Mediaboss Marketing

As we view and read unending news stories about the devastation wrought by climate change (wildfires, historic flooding, super-heated waters killing fish, record heat waves all over the world), its worth noting that the State of Illinois recently missed an historic opportunity to cut pollution that is a major cause of this problem.

Climate scientists the world over are saying that we must reduce carbon pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels that power our heating, cooling and transportation sectors. Renewable sources of energy are available right now that would reduce pollution and improve public health, but clean energy legislation that would have helped us reduce our reliance on dirty fossil fuels recently failed to pass the Illinois State legislature. How could we have missed this opportunity to clean our environment?

SEND LETTERS TO: letters@suntimes.com. Please include your neighborhood or hometown and a phone number for verification purposes. Letters should be approximately 350 words or less.

Supporters of dirty fossil fuels say we need a balanced approach to energy policy. The truth is that the Illinois power grid is out of balance now. Clean renewable energy only accounts for 8 to 10% of Illinois energy production. This percentage is woefully inadequate and shows that we are failing to live up to our responsibility to give future generations healthy air to breath. If we are to be responsible stewards of our environment, we must pass legislation that insures we use more clean, renewable energy (solar and wind) to power our state. Failure to do so is to make a future clean up much more difficult for our children and grandchildren.

The Illinois state legislature must act as soon as possible to pass clean energy legislation that will create good jobs and clean our air and water.

Mark Kraemer, Wilmette

As a frequent reporter of incidents to the Chicago Police Departments TipSubmit website (new.tipsubmit.com), Im frequently disappointed because nothing seems to get done. Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Police Supt. David Brown seem to agree with what Brown said earlier this week, that the police cant solve crimes alone and need the public to work with us.

Yes, as reported on June 18 in the Sun-Times, the city for years sought security fixes at home where eight people recently were shot, ut nothing was done.

I can assure you this was not the only time a house was reported to the police for criminal activity and nothing was done. Though the narrative from City Hall is that residents dont report problem locations, thats certainly not the case in all situations. The four murders at that house might have been avoided had reports to the police actually been acted upon.

Michael Pearson, Englewood

All public schools require multiple vaccinations when registering children for classes. This is for the sake of protecting all children. If you dont feel your child should have to comply, send them to a private school. Its that simple.

Edwina Jackson, Washington Heights

Why does the media describe the ultra-right or alt-right as conservatives? What do they conserve? They certainly arent interested in conserving civil rights, human rights or our planet.

When House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy joked about hitting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with a gavel, he was not being conservative; he was pandering to his base, the Republican Partys motley crew of far-rightists, white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-fascists and advocates of violence. All those people whom the previous occupant of the White House helped his party solidify.

They should be described as far-right, ultra-right, or alt-right definitely not as conservatives.

Muriel Balla, Hyde Park

Read the original post:
Pass legislation that insures we use more wind and solar energy to power Illinois | Letters - Chicago Sun-Times

Neo-fascist fraternities that glorify violence and cater to bigots of all stripes have no place in Portland. Despite that fact, a local Proud Boys chapter has been meeting on a monthly basis at Mathews, a dive bar at 133 Free St.

A recent article in the Mainer (formerly the Bollard) by Chris Busby sheds light on the issue through an interview with former Mathews bartender Pat Hogan.

Hogan is a hero for refusing to serve these fascists, and for sounding the alarm about their organizing and recruiting activities. He lost his job over it, but he did the right thing. Mathews, on the other hand, deserves a general boycott by any self-respecting Portlander for continuing to serve as a meeting place for an alt-right hate group. In doing so, Mathews immediately put at risk any marginalized person living or working nearby, as the Proud Boys have a well-documented history of violently assaulting minorities.

The Canadian government has designated them as a domestic terrorist organization, and the U.S. Department of Justice has already begun prosecuting multiple Proud Boys members for their roles in the Capitol insurrection.

It is not hyperbolic to call them what they are: fascists, sympathizers and apologists. I hope our community can come together and confront far-right radicalism wherever it might rear its ugly head. And we should duly punish local businesses that provide space and resources for their dangerous activities.

If Mathews continues to host a far-right, violent gang, than why shouldnt the city of Portland revoke their liquor license?

Madison RaymondPortland

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Read the original here:
Letter to the editor: Portlanders should boycott bar that's site for hate group meetings - pressherald.com

When people act like jerks on social media, one permanent response is to ban them from posting again. Take away the digital megaphone, the theory goes, and the hurtful or dishonest messages from those troublemakers wont post a problem there anymore.

What happens after that, though? Where do those who have been deplatformed go, and how does it affect their behavior in future?

Assistant Professor Jeremy Blackburn, Department of Computer Science, Thomas J. Watson College of Engineering and Applied Science Image Credit: Jonathan Cohen.

An international team of researchers including Assistant Professor Jeremy Blackburn and PhD candidate Esraa Aldreabi from the Thomas J. Watson College of Engineering and Applied Sciences Department of Computer Science explores those questions in a new study called Understanding the Effect of Deplatforming on Social Networks.

The research performed by iDRAMA Lab collaborators at Binghamton University, Boston University, University College London and the Max Planck Institute for Informatics in Germany was presented in June at the 2021 ACM Web Science conference.

Researchers developed a method to identify accounts belonging to the same person on different platforms and found that being banned on Reddit or Twitter led those users to join alternate platforms such as Gab or Parler where the content moderation is more lax.

Also among the findings is that, although users who move to those smaller platforms have a potentially reduced audience, they exhibit an increased level of activity and toxicity than they did previously.

You cant just ban these people and say, Hey, it worked. They dont disappear, Blackburn said. They go off into other places. It does have a positive effect on the original platform, but theres also some degree of amplification or worsening of this type of behavior elsewhere.

More about Blackburn

The deplatforming study collected 29 million posts from Gab, which launched in 2016 and currently has around 4 million users. Gab is known for its far-right base of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, anti-Semites and QAnon conspiracy theorists.

Using a combination of machine learning and human labeling, researchers cross-referenced profile names and content with users that had been active on Twitter and Reddit but were suspended. Many who are deplatformed reuse the same profile name or user info on a different platform for continuity and recognizability with their followers.

Just because two people have the same name or username, thats not a guarantee, Blackburn said. There was a pretty big process of going through creating a ground truth data set, where we had a human say, These have to be the same people because of this reason and that reason. That allows us to scale things up by throwing it into a machine learning classifier [program] that will learn the characteristics to watch for.

The process was not unlike how scholars determine the identity of authors for unattributed or pseudonymous works, checking for style, syntax and subject matter, he added.

In the dataset analyzed for this study, about 59% of Twitter users (1,152 out of 1,961) created Gab accounts after their last active time on Twitter, presumably after their account was suspended. For Reddit, about 76% (3,958 out of 5,216) of suspended users created Gab accounts after their last post on Reddit.

Comparing content from the same users on Twitter and Reddit versus Gab, users tend to become more toxic when they are suspended from a platform and are forced to move to another platform. They also become more active, increasing the frequency of posts.

At the same time, the audience for Gab users content is curtailed by the reduced size of the platform compared to the millions of users on Twitter and Reddit. This might be seen as a good thing, but Blackburn cautioned that much of the planning for the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol happened on Parler, a platform similar to Gab with a smaller user base that skews to the alt-right and far-right.

Reducing reach probably is a good thing, but reach can be easily misinterpreted. Just because someone has 100,000 followers doesnt mean theyre all followers in the real world, he said.

The hardcore group, maybe the group that were most concerned about, are the ones that probably stick with someone if they move elsewhere online. If by reducing that reach, you increase the intensity that the people who stay around are exposed to, its like a quality versus quantity type of question. Is it worse to have more people seeing this stuff? Or is it worse to have more extreme stuff being produced for fewer people?

A separate study, A Large Open Dataset from the Parler Social Network, also included Blackburn among researchers from New York University, the University of Illinois, University College London, Boston University and the Max Planck Institute.

Presented at the AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media last month, it analyzed 183 million Parler posts made by 4 million users between August 2018 and January 2021, as well as metadata from 13.25 million user profiles. The data confirm that users on Parler which briefly shut down and was taken off of Apple and Google app stores in response to the Capitol riot overwhelmingly supported President Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again agenda.

Regardless of what Parler might have said, publicly or not, it was very clearly white, right-wing, Christian Trump supporters, Blackburn said. Again, unsurprisingly, it got its largest boost right at the 2020 election up to a million users joining. Then around the attack at the Capitol, there was another big bump in users. What we can see is that it was very clearly being used as an organization tool for the insurrection.

So if banning users is not the right answer, what is? Reddit admins, for example, have a shadow-banning capability that allows troublesome users to think theyre still posting on the site, except no one else can see them. During the 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic, Twitter added content moderation labels to tweets that deliberately spread disinformation.

Blackburn is unsure about all the moderation tools that social media platforms have available, but he thinks there need to be more socio-technical solutions to socio-technical problems rather than just outright banning.

Society is now fairly firmly saying that we cannot ignore this stuff we cant just use the easy outs anymore, he said. We need to come up with some more creative ideas to not get rid of people, but hopefully push them in a positive direction or at least make sure that everybody is aware of who that person is. Somewhere in between just unfettered access and banning everybody is probably the right solution.

See the original post here:
Study shows users banned from social platforms go elsewhere with increased toxicity | Binghamton News - Binghamton University

Mr. Regnery attended the University of Pennsylvania, where he studied political science and joined the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a conservative student organization co-founded by Mr. Buckley. He left before graduating to work on Senator Barry Goldwaters 1964 presidential campaign.

In the 2017 interview with Buzzfeed, one of the few times he spoke to the news media, he claimed that his efforts on behalf of Mr. Goldwater included what he called Operation Dewdrop, in which he attempted to deter Democratic voters in Philadelphia by hiring a plane to seed the skies with dry ice, in the hopes of making it rain. He failed though, he recalled, he burned his fingers on the ultracold dry ice containers.

Mr. Regnery later returned to Chicago, where he worked for Joanna-Western Mills. He became the companys president in 1980 but was ousted a year later, after several quarters of poor financial performance. According to his own account, he spent the rest of his career in a variety of businesses, while also dabbling in Illinois politics.

In his memoir, he recounted how he first began to turn against the Republican Party after listening to a speech in 1993 in which the economist Milton Friedman declared that the end of the Cold War meant that the free-market economic doctrines of the Reagan era had won. In an early sign of that break, according to a 2017 profile in Mother Jones, Mr. Regnery ran unsuccessfully for Illinois secretary of state in 1994 on the Term Limits and Tax Limits Party ticket.

Five years later, he convened a Whos Who of white supremacists for a conference in Florida, where he delivered a speech, For Our Childrens Children, in which he said the only way to save Americas white identity was for it to break up into several smaller countries, one each for the countrys various ethnic groups.

His racism grew more explicit. He announced plans in 2004 to start a whites-only dating site. It never happened, but he continued to worry that white people were in danger of extinction: In 2006 he delivered a speech in Chicago in which he said, The white race may go from master of the universe to an anthropological curiosity.

By then he had severed most of his ties with mainstream Republicans, and they with him. That same year the leadership of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which he had joined in college, removed him from its board.

Read the rest here:
William H. Regnery II, 80, Dies; Bankrolled the Rise of the Alt-Right - The New York Times

The bill signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis this week calling for intellectual diversity on college campuses has attracted national attention, drawing criticism and support.

And with an election year drawing near, the debate surrounding the new law appears to have staying power.

The reality is were very focused on diversity as policy matter and thats a good thing, House Speaker Chris Sprowls, a Palm Harbor Republican, told the state Board of Governors this week.

We should have diverse universities and diverse faculty, he said. But one of the most important things about diversity is not the diversity of how we look but the diversity of how we think.

Here are five things to know about the law, which takes effect July 1:

In recent years, the public debate over academic freedom and free speech on campus has been growing louder.

In 2015, The Coddling of the American Mind, an opinion piece in The Atlantic that was later turned into a book, sparked debate across higher education circles with the idea that students were being treated as emotionally vulnerable.

Sprowls referenced it this week while addressing the Board of Governors as they met in St. Petersburg. He warned them against pandering to the woke mob and people on social media. The day before, Senate President Wilton Simpson called Florida universities socialism factories.

Also in 2015, the University of Chicago drafted a statement upholding the values of free speech. The following year, the university sent out a letter supporting academic freedom and rejecting the notion of safe spaces and trigger warnings.

A staff analysis of the Florida bill cited a 2017 National Survey of Student Engagement, which found that 64 percent of students surveyed believed their coursework respected the expression of diverse ideas and that 71 percent believed their schools demonstrated a commitment to diversity. But far fewer than that 50 percent believed their schools were supportive of different political ideas.

The same year, Richard Spencer, an alt-right leader who organized the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., planned a speech at the University of Florida. The university initially rejected his request, fearing his appearance would incite violence, but later backtracked and allowed him on the grounds of free speech. The school spent more than $500,000 on security.

Following the event, a series of free speech-on-campus bills were introduced in the Legislature. And in 2018, the Campus Free Expression Act became Florida law, essentially stipulating that an entire public campus should allow free speech and not limit it to outdoor areas.

The bill analysis also cites other surveys supporting the idea that too many people on college campuses feel like they need to self-censor, and that the burden is falling harder on those with conservative beliefs.

State Rep. Spencer Roach, the North Fort Myers Republican who sponsored the measure in the House, said in an interview he had heard that this was happening in Florida and introduced the bill as a means of collecting empirical evidence.

The law defines intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity as the exposure of students, faculty, and staff to, and the encouragement of their exploration of, a variety of ideological and political perspectives.

It says schools may not shield students, faculty or staff from free speech. And it directs the State Board of Education and the State University Systems Board of Governors to conduct an annual assessment of intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity for each school.

The practice of shielding students is defined this way: to limit students, faculty members, staff members access to, or observation of, ideas and opinions that they may find uncomfortable, unwelcome, disagreeable, or offensive.

The required surveys must be objective, nonpartisan and statistically valid and consider the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented. It also must address whether people at a school feel free to express their beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom.

The first results are expected to be released Sept. 1, 2022 about two months before the Nov. 8 election.

Roach said the Legislature will not be involved in the surveys and each university will have a great degree of latitude in developing them. No one will be required to declare their political beliefs, he said.

Best case scenario, these surveys come back great and say its a marketplace of ideas, Roach said. It could say we really dont have that problem in Florida or it could say heres what the scope of it is and the extent of it is.

The results, he said, will be a tool for universities, the Board of Governors and future legislative bodies to take corrective action if needed.

The portion of the bill that generated most opposition among faculty members calls for the allowance of one-party recording in classes. Florida is one of 11 states that require all-party consent to record outside of public events.

While supporters of this provision argue that recording is being done anyway in classrooms, faculty worry it will have a chilling effect on peoples willingness to speak up.

The new law stipulates recording can be done only for personal use, filing a complaint to the university or as evidence in a criminal or civil case, and that action can be taken against violators. But faculty expressed concerns about intellectual property issues and not being able to control where things are posted.

When the bill was on the Senate floor, Sen. Jason Pizzo, a Miami Democrat, questioned whether this provision could be setting up a young adult to unwittingly commit a felony. The provision was included under the bills right to free speech activities.

The law expands protections for student government members and student organizations. These provisions are the result of politically charged issues that bubbled up on Florida campuses during the last election cycle.

At the University of Florida, some student leaders pushed to oust a student body president with Republican ties after he invited Donald Trump Jr. to speak on campus. Also at UF, three conservative student organizations were suspended for violating COVID-19 guidelines.

At the University of South Florida, a left-leaning student organization was suspended for the same reason, and members of the group were arrested during an on-campus protest.

The student body president at Florida State University was reinstated last October after being removed for criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement, Reclaim the Block and the American Civil Liberties Union during remarks to members of a Catholic Student Union.

Roach, the state representative, argued that the case shows the need for policies that prevent students records from being marred. We dont want our students to be subjected to some sort of kangaroo court, he said.

The newly signed bill modifies and codifies the State University Systems existing conduct regulations into state law.

It states that all schools will adopt a code of conduct that will protect the rights of all students and provide due process protections, including the right to a timely written notice within seven business days extending the existing five-day period.

The notice must outline the allegations and specify what portions of the code of conduct have been violated. It also allows for students to be represented by an advocate or legal representative.

The law requires universities to provide the accused with a full list of witnesses and all known information they have regarding the allegation five business days in advance of a hearing up from three days.

It states that students and organizations have the right to a presumption that no violation occurred and that schools have the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a violation has taken place.

Read this article:
Five things to know about Floridas new intellectual diversity law - Tampa Bay Times