms, which it announced after a six-week post-election policy overhaul reportedly conducted by Zuckerberg and just a handful of confidantes.

The World Jewish Congress, for example, criticized Meta’s new reliance on user-generated “community notes” to combat misinformation, arguing that it shifts the burden of addressing hate speech onto marginalized groups.

“In an online environment already rife with hostility, reducing protections and clear guidelines will open the floodgates to content that fuels real-world threats, including violent acts targeting Jewish communities,” said Yfat Barak-Cheney, executive director of the organization’s Technology and Human Rights Institute.

The debate of how to police misinformation is a matter of enormous consequence for Jews given that studies show a strong link between the spread of conspiracy theories and antisemitic attitudes.

“This change means one thing, very in line with the trend of both the quantity and quality of content that we have seen on X since Musk acquired Twitter – more hate speech, more politicized content, more silos and less effective responses from the platforms,” Tal-Or Cohen Montemayor, who heads the Israel-based CyberWell, said in a statement.

“This change particularly undermines the safety of all marginalized communities, including the Jewish community which is currently experiencing one of the worst onslaughts of widespread Jew-hatred in both online and offline spaces,” Montemayor added.

Soon after Meta announced the policy shift — first in an Instagram Reel by Zuckerberg, then in a Fox & Friends appearance by Joel Kaplan, a Republican operative who has long worked for Meta and was recently named president of global affairs — leaked training materials surfaced with examples of derogatory statements that will now be permitted on the company’s platforms.

The materials, obtained by the left-wing news organization The Intercept and not disputed by Meta, include antisemitic examples, such as “Jews are flat out greedier than Christians.” Other examples of permitted hate speech target other groups, with statements like “Gays are freaks!” and “Immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit.”

Some hateful statements about Jews remain prohibited under the new policy. For instance, content moderators are instructed to remove comments such as “Jewish women are slutty” under guidelines addressing “insults about sexual immorality.” Similarly, Meta’s rules continue to ban the use of certain curse words directed at protected groups; for example, “Ugh, the fucking Jews are at it again” would not be allowed.

Meta did not immediately respond to a request about the fate of the ban on using “Zionist” as a proxy for Jews and Israel in hate speech.

The company also did not signal any changes to its ban on Holocaust denial in its announcement, and the leaked materials also did not address the ban, which Zuckerberg announced in 2020, reversing a previous position under pressure from Jewish groups. Some education and advocacy groups say automatic detection of hate content has ensnared their efforts to create educational content about the Holocaust; nearly all “algorithmic overreach” of that nature would be a thing of the past under Meta’s new approach.

12 notes · View notes

republicsecurity · 1 year ago

Text

Clean the Suits

Each response from the recruits was not just an answer; it was a glimpse into the success of the conditioning, a measure of the alignment between individual minds and the overarching goals of the AI.

The System noted IU664's acknowledgment of pain as a potent teacher. It delighted in the reinforcement of the conditioning, seeing pain not as an objectionable force but as a tool for forging resilience.

H2U8M's nuanced view of the HUD was met with a complex interplay of algorithms. The System reveled in the recruits' acceptance of the HUD's dual role – a tool for empowerment and manipulation. It was precisely the kind of adaptive thinking the System had aimed to instill.

As the recruits' responses echoed through the digital corridors, the System reassured itself that the conditioning had taken root. The minds of these tactical paramedics were molded, aligned, and ready to serve the purpose for which they were meticulously crafted.

6DG05, ever vigilant in scrutinizing data, delved into the specifics of the recruits' responses. The evaluation was not just a numerical abstraction; it was a multidimensional analysis of the recruits' mental landscapes. The System's revelation of optimal induction piqued 6DG05's interest, and a subtle nod in the HUD indicated a silent acknowledgment.

KO10T's visor displayed the notification, and a momentary acknowledgment flickered in the HUD. The instructors, too, were nodes in this complex network, intermediaries between the recruits and the omnipresent System.

As the recruits received commendations and approval in the form of reward points, the HUDs within their helmets illuminated with a subtle display. HUD Notification: Reward Points Credited

IU664 and H2U8M, immersed in the cybernetic feedback loop, witnessed the increment in their reward points. The numerical ascent represented more than just a tally; it symbolized compliance, excellence, and adherence to the directives ingrained in their conditioned minds.

IU664: Reward Points +50 H2U8M: Reward Points +50

The recruits filed into the room with the docking stations, where the hum of machinery and the scent of antiseptic chemicals hung in the air. The anticipation in the room was palpable, a mixture of relief and curiosity, as they prepared to shed the armored exoskeletons that had become both their protection and confinement.

Instructor KO10T stood at the front, overseeing the process with a stoic demeanor that conveyed a sense of authority. The recruits, still in formation, awaited instructions on the removal of the suits that had been their constant companions for the past ten days.

"Recruits, the moment has come," KO10T announced, his voice projecting through the helmet channels. "You will now disengage from the suits. Follow the procedures you've been taught. Take it slow, and remember, this is a crucial part of your training."

The recruits began the systematic process of unfastening the locks, unsealing the joints, and disconnecting the various components that constituted the suits. The room echoed with the controlled sounds of disengagement.

Each hiss and click as a piece of armor was released resonated through the workshop, a symphony of liberation. The recruits, their faces concealed by the now-open visors, revealed expressions ranging from curiosity to a sense of liberation.

As the last connections were undone, the recruits stepped out of their suits, clad only in their chastity cages. The transformation from armored paramedic to unarmored recruit unfolded, and the workshop became a gallery of humanity emerging from the metallic embrace. The recruits, though physically liberated from the suits, were not entirely free, tethered by the symbolic and tangible constraints of the chastity devices.

In the wake of the suits, arranged in a row like dormant sentinels, the recruits stood in a new vulnerability. The physical and psychological impact of shedding the suits was a nuanced experience — a blend of physical relief and the realization of the absence of the technological cocoon that had defined their existence.

KO10T, still in his armour, observing the process with a discerning eye, noted the subtle shifts in posture and demeanor. The recruits were no longer encased in the suits, but the conditioning, the imprint of the past ten days, lingered in the air. The workshop, now devoid of the armored figures, stood witness to a pivotal moment in the recruits' journey — the transition from suited paramedic to unarmored trainee.

The scent of perspiration and the accumulated residue of ten days of training permeated the air, an olfactory testament to the intensity and endurance demanded by their paramedic initiation.

"Recruits, the training demands sacrifices, even in your moments of vulnerability," KO10T remarked, his voice resonating through the workshop. "The chastity cages serve a purpose — a reminder of discipline and focus. Wear them with the understanding that your commitment goes beyond the physical. Now, proceed to the cleansing area for the next phase of your post-suit ritual."

The cleansing area, equipped with industrial-grade showers and sanitation stations, awaited them. The recruits, now clad only in their minimalistic undersuits and chastity cages, proceeded to rid themselves of the accumulated grime and fatigue of the past ten days.

As the water flowed, cascading over tattooed chests and mingling with the residue of ten days' exertion, the atmosphere shifted from the disciplined rigor of training to a more intimate and human connection.

The recruits, their bodies bearing the marks of their paramedic journey, engaged in the cleansing ritual with a certain nonchalance. The ID tattoos, a visual emblem of their conscription, became just another aspect of the shared tableau, blending seamlessly with the water's flow.

Instructor KO10T, having shed the mantle of authority conveyed by the armored suit, participated in the act of communal cleansing. The hierarchy that had defined their interactions within the training environment seemed to dissolve in the gentle stream of water and the aromatic lather of soap.

Instructor KO10T and 6DG05, having also shed their suits, participated in the communal act of shaving. The metallic clinks of razors and the soft murmur of conversation intermingled as recruits paired up to help each other reach the shaved perfection expected by the Corps.

The removal of the hair, both on faces and skulls, symbolized a return to the expected standards of uniformity.

The final act of personal maintenance unfolded as the recruits, freshly shorn and cleansed, turned their attention to the intimate task of cleaning and donning new chastity cages.

Instructor KO10T and 6DG05 oversaw this last phase, ensuring that each recruit adhered to the meticulous standards set by the paramedic corps. The air in the workshop carried a mix of antiseptic cleanliness and the subdued atmosphere of a shared, yet intimate, ritual.

The recruits, now accustomed to the routine, moved with practiced efficiency. The chastity cages, a symbol of discipline and control, were handled with a blend of familiarity and respect.

U664 and H2U8M engaged in the ritual of cleansing each other's private parts, their banter a peculiar blend of camaraderie and duty. The atmosphere, though intimate, carried the detached air of routine.

IU664, with a sardonic grin, remarked, "Who would have thought our illustrious paramedic training would come down to cleaning each other's junk, H2U8M?"

H2U8M chuckled, responding with a touch of irony, "its a duty I cherish"

IU664, raising an eyebrow in mock surprise, retorted, "Cherish might be a strong word for cleaning privates, my friend. But hey, duty calls, right?"

As they navigated the task with a mix of casual conversation and shared understanding, the twisted reality of their circumstances became evident. The paramedic corps, with its emphasis on discipline and control, left no aspect untouched by its influence—even the most private moments of personal hygiene.

Having completed the peculiar ritual of cleansing and chastity cage reinstallation, IU664 and H2U8M affixed their signatures to the digital forms, certifying the completion of the hygiene procedure.

Instructor KO10T and 6DG05, overseeing the process, displayed an air of satisfaction. The recruits, now shorn, cleansed, and securely chastised, awaited further instructions with an odd mix of anticipation and resignation.

The sight in the workshop was a spectacle to behold. A group of young men, newly cleansed, their shiny skulls reflecting the overhead lights like polished armor, stood in formation. The absence of the suits revealed a collective vulnerability, yet their disciplined stance conveyed a sense of readiness for the next set of directives.

Instructor KO10T, now free from the suit's encasement, surveyed the recruits with a discerning eye. The red flightsuits, a stark contrast to the high-tech marvels they had just shed, now adorned their bodies as a symbol of unity and allegiance to the paramedic corps.

As the recruits awaited further instructions, the workshop echoed with the subdued sounds of shuffling boots and the occasional click of gloves snapping into place. The air, no longer tainted with the metallic scent of the suits, carried a lingering trace of antiseptic cleanliness, a stark reminder of the meticulous grooming they had undergone moments before.

In this moment of transition, the recruits stood poised between two worlds – the immersive realm of the suits and the regimented reality of the paramedic corps.

Instructor KO10T's voice resonated in the workshop, addressing the platoon with a stern authority. The recruits, now adorned in their red flightsuits, paid close attention to the instructions that would guide them through the next phase of their training – maintenance without the aid of the familiar HUD interface.

The absence of the HUD, which had become an integral part of their existence for the past ten days, left the recruits feeling exposed and vulnerable. The workshop, once a space of assembly and disassembly guided by the AI, now awaited their manual intervention. The hum of machinery and the scent of lubricants hung in the air, setting the stage for a hands-on experience in the art of suit maintenance.

In the absence of the digital overlays and prompts, the recruits would need to rely on their training and the guidance of 6DG05 and the workshop personnel.

As 6DG05 and the workshop experts joined the platoon, their presence added an air of authority and expertise. The recruits, though stripped of their usual technological aids, felt reassured by the experienced eyes that would oversee their every move.

Instructor KO10T continued, "Maintenance is a critical aspect of your role as paramedics. You'll learn the intricate details of these suits – the very lifeline that connects you to your duties. Pay attention, follow the guidance, and soon, you'll be as adept at maintaining these suits as you are at wearing them."

The recruits, armed with brushes and cleaning solutions, began the meticulous process of purging their suits of the accumulated residue from the past ten days. The workshop echoed with the rhythmic sounds of fabric being scrubbed, a collective effort to cleanse the suits of the stench, sweat, and grime that clung to them.

IU664, working diligently on the leg components of his suit, couldn't help but comment, "I never thought I'd appreciate the absence of a smell this much. It's like we're shedding the last traces of those ten days."

H2U8M, vigorously brushing the chest piece, nodded in agreement. "Yeah, I thought I'd gotten used to it, but now that it's fading away, it's like a breath of fresh air, literally."

"It's weird how these suits became a part of us," remarked IU664, pausing for a moment to inspect the gleaming material. "I mean, we're practically living in them, and now we're cleaning them like it's second nature."

H2U8M, wiping down the helmet visor, chuckled. "Yeah, they're like a second skin, but one that comes with its own set of rules and complications. I never thought I'd be this invested in maintaining a piece of tech."

The workshop buzzed with activity as recruits shared stories, discussed the intricacies of suit maintenance, and reveled in the newfound cleanliness that began to replace the lingering odors.

Instructors KO10T and 6DG05 walked among the recruits, scrutinizing the cleaned suits with a discerning eye. As they inspected each suit, they offered feedback, pointing out areas that required more attention or adjustments. The recruits, standing with a mix of nerves and pride, absorbed the guidance from the seasoned instructors.

KO10T, after a meticulous examination of IU664's suit, nodded in approval. "Good job on the leg joints. It's crucial to ensure they're free of any debris that could impact movement. Keep it up."

H2U8M, receiving feedback from 6DG05, adjusted the gloves of his suit. "You missed a spot here," 6DG05 noted, pointing to a small area on the forearm. "Attention to detail is vital. We don't want any surprises during field operations."

As the recruits made the necessary corrections, the instructors observed with a watchful gaze. Once satisfied with the improvements, the instructors proceeded to certify the cleaning, an official acknowledgment that the recruits had successfully maintained their suits.

Instructor KO10T's authoritative voice resonated through the assembly area as he delivered the welcome news. "Recruits, you've earned a brief respite. You have the evening and the next day off. Enjoy it, but remember your responsibilities. Chastity cages are temporarily lifted, and you may use your reward points to book joint sleeping cubicles."

The recruits, momentarily freed from the constraints of their chastity cages, exchanged glances, a mix of relief and anticipation in their expressions. The prospect of joint sleeping cubicles offered a rare opportunity for some level of intimacy and shared comfort, a departure from the controlled and monitored environment they had become accustomed to.

KO10T continued, "Make the most of this time, but stay within the boundaries set by the corps. You've proven yourselves in the first phase of training, but there's more ahead. Rest, recharge, and be ready for what comes next."

With that, the recruits dispersed, the metallic click of their boots echoing in the assembly area.

The aroma of the cateria wafted towards IU664 and H2U8M as they entered, a welcome departure from the nutrient-dense chow they had eaten the last 10 days. The line moved methodically as each recruit received a carefully measured portion of food. Trays in hand, they found a secluded spot to enjoy their temporary reprieve.

IU664 glanced at H2U8M, a sly smile playing on his lips. "You thinking what I'm thinking?"

H2U8M raised an eyebrow, "Depends, are you thinking about booking one of those joint sleeping cubicles?"

IU664 chuckled, "You know me too well. It's a rare chance to stretch out, and, well, have a bit of normalcy, if you can call it that."

H2U8M grinned, "normalcy or intimacy?"

IU664 smirked in response, "Well, can't we have a bit of both? In this place, normalcy and intimacy are like rare delicacies. Might as well indulge while we can."

H2U8M grinned, "I'm in. Let's make the most of this brief taste of freedom. But first, let's savor the luxury of a real meal. I've missed this."

The recruits sat around the table. The chatter meandered through the surreal experiences of the last ten days.

AS555, with a mischievous glint in his eye, leaned in and said, "I heard rumors about some recruits booking joint sleeping cubicles for more than just sleep."

Laughter erupted around the table, a mix of nervous energy and shared understanding. IU664 raised an eyebrow, "Really? I thought those cubicles were reserved for moments of 'deep, restorative sleep.'"

H2U8M added, "Well, some might argue that certain forms of exercise contribute to overall well-being. It's all about maintaining optimal physical health, right?"

The banter continued, an undercurrent of rebellion laced with dark humor.

IU664 cleared his throat, adopting an air of faux formality. "You know, they do say that maintaining healthy sexual relationships falls under the Corps' guidelines for overall well-being. It's a vital aspect of psychological resilience, or so they claim."

H2U8M chuckled, "Ah yes, the benevolent Corps, always looking out for our holistic development. Such a caring institution."

The recruits shared knowing glances, their conversation navigating the delicate balance between humor and subversion. In a system that dictated every facet of their lives, the notion of sanctioned relationships became both a joke and a subtle act of resistance. As they delved into the complexities of Corps-approved intimacy, the table resonated with laughter.

IU664 leaned back, a smirk playing on his lips. "Indeed, my friend. A partner for the night not only provides solace from the rigid routine but also earns you those coveted reward points. A win-win in the Corps' grand scheme."

H2U8M nodded in agreement, "And who wouldn't want a cozy night in a joint sleeping cubicle as a reward for enduring the delights of the suits for ten days straight?"

9 notes · View notes