Merle is feeling poetic
Now sitting on Granville train station watching the cranes again about 8 months ago these buildings were not here but Sydney is a hive of activity, developers have gone crazy, big money is to be made here now. I have lived in Granville for a long time nothing much happened for about 20 years but in the last few years so many new buildings have gone up mainly all units selling off the plan in a lot of cases ok if the developer doesn't go broke it has been known to happen.
Well look at that I 'm finished it only took 2and a bit weeks.
Mum calls FaceTime face to face
This is my style
“I live in the countryside in Portugal running a B&B so I spend lot of time cleaning, renovating or in the veggie garden so most of the time I'm wearing something comfy and pratical. Clothes don't really play a big part in my life anymore despite having studied fashion design. It's very freeing to be apart from the consumerism though first it was quite hard to let go of that part of my identity to dress up every day. When I visit cities I do like to wear something more special like for example today this Vuokko dress but I hardly buy new clothes anymore, there is no need since my style has been same for years and I have enough clothes in my wardrobe already.”
5 August 2017, Kalliolanrinne
“I'm wearing lots of vintage that I've gathered from different people: the dress is from my friend, the belt I stole from my grandma, bag is made out of car tires and I think it belongs to my friend's mother. I adore clip on earrings and these are a fantastic find from the Hietalahti flea market. My style is combination of new and old, streetstyle and drag. I don't like wearing clothes that other people around me can find. Lately I've been gaining more body confidence so I love dressing in more revealing clothes. My inspirations are all over the place but Namilia is a one brand I'd wear every day for the rest of my life if I could. Right now I'm dreaming of (vegan) leather cargo pants.”
23 May 2018, Koe18
"On International Women's Day they launched a new initiative called Inspired by Her. MGallery hotels have over 80% female clientele and they sought to cater for them by introducing ideas that appeal to women's attention to detail. There are things like tea time in the room, emergency kits including complimentary amenities like makeup remover wipes, hair ties, disposable razors and makeup mirrors as well as amenities for purchase. There are also special dishes for breakfast and dinner, a cocktail called the Sparkling Suzette as well as diverse reading material." ok
In a think-piece with the title Who’s Afraid of the Female Nude?, over at The Cut, author Michael Slenske asks, “Is it still an artistically justifiable pursuit for a man to paint a naked woman?” He proceeds:
13th century depiction of Adam and Eve from portal of the Cathedral of St. Lawrence, Trogir, Croatia (13th century). Source: http://www.christianiconography.info/adamEve.html
To answer this question, I reached out to a number of prominent male artists known for doing just that (as well as for painting nude men). But most of them — including Currin, Carroll Dunham, Jeff Koons, and the young Mexican-American painter Alex Becerra (some of whose nudes are drawn from escort ads) — declined to talk about their work’s relationship to the current social climate. Presumably, they worried about unintentionally saying the wrong thing that would then echo endlessly across social media, damaging their reputations. For emerging artists, there is the fear of a possibly career-derailing gestalt fail.
As expected, essay is full of quotes from male artists blaming hyper-sensitive women for making it impossible for them to express themselves in all their artistic glory.
Read the full piece here, along with a contrasting/companion piece by author Molly Langmuir. Langmuir’s article focuses on seven female artists’ take on the way they represent the female form in their art.
Facebook has built some of the most advanced algorithms for tracking users, but when it comes to acting on user abuse reports about Facebook groups and content that clearly violate the company’s “community standards,” the social media giant’s technology appears to be woefully inadequate.
Last week, Facebook deleted almost 120 groups totaling more than 300,000 members. The groups were mostly closed — requiring approval from group administrators before outsiders could view the day-to-day postings of group members.
However, the titles, images and postings available on each group’s front page left little doubt about their true purpose: Selling everything from stolen credit cards, identities and hacked accounts to services that help automate things like spamming, phishing and denial-of-service attacks for hire.
To its credit, Facebook deleted the groups within just a few hours of KrebsOnSecurity sharing via email a spreadsheet detailing each group, which concluded that the average length of time the groups had been active on Facebook was two years. But I suspect that the company took this extraordinary step mainly because I informed them that I intended to write about the proliferation of cybercrime-based groups on Facebook.
That story, Deleted Facebook Cybercrime Groups had 300,000 Members, ended with a statement from Facebook promising to crack down on such activity and instructing users on how to report groups that violate it its community standards.
In short order, some of the groups I reported that were removed re-established themselves within hours of Facebook’s action. I decided instead of contacting Facebook’s public relations arm directly that I would report those resurrected groups and others using Facebook’s stated process. Roughly two days later I received a series replies saying that Facebook had reviewed my reports but that none of the groups were found to have violated its standards. Here’s a snippet from those replies:
Perhaps I should give Facebook the benefit of the doubt: Maybe my multiple reports one after the other triggered some kind of anti-abuse feature that is designed to throttle those who would seek to abuse it to get otherwise legitimate groups taken offline — much in the way that pools of automated bot accounts have been known to abuse Twitter’s reporting system to successfully sideline accounts of specific targets.
Or it could be that I simply didn’t click the proper sequence of buttons when reporting these groups. The closest match I could find in Facebook’s abuse reporting system were, “Doesn’t belong on Facebook,” and “Purchase or sale of drugs, guns or regulated products.” There was/is no option for “selling hacked accounts, credit cards and identities,” or anything of that sort.
In any case, one thing seems clear: Naming and shaming these shady Facebook groups via Twitter seems to work better right now for getting them removed from Facebook than using Facebook’s own formal abuse reporting process. So that’s what I did on Thursday. Here’s an example:
That group, too, was nixed shortly after my tweet. And so it went for other groups I mentioned in my tweetstorm today. But in response to that flurry of tweets about abusive groups on Facebook, I heard from dozens of other Twitter users who said they’d received the same “does not violate our community standards” reply from Facebook after reporting other groups that clearly flouted the company’s standards.
Pete Voss, Facebook’s communications manager, apologized for the oversight.
“We’re sorry about this mistake,” Voss said. “Not removing this material was an error and we removed it as soon as we investigated. Our team processes millions of reports each week, and sometimes we get things wrong. We are reviewing this case specifically, including the user’s reporting options, and we are taking steps to improve the experience, which could include broadening the scope of categories to choose from.”
Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress last week in response to allegations that the company wasn’t doing enough to halt the abuse of its platform for things like fake news, hate speech and terrorist content. It emerged that Facebook already employs 15,000 human moderators to screen and remove offensive content, and that it plans to hire another 5,000 by the end of this year.
“But right now, those moderators can only react to posts Facebook users have flagged,” writes Will Knight, for Technologyreview.com.
Zuckerberg told lawmakers that Facebook hopes expected advances in artificial intelligence or “AI” technology will soon help the social network do a better job self-policing against abusive content. But for the time being, as long as Facebook mainly acts on abuse reports only when it is publicly pressured to do so by lawmakers or people with hundreds of thousands of followers, the company will continue to be dogged by a perception that doing otherwise is simply bad for its business model.
Update, 1:32 p.m. ET: Several readers pointed my attention to a Huffington Post story just three days ago, “Facebook Didn’t Seem To Care I Was Being Sexually Harassed Until I Decided To Write About It,” about a journalist whose reports of extreme personal harassment on Facebook were met with a similar response about not violating the company’s Community Standards. That is, until she told Facebook that she planned to write about it.
How much u grab?
Hours after being alerted by KrebsOnSecurity, Facebook last week deleted almost 120 private discussion groups totaling more than 300,000 members who flagrantly promoted a host of illicit activities on the social media network’s platform. The scam groups facilitated a broad spectrum of shady activities, including spamming, wire fraud, account takeovers, phony tax refunds, 419 scams, denial-of-service attack-for-hire services and botnet creation tools. The average age of these groups on Facebook’s platform was two years.
On Thursday, April 12, KrebsOnSecurity spent roughly two hours combing Facebook for groups whose sole purpose appeared to be flouting the company’s terms of service agreement about what types of content it will or will not tolerate on its platform.
One of nearly 120 different closed cybercrime groups operating on Facebook that were deleted late last week. In total, there were more than 300,000 members of these groups. The average age of these groups was two years, but some had existed for up to nine years on Facebook
My research centered on groups whose singular focus was promoting all manner of cyber fraud, but most especially those engaged in identity theft, spamming, account takeovers and credit card fraud. Virtually all of these groups advertised their intent by stating well-known terms of fraud in their group names, such as “botnet helpdesk,” “spamming,” “carding” (referring to credit card fraud), “DDoS” (distributed denial-of-service attacks), “tax refund fraud,” and account takeovers.
Each of these closed groups solicited new members to engage in a variety of shady activities. Some had existed on Facebook for up to nine years; approximately ten percent of them had plied their trade on the social network for more than four years.
Here is a spreadsheet (PDF) listing all of the offending groups reported, including: Their stated group names; the length of time they were present on Facebook; the number of members; whether the group was promoting a third-party site on the dark or clear Web; and a link to the offending group. A copy of the same spreadsheet in .csv format is available here.
The biggest collection of groups banned last week were those promoting the sale and use of stolen credit and debit card accounts. The next largest collection of groups included those facilitating account takeovers — methods for mass-hacking emails and passwords for countless online accounts such Amazon, Google, Netflix, PayPal, as well as a host of online banking services.
This rather active Facebook group, which specialized in identity theft and selling stolen bank account logins, was active for roughly three years and had approximately 2,500 members.
In a statement to KrebsOnSecurity, Facebook pledged to be more proactive about policing its network for these types of groups.
“We thank Mr. Krebs for bringing these groups to our attention, we removed them as soon as we investigated,” said Pete Voss, Facebook’s communications director. “We investigated these groups as soon as we were aware of the report, and once we confirmed that they violated our Community Standards, we disabled them and removed the group admins. We encourage our community to report anything they see that they don’t think should be in Facebook, so we can take swift action.”
KrebsOnSecurity’s research was far from exhaustive: For the most part, I only looked at groups that promoted fraudulent activities in the English language. Also, I ignored groups that had fewer than 25 members. As such, there may well be hundreds or thousands of other groups who openly promote fraud as their purpose of membership but which achieve greater stealth by masking their intent with variations on or mispellings of different cyber fraud slang terms.
Facebook said its community standards policy does not allow the promotion or sale of illegal goods or services including credit card numbers or CVV numbers (stolen card details marketed for use in online fraud), and that once a violation is reported, its teams review a report and remove the offending post or group if it violates those policies.
The company added that Facebook users can report suspected violations by loading a group’s page, clicking “…” in the top right and selecting “Report Group”. Users who wish to learn more about reporting abusive groups can visit facebook.com/report.
“As technology improves, we will continue to look carefully at other ways to use automation,” Facebook’s statement concludes, responding to questions from KrebsOnSecurity about what steps it might take to more proactively scour its networks for abusive groups. “Of course, a lot of the work we do is very contextual, such as determining whether a particular comment is hateful or bullying. That’s why we have real people looking at those reports and making the decisions.”
Facebook’s stated newfound interest in cleaning up its platform comes as the social networking giant finds itself reeling from a scandal in which Cambridge Analytica, a political data firm, was found to have acquired access to private data on more than 50 million Facebook profiles — most of them scraped without user permission.
As close as NQN gets to not liking something
I dunno it used to be bad and this food also looks bad
In 35 states, it’s legal for cops to detain and have sex with someone in their custody. Is your state one of them?
Yesterday, Buzzfeed News published an investigative piece about Anna Chambers, a New York teenager pressing rape charges against Eddie Martins and Richard Hall, two members of the New York Police Department. Last fall, Anna was picked up by the two cops who told her two male friends to leave, handcuffed her, and led her into their van. According to Anna’s lawyer, the policemen ordered her to undress — and when they didn’t find drugs, they raped her.
It’s a stunning story of state violence — of cops using their guns, their badges, and their impunity to attack vulnerable women. Anna’s far from alone: sexual assault is the second most commonly reported form of police misconduct and brutality (after excessive force). A 2015 investigation found that over 1,000 officers across America have lost their badges because of sexual assault — and their report noted that number is “unquestionably an undercount” because many states, including New York, don’t keep state records of decertified cops. Further, sexual violence and police violence are highly underreported — meaning these number represent a mere fraction of the actual prevalence of police-perpetrated sexual violence.
You’d think this would have been an open-and-shut case. Anna’s forensic exam (commonly known as a ‘rape kit’) matched Martins’ and Hall’s DNA, and a security camera shows the detectives leaving her on the side of a street a quarter-mile from a police station. Anna says she repeatedly told the detectives no; the detectives say it was consensual.
To be clear, I completely believe Anna. But even if she hadn’t verbally said no, these two cops picked up a teenage girl, detained her in a police van, and then had sex with her while she was in their custody. They exploited the immense difference in power between an armed police officer and a civilian locked in the back of their car — a different in power that could easily coerce someone into saying yes to sexual contact they absolutely don’t want.
A person in police custody can’t give genuine consent, free from coercion. Not to armed police officers who have the power to arrest them if they say no.
But here’s the kicker: Buzzfeed’s investigation found that in 35 states, it’s legal for police to have sex with people in their custody.
The criminal legal system makes the people caught up in it vulnerable to sexual violence. That’s why, under New York state law, it’s illegal for prison guards to have sex with incarcerated people or for parole officers to have sex with the parolees they oversee. If you say no to your parole officer, they might send you back to prison. If you say no to a prison guard, they might put you in solitary confinement. Police officers are no different — if you’re in the back of a cop’s car, you are at their mercy. The police shouldn’t be able to exploit that power differential to force themselves on vulnerable women yet, in most states in America, they can do so and face no legal consequences.
Thanks to the #MeToo movement, long overdue legislation to fight harassment and violence is finally gaining steam. Still, even now, few headlines and legislators are tackling the problem of police sexual violence, perhaps because its victims are mostly poor women, especially women of color. It’s about time for our righteous rage to tackle the Eddie Martins, Richard Halls, and Daniel Holtzclaws of the world, who just like Harvey Weinstein, grossly abuse their power to abuse women.
Outraged by Anna’s story, New York City Council Member Mark Treyger has proposed a bill that would prohibit police officers from having sex with anyone in their custody. Bills like his should be introduced — and passed — in every state on this map.
Did she have an affair with Craig?
This was so long ago! Before Clemmie's ears exploded :(
Well time to dry off now, bye for now see you next time.
Yeah, cool Lorraine - http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/secrets-of-the-family-20131208-2z00t.html
The headline of one of ProPublica’s recent articles in an excellent and devastating series on maternal health in the United States reads: “Nothing Protects Black Women From Dying in Pregnancy and Childbirth.” The subtitle continued: “Not education. Not income. Not even being an expert on racial disparities in health care.” You can apparently add to that: Not even being the greatest athlete in the world.
A cover story in Vogue yesterday recounted Serena Williams’ harrowing childbirth experience, in which she had to insist health care providers perform a CT scan to check for a pulmonary embolism when she suddenly began to have trouble breathing:
Though she had an enviably easy pregnancy, what followed was the greatest medical ordeal of a life that has been punctuated by them. Olympia was born by emergency C-section after her heart rate dove dangerously low during contractions. The surgery went off without a hitch; Alexis cut the cord, and the wailing newborn fell silent the moment she was laid on her mother’s chest. “That was an amazing feeling,” Serena remembers. “And then everything went bad.”
The next day, while recovering in the hospital, Serena suddenly felt short of breath. Because of her history of blood clots, and because she was off her daily anticoagulant regimen due to the recent surgery, she immediately assumed she was having another pulmonary embolism. (Serena lives in fear of blood clots.) She walked out of the hospital room so her mother wouldn’t worry and told the nearest nurse, between gasps, that she needed a CT scan with contrast and IV heparin (a blood thinner) right away. The nurse thought her pain medicine might be making her confused. But Serena insisted, and soon enough a doctor was performing an ultrasound of her legs. “I was like, a Doppler? I told you, I need a CT scan and a heparin drip,” she remembers telling the team. The ultrasound revealed nothing, so they sent her for the CT, and sure enough, several small blood clots had settled in her lungs. Minutes later she was on the drip. “I was like, listen to Dr. Williams!”
Williams’ medical saga continued, leaving her bedridden for six weeks, and ultimately turned out ok. But the fact that Serena Williams, who’d nearly died of a pulmonary embolism in 2001, who had just had a C-section which increases the risk of blood clots, and who is Serena goddamn Williams, who is rich and famous and is rich and famous specifically for the spectacular feats of her body, had to identify her symptoms herself and demand the screening needed for a potentially deadly complication is an incredible illustration of the deep sexism and racism that black women face in the medical system.
The ProPublica series, by Nina Martin and NPR’s Renee Montagne, has been exploring the myriad factors that contribute to the US’ shameful record on maternal health. The US has the highest rate of maternal mortality in the developed world, and there is an enormous racial disparity: black women are three to four times more likely to die than white women. And while pre-existing health conditions and lack of access to medical care are part of the problem, they aren’t the whole story. As Dr Elizabeth Howell tells the New York Times today, “Everyone always wants to say that it’s just about access to care and it’s just about insurance, but that alone doesn’t explain it.”
It is also about health care providers who, in their focus on the baby after a delivery, too often overlook serious complications in the mother and who too often just don’t listen to women’s—especially women of color’s—testimony of their symptoms. Not even a world-famous athlete’s.
This is a v strange post
Conservative journalist Laura Loomer went on a hateful, Islamophobic rampage on Twitter on Wednesday, posting photos and video she took of Muslim women in New York City. Unsurprisingly, Twitter has done nothing about it.
Labeling herself a proud Islamophobe, Loomer called Muslims “fucking savages,” Islam a “cancer” and alleged that Muslims were “all the same” and should “never be let into the civilized world.” Loomer also claimed that she was late to work at a New York Police Department press conference because it took her 30 minutes to find an Uber or a Lyft not driven by a Muslim driver, calling it “insanity” and demanding a version of a ridesharing app that would exclude “Islamic immigration drivers.” Her actions were so toxic that even a company resistant to any sort of radical politics by any standard – Uber – was forced to ban her for her racist vitriol. (Lyft has since banned her as well).
There’s no need to explain how blatantly disgusting Loomer’s words are, and I hesitate to amplify her voice in any way using this platform. But the key question here is this: why is Twitter, the same company that just in this month has actively suppressed leftist voices (one of our editors included) in the name of security, allowing Loomer to continue using their website as a platform to spew unfiltered, hateful, racist nonsense? It was just a few days ago that Twitter temporarily suspended the account of leftist comedian Krang T. Nelson for what was clearly a joking tweet about Antifa “supersoldiers.” Twitter also caused a public uproar when, more seriously, they banned actress Rose McGowan for speaking out against sexual assault, alleging later that the suspension was because she had tweeted a ‘private phone number.’
Loomer, in contrast, has actively threatened the Muslim community with her tweets: wanting to deprive them of their citizenship and their livelihood – clear steps, regardless of her intent, upwards on the pyramid of hate leading up to eventual genocide. This is in a climate where the Muslim community in the United States already faces threats ranging anywhere from surveillance to vigilante and state violence. Loomer is using a public platform with which she speaks to over 100,000 followers to make comments that have a high likelihood of inciting physical violence. In addition – far more dangerous than a phone number – Loomer has tweeted pictures and videos (which are still up!) without consent, of course, of Muslim Americans in hijabs walking out in New York City, making them or other women in hijabs in New York clear targets of violence from any fanatical right-wing followers she might be radicalizing.
Twitter’s selective use of the ban tool in order to suppress activists and prop up white supremacists is well documented, and it is clear the platform has a harassment problem. But this is just one more obvious instance where the company has shown what is laziness at best and active complicity in white supremacy at worst in how they chose to moderate their platform. After the McGowan controversy went down, CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted what seems – then and now – a hollow apology and a claim that the company is aiming to counteract the silencing of marginalized voices on their platform and strengthening their policy against abusers and bullies. Laura Loomer’s tweets and verified account – standing loud and proud on the internet – are a marker of proof that Dorsey and Twitter are full, apologies for the language, of horseshit.
On the way home from the park I took odd shots of the neighbourhood.
Love the door and window screens.
According to this article in the Scottish Daily Mail, an ad for Bodyform in the U.K. is drawing controversy for using red liquid — instead of the customary blue — to illustrate the pad’s absorbency. The ad uses the hashtag #bloodnormal and features a man buying menstrual hygiene products, a woman floating on a white pad-shaped mattress in a swimming pool, and woman in a shower with blood flowing down her legs.
The ad has been called “disgusting” by one person but “groundbreaking” by none other that Cosmo magazine (itself at the forefront of the menstrual equity movement, joining with Jennifer Weiss-Wolf to promote an on-line petition against the tampon tax).
I’m all for #bloodnormal, but in, say, a diaper commercial, I wouldn’t want to see yellow or brown stand-ins for a baby’s digestive output. Hypocritical? Probably.