Mediaboss Marketing

Leah McSweeney has approximately zero problems calling people out. The Real Housewives of New York City newbie is known for her trademark no-nonsense approach to life, so it should come as no surprise that she had a few choice words for a follower who felt the need to wait for it report her to Instagram.

Yes, you read that right.Athree-year-old post that Leah shared on Instagram in which she semi-exposed her nipple was reported to Instagram for going against community guidelines. And it's safe tosay Leah is not having it.

Let's back up, shall we?Leah posted a sexy snap on her feed way back when on September 19, 2017 (I know). In the shot, she is maxing and relaxing in a pair of bold pink sweatpants with no top to speak of to celebrate her Married to the Mob collaboration with none other than Penthouse Magazine. Apparently, the photo was so scandalous that it forced one follower toreport it for nudity.

"Imagine being this much of a loser to go back years on my ig and report my nipple???"she wrote on June 10 in her Instagram Stories.

Bravos Style & Living is your window to the fabulous lifestyles of Bravolebrities. Be the first to know about all the best fashion and beauty looks, the breathtaking homes Bravo stars live in, everything theyre eating and drinking, and so much more. Sign up to become a Bravo Insider and get exclusive extras.

Continue reading here:
Leah McSweeney Claps Back After Her Years-Old Nip Slip Was Reported to Instagram - Bravo

However, it is not just the present and the future that these anarchists propose to change. Like Pol Pot, with his Year Zero, or Mao Zedong and his Cultural Revolution, they wish to change the past.

In university history departments across the Western world in the last decade or so, there has been a determination to "decolonise the curriculum". This is an approach that politicises the subject by imposing a Marxist slant on it. Far from paying attention to the main facts of history, it concentrates on imposing the "woke" values of a noisy, self-advertising minority on a very different past.

Without attempting to understand the dynamics of the 19th century, these demonstrators want to remove evidence of imperialism and imperialists. In Britain, the Black Lives Matter leaders also direct their guns at capitalism, and it is a short step from there to a movement for anarchy.

Context is irrelevant to these people: historical figures who had attitudes or performed deeds of which today's society rightly disapprove are to be vilified and despised, with no quarter given. That is why statues and monuments are being ripped down or defaced around the world. For these people, the purpose of history is not to seek the truth, but to deploy it as a weapon however crude and distorted to manipulate the present.

It doesn't matter how you dress this act up: it is the imposition of the views of a minority of agitators on the rest of society without any attempt at consultation or respect for democracy. Then again, the whole point of being an anarchist is to reject democracy and to seize any excuse to attack manifestations of the establishment whether they are statues, other monuments or police officers.

Just look at some of the statues that have been attacked. Winston Churchill, who fought against fascism at a moment when Britain could have gone under the Nazi jackboot, had "racist" daubed on his statue in London's Parliament Square.

The statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square, London.Credit:AP

In Ballarat, busts of John Howard and Tony Abbott were vandalised with red paint, which suggests that monuments to anyone who failed to advocate leftist politics is now fair game.

In light of that, it is perhaps inevitable that Sydney's Captain Cook statue should become a target. Australia has certainly had distasteful episodes in its treatment of our Indigenous people, especially in the 19th century. But our nation, admirable by almost every international standard, only exists because of James Cook.

Colonisation of Australia's land mass was inevitable, and as Howard has all too often argued, British settlement was a far better outcome than other possibilities. Think of the English language, rule of law, representative democracy, a free press and a market economy. Context is everything.

Loading

Defacing the statue of Cook will make no difference whatsoever to the plight of Aboriginal Australians. How would eliminating Cook from our history reduce the rates of family violence, youth suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, welfare dependence and incarceration in Indigenous communities?

History cannot be undone; its legacies are in every society, everywhere. Censoring the past by removing statues, or stopping the showing of Gone with the Wind or even an episode of Fawlty Towers only makes a proper comprehension of history (and what the past was really like) impossible to grasp.

To us, much of history was horrible, but it is why Western society is as it is. Removing evidence of that history is the construction of an alternative reality. It is not reality itself.

Tom Switzer is executive director and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is director of the Indigenous program at the Centre for Independent Studies.

More:
Censoring history makes the past impossible to grasp - Sydney Morning Herald

What new things can one ask a stand-up comedian who hosts a podcast, and takes questions from his fans regularly? Kenny Sebastian laughs in response. One of the most successful Indian stand-up comics, Kenny has had quite the journey since he decided to dabble with it when he was 19. Back then, everyone told me that comedy is a bubble and would die in three years, he says, going on to explain how the Indian comedy scene has evolved. It has all been good. The opportunities to become big are so many right now: Comicstaan, YouTube sketches, podcasts, Tik Tok. People now look out for standup comedy. Regional comedy has become so big. The only drawback is people are overestimating how stable stand-up is, he points out as we discuss censorship, his latest Netflix special, The Most Interesting Person in the Room, and all things comedy.

Excerpts from a chat:

I am going to play hooky here, and ask you if there's a question you wish people asked you.

(laughs) I miss when people would ask me something very specific about a joke. Seldom do people ask questions about the craft, but I understand why that is cos it gets too specific. But I do enjoy answering questions like that as there is a lot of thought behind every line and every word.

Taking off on this lead you gave me, Ill point out that I enjoyed how you created a natural moment out of a water break in your latest special. Its when you pause to take a swig and the audience cheers. You comment, "I'll go home, I'll drink water, and no one will react. I will be so bummed."

That's the only improvised part of the show. I did plan my water break because I needed one there. And my next joke is about the concept of stand-up and how weird it is. So, I decided I would pause, and when the audience reacted, I went along with it. I enjoy playing with my audience and that's a moment where my personality comes through. But that's also the summary of the entire set, that none of this is real; that how they reacted to the water break, is also how they react to my jokes. It might be improvised, but it's how I feel. There's a genuine surprise as to how people react to me.

This special sees you explore more of that vulnerable side...

I wanted this special to have an honest side as well. Stand-up is very tight, it's 2-2.5 years of writing, re-writing, over-analysing... it's my best work. I enjoy stand-up as it has my best writing. Usually, there's so much focus on jokes, that you don't want to waste one second. You don't want the audience to feel its boring, or wonder why a comedian is only talking about himself, and begin to demand jokes. But this was a conscious decision. I felt at this point I deserved to express myself. I am proud of this special.

How did this interesting premise of The Most Interesting Person in the Room begin?

The hard thing about stand-up is, you don't write an hour's worth of jokes and hit a show. You write about three minutes of jokes, test it, analyse what works and then repeat. So imagine doing this to get enough content for about 70 minutes. It took me two and a half years. I got to know about the special, six months before we taped it. My main focus was to have a theme for it, and anything that didn't fit had to be out.

When I first heard about my special, more than celebrating, my first thought was, 'Is my special was good enough to be on Netflix, amid so many great names?' You could be the most confident person in your circle, but walk into a TED conference, and you will be surrounded by people who are more accomplished. I found this constant shift in power to be interesting, universal, and relatable.

While your brand of comedy doesn't dabble extensively in politics, there have been passing references to social themes. With a growing demand for censorship, how do you see the form evolving?

I believe the internet is the biggest gift India has got; that's the only reason why stand-up blew up. Before YouTube, the content that young people had to watch was television which was heavily regimented with laws, and so many writers, that the final product was often watered down; it felt generic and non-personal. So when YouTube came, and young comedians started making content with no restrictions, people found it relatable. From seeing women talk about marriages in soaps, we now see a young girl talkcandidly about casual sex. That would have never happened on television.

With my special, I could shoot what I wanted, given that Netflix uploads with a disclaimer saying it is all my responsibility. This is the future because what we see on television isn't real. This is why when young people saw YouTube or platforms like Netflix, they went, This is how we are! Even if censorship happens with government intervention, a new subset will come into place. Just like how YouTube or these streaming platforms happened.

View original post here:
Kenny Sebastian: Even if censorship on digital platforms happen, a new subset will come into place - Cinema Express

Facebook mistakenly removed a photo of chained Aboriginal men from the 19th century, citing it violated decency policies. The user who posted the photo was refuting claims by Prime Minister Scott Morrison that there was no slavery in Australia, which was hindered by Facebooks removal of the image.

In a radio interview on Thursday morning, the Australian prime minister said with a strong conviction that there was no slavery in the country. His claim started a heated debate on social media on the history of slavery in Australia.

So, one strong opponent of the PMs claim went to Facebook and posted the photo of the Aboriginal men wearing loins with chains around their necks captured in 1896 outside Roebourne Gaol.

The photo, also featured in articles covering the PMs remarks, extracted from the state library of Western Australia, shows the men were prisoners.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

The Facebook user accompanied the photo with a caption saying, Kidnapped, ripped from the arms of their loved ones, and forced into back-breaking labor: The brutal reality of life as a Kanaka worker but Scott Morrison claims there was no slavery in Australia.

Facebook not only removed the post but also suspended the account. The social media company said that it included nudity, which is against the platforms community standards.

On Friday, the PM retracted his claims and admitted that indeed there was blackbirding in Australia. Blackbirding was a form of slavery where people were tricked or kidnapped from their native countries and taken to distant lands to work for free or on meager pay. The term mostly refers to the extensive abduction of Pacific Islanders who were taken to the then European colonies such as Queensland, Samoa, Fiji, New South Wales, and Mexico.

Scott Morrison explained that his earlier comments were based on the fact that when the New South Wales colony was established, slavery was abolished.

Facebook restored the post and account on Friday after The Guardian Australia inquired if it was a mistake. Facebook acknowledged that its automated flagging system mistakenly removed the post and the company apologized to the user for the error.

However, even this weekend, Facebook was still preventing users from sharing stories that featured the photo and even the article about Facebooks censorship of the photo was removed by Facebook.

View original post here:
Facebook apologizes for censoring photo of aboriginal people in chains, then does it again - Reclaim The Net

UK MPs have joined the call for President Trump to be censored from social media platforms due to his incendiary tweets about the US anti-racism protests currently underway.

Despite the fact that the statement in question where Trump deployed the historically racist phrase when the looting starts, the shooting starts has been widely broadcast by TV networks and newspapers across the world, MPs who were grilling reps from Twitter and Facebook at the latest online harms parliamentary committee meeting yesterday were concerned about the words being allowed to remain on Twitter and Facebook.

Following Labour MP Kevin Brennans spluttering incredulity over head of product policy and counterterrorism at Facebook Monika Bickerts claim not to have seen the the New York Times letter penned by disgruntled Facebook employees, Bickert responded that the post had been allowed to remain up because its the platforms policy to allow discussion of government use of force.

We think if governments are talking about using force, people should be able to discuss that [] frequently, there could be a safety reason that people would want to know what governments are planning, saidBickert.

Twitter which allowed the tweet to remain up but amended it with a notice and blocked the retweet function was probed on the same issue. Now that youre imposing scrutiny on President Trumps tweets, are you a platform, a publisher? asked Tory MP and DCMS chair Julian Knight. Or do you recognise you are what many people believe you are, which is a hybrid of both?

I totally agree with the premise. I dont think the traditional dichotomy really works anymore, replied Nick Pickles, director of public policy strategy at Twitter, saying the platform is now seeking to provide extra context for tweets (to be supplied by journalists, experts, academics, third parties).

Has there been any discussion at all within your organisation of suspending President Trumps Twitter account? Knight asked.

Pickles clarified that the Twitter decision on Trumps account was taken because the public debate about that tweet is important to protect.

In a botched attempt at a gotcha moment, SNP MP John Nicolson described an account on Twitter that posts exactly the same words as Trump, declaring triumphantly you suspended his account for violating your standards.

I think this is the system working as intended [] In both cases, we said the tweet broke our rules, replied Pickles, noting that according to a public policy the firm announced last year, that if an account breaks the rules but meets the criteria of being verified, having more than 100,000 followers and being operated by a public figure, then we may take the option, that in the public interest, we want that tweet to be available. In the case of the Trump tweet, he said: One of those accounts meets those criteria; one of those doesnt.

MPs also returned to their favourite internet bugbears: online anonymity and encryption. Its the opinion of some MPs that anonymity online couldnt possibly serve any useful purpose.

Pickles offered two examples of where anonymity would actually be pretty useful: in both the current political moment in the US (where people have testified on Twitter about the threat to their career of publicly being a vocal supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement online) and Hong Kong, where for obvious reasons protesters may want to shield their identity. Other examples, of course, include people who are posting in authoritarian countries, those seeking to avoid the attention of stalker or abusive ex-partners, whistleblowers, or parody accounts whose primary purpose is humour.

But the MPs present appeared to remain stubbornly impervious to the idea that there could be any reason for wanting to be anonymous online other than being a troll, demanding to know why Twitter had not carried out research looking at whether more factually inaccurate information was disseminated by anonymous accounts.

I think one of the problems is that people are focused on anonymous accounts as a disproportionate part of the problem than is actually the case, said Pickles. He noted that when South Korea trialled removing anonymity from the internet, it didnt find a connection between anonymity and abuse.

Asked whether Facebook still intends to introduce encryption across all user communications across its platforms, Bickert said: We are still planning to implement end to end encryption, but were still in the investigative stages at this point.

Yvette Cooper took up the charge, demanding to know how child sexual abuse material would be caught by Facebook if everything was encrypted. How can it be safe if nobody can see the content? asked Cooper.

The Five Eyes intelligence sharing alliance, featuring the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, is reportedly in the midst of staging a legal challenge against Facebook over its plans for encryption, ostensibly for the protection of children.

Continued here:
MPs grill Twitter and Facebook over Trump censorship issue - NS Tech