"These writers get mileage out of calling this a “digital deception,” and declare the Internet “fake” in order to have a convenient answer (“technology!”) for real, messy, complicated, human problems like celebrity, romance, and deception. Blaming technology also provides a simpler solution: “less technology!” And, as I discuss in my IRL Fetish essay, by constructing the digital as some “other” place, and then judging that place as “virtual” and less real, one can then value their own non-use as more human and deep. Ultimately this trend may be less about putting down the digital and those who use it, and more about propping up one’s own non-use. And those reading these types of articles who are not highly involved with the Web or mobile devices can congratulate themselves."
#social construction of real
#people of color
I’ve had a few white friends congratulate me on being quoted on Jezebel. Something along the lines of “well you are finally being recognized for your intelligent words, I am proud of you.”
Recognized - not paid - in what way does that recognition take form?
Well, I gained a lot of new followers, most of them women of color or cool seeming white allies. Yes, good.
But something that white women seem to forget so quickly as that as soon as they signal boost your words, their audience is not your audience.
Laura Beck isn’t followed by mostly women of color in the black and latin@ tumblr scene of people equipped to discuss race. She’s being read by a largely white audience of proven time-and-time-again racist white women (and I’m sure, men).
Her article itself is good - it has a lot of good points. And I’m sure she’ll get paid for her research that includes quoting me and other woc. However, she gets to dodge a huge bullet I don’t. She gets to write about Quvenzhane Wallis and barely touch on race, and when she does touch upon it, she uses my hand to do so. She touches on race with my words, not her own. So guess who’s suddenly going to be responsible to her white audience for maybe their first encounter with race intersecting feminism?
Guess who isn’t going to protect me from her white audience?
I was already getting credit and recognition for my words. Through woc followers on tumblr. It doesn’t suddenly become relevant when a white person does it.
I’m really glad she gave me credit and that she used my words in her article. I’m just not entirely pleased that when white people reblog you or quote you, they never collect their white garbage. Laura Beck is going to be long gone when her readership comes here solely to call me a spic and tell me they wish i was deported.
This is a good post but the bolded in particular is something i want my white followers to read and read and read and digest. This is why I have the policy I do that if you reblog from me and one of your shitty white friends starts vomiting Whiteness all over the place, you clean that shit up or you get put on ignore. If you’re not prepared or equipped to step in and do that work to collect your cousins and educate them then don’t reblog my posts when I talk about race.
The U.N.'s Internet Sneak Attack →
#freedom of speech
Many of the U.N.’s 193 member states oppose the open, uncontrolled nature of the Internet. Its interconnected global networks ignore national boundaries, making it hard for governments to censor or tax. And so, to send the freewheeling digital world back to the state control of the analog era, China, Russia, Iran and Arab countries are trying to hijack a U.N. agency that has nothing to do with the Internet.
For more than a year, these countries have lobbied an agency called the International Telecommunications Union to take over the rules and workings of the Internet. Created in 1865 as the International Telegraph Union, the ITU last drafted a treaty on communications in 1988, before the commercial Internet, when telecommunications meant voice telephone calls via national telephone monopolies.
Next week the ITU holds a negotiating conference in Dubai, and past months have brought many leaks of proposals for a new treaty. U.S. congressional resolutions and much of the commentary, including in this column, have focused on proposals by authoritarian governments to censor the Internet. Just as objectionable are proposals that ignore how the Internet works, threatening its smooth and open operations.
Having the Internet rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing a Stradivarius to a gorilla. The Internet is made up of 40,000 networks that interconnect among 425,000 global routes, cheaply and efficiently delivering messages and other digital content among more than two billion people around the world, with some 500,000 new users a day.
Many of the engineers and developers who built and operate these networks belong to virtual committees and task forces coordinated by an international nonprofit called the Internet Society. The society is home to the Internet Engineering Task Force (the main provider of global technical standards) and other volunteer groups such as the Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Research Task Force. Another key nongovernmental group is Icann, which assigns Internet addresses and domain names.
The self-regulating Internet means no one has to ask for permission to launch a website, and no government can tell network operators how to do their jobs. The arrangement has made the Internet a rare place of permissionless innovation.
(Source: , via iamlittlei)
CISPA Replaces SOPA As Internet’s Enemy No. 1 (Must Read)
The Internet has a new enemy. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA), also known as H.R. 3523, is a “cybersecurity” bill in the House of Representatives. While CISPA does not focus primarily on intellectual property (though that’s in there, too), critics say the problems with the bill run just as deep.
As with SOPA and PIPA, the first main concern about CISPA is its “broad language,” which critics fear allows the legislation to be interpreted in ways that could infringe on our civil liberties. The Center for Democracy and Technology sums up the problems with CISPA this way:
• The bill has a very broad, almost unlimited definition of the information that can be shared with government agencies notwithstanding privacy and other laws;
• The bill is likely to lead to expansion of the government’s role in the monitoring of private communications as a result of this sharing;
• It is likely to shift control of government cybersecurity efforts from civilian agencies to the military;
• Once the information is shared with the government, it wouldn’t have to be used for cybesecurity, but could instead be used for any purpose that is not specifically prohibited.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) adds that CISPA’s definition of “cybersecurity” is so broad that “it leaves the door open to censor any speech that a company believes would ‘degrade the network.’”
Moreover, the inclusion of “intellectual property” means that companies and the government would have “new powers to monitor and censor communications for copyright infringement.”
Furthermore, critics warn that CISPA gives private companies the ability to collect and share information about their customers or users with immunity — meaning we cannot sue them for doing so, and they cannot be charged with any crimes.
According to the EFF, CISPA “effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity’ exemption to all existing laws.”
“There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by ‘cybersecurity purposes.’” the EFF continues.
“That means a company like Google, Facebook, Twitter, or AT&T could intercept your emails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and modify those communications or prevent them from reaching their destination if it fits into their plan to stop cybersecurity threats.”
Read the full text of CISPA here, or the full official summary at the bottom of this page.
DEAR WORLD, Internet service providers will begin spying on you!
This is not just the USA, this is also Europe, UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and more.
ACTA is another attempt by Hollywood and others to end privacy and freedom to protect their profits.
These well done videos provide an overview:
We got to stop this!
Poland is planning protests.
Europe, contact your representatives.
UK, sign this petition.
USA, reblog this post. Make new posts. Join the EFF. Stay involved.
They won’t give up, and neither will we.
I’m going to keep spamming ACTA posts. It’s just so important. I can’t even…
yeah really, SOPA is such small potatoes compared to this
Alright people, we need to concern ourselves with ACTA →
1. ACTA isn’t the “European” SOPA. It’s nearly GLOBAL, and will apply to every country that signs the treaty.
2. ACTA is far more aggressive. ACTA will not simply affect websites and have them blocked out of the internet - its measures go as far as surveillance of anything you share through private channels.
3. ACTA doesn’t have a campaign against it that is as wide-spread and organized as the SOPA one. This is DANGEROUS, as there’s less time between now and the final signing of ACTA.
4. ACTA has effects on healthcare, trade, and even tourism.
5. ACTA has to be stopped.
Let’s start spreading the word and organizing a good, solid response to it.
Egypt turns off internet, Lieberman wants same option for US - Boing Boing
PCNAA or some version thereof have been waiting around for a 9/11-esque event to promote its passage (much like the patriot act). Why on earth Lieberman thinks that this is that event, I don’t understand. We’re going “holy shit, Egypt is really fucked up, corrupt, and autocratic” and he thinks we should be Just Like Them? Please, sir, continue your crazy bullshit rants, so that we can use you to discredit anyone who shares your thoughts.
I’ve disliked Lieberman and his brand of bullshit since he blamed Marilyn Manson, Rammstein, and the video game DOOM for the Columbine shootings.
He’s really into censorship. Really. Is anyone else surprised that he supports such a fucked up idea? The internet has connected a generation of people all over the world to each other. Activists in the USA can talk with activists in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc. That scares the ever living shit out of Lieberman. We’re no longer dependent on the news agencies and government for information about what happens not only within our own borders, but outside them as well.
He wants the US government to have the power to take that away? Fuck you and no thank you.
Filed under FACES OF EVIL & BIGOTED US-IAN FUCKERY.
I’ve seen this mentioned elsewhere, but everyone needs to hear about it. Luckily Lieberman is on the way out (eventually).
Good gravy. Is it time for the Quisling to leave yet?
I feel like lots of people don’t take internet activism seriously because they don’t acknowledge that it’s a real place
#value of the internet
But it is. And people move in and out of it and take pieces of their experience from that place to another. I know I’ve definitely learned a lot from the anti-oppression/social justice tumblrs that I follow, stuff that I probably wouldn’t learn or think about elsewhere, and it’s definitely impacted my actions in the real world and changed how I thought of myself.
Not saying the internet is a perfect space, just that it’s a real one.
For realz! The internet has opened up our communities and exploded as a space that nurtures counter-hegemonic thought, art and action right now for queerz, fatties and all sorts of lovely radical people. I think it is seriously fucking with ideas about “what counts as activism” and also ideas of citizenship/nation and belonging. Our communities/relationships/activism are NOT just geographically mediated anymore, although non-internet activism is also important. I would also like to point out (as was pointed out to me by a friend with a disability) that it is TOTALLY ableist to crack down on people for not “doing enough” activism in ways that are deemed traditionally productive (i.e. organizing events/attending protests) as those spaces are often not safe or accessible for many of us, including but not limited to, differently abled folk, queers, people of color, fatties, people with mental illness, ETC.
THANK YOU ERIN! As a Deaf person, almost every gathering of any sort is inaccessible for me. If it involves group dialogue, speeches, etc. Unless there’s an interpreter (which usually doesn’t happen unless there’s some sort of funding or a volunteer). Thus a lot of activism (ranging from organizing to attending) are all off-limits. If I want to, I can find ways around this - being more behind-the-stage sort of person but it’s definitely not accessible at all.
The internet has been INCREDIBLE for the d/Deaf community. It opened up so many doors. I can’t even properly express how important the internet is to me, and while there are still stuff that needs to be worked on, such as more captioning for one, it’s still such a valuable and empowering tool.
(Source: cuntofboo, via tranqualizer)
"During these past weeks, rather than a nerd takeover, I saw the crumbling of the facade of a flat, equal, open Internet and the revelation of an Internet which has corporate power occupying its key crossroads, ever-so-sensitive to any whiff of displeasure by the state. I saw an Internet in danger of becoming merely an interactive version of the television in terms of effective freedom of speech. Remember, the Internet did not create freedom of speech; in theory, we always had freedom of speech—it’s just that it often went along with the freedom to be ignored. People had no access to the infrastructure to be heard. Until the Internet, the right to be heard was in most cases reserved to the governments, deep pockets, and corporate media. Before the Internet, trees fell in lonely forests. The Wikileaks furor shows us that these institutions of power are slowly and surely taking control of the key junctures of the Internet. As a mere “quasi-public sphere,” the Internet is somewhat akin to shopping malls, which seem like public spaces but in which the rights of citizens are restricted, as they are in fact private. If you think the freedom of the Internet could never be taken back, I implore you to read the history of radio. Technologies that start out as peer-to-peer and citizen-driven can be and have been taken over by corporate and state power."