Op het einde van deze november, een overzicht van de aanwinsten.
Peter Andriaenssens, Van hieraf mag je gaan. Over het opvoeden van tieners, Lannoo, 2000.
Maurice Maeterlick, Morceaux choisis, Nelson, s.d.
Philippe Geluck, Oh toi le Belge, ta gueule! J'ai Lu, 2008.
Roald Dahl, Op weg naar de hemel, Meulenhoff, 1996.
Jef Lambrecht, De Arabische Cocktail. Van revolutie tot contrarevolutie, 2013.
11.30.2019
Niets leren van de geschiedenis
In Mo* staat een zeer lezenswaardige column van Bieke Purnelle. Met veel plezier neem ik hier een stuk over, over de geschiedenis en het geschiedenisonderwijs.
Lees vooral de volledige column.
Misschien kijken wij al ons hele leven teveel naar “de geschiedenis” als naar de stenen tafelen. Toch is ze opgetekend en gedeeld door mensen, met vooroordelen, een half perspectief en soms een eigen agenda.
Wie de ontwikkeling van het geschiedenisonderwijs bestudeert, leert dat die al eeuwen wordt gestuurd met ideologische en politieke motieven. Eind achttiende eeuw wilde de staat “nuttige”, volgzame en moreel bewuste burgers voortbrengen, een doel dat nagestreefd werd door geschiedenisboeken te vullen met heldhaftig gedrag van patriotten. In tijden van verzuiling eisten katholieke normen een prominente plaats op in de geschiedenisles.
Waarover niet gesproken werd was een bewuste keuze.
Wiens geschiedenis tekenen we op, vertellen en bewaren we? Een bepaald, afgebakend historisch perspectief is altijd de norm geweest, werd zelden in vraag gesteld. Maar dat het altijd al zo was, maakt het niet neutraal. De geschiedenis leert niet, maar conserveert enkel wat de auteurs willen bewaren.
Het zijn de tegenstellingen die een samenleving maken tot wat ze is. Elk feit, elke gebeurtenis heeft verschillende perspectieven. De schaduwkanten van ons verleden hebben nood aan een breed perspectief. Het hele verhaal moet worden verteld. Dan pas kunnen we begrijpen; dan pas kunnen we helen. Geschiedenis niet gaat om schuld en boete, helden en beulen, schaamte of trots, maar om historisch besef en inzicht in het heden, in de hoop dat we beter kunnen doen, dat we misschien zelfs kunnen vergeven. Ik zie mannen in strak gestreken pak en met een vlijmscherpe haarlijn slogans en leuzen scanderen waar velen na driekwart eeuw nog niet van zijn hersteld. Ze overbevolken krantenpagina’s en televisieprogramma’s, moeten nooit smeken om de microfoon. Ik hoop dat de geschiedenis niet vergeet te vertellen wie de mensen waren die de tegenstellingen probeerden te overstijgen en de haat bestreden, onversterkt en ver weg van het licht van de schijnwerpers.
Lees vooral de volledige column.
11.23.2019
Sasha Baron Cohen over haat en sociale media
Kameraden en vrienden, met stip dé meest bekijkenswaardige speech van het jaar. Sasha Baron Cohen over haat en over de rol van de sociale mediabedrijven in de verspreiding ervan.
Today around the world, demagogues appeal to our worst instincts. Conspiracy theories once confined to the fringe are going mainstream. It’s as if the Age of Reason—the era of evidential argument—is ending, and now knowledge is delegitimized and scientific consensus is dismissed. Democracy, which depends on shared truths, is in retreat, and autocracy, which depends on shared lies, is on the march. Hate crimes are surging, as are murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities.
What do all these dangerous trends have in common? I’m just a comedian and an actor, not a scholar. But one thing is pretty clear to me. All this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history.
Think about it. Facebook, YouTube and Google, Twitter and others—they reach billions of people. The algorithms these platforms depend on deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users engaged—stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that trigger outrage and fear. It’s why YouTube recommended videos by the conspiracist Alex Jones billions of times. It’s why fake news outperforms real news, because studies show that lies spread faster than truth. And it’s no surprise that the greatest propaganda machine in history has spread the oldest conspiracy theory in history—the lie that Jews are somehow dangerous. As one headline put it, “Just Think What Goebbels Could Have Done with Facebook.”
On the internet, everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart resembles the BBC. The fictitious Protocols of the Elders of Zion look as valid as an ADL report. And the rantings of a lunatic seem as credible as the findings of a Nobel Prize winner. We have lost, it seems, a shared sense of the basic facts upon which democracy depends.
When I, as the wanna-be-gansta Ali G, asked the astronaut Buzz Aldrin “what woz it like to walk on de sun?” the joke worked, because we, the audience, shared the same facts. If you believe the moon landing was a hoax, the joke was not funny.
When Borat got that bar in Arizona to agree that “Jews control everybody’s money and never give it back,” the joke worked because the audience shared the fact that the depiction of Jews as miserly is a conspiracy theory originating in the Middle Ages.
But when, thanks to social media, conspiracies take hold, it’s easier for hate groups to recruit, easier for foreign intelligence agencies to interfere in our elections, and easier for a country like Myanmar to commit genocide against the Rohingya.
It’s actually quite shocking how easy it is to turn conspiracy thinking into violence. In my last show Who is America?, I found an educated, normal guy who had held down a good job, but who, on social media, repeated many of the conspiracy theories that President Trump, using Twitter, has spread more than 1,700 times to his 67 million followers. The President even tweeted that he was considering designating Antifa—anti-fascists who march against the far right—as a terror organization.
So, disguised as an Israel anti-terrorism expert, Colonel Erran Morad, I told my interviewee that, at the Women’s March in San Francisco, Antifa were plotting to put hormones into babies’ diapers in order to “make them transgender.” And he believed it.
I instructed him to plant small devices on three innocent people at the march and explained that when he pushed a button, he’d trigger an explosion that would kill them all. They weren’t real explosives, of course, but he thought they were. I wanted to see—would he actually do it?
The answer was yes. He pushed the button and thought he had actually killed three human beings. Voltaire was right, “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” And social media lets authoritarians push absurdities to billions of people.
In their defense, these social media companies have taken some steps to reduce hate and conspiracies on their platforms, but these steps have been mostly superficial.
I’m speaking up today because I believe that our pluralistic democracies are on a precipice and that the next twelve months, and the role of social media, could be determinant. British voters will go to the polls while online conspiracists promote the despicable theory of “great replacement” that white Christians are being deliberately replaced by Muslim immigrants. Americans will vote for president while trolls and bots perpetuate the disgusting lie of a “Hispanic invasion.” And after years of YouTube videos calling climate change a “hoax,” the United States is on track, a year from now, to formally withdraw from the Paris Accords. A sewer of bigotry and vile conspiracy theories that threatens democracy and our planet—this cannot possibly be what the creators of the internet had in mind.
I believe it’s time for a fundamental rethink of social media and how it spreads hate, conspiracies and lies. Last month, however, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook delivered a major speech that, not surprisingly, warned against new laws and regulations on companies like his. Well, some of these arguments are simply absurd. Let’s count the ways.
First, Zuckerberg tried to portray this whole issue as “choices…around free expression.” That is ludicrous. This is not about limiting anyone’s free speech. This is about giving people, including some of the most reprehensible people on earth, the biggest platform in history to reach a third of the planet. Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Sadly, there will always be racists, misogynists, anti-Semites and child abusers. But I think we could all agree that we should not be giving bigots and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims.
Second, Zuckerberg claimed that new limits on what’s posted on social media would be to “pull back on free expression.” This is utter nonsense. The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law” abridging freedom of speech, however, this does not apply to private businesses like Facebook. We’re not asking these companies to determine the boundaries of free speech across society. We just want them to be responsible on their platforms.
If a neo-Nazi comes goose-stepping into a restaurant and starts threatening other customers and saying he wants kill Jews, would the owner of the restaurant be required to serve him an elegant eight-course meal? Of course not! The restaurant owner has every legal right and a moral obligation to kick the Nazi out, and so do these internet companies.
Third, Zuckerberg seemed to equate regulation of companies like his to the actions of “the most repressive societies.” Incredible. This, from one of the six people who decide what information so much of the world sees. Zuckerberg at Facebook, Sundar Pichai at Google, at its parent company Alphabet, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Brin’s ex-sister-in-law, Susan Wojcicki at YouTube and Jack Dorsey at Twitter.
The Silicon Six—all billionaires, all Americans—who care more about boosting their share price than about protecting democracy. This is ideological imperialism—six unelected individuals in Silicon Valley imposing their vision on the rest of the world, unaccountable to any government and acting like they’re above the reach of law. It’s like we’re living in the Roman Empire, and Mark Zuckerberg is Caesar. At least that would explain his haircut.
Here’s an idea. Instead of letting the Silicon Six decide the fate of the world, let our elected representatives, voted for by the people, of every democracy in the world, have at least some say.
Fourth, Zuckerberg speaks of welcoming a “diversity of ideas,” and last year he gave us an example. He said that he found posts denying the Holocaust “deeply offensive,” but he didn’t think Facebook should take them down “because I think there are things that different people get wrong.” At this very moment, there are still Holocaust deniers on Facebook, and Google still takes you to the most repulsive Holocaust denial sites with a simple click. One of the heads of Google once told me, incredibly, that these sites just show “both sides” of the issue. This is madness.
To quote Edward R. Murrow, one “cannot accept that there are, on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument.” We have millions of pieces of evidence for the Holocaust—it is an historical fact. And denying it is not some random opinion. Those who deny the Holocaust aim to encourage another one.
Still, Zuckerberg says that “people should decide what is credible, not tech companies.” But at a time when two-thirds of millennials say they haven’t even heard of Auschwitz, how are they supposed to know what’s “credible?” How are they supposed to know that the lie is a lie?
There is such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist. And if these internet companies really want to make a difference, they should hire enough monitors to actually monitor, work closely with groups like the ADL, insist on facts and purge these lies and conspiracies from their platforms.
Fifth, when discussing the difficulty of removing content, Zuckerberg asked “where do you draw the line?” Yes, drawing the line can be difficult. But here’s what he’s really saying: removing more of these lies and conspiracies is just too expensive.
These are the richest companies in the world, and they have the best engineers in the world. They could fix these problems if they wanted to. Twitter could deploy an algorithm to remove more white supremacist hate speech, but they reportedly haven’t because it would eject some very prominent politicians from their platform. Maybe that’s not a bad thing! The truth is, these companies won’t fundamentally change because their entire business model relies on generating more engagement, and nothing generates more engagement than lies, fear and outrage.
It’s time to finally call these companies what they really are—the largest publishers in history. And here’s an idea for them: abide by basic standards and practices just like newspapers, magazines and TV news do every day. We have standards and practices in television and the movies; there are certain things we cannot say or do. In England, I was told that Ali G could not curse when he appeared before 9pm. Here in the U.S., the Motion Picture Association of America regulates and rates what we see. I’ve had scenes in my movies cut or reduced to abide by those standards. If there are standards and practices for what cinemas and television channels can show, then surely companies that publish material to billions of people should have to abide by basic standards and practices too.
Take the issue of political ads. Fortunately, Twitter finally banned them, and Google is making changes, too. But if you pay them, Facebook will run any “political” ad you want, even if it’s a lie. And they’ll even help you micro-target those lies to their users for maximum effect. Under this twisted logic, if Facebook were around in the 1930s, it would have allowed Hitler to post 30-second ads on his “solution” to the “Jewish problem.” So here’s a good standard and practice: Facebook, start fact-checking political ads before you run them, stop micro-targeted lies immediately, and when the ads are false, give back the money and don’t publish them.
Here’s another good practice: slow down. Every single post doesn’t need to be published immediately. Oscar Wilde once said that “we live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities.” But is having every thought or video posted instantly online, even if it is racist or criminal or murderous, really a necessity? Of course not!
The shooter who massacred Muslims in New Zealand live streamed his atrocity on Facebook where it then spread across the internet and was viewed likely millions of times. It was a snuff film, brought to you by social media. Why can’t we have more of a delay so this trauma-inducing filth can be caught and stopped before it’s posted in the first place?
Finally, Zuckerberg said that social media companies should “live up to their responsibilities,” but he’s totally silent about what should happen when they don’t. By now it’s pretty clear, they cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. As with the Industrial Revolution, it’s time for regulation and legislation to curb the greed of these high-tech robber barons.
In every other industry, a company can be held liable when their product is defective. When engines explode or seatbelts malfunction, car companies recall tens of thousands of vehicles, at a cost of billions of dollars. It only seems fair to say to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter: your product is defective, you are obliged to fix it, no matter how much it costs and no matter how many moderators you need to employ.
In every other industry, you can be sued for the harm you cause. Publishers can be sued for libel, people can be sued for defamation. I’ve been sued many times! I’m being sued right now by someone whose name I won’t mention because he might sue me again! But social media companies are largely protected from liability for the content their users post—no matter how indecent it is—by Section 230 of, get ready for it, the Communications Decency Act. Absurd!
Fortunately, Internet companies can now be held responsible for pedophiles who use their sites to target children. I say, let’s also hold these companies responsible for those who use their sites to advocate for the mass murder of children because of their race or religion. And maybe fines are not enough. Maybe it’s time to tell Mark Zuckerberg and the CEOs of these companies: you already allowed one foreign power to interfere in our elections, you already facilitated one genocide in Myanmar, do it again and you go to jail.
In the end, it all comes down to what kind of world we want. In his speech, Zuckerberg said that one of his main goals is to “uphold as wide a definition of freedom of expression as possible.” Yet our freedoms are not only an end in themselves, they’re also the means to another end—as you say here in the U.S., the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But today these rights are threatened by hate, conspiracies and lies.
Allow me to leave you with a suggestion for a different aim for society. The ultimate aim of society should be to make sure that people are not targeted, not harassed and not murdered because of who they are, where they come from, who they love or how they pray.
If we make that our aim—if we prioritize truth over lies, tolerance over prejudice, empathy over indifference and experts over ignoramuses—then maybe, just maybe, we can stop the greatest propaganda machine in history, we can save democracy, we can still have a place for free speech and free expression, and, most importantly, my jokes will still work.
bron: ADL.org
Today around the world, demagogues appeal to our worst instincts. Conspiracy theories once confined to the fringe are going mainstream. It’s as if the Age of Reason—the era of evidential argument—is ending, and now knowledge is delegitimized and scientific consensus is dismissed. Democracy, which depends on shared truths, is in retreat, and autocracy, which depends on shared lies, is on the march. Hate crimes are surging, as are murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities.
What do all these dangerous trends have in common? I’m just a comedian and an actor, not a scholar. But one thing is pretty clear to me. All this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history.
Think about it. Facebook, YouTube and Google, Twitter and others—they reach billions of people. The algorithms these platforms depend on deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users engaged—stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that trigger outrage and fear. It’s why YouTube recommended videos by the conspiracist Alex Jones billions of times. It’s why fake news outperforms real news, because studies show that lies spread faster than truth. And it’s no surprise that the greatest propaganda machine in history has spread the oldest conspiracy theory in history—the lie that Jews are somehow dangerous. As one headline put it, “Just Think What Goebbels Could Have Done with Facebook.”
On the internet, everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart resembles the BBC. The fictitious Protocols of the Elders of Zion look as valid as an ADL report. And the rantings of a lunatic seem as credible as the findings of a Nobel Prize winner. We have lost, it seems, a shared sense of the basic facts upon which democracy depends.
When I, as the wanna-be-gansta Ali G, asked the astronaut Buzz Aldrin “what woz it like to walk on de sun?” the joke worked, because we, the audience, shared the same facts. If you believe the moon landing was a hoax, the joke was not funny.
When Borat got that bar in Arizona to agree that “Jews control everybody’s money and never give it back,” the joke worked because the audience shared the fact that the depiction of Jews as miserly is a conspiracy theory originating in the Middle Ages.
But when, thanks to social media, conspiracies take hold, it’s easier for hate groups to recruit, easier for foreign intelligence agencies to interfere in our elections, and easier for a country like Myanmar to commit genocide against the Rohingya.
It’s actually quite shocking how easy it is to turn conspiracy thinking into violence. In my last show Who is America?, I found an educated, normal guy who had held down a good job, but who, on social media, repeated many of the conspiracy theories that President Trump, using Twitter, has spread more than 1,700 times to his 67 million followers. The President even tweeted that he was considering designating Antifa—anti-fascists who march against the far right—as a terror organization.
So, disguised as an Israel anti-terrorism expert, Colonel Erran Morad, I told my interviewee that, at the Women’s March in San Francisco, Antifa were plotting to put hormones into babies’ diapers in order to “make them transgender.” And he believed it.
I instructed him to plant small devices on three innocent people at the march and explained that when he pushed a button, he’d trigger an explosion that would kill them all. They weren’t real explosives, of course, but he thought they were. I wanted to see—would he actually do it?
The answer was yes. He pushed the button and thought he had actually killed three human beings. Voltaire was right, “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” And social media lets authoritarians push absurdities to billions of people.
In their defense, these social media companies have taken some steps to reduce hate and conspiracies on their platforms, but these steps have been mostly superficial.
I’m speaking up today because I believe that our pluralistic democracies are on a precipice and that the next twelve months, and the role of social media, could be determinant. British voters will go to the polls while online conspiracists promote the despicable theory of “great replacement” that white Christians are being deliberately replaced by Muslim immigrants. Americans will vote for president while trolls and bots perpetuate the disgusting lie of a “Hispanic invasion.” And after years of YouTube videos calling climate change a “hoax,” the United States is on track, a year from now, to formally withdraw from the Paris Accords. A sewer of bigotry and vile conspiracy theories that threatens democracy and our planet—this cannot possibly be what the creators of the internet had in mind.
I believe it’s time for a fundamental rethink of social media and how it spreads hate, conspiracies and lies. Last month, however, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook delivered a major speech that, not surprisingly, warned against new laws and regulations on companies like his. Well, some of these arguments are simply absurd. Let’s count the ways.
First, Zuckerberg tried to portray this whole issue as “choices…around free expression.” That is ludicrous. This is not about limiting anyone’s free speech. This is about giving people, including some of the most reprehensible people on earth, the biggest platform in history to reach a third of the planet. Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Sadly, there will always be racists, misogynists, anti-Semites and child abusers. But I think we could all agree that we should not be giving bigots and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims.
Second, Zuckerberg claimed that new limits on what’s posted on social media would be to “pull back on free expression.” This is utter nonsense. The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law” abridging freedom of speech, however, this does not apply to private businesses like Facebook. We’re not asking these companies to determine the boundaries of free speech across society. We just want them to be responsible on their platforms.
If a neo-Nazi comes goose-stepping into a restaurant and starts threatening other customers and saying he wants kill Jews, would the owner of the restaurant be required to serve him an elegant eight-course meal? Of course not! The restaurant owner has every legal right and a moral obligation to kick the Nazi out, and so do these internet companies.
Third, Zuckerberg seemed to equate regulation of companies like his to the actions of “the most repressive societies.” Incredible. This, from one of the six people who decide what information so much of the world sees. Zuckerberg at Facebook, Sundar Pichai at Google, at its parent company Alphabet, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Brin’s ex-sister-in-law, Susan Wojcicki at YouTube and Jack Dorsey at Twitter.
The Silicon Six—all billionaires, all Americans—who care more about boosting their share price than about protecting democracy. This is ideological imperialism—six unelected individuals in Silicon Valley imposing their vision on the rest of the world, unaccountable to any government and acting like they’re above the reach of law. It’s like we’re living in the Roman Empire, and Mark Zuckerberg is Caesar. At least that would explain his haircut.
Here’s an idea. Instead of letting the Silicon Six decide the fate of the world, let our elected representatives, voted for by the people, of every democracy in the world, have at least some say.
Fourth, Zuckerberg speaks of welcoming a “diversity of ideas,” and last year he gave us an example. He said that he found posts denying the Holocaust “deeply offensive,” but he didn’t think Facebook should take them down “because I think there are things that different people get wrong.” At this very moment, there are still Holocaust deniers on Facebook, and Google still takes you to the most repulsive Holocaust denial sites with a simple click. One of the heads of Google once told me, incredibly, that these sites just show “both sides” of the issue. This is madness.
To quote Edward R. Murrow, one “cannot accept that there are, on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument.” We have millions of pieces of evidence for the Holocaust—it is an historical fact. And denying it is not some random opinion. Those who deny the Holocaust aim to encourage another one.
Still, Zuckerberg says that “people should decide what is credible, not tech companies.” But at a time when two-thirds of millennials say they haven’t even heard of Auschwitz, how are they supposed to know what’s “credible?” How are they supposed to know that the lie is a lie?
There is such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist. And if these internet companies really want to make a difference, they should hire enough monitors to actually monitor, work closely with groups like the ADL, insist on facts and purge these lies and conspiracies from their platforms.
Fifth, when discussing the difficulty of removing content, Zuckerberg asked “where do you draw the line?” Yes, drawing the line can be difficult. But here’s what he’s really saying: removing more of these lies and conspiracies is just too expensive.
These are the richest companies in the world, and they have the best engineers in the world. They could fix these problems if they wanted to. Twitter could deploy an algorithm to remove more white supremacist hate speech, but they reportedly haven’t because it would eject some very prominent politicians from their platform. Maybe that’s not a bad thing! The truth is, these companies won’t fundamentally change because their entire business model relies on generating more engagement, and nothing generates more engagement than lies, fear and outrage.
It’s time to finally call these companies what they really are—the largest publishers in history. And here’s an idea for them: abide by basic standards and practices just like newspapers, magazines and TV news do every day. We have standards and practices in television and the movies; there are certain things we cannot say or do. In England, I was told that Ali G could not curse when he appeared before 9pm. Here in the U.S., the Motion Picture Association of America regulates and rates what we see. I’ve had scenes in my movies cut or reduced to abide by those standards. If there are standards and practices for what cinemas and television channels can show, then surely companies that publish material to billions of people should have to abide by basic standards and practices too.
Take the issue of political ads. Fortunately, Twitter finally banned them, and Google is making changes, too. But if you pay them, Facebook will run any “political” ad you want, even if it’s a lie. And they’ll even help you micro-target those lies to their users for maximum effect. Under this twisted logic, if Facebook were around in the 1930s, it would have allowed Hitler to post 30-second ads on his “solution” to the “Jewish problem.” So here’s a good standard and practice: Facebook, start fact-checking political ads before you run them, stop micro-targeted lies immediately, and when the ads are false, give back the money and don’t publish them.
Here’s another good practice: slow down. Every single post doesn’t need to be published immediately. Oscar Wilde once said that “we live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities.” But is having every thought or video posted instantly online, even if it is racist or criminal or murderous, really a necessity? Of course not!
The shooter who massacred Muslims in New Zealand live streamed his atrocity on Facebook where it then spread across the internet and was viewed likely millions of times. It was a snuff film, brought to you by social media. Why can’t we have more of a delay so this trauma-inducing filth can be caught and stopped before it’s posted in the first place?
Finally, Zuckerberg said that social media companies should “live up to their responsibilities,” but he’s totally silent about what should happen when they don’t. By now it’s pretty clear, they cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. As with the Industrial Revolution, it’s time for regulation and legislation to curb the greed of these high-tech robber barons.
In every other industry, a company can be held liable when their product is defective. When engines explode or seatbelts malfunction, car companies recall tens of thousands of vehicles, at a cost of billions of dollars. It only seems fair to say to Facebook, YouTube and Twitter: your product is defective, you are obliged to fix it, no matter how much it costs and no matter how many moderators you need to employ.
In every other industry, you can be sued for the harm you cause. Publishers can be sued for libel, people can be sued for defamation. I’ve been sued many times! I’m being sued right now by someone whose name I won’t mention because he might sue me again! But social media companies are largely protected from liability for the content their users post—no matter how indecent it is—by Section 230 of, get ready for it, the Communications Decency Act. Absurd!
Fortunately, Internet companies can now be held responsible for pedophiles who use their sites to target children. I say, let’s also hold these companies responsible for those who use their sites to advocate for the mass murder of children because of their race or religion. And maybe fines are not enough. Maybe it’s time to tell Mark Zuckerberg and the CEOs of these companies: you already allowed one foreign power to interfere in our elections, you already facilitated one genocide in Myanmar, do it again and you go to jail.
In the end, it all comes down to what kind of world we want. In his speech, Zuckerberg said that one of his main goals is to “uphold as wide a definition of freedom of expression as possible.” Yet our freedoms are not only an end in themselves, they’re also the means to another end—as you say here in the U.S., the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But today these rights are threatened by hate, conspiracies and lies.
Allow me to leave you with a suggestion for a different aim for society. The ultimate aim of society should be to make sure that people are not targeted, not harassed and not murdered because of who they are, where they come from, who they love or how they pray.
If we make that our aim—if we prioritize truth over lies, tolerance over prejudice, empathy over indifference and experts over ignoramuses—then maybe, just maybe, we can stop the greatest propaganda machine in history, we can save democracy, we can still have a place for free speech and free expression, and, most importantly, my jokes will still work.
bron: ADL.org
11.22.2019
Thanks for the dance
Leonard Cohen is ondertussen al enkele jaren geleden overleden. Maar deze week komt een nieuw album van hem uit.
Ik moet zeggen het klinkt geweldig. En zijn teksten zijn - wie immer - poëtisch.
Voor een lezenswaardige review verwijs ik graag naar The Guardian.
Maar ik zou zeggen, luister zelf:
Ik moet zeggen het klinkt geweldig. En zijn teksten zijn - wie immer - poëtisch.
Voor een lezenswaardige review verwijs ik graag naar The Guardian.
Maar ik zou zeggen, luister zelf:
Als de regering een warm Vlaanderen wil, dan schroeft ze haar desastreuze plannen terug
Meer dan 125 organisaties brachten deze week een zeer lezenswaardige open brief uit. Een antwoord van het middelwerk op alle besparingsplannen van de neoliberale regering.
Pats! Binnen zes weken al.
Dan moeten 130 sociaal-culturele organisaties 6 procent van hun geplande
werking schrappen. Dat geldt ook voor jeugdverblijfcentra, voor de
bovenlokale werkingen met kwetsbare kinderen en jongeren, bovenlokale
jeugdhuizen en de bovenbouwers van de jeugdsector zoals de
Kinderrechtencoalitie, Bataljong, de Vlaamse Jeugdraad en de Ambrassade.
93 jeugdorganisaties moeten 3 procent schrappen. SAM, het steunpunt
voor opbouwwerk, straathoekwerk, schuldbemiddeling en algemeen
welzijnswerk, verliest maar liefst 27 procent. De verenigingen van
etnisch-culturele minderheden worden geviseerd in hun huidige werking.
Duolegaten voor goede doelen worden afgeschaft.
Het beleid tornt aan het verenigingsleven in plaats van het uit te bouwen. Zo verliest het hart van de samen-leving, het sociale weefsel, zijn zuurstof.
Dat gaat gepaard met een algemene besparing van 6 procent op de kunstensector die het ook nog eens met 60 procent minder projectmiddelen moet doen. De VRT verliest 44 miljoen middelen en daarmee 250 mensen. Ook fondsen voor onafhankelijke journalistiek verdwijnen. Het openbaar vervoer zoals de Lijn kreunt onder het gebrek aan investeringen. De zorg kampt met lange, aangroeiende wachtlijsten. De klimaatambitie is navrant klein. Die beleidskeuzes maken van Vlaanderen een kille, harde samenleving
‘Iedereen moet besparen’, is het mantra. Maar dat klopt niet helemaal. Het beleid investeert in enkele paradepaardjes en in de privé-stichting van Fernand Huts. De 34,5 miljoen euro subsidie – uit het klimaatfonds (!) – voor een paar grote vervuilers in de (petro)chemie en het staal worden bijna verdrievoudigd.
Dat is geen karikatuur. De cijfers staan allemaal zwart op wit in regeringsdocumenten. Ze verarmen de samenleving. Intussen laat men middelen liggen door te weigeren zware vormen van fiscale ontwijking aan te pakken en weigert ons politieke bedrijf zelf te besparen.
In deze context wijzen wij de opgesomde besparingen af. Immers, de essentie is: in wat voor samenleving willen we leven? Hoe willen we die inrichten? Laten we winst voorgaan op waarde of omgekeerd?
Het middenveld gaat over mensen die elkaar in netwerken vinden en zich daar, grotendeels vrijwillig, inzetten voor wat waardevol is. Mensen met een handicap bijspringen, drempels voor participatie aangeven, verkeerssituaties en openbaar vervoer verbeteren, ijveren voor schonere lucht, mensen bijstaan die moeilijk de weg vinden in onze complexe samenleving, mensen een stem geven … Zonder onze verenigingen, belangenbehartigers en spreekbuizen wordt elke burger een eiland dat zelf maar moet zien te overleven wanneer zijn rechten worden ingeperkt. Onze verenigingen zorgen rechtstreeks en onrechtstreeks voor het welzijn en het welbevinden van de mensen in Vlaanderen. De meerwaarde ervan is onberekenbaar én onbetaalbaar. De brede social profit was de voorbije decennia bovendien goed voor een bovengemiddelde groei van de economische toegevoegde waarde, de werkgelegenheid en de impact op de rest van de economie.
Natuurlijk is er boosheid, ontgoocheling en frustratie. Bij professionals en vrijwilligers. Natuurlijk willen wij ons niet uit elkaar laten spelen voor enkele kruimels. Als de regering echt wil investeren in een warm Vlaanderen, dan schroeft ze haar desastreuze plannen voor het middenveld, de openbare dienstverlening en de cultuursector terug.
Om die overtuiging in het licht te zetten, maken wij een week lang VuurWerk. Voor een warme samenleving. In de VuurWerk-week van 2 december laten verschillende sectoren, in verbondenheid met elkaar, van zich horen en zien. In deze ‘VuurWerk-week’ houden we ook de beleidsnota’s tegen het licht en plaatsen iedereen die werkt voor ons allemaal in het voetlicht.
www.vuur-werk.vlaanderen
Het beleid tornt aan het verenigingsleven in plaats van het uit te bouwen. Zo verliest het hart van de samen-leving, het sociale weefsel, zijn zuurstof.
Dat gaat gepaard met een algemene besparing van 6 procent op de kunstensector die het ook nog eens met 60 procent minder projectmiddelen moet doen. De VRT verliest 44 miljoen middelen en daarmee 250 mensen. Ook fondsen voor onafhankelijke journalistiek verdwijnen. Het openbaar vervoer zoals de Lijn kreunt onder het gebrek aan investeringen. De zorg kampt met lange, aangroeiende wachtlijsten. De klimaatambitie is navrant klein. Die beleidskeuzes maken van Vlaanderen een kille, harde samenleving
‘Iedereen moet besparen’, is het mantra. Maar dat klopt niet helemaal. Het beleid investeert in enkele paradepaardjes en in de privé-stichting van Fernand Huts. De 34,5 miljoen euro subsidie – uit het klimaatfonds (!) – voor een paar grote vervuilers in de (petro)chemie en het staal worden bijna verdrievoudigd.
Dat is geen karikatuur. De cijfers staan allemaal zwart op wit in regeringsdocumenten. Ze verarmen de samenleving. Intussen laat men middelen liggen door te weigeren zware vormen van fiscale ontwijking aan te pakken en weigert ons politieke bedrijf zelf te besparen.
In deze context wijzen wij de opgesomde besparingen af. Immers, de essentie is: in wat voor samenleving willen we leven? Hoe willen we die inrichten? Laten we winst voorgaan op waarde of omgekeerd?
Het middenveld gaat over mensen die elkaar in netwerken vinden en zich daar, grotendeels vrijwillig, inzetten voor wat waardevol is. Mensen met een handicap bijspringen, drempels voor participatie aangeven, verkeerssituaties en openbaar vervoer verbeteren, ijveren voor schonere lucht, mensen bijstaan die moeilijk de weg vinden in onze complexe samenleving, mensen een stem geven … Zonder onze verenigingen, belangenbehartigers en spreekbuizen wordt elke burger een eiland dat zelf maar moet zien te overleven wanneer zijn rechten worden ingeperkt. Onze verenigingen zorgen rechtstreeks en onrechtstreeks voor het welzijn en het welbevinden van de mensen in Vlaanderen. De meerwaarde ervan is onberekenbaar én onbetaalbaar. De brede social profit was de voorbije decennia bovendien goed voor een bovengemiddelde groei van de economische toegevoegde waarde, de werkgelegenheid en de impact op de rest van de economie.
Natuurlijk is er boosheid, ontgoocheling en frustratie. Bij professionals en vrijwilligers. Natuurlijk willen wij ons niet uit elkaar laten spelen voor enkele kruimels. Als de regering echt wil investeren in een warm Vlaanderen, dan schroeft ze haar desastreuze plannen voor het middenveld, de openbare dienstverlening en de cultuursector terug.
Om die overtuiging in het licht te zetten, maken wij een week lang VuurWerk. Voor een warme samenleving. In de VuurWerk-week van 2 december laten verschillende sectoren, in verbondenheid met elkaar, van zich horen en zien. In deze ‘VuurWerk-week’ houden we ook de beleidsnota’s tegen het licht en plaatsen iedereen die werkt voor ons allemaal in het voetlicht.
www.vuur-werk.vlaanderen
11.18.2019
"the world seems like a pretty mean place"
Vandaag een stukje levenswijsheid van de fantastische Casper & Hobbes.
Een geruststelling die je maar beter niet uit het oog verliest.
Een geruststelling die je maar beter niet uit het oog verliest.
11.11.2019
Gij maan, verdwijn! - Ik wil nacht en duisternis
Gij maan, verdwijn! - Ik wil nacht en duisternis,
zoodat wat om mij is, verkoolt, voor eeuwig,
en wat in mij leeft, sterft - geen hoop, geen kommernis,
ik wil het grote niets, waar geen wind is, niets is.
Geen puinen meer, omdat ik-zelf een puin ben,
geen dromen meer, omdat ik-zelf een droom was,
geen zang, geen zon, – het Niet, waar alles zwart is
en ‘k niet meer zie, wat vroeger lief en schoon was.
O maak me een lijk in 't leven, koud en blauw,
zoo dat mijn wijde, doode oogen altijd staren,
en 'k niet bemerke wat ik strak beschouw,
en 'k eeuwig zoo van nacht tot nachten vare.
Het leven is te hard voor menschen-lijf,
het bloed te rood voor open-brandende ijzer-wonden,
het bloed bijt peinzen uit het lijf, en 'k stijf
nog liever, dan te leve' in pijn heur band gebonden.
Gij witte maan, verdwijn! Uw schijn is logen, spot,
uw glans is waan, - het wanen maakt me bange,
zoodat ik in elk wezen 't lijk reeds zie, dat rot,
en 'k in de boomen weet de spoken waaiend hangen.
'k Wil duisternis - oneindig! - Dood loert aan den wal,
en kogels grijnzen met hun stalen lachers-kreten.
Ik vrees de vrees - en 'k wil dat in het brons-geschal
mijn hart wordt naar den dood, als naar een hond, gesmeten.
Een prachtig gedicht van Daan Boens, gepubliceerd in 1918. In Doods-wensch beschrijft hij meesterlijk de oorlogsmoeiheid, de onvoorstelbare moedeloosheid van het zien en beleven van zo onnoemelijk veel geweld en vernieling en dood, om niets. Laat 11 november een dag zijn in het teken van 'nooit meer oorlog'. Nooit meer 'humanitaire interventies', nooit meer 'precisiebombardementen', nooit meer 'steun aan onze navo-partners'. Nooit meer wapenhandel. Nooit meer oorlog.
11.07.2019
Diependaele: "de beste garantie voor het bewaren van het erfgoed"
Deze voormiddag werd er in de commissie Wonen en Onroerend Erfgoed van het Vlaams Parlement gepraat over de Sint-Annakerk.
Sam Van Rooy, Vlaams Belanger, industrieel ingenieur én destijds nog door Geert Wilders ontslagen wegens te ranzig, vond het nodig om zich eens te profileren als liefhebber van 'ons' religieus erfgoed. Zijn vraag was geheel gebaseerd op de onzin van Doorbraak. Maar woorden gaan we aan deze racist niet vuilmaken, we gaan vlug over naar het antwoord van de bevoegde minister, Matthias Diependaele.
De minister begon met duidelijk te melden dat de media-berichten niet altijd de meest correcte bron zijn. De bevoegde dienst heeft een pre-advies gegeven. Al de rest maakt nog deel uit van gesprekken. Het Agentschap Onroerend Erfgoed geeft adviezen, ze heeft geen beslissingsmacht.
Hij sprak over een onbehagen "over zaken die veranderen.
Daar kunnen we niets aan veranderen, dat
kerken leeglopen en hun oorspronkelijke functie niet meer vervullen.
Daar kan ik niets aan doen."
Hij zei, denk ik zeer terecht, dat een supermarkt 'een zeker gevoel van
onbehagen' geeft.
"De markhal, de
Delhaize dat voelt zowat ambetant aan, zowat unheimlich. Maar we
kunnen nu wel aantonen dat de erfgoed hierdoor beter gaat behouden
worden dan bij andere initiatieven."
"Mijn taak is kijken
naar de erfgoedwaarde. Advies gegeven over een herbestemming. Als we
daar eerlijk naar kijken dat zie je dat dit de beste garantie is voor
het bewaren van dat erfgoed."
Hij stelde klaar en duidelijk dat alle aanpassingen omkeerbaar dienen te zijn. Meer nog, hij stelde dat mocht het katholicisme terug opgang maakt dat de kerk dan best terug herbestemd wordt als kerk.
Hij overliep ook "de
verschillende 'suggesties' voor alternatieven die her en der vermeld
worden, een concertzaal, er is gesproken met potentiele partners, die
hebben die afgewezen omwille van de nagalm. Alle voorstellen die
gedaan zijn, zijn allemaal onhaalbaar gebleken."
buurtinformatieavond over Sint-Anna
Zeer interessante buurtinformatieavond maandag over de herbestemming van de
Gentse Sint-Annakerk.
Heldere uiteenzetting van het gevoerde traject door de bevoegde schepen en de dienst Facility Management van de Stad Gent. Gevolgd door een presentatie van het project van Consortium Markthal door Delhaize.
De vele vragen van buurtbewoners kregen heldere en duidelijke antwoorden.
Nog maar eens bevestigd gezien dat die actiegroep, die geagiteerd pogingen deed om de vragenronde naar zich toe te trekken, weinig realiteitszin heeft en nog steeds geen greintje kennis over het dossier of over basic regelgeving.
Ik zag gelukkig ook andermaal bevestigd dat dit proces in handen is van zeer bekwame mensen. Daarmee is nog maar eens duidelijk dat het huidige herbestemmingsproces de beste garantie is voor de toekomst van de monumentale Sint-Annakerk.
Heldere uiteenzetting van het gevoerde traject door de bevoegde schepen en de dienst Facility Management van de Stad Gent. Gevolgd door een presentatie van het project van Consortium Markthal door Delhaize.
De vele vragen van buurtbewoners kregen heldere en duidelijke antwoorden.
Nog maar eens bevestigd gezien dat die actiegroep, die geagiteerd pogingen deed om de vragenronde naar zich toe te trekken, weinig realiteitszin heeft en nog steeds geen greintje kennis over het dossier of over basic regelgeving.
Ik zag gelukkig ook andermaal bevestigd dat dit proces in handen is van zeer bekwame mensen. Daarmee is nog maar eens duidelijk dat het huidige herbestemmingsproces de beste garantie is voor de toekomst van de monumentale Sint-Annakerk.
11.02.2019
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)
