Corbyn: Hammond right to say Labour threatens whole economic system
I gotz another attack of Labour/Corbyn-envy.
"Corbyn will use his first major speech since his party’s conference to talk about how his leadership has overseen a transformation of the Labour party, using mass participation and new technology platforms, and suggest the same could be applied to the British economy and business.
“The top-down model of organisation – whether in politics, the media or in business – is being challenged and is breaking down,” he will say.
Corbyn will say Labour is not opposed to technological advancement, but digital giants such as Uber and Deliveroo have built their success not on their technological advantage, but by “establishing a monopoly in their marketplaces and using that to drive wages and conditions down”.
“Imagine an Uber run co-operatively by their drivers, collectively controlling their futures, agreeing their own pay and conditions, with profits shared or re-invested,” he will say.
“The biggest obstacle to this is not technological, but a rigged economic system that favours wealth extractors, not wealth creators.”
Corbyn will cite evidence from the party’s new report on alternative models of ownership, which he said will examine how the benefits of the digital age and the “rise of the robots” can benefit both workers and customers, through a shorter working week and by putting the ownership and control of the robots in the hands of those who work with them.
“We don’t claim to have all the answers, but are thinking radically about how we can use the power of new technology in the coming decades to make our economy work for us all,” he will say."
From an outsider position like mine this looks like a solid overview. I'm always thankful for such summarizing essays (while also aware that as always lots of it is interpretation).
"While it is certain that – with 16 parties on the ballot – this election has the largest selection of competing parties since 1945, most of them will not gain a noteworthy number of votes. Still, we should expect large shifts in the electorate on 15 October.
For the first time, an overwhelming number of contending parties are no longer defining themselves as parties, but instead want to be called lists and movements (inspired by Macron’s campaign in France). Also, for the very first time, there is a real chance that a left-wing populist party, the Liste Peter Pilz, might make it into parliament, thus further diversifying the party-spectrum in Austria. At the same time, the Greens may very well face their biggest electoral defeat at a parliamentary election, just one year after having won the presidency.
Polls over the last few weeks have been consistent with the idea that the ÖVP and Sebastian Kurz are the probable election winners. However, a noteworthy number of voters are still undecided. Kurz becoming the next chancellor is thus not as set in stone as Merkel’s win in Germany was."
Hermansson was part of Hope Not Hate, a UK-based organization established in 2004. The group is known for combating racist and fascist organizations with unorthodox methods like infiltration.
With the help of Hope Not Hate, Hermansson fabricated an identity — replete with an elaborate backstory and a host of social media accounts — and penetrated one of Europe’s most influential white supremacist “think tanks,” the London Forum.
“A lot of people underestimate how serious this is. They think national socialism is a relic of the ‘30s,” he said. “I can tell you that it definitely isn’t. These people are committed, and racism and anti-Semitism are absolutely at the core of what they believe and do.”
Hermansson also explained that the alt-right is best understood “as a cultural movement above all else.”
“Their goal is to change the culture, and that means making their ideas mainstream,” he told me. “They want it to be okay to hold their opinions in public. They want to be able to express their racist ideas in the public square so that they can be openly talked about.”
What a piece!
"Steve Bannon’s actions are often analyzed through the lens of his professed ideology, that of an anti-Islam, anti-immigrant, anti-“Globalist” crusader bent on destroying prevailing liberal ideas about immigration, diversity, and economics. To be sure, much of that comes through in the documents obtained by BuzzFeed News. ...
Still, it is less often we think about Bannon simply as a media executive in charge of a private company. Any successful media executive produces content to expand audience size. The Breitbart alt-right machine, embodied by Milo Yiannopoulos, may read most clearly in this context. It was a brilliant audience expansion machine, financed by billionaires, designed to draw in people disgusted by some combination of identity politics, Muslim and Hispanic immigration, and the idea of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House. And if expanding that audience meant involving white nationalists and neo-Nazis, their participation could always be laundered to hide their contributions.
Yiannopoulos’s brand is his ego. Yet his role within the media ecosystem — building an audience around identity politics in the era of news organizations relying on social media for growth — makes him far less unique than he might believe."
Alas that's what Buzzfeed and VICE and as lil' copycats Bento & co. try to cash in on too.
"Responding to President Trump’s tweet this week that “Facebook was always anti-Trump,” Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Facebook, defended the company by noting that Mr. Trump’s opponents also criticize it — as having aided Mr. Trump. If everyone is upset with you, Mr. Zuckerberg suggested, you must be doing something right.
“Both sides are upset about ideas and content they don’t like,” he wrote in a Facebook post. “That’s what running a platform for all ideas looks like.”
This doesn’t hold water at all.
Are you bothered by fake news, systematic misinformation campaigns and Facebook “dark posts” — micro-targeted ads not visible to the public — aimed at African-Americans to discourage them from voting? You must be one of those people “upset about ideas” you disagree with.
Are you troubled when agents of a foreign power pose online as American Muslims and post incendiary content that right-wing commentators can cite as evidence that all American Muslims are sympathizers of terrorist groups like the Islamic State? Sounds like you can’t handle a healthy debate.
Does it bother you that Russian actors bought advertisements aimed at swing states to sow political discord during the 2016 presidential campaign, and that it took eight months after the election to uncover any of this? Well, the marketplace of ideas isn’t for everyone.
Mr. Zuckerberg’s preposterous defense of Facebook’s failure in the 2016 presidential campaign is a reminder of a structural asymmetry in American politics. It’s true that mainstream news outlets employ many liberals, and that this creates some systemic distortions in coverage (effects of trade policies on lower-income workers and the plight of rural America tend to be underreported, for example). But bias in the digital sphere is structurally different from that in mass media, and a lot more complicated than what programmers believe."
For Preciado, Hefner’s defense of men’s right to the home emerges as one of “the most significant heterosexual counter narratives to the gender divisions of the Cold War regime.” Lamenting in an editorial that “the overwhelming percentage of homes is furnished by women,” Playboy questioned the gendered relationship between domesticity and femininity, hoping for its new man to recolonize the space women had “expropriated from him.”
Taxing the techie billionaires is a start, but only when cities refuse to be their hosts will they cease to be their parasites.
🔥"Der Sammelband möchte die autoritären Sehnsüchte in der queeren Szene entlarven. Doch er benutzt dies für einen neokonservativen Rollback, der vor allem an seiner Feindseligkeit gegenüber Muslimen deutlich wird."
As Zeynep Tufekci keeps saying "Ad-financed giant platforms are building the infrastructure of authoritarianism."
Just read this shit: "Until this week, when we asked Facebook about it, the world’s largest social network enabled advertisers to direct their pitches to the news feeds of almost 2,300 people who expressed interest in the topics of “Jew hater,” “How to burn jews,” or, “History of ‘why jews ruin the world.’”
To test if these ad categories were real, we paid $30 to target those groups with three “promoted posts” — in which a ProPublica article or post was displayed in their news feeds. Facebook approved all three ads within 15 minutes.
After we contacted Facebook, it removed the anti-Semitic categories — which were created by an algorithm rather than by people — and said it would explore ways to fix the problem, such as limiting the number of categories available or scrutinizing them before they are displayed to buyers."
Mind: "which were created by an algorithm rather than by people" ... "Facebook’s algorithm automatically transforms people’s declared interests into advertising categories."
Again and again Facebook rejects responsibility for what it empowers.
Die Kommunikation selbst ist der einzige Zweck, für den „es sich lohnt“, schwere geistige Arbeit zu leisten, die nirgendwohin führt, außer zu einem besseren Verständnis der Themen, der Menschen, der Sprachen – wofür man sich nichts kaufen kann. Wer fordert, man müsse fürs Bloggen bezahlt werden, ist auf die neoliberale Verwertungslogik hereingefallen, laut der alles monetarisierbar sein muss, jeder sehen muss, wo er bleibt, und (speziell junge) Menschen bei allem, was sie tun stets ihre Karriere fest im Blick haben müssen.
I have always thought (and to some extent still do) that the fascination with women warriors, both in popular culture and in academic discourse, is heavily, probably too heavily, influenced by 20th- and 21st-century desires. At the same time, I also think it is interesting to debate these matters and I am happy to do so (although not with the type of people who write UTL words to the effect of 'I just KNOW there were women warriors in the Viking Age'). I try to keep an open mind, but I also get very frustrated by what I consider to be academic discourse that seems to be mostly concerned with grabbing attention in order to facilitate further funding and/or claim 'impact'. And academic discourse in which topics that have been of concern to the humanities for decades if not centuries are suddenly somehow 'confirmed' by those gods, the scientists, without giving sufficient consideration of the 'non-scientific' evidence which inevitably raised the questions in the first place.
"AI is not a sanitary machine apparatus, but a vessel of human values."
Suppose that we were to hypothesize that born-again Christians are perfused with the light of the Holy Spirit. Humans have a hard time detecting this, we might conjecture, but machine vision may be able to discern these differences that lie below human perceptual thresholds. To test this hypothesis, we train a deep neural net to predict whether individuals are born-again Christians or not, based upon Facebook photographs. Imagine we find that not only is the neural net able to predict whether people are Christian far better than chance, but also that the algorithm picks up differences in facial illumination between born-again Christians and others.
What should we conclude from this? We might conclude that we have good evidence for the light of the Holy Spirit, but to do so would be a spectacular violation of Occam's razor on our part. All we really know is that a deep neural net can draw a distinction between these two groups for reasons that we don't really understand. The parsimonious explanation is of course that these groups present themselves differently on Facebook, whether in terms of grooming or facial expressions or photographic style or whatever else. The Holy Spirit hypothesis is clearly an extraordinary claim and we're nowhere near providing the sort of evidence that would be required to take it seriously.
There are ample reasons to be skeptical of recent headlines announcing that “AI [Artificial Intelligence] Can Tell If You’re Gay,” summaries of a pre-print study by Yilun Wang and Michal Kosinski of Stanford University’s School of Business. Their goal is to “advance our understanding of the origins of sexual orientation and the limits of human perception” (p.1). For the first they fail miserably but I concur with the second, though the perceptions that are limited, in this case, are the researchers’ own. In this post I review the underpinnings of this research that render it much less insightful than the researchers claim, the problems of journalistic reporting that compound these problems, and the stunning tone-deafness of Kosinski’s defense of his ethics.
Musste bei diesem Kommentarartikel auch an eine Statistik denken, die gestern auf Twitter unterkamdiskutiert wurde: "Odd Germany. 57% of Germans call themselves left-wing but the conservative CDU keeps winning elections" (@ur_echo, https://twitter.com/ur_echo/status/905397294866030592)
"Die Mittelschicht kann also nicht nur Opfer, sondern muss auch Täter sein. Wenn sie absteigt, dann nur, weil sie an diesem Abstieg mitwirkt. Sie selbst ist es, die für eine Steuer- und Sozialpolitik stimmt, die ihren Interessen völlig entgegengesetzt ist.
Auf den ersten Blick mag es erstaunen, dass die Mittelschicht überhaupt auf die Idee verfallen konnte, sich in der Nähe der Elite zu glauben. Denn begütert ist die Mittelschicht nicht:
Zur Mittelschicht zählt, wer als Single zwischen 1000 und 2200 Euro netto im Monat hat.
Bei einem Ehepaar mit zwei kleinen Kindern sind es zwischen 2100 und 4600 Euro netto. Darunter beginnt die Unterschicht, darüber schon die Oberschicht.
Doch die Mittelschicht nimmt nicht wahr, wie groß der Abstand zu den Vermögenden tatsächlich ist. Der Glaube an den eigenen Aufstieg ist ungebrochen, wie auch der Boom der Privatschulen zeigt. Im Kampf um die eigene Karriere entgeht der Mittelschicht, wie unerreichbar die Eliten sind, die ihren Status nicht etwa durch Leistung erwerben, sondern von Generation zu Generation vererben
Die Mittelschicht überschätzt ihren Status aber auch, weil sie viel Kraft und Aufmerksamkeit darauf verwendet, sich vehement von der Unterschicht abzugrenzen. Nur zu gern pflegt die Mittelschicht das Vorurteil, dass die Armen Schmarotzer seien. So meinen immerhin 57 Prozent der Bundesbürger, dass sich Langzeitarbeitslose "ein schönes Leben auf Kosten der Gesellschaft machen". Aus dieser Verachtung für die Unterschicht entsteht eine fatale Allianz: Die Mittelschicht wähnt sich an der Seite der Elite, weil sie meint, dass man gemeinsam von perfiden Armen ausgebeutet werde."
What I hope I can capture is that Google is in many ways a great thing for publishers. At least it’s not a purely negative picture. If you’re a Star Trek fan you’ll understand the analogy. It’s a bit like being assimilated by the Borg. You get cool new powers. But having been assimilated, if your implants were ever removed, you’d certainly die. That basically captures our relationship to Google.
This is sad. Knowledge should be spread, not hidden behind ridiculously high paywalls.
Nicht Männer, sondern Frauen machten sich in großer Zahl auf, um über Hunderte von Kilometern neue Kontakte zu knüpfen, indem sie sich einer neuen (Groß-)Familie anschlossen.
Das zumindest folgern deutsche Wissenschaftler aus der Analyse von 84 Skeletten aus sieben bayerischen Fundorten. „Nicht die Männer, sondern die Frauen hatten vermutlich eine wichtige, vielleicht entscheidende Rolle beim Austausch von Kenntnissen“, sagt Projektleiter Philipp Stockhammer, Professor für Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie an der Universität München.
Obwohl bei »Defend Europe« vieles nicht im Sinne der Organisatoren lief: Dass das Vorhaben überhaupt verwirklicht wurde, zeugt von einem immer stärkeren Zusammenrücken reaktionärer Gruppen und Einzelpersonen. Zudem zeigt es eine in ihrer Gefährlichkeit nicht zu unterschätzende Fanatisierung einzelner Funktionäre, die sich längst nicht mit den bislang von ihnen erprobten Formen des Aktivismus begnügen wollen und auf ihrer Suche nach immer drastischeren Formen der politischen Intervention in einer Spirale der Todessehnsucht, des narzisstischen Geltungsbedürfnisses und des Verschwörungswahns befinden.
Die Trennung zwischen Politik und Wirtschaft und Kultur ist eine künstliche. In manchen Teilen der Linken gibt es eine Tendenz - die hoffentlich verschwinden wird -, Bewegungen wie die Frauenbewegung oder die ökologische Bewegung als kulturelle Bewegungen zu betrachten. Das ist eine Bankrotterklärung, ein völliges Missverständnis der Art und Weise, wie im Kapitalismus unterschiedliche Positionen innerhalb der Organisation der Arbeit geschaffen wurden. Man kann in einer Gesellschaft, die in einer sehr hierarchischen Weise konstruiert ist, nicht als geschlechtsloses, altersloses, race-loses universelles abstraktes Subjekt kämpfen. Wenn nicht von diesen unterschiedlichen Erfahrungen und Formen der Ausbeutung aus der eigenen Position heraus gesprochen wird, dann wird nicht über die Gesamtheit kapitalistischer Ausbeutung gesprochen. Die Idee, dass es auf der einen Seite Kultur gibt und auf der anderen die reale Sache, ist Teil einer sehr paläomarxistischen, steinzeitlichen Konzeption von Ausbeutung und Akkumulation. Im Grunde sieht diese Konzeption Akkumulation immer noch vor allem in der Fabrik und alles andere ist »kulturell«. Genau das lehnte unsere Bewegung ab. Ich bin besorgt, wenn man von Identität als etwas Kulturellem spricht, sich aber eigentlich auf eine spezifische Position in der kapitalistischen Arbeitsorganisation bezieht, also eigentlich eine spezifische Form der Ausbeutung meint. Wenn Frauen nicht als Frauen gekämpft hätten, hätte es die Analysen zu Sexualität, wie Sexualität und die Geschlechterverhältnisse zu einem Instrument der Akkumulation geworden sind, nicht gegeben. Es war unbekannt, solange Frauen in männlich dominierten Organisationen gearbeitet haben und das universelle Subjekt akzeptierten, das ein männliches ist. Es gab ein ganzes Feld von Ausbeutung - die Besonderheit der Ausbeutung des weiblichen Körpers, weibliche Sexualität, Fortpflanzung -, über das nie gesprochen worden wäre.
"the ore of the ethnic is raw material for performance and self-definition"
"one of the things that can most grate about being a minority in the West is the disparity between public and private. If it takes a pretty white woman for people to learn about the stuff your folks have always used to cook daal, the dynamics of what runs under “ethnic” as a codeword become clear. When something like “artisanal ghee” makes its way into the newspaper, it reminds one of to whom the space we call the public—the norm, the default—actually belongs. It’s not the end of the world—white people gonna white—but it’s one part of a series of small annoyances that maintain the disparity between a white centre and a non-white periphery."
"Where, then, is the line that divides the simple pleasure of cultural fusion from cultural appropriation? One answer is that it becomes appropriation when one group’s sense of “normal” inexplicably and unfairly dominates over another."
Well, as someone who is currently listening to the audio book of Crichton's 'Sphere' AND who has watched 'Life' last night, my educated guess is that it's just Jerry and Calvin having fun.
So, why are cephalopods kicking butt when pretty much everything else in the oceans is dying?
the U2 of social media platforms moves in mysterious ways
Good thoughts on the "platform" metaphor by Tarleton Gillespie. Metaphors structure the way we think about sth, not just making some aspects of the thing more comprehensible but also hiding other aspects. "Platform" metaphor hides that these services are not flat, the diversity of their users, responsibility, the labour going into maintaining the service. "We need not discard the term, just to swap in another metaphor in its place. It is not as if it’s impossible to think about these obscured aspects of platforms; the metaphor can downplay them, but cannot erase them. But we have to either struggle upstream against the discursive power of the term, or playful subvert it."
A critique of Richard Florida, urban regeneration and the idea of a "creative economy".
"Fast überall ist zu lesen, die Breitbart-Redaktion habe sich damit blamiert. Ernsthaft? Eine rechtsradikale Webseite, die zur Erreichung ihrer Ziele Propaganda betreibt, lügt und hetzt, hat sich mit einer Bildverwechslung blamiert?
Das ist eine schöne Verharmlosung, das zu glauben Breitbart sicher gelegen kommt.
Klar, vielleicht war das nur ein Fehler.
Womöglich aber auch eine kalkulierte Provokation, die Dutzende Medien in Deutschland dazu gebracht hat, große Aufmerksamkeit auf Breitbart zu lenken. Auch schlechte Nachrichten sind gute Nachrichten."
"But what is antifa? Where did it come from? Militant anti-fascist or “antifa” (pronounced ANtifa) is a radical pan-leftist politics of social revolution applied to fighting the far right. Its adherents are predominantly communists, socialists and anarchists who reject turning to the police or the state to halt the advance of white supremacy. Instead they advocate popular opposition to fascism as we witnessed in Charlottesville.
There are antifa groups around the world, but antifa is not itself an interconnected organization, any more than an ideology like socialism or a tactic like the picket line is a specific group. Antifa are autonomous anti-racist groups that monitor and track the activities of local neo-Nazis. They expose them to their neighbors and employers, they conduct public education campaigns, they support migrants and refugees and they pressure venues to cancel white power events.
The vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent. But their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists."
A long read discussing street protest along a few books that dealt with the topic, for example "Inventing The Future" and "Twitter and Teargas".
"But behaviorism never really went away. Today it shapes much of how new digital technologies are imagined and built. Stanford psychologist B.J. Fogg calls it “behavior design,” and his Persuasive Technology Lab teaches software engineers and entrepreneurs how to construct products that can manipulate and influence users, encouraging certain actions or behaviors and discouraging others, by cultivating addiction.
According to Jacob Weisberg, some of Silicon Valley’s most successful app designers are alumni of the lab—now doing time at Google or Instagram—so it’s no surprise that investors have come to expect these sorts of habit-forming hooks and nudges in the products they fund, particularly in education.
... the app was designed to be used to encourage positive feedback not to serve as that old threat that “this will go down on your permanent record.”
But of course, that has always been the underpinning of behaviorism—an emphasis on positive reinforcement techniques in order to more effectively encourage “correct behavior.” “Correct behavior,” that is, as defined by school administrators and software makers."
„Es wurden wahllos Leute zusammengesucht, die sich auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen gegen Neonazis engagieren – egal ob im Stadtteil, im Stadion, im Rahmen von Netzwerkarbeit oder auf Demonstrationen“, erzählt Holger S., der sich seit vier Wochen durch seine 24.000 Seiten Überwachungsprotokolle wühlt. Man habe keinen konkreten Verdacht erwecken müssen, um ins Visier zu geraten.
"From Carpenter’s The Thing to Cronenberg’s Videodrome, body horror almost always infects the male body in the popular canon, rarely the female (Silent Hill with its myriad feminine monsters being a notable exception). That bias is displayed clearly in The Void, a surrealist game whose non-player characters are either model-thin women or hideously deformed men. Perhaps it’s easier to imagine women as victims than as monsters; perhaps the cis female body is already monstrous enough as it is.
Watching Car Boys as a trans person – a person whose body is its own kind of failure – offers me an unexpectedly visceral relief. Since puberty, my body has done things I never asked it to. It’s grown in places I don’t like, it menstruates, it ages, and it hurts. I’d like it to map onto a more masculine shape than what I’ve got, to recede in certain places and elongate in others, but it won’t, not on its own. When I dress the way I like, there’s always too much of me to fit properly, an excess that’s dismissible on good days and painful on bad ones. I overflow from the avatar I’ve envisioned for myself. This is, I think, what’s called dysphoria, itself a subgenre of body horror. The body plagues the subject inhabiting it by being too much and not enough all at once."
"American suburbs seem to follow from a certain idea of pseudo-democracy and self-reliance: people can vote with their feet and move to lower-density developments in smaller municipalities, among people they feel comfortable with. They find infrastructural support for individualized rather than mass transit, and they have access to a plethora of shopping to exercise their personal tastes and articulate their “lifestyles.” But at the same time, suburbs are a refined sorting device designed to isolate and segregate people, demonizing outsiders and terrorizing residents with a racialized fear of “intruders” and of general difference, investing the tendency to conform with a political urgency. The poor, precisely because they lack the material means of navigating the suburbs, are portrayed in the media as either a threat or an impediment to the middle class’s well-being."
"Local news is the broadcast media equivalent of suburbia’s built environments. ... This symbiotic system of media and architecture completes the authoritarian surround. The synthesis of these two systems — suburbs and local news — perfects a control mechanism that isolates people from casual conversation and sustains an alarmist sense of nearby danger and a state of necessary vigilance, as well as an attitude of self-congratulation over one’s suburban lifestyle choices."
"The suburbanites’ culture of fear may prove unsustainable because the material conditions of suburbia itself are in danger. The suburbs of the past were made for comfort and convenience but their future will inflict quite the opposite. The cheap oil that made the suburbs possible is not long for this world and no amount of self-driving electric cars will replace it. What will replace the authoritarian suburb in a near-future America is the present urban reality of the rest of the world: a dense center of rich elites surrounded on all sides by a dispossessed suburban fringe. In such a scenario the safety valence of the urban and suburban flips and it is the city that is considered both safe and cultured and the suburbs will be seen as simultaneously boring and dangerous. Not unlike war or prison.
It will be in these suburban enclaves, where capital’s surplus population is stored for eventual use in the precariat economy, that radical politics will find a natural home."
"Let's be humans for a moment. It is undeniably satisfying to think that the Charlottesville marchers will have to face the consequences of their choices. ...
At the same time, amplification of these kinds of images and videos is good for the fascist cause. It raises their cultural visibility, provides a warped confirmation of their cry-bully martyrdom (this is the entire basis of the "on many sides" argument), and helps cohere an even deeper sense of the collective fascist us," writes Whitney Phillips.
A few thoughts I thought on this last night: This is a very good point and still I'm torn because there are so many people who still are not aware of how bad these "nazis" are (that's why I shared *that* VICE clip). Like, people who still say nazis are such poor people who just haven't got enough love as kids and need empathy. (Was in my TL just yesterday along with criticism for the people who tore down that damned statue.) The same empathy the same people often are not ready to show to those who fight against nazis to protect the weakest of our society.
Also there's a difference between what people post and share and what media or people with high reach share. Sure, in social media days everybody is media and should to a certain degree be aware of what their post or tweet can do. But we often use it in the 2nd orality way, spontaneously, and social media are build to encourage affect. Ach, it's complicated. (I'm talking less about the doxing here, more about sharing 'omg look how shocking' nazi content that doesn't reflect.) And I agree that this 'nazi porn' bears the danger of getting us stuck in a loop instead of building resistance.
News media are complicit. We can't go on excusing journalism just cause it needs toxic outrage cycles bc of it's financial problems. With the election in GER coming up I keep coming back to Danah Boyd's words after US election: "Spectacle has a cost" and "We live in a world shaped by fear and hype, not because it has to be that way, but because this is the obvious paradigm that can fuel the capitalist information architectures we have produced." (from this essay: https://points.datasociety.net/reality-check-de447f2131a3 )
Prof Conway, who has also written extensively about the far right, said the project was considering expanding its work to look at such accounts online, but that identifying them was not as easy.
“There’s a problem in the sense that they’ve entered into the mainstream. There’s fairly wide agreement in terms of an anti-IS response; it’s much harder to get agreement on an anti-extreme right response. There are people on the extreme right in government,” she said.
“And there’s an issue as well in that they are kind of ‘us’. We can present IS as some kind of alien ‘them’.”
"Der Studentin hätten die Beamten mehrfach gegen den Kopf getreten. Der 19-Jährige Schüler sei von hinten bewusstlos geschlagen worden.
Die Auflösung der Demonstration am Rondenbarg ist ohnehin umstritten. Laut eines Polizeiberichtes hatte es einen massiven Bewurf der Beamten mit Flaschen und Steinen gegeben. Ein Video der Polizei, das später veröffentlicht wurde, zeigt dagegen nur das Anzünden von Nebelkerzen oder Böllern. Steinwürfe seien darauf nicht zu sehen, so Anwalt Adam. Bei der Flucht vor Polizei und Wasserwerfern waren viele Demonstranten schwer verletzt worden, als sie sich über einen Zaun in Sicherheit bringen wollten. Der Zaun brach zusammen, dabei erlitten viele G20-Gegner offene Knochenbrüche."