Mediaboss Marketing

White Ridge, green lungOfficially, last weeks decision by the appeals committee at the district planning committee to approve the construction of thousands of housing units on Reches Lavan (White Ridge), just outside of southwest Jerusalem in the area of the Jerusalem Zoo, Kiryat Hayovel and Moshav Ora, means the deed is done. Yet Naomi Tsur, founder and chairwoman of the Jerusalem Green Fund and a prominent opponent to the project, says the game is far from over. Tsur will appeal to the High Court of Justice against the plan, which will ruin or at least significantly reduce one of the most important green lungs in the Jerusalem region and surroundings. Simultaneously, Tsur and several environmental associations, including the Society for Protection of Nature, are advancing their alternative project for that area a national park that, if approved by the district committee, will prevent the implementation of the construction project there. One of the main objections to the construction, which is actively promoted by the municipality, is that contrary to the promoters declaration, it will destroy a large part of the natural resources in that area, which are a public asset for leisure and nature and need to be saved from destruction by this project, which includes some 5,000 units in several 12- to 15-story towers. For now, a committee that will include representatives from the district committee and the city engineer will supervise the plans to minimize damage, but members of the city council, from both the mayors coalition and the opposition, are skeptical about their ability to protect the area. Expansive maneuverThe culture wars continue, this time in Rehavia. The iconic and non-kosher Cafe Yehoshua on Azza Road is trying to expand, but haredi representatives at city council see this as an alarming threat to Shabbat. Cafe Yehoshua is closed on Shabbat, but some fear the next step after the enlargement would be to change that. As a result, the citys planning and construction committee rejected the request to expand the coffee shops space beyond the current wall. Neighbors in the same building oppose the project, arguing it would change the atmosphere of the small, quiet street (Radak) on the corner. City councilwoman and coalition member Laura Wharton expressed frustration, saying that in light of the severe damage to Jerusalems economic life and restaurant businesses caused by corona, this is a foolish decision.

cnxps.cmd.push(function () { cnxps({ playerId: '36af7c51-0caf-4741-9824-2c941fc6c17b' }).render('4c4d856e0e6f4e3d808bbc1715e132f6'); });

More here:
This week in Jerusalem - A round-up of city affairs - The Jerusalem Post

By Robin Connolly, Co-Editor-in-Chief

In October of last year, three members of the Bristol Free Speech Society Harry Walker, Ben Sewell and Izzy Posen were approached to form part of a Free Speech Youth Advisory Board. Two months later, both Harry and Ben withdrew from the initiative, claiming it had been astroturfed by the Free Speech Union (FSU), which is led by Toby Young. Speaking to Epigram, the trio offered their differing perspectives on the programs management and objectives.

It was the issues relating to transparency, management and the nature of conversation and discussion that forced Harry Walker and Ben Sewell, along with another member of the group, to outline their concerns in an email to the facilitators of the Free Speech Youth Advisory Board, claiming they felt it had been astroturfed by the FSU.

Astroturfing is a practice whereby external bodies mask their involvement within groups which claim to be grassroots in nature. These sorts of campaigns attempt to convince audiences that their beliefs and opinions are held by a majority in order to create a bandwagon effect.

Walker and Sewell felt their initial excitement for the project, which they expected to be a grassroots movement in favour of positive attitudes towards free speech at universities, had been tainted by decisions relating to the groups name and belligerent attitude towards the culture wars decisions they felt had been made despite the advice of the young people within the group.

While they had been made aware of the financial sponsorship of both the FSU and another charity, The Battle of Ideas, in the first group meeting of the board, the members who left said they felt the extent of the affiliations had been downplayed.

An announcement of the group, under the name Free Speech Champions, made by Toby Young on the Darren Grimes podcast in November, two months before the programs planned launch, proved to be the turning point for Sewell and was when he realised how entrenched the organisations influence was.

Speaking to Epigram, Sewell said the reason I left was because I personally didnt feel Id been treated with the kind of respect I deserve. I think that I had been misled.

He spoke of the lack of professionalism shown by Young in the announcement on the Grimes podcast its either the fact that the FSU has far more influence over the project than we thought, or he [Toby Young] has lied about the influence that the FSU have over it and tried to claim it for himself. Either way, its not good.

Furthermore, this was a name Free Speech Champions that hadnt been agreed on as democratically as some members of the group had expected. A shared Google document was set up for people to share their ideas and suggestions for the name, yet, when it was announced by Young, the name was one that We hadnt heard before, according to Sewell.

Disappointing that on the day some of the most powerful companies in the world decide to censor anyone who dissents from prevailing orthodoxies, the Guardian launches another attack on the Free Speech Union. When will the paper realise everyone stands to lose from this attack?

However, Izzy Posen, original founder of the Free Speech Society, who has remained a member of the Youth Advisory Board, had a different take on what happened.

The Battle of Ideas and the Free Speech Union are co-sponsoring this project and this has been made clear to all participants from the very start. Were proud and grateful to be working collaboratively with these organisations, Posen told Epigram.

Most of those involved in this project are very happy with it and with the direction that it is taking, Posen added. We are a group of passionate young people, from diverse backgrounds and diverse views on all kinds of issues, but were united on our commitment to freedom of speech.

In conversation, it was clear both Walker and Sewell agree with Posen on the nature and make-up of the group itself both sang its praises in terms of the diversity in the backgrounds of the members, which include students from all over the world, of different economic backgrounds and from across the political spectrum.

For them, it was not the students and young people themselves, but the external decisions made on behalf of the group that they felt limited the effectiveness of its debates.

Walker explained that, I think this tendency of astroturfing organisations at universities and in education is really worrying for free speech, for open and honest discussion.

I think its one thing for a right-wing organisation to start up and have a free discussion, thats absolutely fine no problem with that. The problem is an outside group of people, who are not students, coming in with a specific aim of starting a group pushing students to discuss topics that benefit them.

He continued, I think it is hugely problematic when you are influencing people, without being honest about it, to make these discussions happen inorganically.

Walker went on to explain he felt this would be the same of organisations on either side of the political spectrum and that he would have responded the same if the Free Speech Youth Advisory Board had been astroturfed by organisations on the left.

University campuses have long been a battleground over free speech, with Bristols own campus being particularly prominent in this, having made national headlines on multiple occasions over the platforming of controversial speakers. More recently, this has culminated in Bristols Free Speech Society disassociating from their Facebook discussion page due to personal attacks and insults that had been posted on it.

Free speech and debates around it are ever-present and relevant on student campuses. Over the summer, the University and College Union (UCU) accused the Conservative Party of attempting to force political objectives through the pandemic, as Gavin Williamson stated that Universities would have to demonstrate commitment to free speech if they required financial bailouts due to the repercussions many are facing because of COVID-19

It is clear The Free Speech Youth Advisory Board, under whatever name it ends up being launched, has ruffled more than a few feathers. Sewell and Walker were just two of a group of six who ended up walking away from the project due to personal disagreements with its direction.

However, almost two thirds of the board have remained involved, making it clear the decision to leave remained one amongst a significant minority.

In a parting thought, Sewell made clear he wanted people to be able to make their own decision about the program, that They should have the freedom to interact with it with as much knowledge as can be made available to them.

He hopes people will take what weve taken away from the project as a bit of information and advice so they have a better idea of what getting involved might look like.

In the meantime, Walker made clear that the Bristol Free Speech society does, and will continue to, provide a grassroots approach to free speech and discussion on campus this academic year, theyve held conversations on freedom of speech in drug science, on art and freedom of expression and on Chinas oppression of the Uighurs. For those interested in getting involved, please see their page on the SU website, HERE.

Toby Young and the Free Speech Union have both been contacted for comment.

Featured: Epigram / Siavash Minoukadeh

What are your thoughts on the experiences of these students?

Original post:
Free to disagree? Bristol students tell all on controversial free speech youth organisation - Epigram

Assailed from both right and left, the social-media giants will face ever closer scrutiny

Jan 10th 2021

THE MEGAPHONE has been taken away. On January 8th Twitter, a social network, announced that it was permanently suspending President Donald Trump's account. Viewed in isolation, the two tweets that led to the ban were, by Mr Trumps standards, fairly innocuous. But Twitter said it had taken its decision in the wake of the riot at Americas Congress on January 6th, in which five people died as legislators offices were ransacked by a crowd of Mr Trump's supporters after Mr Trump had encouraged them to march on the Capitol. It said that continuing to give Mr Trump access risked allowing him to incite further violence.

Other social networks have taken a similarly tough line. Facebook has said that Mr Trump's account will be banned for at least the remainder of his term in office, which is due to expire on January 20th. Snapchat, a smaller social network, has likewise blocked the president's access. Besides defenestrating Mr Trump, Twitter also banned the accounts of Michael Flynn and Sidney Powell, two of the presidents dwindling circle of allies. And it promised to do the same for accounts dedicated to QAnon, a nutty but resilient conspiracy theory that holds that America is run by a cabal of Satanic paedophiles.

The suspensions mark the most drastic actions that social-media firms have yet taken to enforce their rules on what can and cannot be said on their platforms. Both Twitter and Facebook had said previously that politicians would be held to lower standards than ordinary users, on the grounds that their utteranceseven the sort of inflammatory or false ones of which Mr Trump was fondwere of wide interest. More recently, they had taken to labelling or blocking a greater number of untrue or potentially harmful posts. Twitter, for example, had pushed back on some of Mr Trumps wilder claims about the election by appending notices to some of his tweets, saying that their contents were disputed. But the outright bans prove that tech-company bosses such as Twitters Jack Dorsey and Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg feel there are limits to such indulgences.

Reaction has been split. Mr Trumps opponents, as well as many academics who study online media, welcomed the decision; some called it overdue. After his personal account was banned, Mr Trump used the official account of the American presidency to accuse Twitter of attempting to silence him, and of giving a platform to some of the most vicious people in the world. (Twitter later deleted those tweets, though it did not ban the account). Some prominent politicians from the Republican party, which Mr Trump leads, condemned the decision. Speech should be free whether you agree or not, said Ben Carson, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. We arent in China. Even Alexei Navalny, a Russian opposition leader, weighed in (on Twitter) to oppose the ban, saying it set a precedent that will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world.

Nor was it just social-media companies cracking down. Apple and Google act as gatekeepers to virtually every smartphone on the planet. In the wake of the riots both have banned Parler, a Twitter alternative popular with American right-wingers, from their app stores. Both firms said that some of the rioters had used the app to plan. Amazon quickly followed suit, kicking Parler off its web-hosting service, effectively removing it from the internet and causing an exodus of users to Telegram, a messaging service. Whether Parler's disappearance is permanent will depend on its ability to find a new host willing to stomach its reputation.

Disentangling principles from expediency is tricky. Like almost everything else in modern America, tech firms have been sucked into the countrys all-consuming culture wars. Republicans accuse social networks of censoring conservatives; the Democrats of allowing lies and threats to proliferate unchecked. Both have threatened regulatory crackdowns. Having lost the election, and with the Democrats due to take control of both the presidency and of Congress, Mr Trump is a lame duck. He is made lamer by the fall-out from the Capitol Hill debacle, with even close allies scrambling to distance themselves from him. The political cost of banning him is therefore lower than it has ever been.

All the same, it is hard to avoid the sense that the social-media firms have reached a point of no return. Disquiet about their power and reach is not confined to political partisans. Britain, Australia, Singapore, Brazil and the EU have passed, or are mooting, new rules designed to regulate social media. The banning of the worlds most powerful politician will raise the temperature even further. The firms in-house enforcement policieswhich are spotty and inconsistently appliedwill come under even more intense scrutiny.

So far, most analysis has focused on the implications for American politics. But the fallout from the decision could cause just as many headaches elsewhere. Critics of Twitters decision lost little time pointing out that the firm is apparently happy to continue to host Ali Khamenei, Irans Supreme Leader. Amid a wave of extra-judicial killings, Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines, likes to boast about how many alleged "drug dealers he has personally slain. Facebook has been one of Mr Dutertes most important political tools.

One early flashpoint could be India, where Facebook is embroiled in the struggle between the left-wing Congress party and the ruling Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Both sides accuse the firm of favouring the other. Indian culture wars can be even more lethal than the American sort: anti-Muslim riots in Delhi last year that killed more than 50 people. Shortly after Twitter announced Mr Trumps ban, Tejasvi Surya, the president of the BJP's youth wing, tweeted that if they can do this to POTUS, they can do this to anyone, and suggested that the sooner India passed new rules regulating tech firms, [the] better for our democracy.

Editors note: (January 11th 2021): This story was updated after Amazon Web Services stopped hosting Parler.

See also: Far-right digital media paved the way for the riot in Washington (Jan 2021)

See more here:
The expulsion of Donald Trump marks a watershed for Facebook and Twitter - The Economist

The world was watching in shock and horror as a rightwing mob stormed the Capitol during the confirmation of Joe Biden as the next democratically elected president of the US.

On the heels of Democratic victories in Georgia giving Democrats control of the Senate (to go along with the House and the Presidency), armed Trump supporters broke through the police and interrupted the proceedings. Far from being a protest, this was a terrorist insurrection that struck at the very core of US democracy.

At the heart of this violence were Trump and his Republican colleagues who have been feeding his supporters lies about a stolen election and the need to resist. It echoed his entire presidency which was built on a virulent mixture of conspiracy theory, white resentment, and real economic suffering. His politics was one of mob rule and populist backlash with the need to Make America Great Again regardless of the political or human costs.

Yet the US also now faces a clear and profound choice. Will it finally face up to the root causes of this extremism: corporate power, growing inequality, and systemic racism? Or will it continue to try to treat the symptoms without curing the disease?

Throughout his time in office, there were ongoing questions of how serious a threat to democracy Trump and his voters actually were. While his rhetoric and behavior crossed all conceivable lines of political civility and democratic acceptability, there was still hope that his reign would end with a peaceful transfer of power. Any such illusions were shattered by the recent far-right assault.

However, this extremism has always been central to Trumps appeal and victory. He plays on fears and presents the nation as being in extreme danger, a crisis which requires an extreme response. He has cloaked his entire political ascent to a paranoid belief in the need to resist a corrupt establishment. It is with little irony that this corrupt business person born into wealth and privilege presents himself as the only person standing up to elites in defense of the people.

Ultimately, whatever claims he makes, his revolution is one of pure reaction. It is a channeling of anger against vulnerable populations and in the service of corporate interests.

Even worse, it is the trading of an entrenched oligarchy for a personal plutocracy as he has used the presidency, above and beyond all else, as a vehicle to enrich himself, his family, and his friends. Far from draining the swamp, he was trying to build the foundations for a gilded 21st monarchy, a Trump-branded dynasty that he could profit off of for decades to come.

Still, for those breaking into the Capitol, there was a desire for revolution, for genuine change and democracy despite it being driven by white power and nativism. Even as they concretely tried to disrupt and dismantle it, they were ironically doing so in the name of saving US democracy.

Watching from our homes the danger to US democracy was easy to spot and condemn in the right-wing mob overtaking the Capitol Building. Less visible but every bit as threatening to its long-term survival though was the decent status quo which was under attack by the very extremists they ironically helped to create.

Undeniably, the most urgent task is to top this literal far right assault on US freedom and popular sovereignty.

Yet this immediate responsibility must not come at the expense of dealing with these deeper issues fundamentally undermining democracy in the US and globally. The threat of authoritarian capitalism, widening inequality, and corporate imperialism will continue to give birth to extremism and destroy any and all democratic gains.

These existential threats to freedom and democracy are covered over by a politic of voting for the lesser evil and trumped out partisan divides. While there is an underlying pro-finance and pro-military census between mainstream Republicans and Democrats, this is too often hidden in media-friendly culture wars. Further, attempts to enact serious reforms are labeled as naive and politically impossible.

Trumpism arose from the corrupted soil of a democracy that was far more rhetoric than reality. This political oligarchy was matched by a civic and popular culture that promoted violence over deliberation, policing and anti-heroes over social movements, and collective attempts to create real change.

In the face of globalization that was rapidly leaving most people behind, a financial crisis with a recovery for the rich and not the poor, and endless wars with mounting casualties at home and abroad, people wanted to feel empowered and found little opportunity to do so democratically either politically or in the workplace.

The violence invading the Capitol is, thus, a reflection of the violence that has infected US society in the new millennium.

It is one where everyday people, especially Black citizens, face state-based violence of a militarized and largely legally unaccountable police force. It is the daily violence of people being allowed to go hungry, sick, and jobless while corporations are given ever-larger subsidies by the state. It is the violence of mass shootings and no serious gun laws due to the power of the gun lobby. And it is the violence of a military that regularly invades, attacks, and overthrow legitimately elected governments that challenge US corporate interests all in the name of preserving democracy.

The attempted coup reveals the nation at a crossroads. One path leads to the rise of even greater authoritarianism and social division. The other to genuine solidarity and progress. Just as the myth that right-wing extremism was harmless must now be forever disregarded, so too must we dispense with the centrist myth that we can return to the status quo before Trump and expect our democracy to survive let alone thrive.

What we are witnessing is the barbarism of far-right populism. But it sprung from the savage injustices of a respectable politics as usual. Without destroying the latter, the former will continue to rise and rise again. The hard work will come with revitalizing our democracy in our communities, workplaces, and globally.

Right now, in front the worlds watching eyes, fascism and hate are literally trying to overrun US democracy, something sadly it has done around the world with bipartisan support. We must put our energy into stopping this threat.

Yet tomorrow, the choice between change or the status quo has never been so obvious. For popular rule and freedom to be preserved and expanded, we must begin to choose justice over hate, equality over greed, and real progress over greater and lesser evils.

View post:
Threatening Democracy: The Choice Between Progress and Extremism Has Never Been So Clear - The Globe Post

Will Arberys Heroes of the Fourth Turning was one of the most talked-about plays of 2019, and I fully intended to review Playwrights Horizons New York premiere in this space. Unfortunately, a family crisis made it impossible for me to do so, and the coming of the pandemic subsequently prevented regional theaters from taking up the play. Ive been crossing my fingers ever since that somebody out there would mount a webcast version. Now Philadelphias Wilma Theater, one of the East Coasts leading drama companies, has taped a fully staged site-specific production of Heroes of the Fourth Turning at a private location in the Poconos, turning the cast and crew into a closed quarantine bubble so that they could work together face-to-face instead of taping their performances separately via Zoom or green screens. The result, which looks more like a small-scale movie than an online webcast of a stage show, is a flawless, impressively well-cast production of a work of singular distinction, one for which the word remarkable is, if anything, an understatement.

The play, directed by Blanka Zizka, is set in rural Wyoming in 2017. It centers on Emily (Campbell OHare), Kevin (Justin Jain) and Teresa (Sarah Gliko), who are in their mid-to-late 20s and are meeting at the off-the-grid shack of Justin (Jered McLenigan), a somewhat older but like-minded man. The young people are all in the familiar process of discovering themselves, but there is nothing else ordinary about them: They are conservative Catholic intellectuals-in-the-making who have been girding themselves for battle in the coming culture wars.

Kevin and Teresa went to the same school, Transfiguration College, and have come to Justins house to meet with Gina (Mary Elizabeth Scallen), Emilys mother and Transfigurations incoming president, and tell her about their post-graduate lives in the age of Trump. Like them, Transfiguration is very unusual, a school where, as Teresa says, you got wilderness training, where you spoke conversational Latin and locked your phone in a safe for four years. Not surprisingly, it produces alumni who make casual mention in bull sessions of Martin Heidegger and my gal Flannery O (thats OConnor to you), ask each other questions like Hows your soul? Is it in peril? and believe it to be the destiny of those unwilling to do battle with the rise of postmodern secularism to degenerate into a throbbing mass of genderless narcissists.Everyone working for any business or public school will be frog-marched through diversity and inclusion training. It wont just be about tolerating, which we do, it will be about affirming their disorder. Which is a sin. Notwithstanding their avowed religious conservatism, though, the characters have mostly come to view Donald Trump with skepticism, even though they all supported him in 2016, albeit unenthusiastically (After I voted for Trump I vomited next to my car).

Part of what makes Mr. Arberys play so good is that its characters are portrayed on their own terms. No one shows up at evenings end to make these-people-are-100%-evil noises meant to calm the horrified audience. (I would love to know what Tony Kushner, a wholly different kind of playwright but one from whom Mr. Arbery appears to have learned valuable lessons, made of it.) While I feel sure that many of those who saw Heroes of the Fourth Turning in New York found the characters, not entirely without reason, to be potentially dangerous extremists, they are far more complicated and interesting than that, for life in urban America has nibbled away at their orthodoxies, and none of them now takes the carved-in-stone truths of Transfiguration College at face value. Not at all surprisingly, Mr. Arbery grew up in the kind of cultural environment he describes here, which makes it possible for him to portray it with the deep comprehension and distanced sympathy that give Heroes its dramatic power.

Heroes is a conversation piece that runs for 2 1/2 hours, and those with no appetite for intellectual talk will doubtless find it far too long. But it is a real play, not a pretentious gabfest, and Mr. Arbery is a greatly talented writer who has given us a drama as exciting and challengingnay, daringas any new play Ive ever reviewed. I intend to see Heroes onstage as soon as the pandemic ends and it starts to be produced by regional theaters. Dont wait for that, though: This is a play you must see, right now.

View original post here:
Heroes of the Fourth Turning Review: A Culture-War Conversation Piece - The Wall Street Journal