Mediaboss Marketing

Photograph courtesy of U.S. Navy

On the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by the

On the 75th anniversary of Auschwitzs liberation by the Russian Red Army, it is necessary to look back at our past and what has happened since that fateful day of Jan. 27, 1945. We must recognize where we are now in relation to those dark times so that we do not repeat our history.

In an age where facts no longer matter and history is malleable, we must never forget the horrors of the Holocaust and the six million Jews who were killed, over 960,000 of whom were murdered in Auschwitz alone. And yet, it seems that we already are starting to. There are many Holocaust survivors still alive today who witnessed the original rise of Nazism in the 1930s, its defeat and the emergence of a post-war world order designed to foster peace and understanding between the nations of the world.

Yet at the same time, these survivors are now witnessing the resurgence of Neo-Nazis, and some original Nazis, as well as the return of authoritarian, almost Orwellian, national orders led by demagogues, such as Trump and Putin, who seek to bend history to their own ends. All the while, these final survivors look on in shock and horror as they see the world so easily forget what happened to them within their lifetimes. This is not even to speak of the youth of the world, even including Jewish youth, who know very little about the Holocaust. As in the case of American Jewish rapper Lil Dicky, many even want us to move on and forgive Germany, as he states in his hit charity song Earth. But all of this pales in comparison to the actual fact that there are many atrocities (luckily not on the scale or horror as the Holocaust) taking place once again.

Most recently, there has been the attempted ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and the imprisonment of Uighur Muslims in Chinese re-education camps. However, as far as we know, they are not being murdered.

In the words of Piotr Cywinsky, director of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Poland, Anti-Semitism, racism, demagogy, contempt and hatred. We are becoming more and more indifferent, introverted, apathetic and passive. Most were silent as the Syrians were drowning, we silently turned our backs on the Congolese people and the Rohingya people, and now the Uighurs. Our silence is our severe defeat.

Even here in the United States, we are seeing this trend play out with not only the worst anti-Semitic hate crime in our history carried out in the relatively nearby city of Pittsburgh at The Tree of Life Synagogue, but also in Monsey, New York and in the random attacks on noticeably Jewish people in Brooklyn.

Even on our own campus, we are seeing a rise in hate in the form of the alt-right group Turning Point USA, which, since sending paid workers to campus, has infiltrated the Drexel Republican club. They have used that connection to both host a known racist filmmaker Michael Hansen and screen his film Killing Free Speech Part II. To top that off, they also hosted the Proud Boys, who are a known violent hate group as designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Despite these events and guests being against university policy, as none of them were approved, nothing has been done to my knowledge.

As the number of Holocaust survivors continues to dwindle and hate crimes against Jewish and other minority groups continue to rise, we must ask ourselves: can we honestly say Never Again to those survivors? If we let these other, admittedly smaller, atrocities continue to happen, where do we as a species draw the line? It clearly wasnt at the aforementioned attempted ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, or the Syrian refugee crisis, and it certainly wasnt at the refugee crisis at the Southern Border of the United States.

I do not have a clear answer to this question because my answer would have been that, as a species, we should have come together to intervene in these situations on the behalf of the oppressed years ago. But what has happened cannot be changed. We must now focus on the future and ensure that we will stand up to hate in all forms. We must come together to fight atrocities, both at home and abroad, against any hate group so that we can say Never Again and truly mean it.

Visit link:
The 75th anniversary of Auschwitz's liberation calls for a look into the past - Drexel University The Triangle Online

It has long been accepted that the comments section of YouTube is not the most wholesome of places, especially when it comes to videos on divisive issues. According to new research presented at the ACM FAT (Fairness, Accountability and Transparency) conference this week, the comments section could also have a radicalising effect on YouTube users.

The study, which was conducted by researchers at Switzerlands Ecole polytechnique fdrale de Lausanne and Brazils Federal University of Minas Gerais, says the comments section exposes users to several right-wing ideologies.

Non-profits, as well as the media, have hypothesized the existence of a radicalization pipeline on YouTube, claiming that users systematically progress towards more extreme content on the platform. Yet, there is to date no substantial quantitative evidence of this alleged pipeline, reads an extract of the study titled Auditing radicalization pathways on YouTube.

According to the study, it found that users who engaged with a moderate amount of right-wing content on the platform showed a likelihood to migrate towards far-right content. As always it is worthwhile noting that users who show an interest, even a passing one, might also be drawn deeper into the subject matter they are looking for.

That said, the evidence that this study has uncovered is hard to ignore.

We analyze 330,925 videos posted on 349 channels, which we broadly classified into four types: Media, the Alt-lite, the Intellectual Dark Web (I.D.W.), and the Alt-right, it adds.

Processing 72M+ comments, we show that the three channel types indeed increasingly share the same user base; that users consistently migrate from milder to more extreme content; and that a large percentage of users who consume Alt-right content now consumed Alt-lite and I.D.W. content in the past, the study continues.

The larger question is whether or not platforms like YouTube can or should do anything about this. Increased moderation and regulation could lead to an abuse of freedom of speech, and the sites history in tackling such issues has been spotty at best.

Either way it seems like the best thing to do is steer well clear of the comments section.

Go here to see the original:
Study says YouTube comments section can have radicalising effects on users - htxt.africa

When Jair Bolsonaros culture secretary published an official video paraphrasing Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, it wasnt just Brazilians who were stunned. The video, in which Roberto Alvim called for a rebirth of art and culture in Brazil while Adolf Hitlers favourite Wagner opera played in the background, sent shockwaves around the world.

Alvim was sacked within hours, as Brazilians asked: was this an aberration, a one-off, or even a communist trick? And what did it say about the far right presidents communications masterplan?

Analysts said the use of such extremist tactics is typical of the brinksmanship, trolling and meme tactics used by the US alt-right who are often referenced by powerful members of Bolsonaros government.

The term alt-right was popularised by white supremacist Richard Spencer and has been linked to Stephen Miller, a white nationalist and senior adviser to Donald Trump who has himself benefited from far-right support and at times nodded to it.

Pushing the limits and goading liberals are classic alt-right tactics, said Rodrigo Nunes, a political philosophy professor at Rio de Janeiros Pontifical Catholic University.

This is done in the US by people on the fringes of the public debate, and here it is done by people in the government, Nunes said. Sending messages to people in the most extreme fringes of the far right.

Alvim denied knowing he had quoted Goebbels. Brazilian media reported that he was well aware that he was echoing Hitlers propaganda minister and even joked he would be called a Nazi.

The playbook is the American alt-right, Nunes said. In that sense, Brazil is the first alt-right government in the world.

Its not hard to find other such rightwing dog-whistle messages around Bolsonaros government.

His congressman son, Eduardo, and special adviser of international affairs Felipe Martins both have Twitter profile pictures which use a sci-fi, collage aesthetic called vaporwave or fashwave associated with the alt-right.

Martins profile quotes Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night the Dylan Thomas poem quoted in the manifesto of far-right terrorist Brenton Tarrant, accused of killing 51 people in the Christchurch mosque attacks.

These are common tropes, said Alexandra Minna Stern, a professor in the American Culture department at the University of Michigan and author of Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate. In turn, the US alt-right is interested in Brazil because they like Jair Bolsonaro and the way he and his supporters have used social media, she said.

Another alt-right favourite is the Latin phrase deus vult (God wills it) a Crusader slogan which has often been used by figures in the alt-right as well as Alvim and foreign minister Ernesto Arajo.

The Bolsonaros also use offensive statements to distract media attention from damaging scandals. In the past month alone, the president told a reporter he looked terribly like a homosexual as explosive details about a money laundering inquiry into his senator son Flvio swirled. Last week, he said on Facebook live that Indigenous people are increasingly becoming human beings just like us.

Thats part of the spectacle, like the shock and awe going on in the US, said Stern.

Like Trump, leading Bolsonaristas are good at plausible deniability making an extreme comment, then withdrawing it or claiming it was misconstrued.

Eduardo Bolsonaro and finance minister Paulo Guedes have both said Brazil could reintroduce notoriously repressive legislation from Brazils military dictatorship if street protests like those in Chile were to erupt. Both later backed off, but the subject had entered the national conversation.

And while Alvims conservative art competition has been suspended, many Bolsonaristas still believe that Brazilian culture is decadent, infested with leftist ideals, and in need of a conservative transformation.

Its back to Nazi ideas of what is degenerate art, how young families are being corrupted, Stern said. [The idea] is out there and its entering the discourse.

Follow this link:
'The playbook is the American alt-right': Bolsonaristas follow familiar extremist tactics - The Guardian

The internet is a vast place. Not only are there fun memes and puppy videos to grace our feeds every morning, there is the entire dark web, too.

I dont know much about the latter I am a theater major who vehemently resents social media, instant messaging and ad-polluted shopping sites. Veering off the beaten path has never been on my radar, but playwright Javaad Alipoor is an encyclopedia of knowledge on how the internet is undermining democracy and instantaneously reshaping the world.

The central storyline in Alipoors new play, The Believers Are But Brothers, follows two Muslim men residing in different parts of England and their experience of getting recruited by ISIS. Ive found that trying to explain the complexities of their recruitment gives away the show and is far better depicted by Alipoor, so my best bet is just to implore you to go see it at the Arthur Miller Theater.

The show dumped a ton of information related to the world of the dark web on the viewer without slowing down to hold anyones hand, so its no surprise that The Believers are but Brothers was rewarded with the largest retention of people for any Q&A I have seen at my four years at the University.

While I sat in the theater, I could not shake the feeling that what Alipoor was doing was dangerous. He spoke so much truth about ISIS successful recruitment of young

Muslims in the Western world while simultaneously depicting a young, white supremacist who never leaves his computer screen. In doing so, he allowed the audience to realize how much damage comes from each side. Spoiler: both do an astounding amount of rallying for their respective causes online.

Therefore, as Alipoor dished out fact after fact in a state that swung red in the last election, I was frightened that maybe someone who did not agree with him could be inspired to protest or even incite violence.

Maybe thats part of the show. If we are constantly attached to these devices and mediums of communication that have the potential to ensue such violence and hate, what is the difference? According to this show, the alt-right is far more advanced in digital manipulation that prompts the banding together of white supremacy groups,online hate speech and controlling elections. The left is far behind in the advancement of that sort of asset, if you can call it that. During the Q&A, American culture professor Lisa Nakamura said she believes the left underestimates the value of spectacle online that the alt-right has come to master.

I dont think we are supposed to be overstimulated this much. There is a part in the show near the end where Alipoor is playing Call of Duty while the whole rest of the stage is lit up in all sorts of media for a couple of minutes. I couldnt help thinking about how monstrous it all is.

Scenes jumped between direct address to the audience, Skype, Youtube and even WhatsApp. In each medium, the audience acted as an avid participant. At the beginning, Alipoor shared memes with us that any person under 30 would recognize like Pepe the Frog or Doge. By the conclusion of the play, however, these memes were boiled down to the basic ideologies that fuel the worlds most violent groups, like white supremacists and ISIS.

Memes to terrorism is a big jump, I know. I still have a plethora of questions that I want answered, but just like going down the internet rabbit hole, finding answers leads to more questions. Alipoors play feels a bit like going down the internet rabbit hole. At times, this made it hard to follow what train of thought he was going down.

The panel afterwards was led by Alipoor, Nakamura (known for her gender videogame class) and Alexandra Stern (author of Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate: How the Alt-Right is warping the American Imagination) and School of Information professor Clifford Lampe. All four had fascinating insights into how the internet is shaping humanity.

When asked if we are just looking too closely at the internet by blaming it for the evils of the world, the panel acknowledged the sentiment, but Alipoor restated that there are worlds being destroyed because of the technology.

There is a way that we as humans, for better or for worse, are able to communicate that we havent even begun to scratch the surface of yet,Alipoor said.

Its exciting and frightening to think of what happens past the internet. We have the history of mankind at our fingertips, the ability to overthrow governments or create blackweb armies that can be just a few clicks away, so what happens next?

Now, if youll excuse me, Im going to go scroll through Facebook to shake off all this internet anxiety.

See the original post here:
UMS presents 'The Believers are but Brothers' - The Michigan Daily

This article is part ofTPM Cafe, TPMs home for opinion and news analysis.

With the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is again in the national spotlight, as she looks like she just might vote to hear witnesses at the Senate trial. That impending Collins votebecame especially crucial this morning, when new allegations against Trumps involvement in the Ukraine pressure scheme surfaced in the unpublished manuscript of ex-National Security Adviser John Boltons new book. Collins indicated on Twitter the news may sway her vote, arguing the accusations strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversation among my colleagues. If Collins votes to allow additional documents and witnesses, shed be one of the few Republicans to do so. If it happens, its likely shell be lauded for her independence, and headlines in Maine will likely make this their focus.

National and local reporters typically frame Collins sometimes departure from the Republican fold in terms of a tension between two constituencies. The basic narrative: Collins has to keep Republicans happy, lest she face a primary challenge, but she also has to appeal to the broader electorate. A more historically grounded variant points to the decline of Republicanism in New England, at least when it comes to Congress and presidential votes. This is a shift that has gotten far less attention than party shifts in the South. The upshot is that Trump won just one electoral vote in New England, in Maines second congressional district, and Collins is now the only Republican office-holder from New England in Congress.

But what both of those perspectives on Collins leave out is something central to Maine political culture, a model against which Collins often is judged. Theres a vision of leadership Mainers have long touted and from which Collins previously benefited politically. In that vision, the best political leaders are respected nationally, civil, not politically extreme, involved in working across the aisle, committed to principle and independent.

Theres a political pantheon of Maine, made up of elected officials who fit that model. Margaret Chase Smith is among the purest exemplars. Smith was the Republican senator who stood up to Joe McCarthy in inveighing against character assassinations, while defending the right of independent thought, and proclaiming that she didnt want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry and Smear. Smith is regularly cited in Maine and Collins has identified Smith as a role model.

Others in the pantheon include Republicans Bill Cohen and Olympia Snowe, as well as Democrats Ed Muskie and George Mitchell and independent Angus King.

Collins has sometimes been included in the pantheon. Her vote against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act gave her place there great credibility, as did her announcement in the summer of 2016 that she would not back Trump for the presidency.

Over time, two key pillars of Collins reputation for independence were her support for legal and safe abortion and her environmentalism. And in the past, Collins was able to tout endorsements from pro-choice and environmental groups. But now, after voting for anti-choice judges, most importantly Justice Kavanaugh, and earning just 21% in the League of Conservation Voters 2018 scorecard, those endorsements have gone to a top challenger, Democrat Sara Gideon.

Her comments and actions on impeachment pose another threat to Collins reputation as an independent. Here, Collins most pertinent Maine comparison is to Republican Bill Cohen, who served on the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation and on the Select Committee that probed the Iran-Contra affair. In both cases, Cohen stood up to presidents of his own party.

Like Margaret Chase Smith, Bill Cohens political courage and independence is still remembered in Maine.

Comparisons between Cohen and Collins were sure to be inevitable. Both have been viewed as independent and both are Republicans who have been confronted with presidential abuses. Collins was an intern for Cohen during the summer of 1974 when Cohen helped craft and pass articles of impeachment. Facing considerable political pressure from Nixon backers, Cohen made the articles more specific and thus stronger. Cohen characterized his position as on a high wire that was strung between disloyalty to party and disloyalty to principle and cited the exemplar of Maine independence Margaret Chase Smith.

But Cohens impact is not just as an historical example.

Cohen comes to the state frequently and hasnt held his tongue on Trumps wrongdoing. This fall Cohen said he believed Trump pursued a quid pro quo with Ukraine and this warranted impeachment, and warned there will be no rules that will be unbroken if Trump wins a second term. Just last week he said that Trumps actions in Ukraine were done for a corrupt purpose. Cohen also said that further evidence about Trump is going to come out and when it does senators will be called upon by their constituency: Well, why didnt you at least go forward and ask for more evidence so that you could be informed, so that we could be informed?

And it is in this broader context a backdrop of a Maine political vision of independence that Collins is often judged.

Collins waffling on witnesses is nothing new as a style and practice, as she often takes considerable time to announce her decisions. Reporters and pundits have often explained her purported indecision as her grappling with political pressures from multiple sides, and her defenders contend it shows her seriousness in assessing arguments.

But what might be seen as concern for a careful decision currently appears to many as some mix of tortured indecision, studied ignorance and political cravenness.

Under greater scrutiny now, Collins hasnt seemed as politically deft as in the past and certainly is not secure politically. When she won 69% of the vote in 2014, she had the support of 39% of Democrats and 69% of Independents, including 41% of Democratic women and 67% of Independent women. That is highly unlikely to happen in 2020. Collins Kavanaugh vote hurt her and her approval numbers have dropped considerably. The most recent Morning Consult poll found her underwater in approvals. Even as Collins would want to continue to hold a place in the Maine pantheon, the state itself has changed and that includes the Republican party. The current Vice-Chair of the Maine Republican Party promotes alt-right ideas, claiming that immigrants are the vector of disease and crime. Its successful gubernatorial candidate in 2010 and 2014 was Paul LePage, who declared himself Trump before Trump. Yet, while an independent candidate strongly supportive of Trump has emerged, LePage backs Collins and purportedly pressured a primary challenger to drop out of the race.

Intensive organizing and stakeholder pressure pushed Collins to vote against repealing Obamacare but mobilizing to try to get Collins to oppose Kavanaugh did not work. After working hard to flip the second congressional district from red to blue in 2018 and achieve a Democratic trifecta in the state with the governorship and both houses of the Maine Legislature, activists are already working on defeating Collins. They have asked her to hold town meetings but Collins has not done so for decades and there is no prospect she will do so. Instead Collins appears before invited audiences and gives media interviews.

Collinss overall campaign strategy has been to run ads saying shes independent, to criticize Democrat Sara Gideon and to try to use incumbency advantages. Collins engages in credit-claiming, touting grants and other help to Maine. Her offices carry out effective constituency service. Its a strategy thats worked for Collins in the past and it may work again. Beating a senatorial incumbent who has been as popular as Collins is tough. Its possible but will be no slam-dunk.

One new aspect of the Maine Senate race that might matter is the use of ranked-choice voting. Under this system, its not enough to gain a plurality the most votes. If no candidate wins an outright majority, the instant runoff process kicks in until one candidate has a majority. Collins may face a ballot with a Democrat, a Green party candidate, at least one independent to her left and an independent who strongly backs Trump. Those may bring Collins initial vote to under 50% and, if this happens, its quite possible that supporters of candidates to Collins left will rank the Democratic candidate after theirs and supporters of the strongly pro-Trump candidate wont rank anyone else. That pattern of ranking seems likely, given that Maine Democrats and independents like the ranked choice system much more than Republicans and ranked candidates more.

What does all this mean for what Collins will do on impeachment? One incentive she faces is that of appearing independent, given Maines political culture and its political pantheon.

However, casting a vote for witnesses after voting not to wont necessarily help Collins, for this sort of sequence is now often seen as too clever by many Mainers. In 2016 Collins said she wouldnt back Trump when it looked like he wouldnt win. She may vote for impeachment witnesses when shes not the deciding vote for passage. And, now under greater scrutiny, Collins could get the headlines saying shes independent while facing an electorate that includes Trump backers who wont like it and Democrats and independents who backed her before but are skeptical about whether that label is really deserved.

Amy Fried is the chair of University of Maines political science department and she oversees the schools Maine Policy Scholar Program.

Excerpt from:
Mainers Care About Collins' Impeachment Vote. But Her Reelection Is About More Than That - TPM