Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

January 30 2018

Private Censorship Is Not the Best Way to Fight Hate or Defend Democracy: Here Are Some Better Ideas

From Cloudflare’s headline-making takedown of the Daily Stormer last autumn to YouTube’s summer restrictions on LGBTQ content, there's been a surge in “voluntary” platform censorship. Companies—under pressure from lawmakers, shareholders, and the public alike—have ramped up restrictions on speech, adding new rules, adjusting their still-hidden algorithms and hiring more staff to moderate content. They have banned ads from certain sources and removed “offensive” but legal content.

These moves come in the midst of a fierce public debate about what responsibilities platform companies that directly host our speech have to take down—or protect—certain types of expression. And this debate is occurring at a time in which only a few large companies host most of our online speech. Under the First Amendment, intermediaries generally have a right to decide what kinds of expression they will carry. But just because companies can act as judge and jury doesn’t mean they should.

To begin with, a great deal of problematic content sits in the ambiguous territory between disagreeable political speech and abuse, between fabricated propaganda and legitimate opinion, between things that are legal in some jurisdictions and not others. Or they’re things some users want to read and others don’t. If many cases are in grey zones, our institutions need to be designed for them.

We all want an Internet where we are free to meet, create, organize, share, associate, debate and learn. We want to make our voices heard in the way that technology now makes possible. No one likes being lied to or misled, or seeing hateful messages directed against them, or flooded across our newsfeeds. We want our elections free from manipulation and for the speech of women and marginalized communities to not be silenced by harassment. We should all have the ability to exercise control over our online environments: to feel empowered by the tools we use, not helpless in the face of others' use.

But in moments of apparent crisis, the first step is always to look simple solutions. In particular, in response to rising concerns that we are not in control, a groundswell of support has emerged for even more censorship by private platform companies, including pushing platforms into ever increased tracking and identification of speakers.

We are at a critical moment for free expression online and for the role of the Internet in the fabric of democratic societies. We need to get this right.

Platform Censorship Isn’t New, Hurts the Less Powerful, and Doesn’t Work

Widespread public interest in this topic may be new, but platform censorship isn’t. All of the major platforms set forth rules for their users. They tend to be complex, covering everything from terrorism and hate speech to copyright and impersonation. Most platforms use a version of community reporting. Violations of these rules can prompt takedowns and account suspensions or closures. And we have well over a decade of evidence about how these rules are used and misused.

The results are not pretty. We’ve seen prohibitions on hate speech used to shut down conversations among women of color about the harassment they receive online; rules against harassment employed to shut down the account of a prominent Egyptian anti-torture activist; and a ban on nudity used to censor women who share childbirth images in private groups. And we've seen false copyright and trademark allegations used to take down all kinds of lawful content, including time-sensitive political speech.

Platform censorship has included images and videos that document atrocities and make us aware of the world outside of our own communities. Regulations on violent content have disappeared documentation of police brutality, the Syrian war, and the human rights abuses suffered by the Rohingya. A blanket ban on nudity has repeatedly been used to take down a famous Vietnam war photo.

These takedowns are sometimes intentional, and sometimes mistakes, but like Cloudflare’s now-famous decision to boot off the Daily Stormer, they are all made without accountability and due process. As a result, most of what we know about censorship on private platforms comes from user reports and leaks (such as the Guardian’s “Facebook Files”).

Given this history, we’re worried about how platforms are responding to new pressures. Not because there’s a slippery slope from judicious moderation to active censorship — but because we are already far down that slope. Regulation of our expression, thought, and association has already been ceded to unaccountable executives and enforced by minimally-trained, overworked staff, and hidden algorithms. Doubling down on this approach will not make it better. And yet, no amount of evidence has convinced the powers that be at major platforms like Facebook—or in governments around the world. Instead many, especially in policy circles, continue to push for companies to—magically and at scale—perfectly differentiate between speech that should be protected and speech that should be erased.

If our experience has taught us anything, it’s that we have no reason to trust the powerful—inside governments, corporations, or other institutions—to draw those lines.

As people who have watched and advocated for the voiceless for well over 25 years, we remain deeply concerned. Fighting censorship—by governments, large private corporations, or anyone else—is core to EFF’s mission, not because we enjoy defending reprehensible content, but because we know that while censorship can be and is employed against Nazis, it is more often used as a tool by the powerful, against the powerless.

First Casualty: Anonymity

In addition to the virtual certainty that private censorship will lead to takedowns of valuable speech, it is already leading to attacks on anonymous speech. Anonymity and pseudonymity have played important roles throughout history, from secret ballots in ancient Greece to 18th century English literature and early American satire. Online anonymity allows us to explore controversial ideas and connect with people around health and other sensitive concerns without exposing ourselves unnecessarily to harassment and stigma. It enables dissidents in oppressive regimes to tell their stories with less fear of retribution. Anonymity is often the greatest shield that vulnerable groups have.

Current proposals from private companies all undermine online anonymity. For example, Twitter’s recent ban on advertisements from Russia Today and Sputnik relies on the notion that the company will be better at identifying accounts controlled by Russia than Russia will be at disguising accounts to promote its content. To make it really effective, Twitter may have to adopt new policies to identify and attribute anonymous accounts, undermining both speech and user privacy. Given the problems with attribution, Twitter will likely face calls to ban anyone from promoting a link to suspected Russian government content.

And what will we get in exchange for giving up our ability to speak online anonymously? Very little. Facebook for many years required individuals to use their “real” name (and continues to require them to use a variant of it), but that didn’t stop Russian agents from gaming the rules. Instead, it undermined innocent people who need anonymity—including drag performers, LGBTQ people, Native Americans, survivors of domestic and sexual violence, political dissidents, sex workers, therapists, and doctors.

Study after study has debunked the idea that forcibly identifying speakers is an effective strategy against those who spread bad information online. Counter-terrorism experts tell us that “Censorship has never been an effective method of achieving security, and shuttering websites and suppressing online content will be as unhelpful as smashing printing presses.”

We need a better way forward.

Step One: Start With the Tools We Have and Get Our Priorities Straight

Censorship is a powerful tool and easily misused. That’s why, in fighting back against hate, harassment, and fraud, censorship should be the last stop. Particularly from a legislative perspective, the first stop should be looking at the tools that already exist elsewhere, rather than rushing to exceptionalize the Internet. For example, in the United States, defamation laws reflect centuries of balancing the right of individuals to hold others accountable for false, reputation-damaging statements, and the right of the public to engage in vigorous public debate. Election laws already prohibit foreign governments or their agents from purchasing campaign ads—online or offline—that directly advocate for or against a specific candidate. In addition, for sixty days prior to an election, foreign agents cannot purchase ads that even mention a candidate. Finally, the Foreign Agent Registration Act also requires information materials distributed by a foreign entity to contain a statement of attribution and to file copies with the U.S. Attorney General. These are all laws that could be better brought to bear, especially in the most egregious situations.

We also need to consider our priorities. Do we want to fight hate speech, or do we want to fight hate? Do we want to prevent foreign interference in our electoral processes, or do we want free and fair elections? Our answers to these questions should shape our approach, so we don’t deceive ourselves into thinking that removing anonymity in online advertising is more important to protecting democracy than, say, addressing the physical violence by those who spread hate, preventing voter suppression and gerrymandering, or figuring out how to build platforms that promote more informed and less polarizing conversations between the humans that use them.

Step Two: Better Practices for Platforms

But if we aren’t satisfied with those options, we have others. Over the past few years, EFF—in collaboration with Onlinecensorship.org and civil society groups around the world—has developed recommendations to companies aimed at fighting censorship and protecting speech. Many of these are contained within the Manila Principles, which provide a roadmap for companies seeking to ensure human rights are protected on their platforms.

In 2018, we’ll be working hard to push companies toward better practices around these recommendations. Here they are, in one place.

Meaningful Transparency

Over the years, we and other organizations have pushed companies to be more transparent about the speech that they take down, particularly when it’s at the behest of governments. But when it comes to decisions about acceptable speech, or what kinds of information or ads to show us, companies are largely opaque. We believe that Facebook, Google, and others should allow truly independent researchers—with no bottom line or corporate interest—access to work with, black box test and audit their systems. Users should be told when bots are flooding a network with messages and, as described below, should have tools to protect themselves. Meaningful transparency also means allowing users to see what types of content are taken down, what’s shown in their feed and why. It means being straight with users about how their data is being collected and used. And it means providing users with the power to set limitations on how long that data can be kept and used.

Due Process

We know that companies make enforcement mistakes, so it’s shocking that most lack robust appeals processes—or any appeals processes at all. Every user should have the right to due process, including the option to appeal a company's takedown decision, in every case. The Manila Principles provide a framework for this.

Empower Users With Better Platform Tools

Platforms are building tools that let user filter ads and other content, and this should continue. This approach has been criticized for furthering “information bubbles,” but those problems are less worrisome when users are in charge and informed, than when companies are making these decisions for users with one eye on their bottom lines. Users should be in control of their own online experience. For example, Facebook already allows users to choose what kinds of ads they want to see—a similar system should be put in place for content, along with tools that let users make those decisions on the fly rather than having to find a hidden interface. Use of smart filters should continue, since they help users can better choose content they want to see and filter out content they don’t want to see. Facebook’s machine learning models can recognize the content of photos, so users should be able to choose an option for "no nudity" rather than Facebook banning it wholesale. (The company could still check that by default in countries where it's illegal.)

When it comes to political speech, there is a desperate need for more innovation. That might include user interface designs and user controls that encourage productive and informative conversations; that label and dampen the virality of wildly fabricated material while giving readers transparency and control over that process. This is going to be a very complex and important design space in years to come, and we’ll probably have much more to say about it in future posts.

Empower Users With Third-Party Tools

Big platform companies aren’t the only place where good ideas can grow. Right now, the larger platforms limit the ability of third parties to offer alternative experiences on the platforms, using closed APIs, blocking scraping and limiting interoperability. They enforce their power to limit innovation on the platform through a host of laws, including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), copyright regulations, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Larger platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube should facilitate user empowerment by opening their APIs even to competing services, allowing scraping and ensuring interoperability with third party products, even up to forking of services.

Forward Consent

Community guidelines and policing are touted as a way to protect online civility, but are often used to take down a wide variety of speech. The targets of reporting often have no idea what rule they have violated, since companies often fail to provide adequate notice. One easy way that service providers can alleviate this is by having users affirmatively accept the community guidelines point by point, and accept them again each time they change.

Judicious Filters

When implemented by the platform, we worry about filtering technologies that automatically takedown speech, because the default for online speech should always to be to keep it online until a human has reviewed it. Some narrow exceptions may be appropriate, e.g., where a file is an exact match of a file already found to be infringing, where no effort was made to challenge the infringement allegation. But in general platforms can and should simply use smart filters to better flag potentially unlawful content for human review and to recognize when their user flagging systems are being gamed by those seeking to get the platform to censor others.

Platform Competition and User Choice

Ultimately, users also need to be able to leave when a platform isn’t serving them. Real data portability is key here and this will require companies to agree to standards for how social graph data is stored. Fostering competition in this space could be one of the most powerful incentives for companies to protect users against bad actors on their platform, be they fraudulent, misleading or hateful. Pressure on companies to allow full interoperability and data portability could lead to a race to the top for social networks.

No Shadow Regulations

Over the past decade we have seen the emergence of the secretive web of backroom agreements between companies that seeks to control our behavior online, often driven by governments as a shortcut and less accountable alternative to regulation. One example among many: under pressure from the UK Intellectual Property Office, search engines agreed last year to a "Voluntary Code of Practice" that requires them to take additional steps to remove links to allegedly unlawful content. At the same time, domain name registrars are also under pressure to participate in copyright enforcement, including “voluntarily” suspending domain names. Similarly, in 2016, the European Commission struck a deal with the major platforms, which, while ostensibly about addressing speech that is illegal in Europe, had no place for judges and the courts, and concentrated not on the letter of the law, but the companies' terms of service.

Shadow regulation is dangerous and undemocratic; regulation should take place in the sunshine, with the participation of the various interests that will have to live with the result. To help alleviate the problem, negotiators should seek to include meaningful representation from all groups with a significant interest in the agreement; balanced and transparent deliberative processes; and mechanisms of accountability such as independent reviews, audits, and elections.

Keep Core Infrastructure Out of It

As we said last year, the problems with censorship by direct hosts of speech are tremendously magnified when core infrastructure providers are pushed to censor. The risk of powerful voices squelching the less powerful is greater, as are the risks of collateral damage. Internet speech depends on an often-fragile consensus among many systems and operators. Using that system to edit speech, based on potentially conflicting opinions about what can be spoken on the Internet, risks shattering that consensus. Takedowns by some intermediaries—such as certificate authorities or content delivery networks—are far more likely to cause collateral censorship. That’s why we’ve called these parts of the Internet free speech’s weakest links.

The firmest, most consistent, defense these potential weak links can take is to simply decline all attempts to use them as a control point. They can act to defend their role as a conduit, rather than a publisher. Companies that manage domain names, including GoDaddy and Google, should draw a hard line: they should not suspend or impair domain names based on the expressive content of websites or services.

Toward More Accountability

There are no perfect solutions to protecting free expression, but as this list of recommendations should suggest, there’s a lot that companies—as well as policymakers—can do to protect and empower Internet users without doubling down on the risky and too-often failing strategy of censorship.

We'll continue to refine, and critique the proposals that we and others make, whether they're new laws, new technology, or new norms. But we also want to play our part to ensure that these debates aren't dominated by existing interests and a simple desire for rapid and irrevocable action. We'll continue to highlight the collateral damage of censorship, and especially to highlight the unheard voices who have been ignored in this debate—and have the most to lose.

Note: Many EFF staff contributed to this post. Particular thanks to Peter Eckersley, Danny O’Brien, David Greene, and Nate Cardozo.

„Angriff auf Pressefreiheit“: Reporter klagen gegen BND-Gesetz

Das BND-Gesetz sorgt weiter für Unmut. Medienverbände und Reporter aus dem Ausland ziehen nun dagegen vor das Bundesverfassungsgericht. Insbesondere Investigativreporter sehen ihre Arbeit bedroht.

Geschichtsforschung - Historiker Alfred Pfoser: "Österreich war stets ein Versuchslabor des Populismus"

Politische Grabenkämpfe und Entscheidungen, die Österreich das blutige Schicksal mancher Nachbarstaaten ersparten – ein Gespräch über die wilden Jahre der Republik

Open Rights Group respond to court ruling that government surveillance regime unlawful

(Press Release) “Once again, another UK court has found another piece of Government surveillance legislation to be unlawful.…

Hear Hours of Lectures by Michel Foucault: Recorded in English & French Between 1961 and 1983

Tucked in the afterward of the second, 1982 edition of Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow’s Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, we find an important, but little-known essay by Foucault himself titled “The Subject and Power.” Here, the French theorist offers what he construes as a summary of his life’s work: spanning 1961’s Madness and Civilization up to his three-volume, unfinished History of Sexuality, still in progress at the time of his death in 1984. He begins by telling us that he has not been, primarily, concerned with power, despite the word’s appearance in his essay’s title, its arguments, and in nearly everything else he has written. Instead, he has sought to discover the “modes of objectification which transform human beings into subjects.”

This distinction may seem abstruse, a needlessly wordy matter of semantics. It is not so for Foucault. In key critical difference lies the originality of his project, in all its various stages of development. “Power,” as an abstraction, an objective relation of dominance, is static and conceptual, the image of a tyrant on a coin, of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan seated on his throne.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Subjection, subjectification, objectivizing, individualizing, on the other hand—critical terms in Foucault’s vocabulary—are active processes, disciplines and practices, relationships between individuals and institutions that determine the character of both. These relationships can be located in history, as Foucault does in example after example, and they can also be critically studied in the present, and thus, perhaps, resisted and changed in what he terms “anarchistic struggles.”

Foucault calls for a “new economy of power relations,” and a critical theory that takes “forms of resistance against different forms of power as a starting point.” For example, in approaching the carceral state, we must examine the processes that divide “the criminals and the ‘good boys,’” processes that function independently of reason. How is it that a system can create classes of people who belong in cages and people who don’t, when the standard rational justification—the protection of society from violence—fails spectacularly to apply in millions of cases? From such excesses, Foucault writes, come two “’diseases of power’—fascism and Stalinism.” Despite the “inner madness” of these “pathological forms” of state power, “they used to a large extent the ideas and the devices of our political rationality.”

People come to accept that mass incarceration, or invasive medical technologies, or economic deprivation, or mass surveillance and over-policing, are necessary and rational. They do so through the agency of what Foucault calls “pastoral power,” the secularization of religious authority as integral to the Western state.

This form of power cannot be exercised without knowing the inside of people’s minds, without exploring their souls, without making them reveal their innermost secrets. It implies a knowledge of the conscience and an ability to direct it.

In the last years of Foucault’s life, he shifted his focus from institutional discourses and mechanisms—psychiatric, carceral, medical—to disciplinary practices of self-control and the governing of others by “pastoral” means. Rather than ignoring individuality, the modern state, he writes, developed “as a very sophisticated structure, in which individuals can be integrated, under one condition: that this individuality would be shaped in a new form and submitted to a set of very specific patterns.” While writing his monumental History of Sexuality, he gave a series of lectures at Berkeley that explore the modern policing of the self.

In his lectures on "Truth and Subjectivity" (1980), Foucault looks at forms of interrogation and various “truth therapies” that function as subtle forms of coercion. Foucault returned to Berkeley in 1983 and delivered the lecture “Discourse and Truth,” which explores the concept of parrhesia, the Greek term meaning “free speech,” or as he calls it, “truth-telling as an activity.” Through analysis of the tragedies of Euripides and contemporary democratic crises, he reveals the practice of speaking truth to power as a kind of tightly controlled performance. Finally, in his lecture series “The Culture of the Self,” Foucault discusses ancient and modern practices of “self care” or “the care of the self” as technologies designed to produce certain kinds of tightly bounded subjectivities.

You can hear parts of these lectures above or visit our posts with full audio above. Also, over at Ubuweb, download the lectures as mp3s, and hear several earlier talks from Foucault in French, dating all the way back to 1961.

When he began his final series of talks in 1980, the philosopher was asked in an interview with the Daily Californian about the motivations for his critical examinations of power and subjectivity. His reply speaks to both his practical concern for resistance and his almost utopian belief in the limitless potential for human freedom. “No aspect of reality should be allowed to become a definitive and inhuman law for us,” Foucault says.

We have to rise up against all forms of power—but not just power in the narrow sense of the word, referring to the power of a government or of one social group over another: these are only a few particular instances of power.

Power is anything that tends to render immobile and untouchable those things that are offered to us as real, as true, as good.

Read Foucault’s statement of intent, his essay “The Subject and Power,” and learn more about his life and work in the 1993 documentary below.

Foucault's lecture series will be added to our collection, 1,300 Free Online Courses from Top Universities.

Related Content:

Watch a “Lost Interview” With Michel Foucault: Missing for 30 Years But Now Recovered

Michel Foucault and Alain Badiou Discuss “Philosophy and Psychology” on French TV (1965)

Clash of the Titans: Noam Chomsky & Michel Foucault Debate Human Nature & Power on Dutch TV, 1971

Josh Jones  is a writer and musician based in Durham, NC. Follow him at @jdmagness

Hear Hours of Lectures by Michel Foucault: Recorded in English & French Between 1961 and 1983 is a post from: Open Culture. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Plus, or get our Daily Email. And don't miss our big collections of Free Online Courses, Free Online Movies, Free eBooksFree Audio Books, Free Foreign Language Lessons, and MOOCs.

Polarized by Populism, Czech Society Braces for a Second Round of Presidential Elections

The election has driven ardent debates among citizens on and offline. As a parliamentary republic, the president has very limited executive powers, yet the election has polarized the nation.
Reposted from02mydafsoup-01 02mydafsoup-01

On my reading list: "The Economic Impacts of Climate Change"


This article reviews the economic impacts of climate change and the policy implications of the results. Current estimates indicate that climate change will likely have a limited impact on the economy and human welfare in the twenty-first century. In fact, the initial impacts of climate change may well be positive. However, in the long run the negative impacts dominate the positive ones. Negative impacts will be substantially greater in poorer, hotter, and lower-lying countries. Poverty reduction complements greenhouse gas emissions reduction as a means to reduce climate change impacts. Although climate change may affect the growth rate of the global economy and may trap more people in poverty, quantification of these impacts remains difficult. The optimal carbon tax in the near term is somewhere between a few tens and a few hundreds of dollars per ton of carbon.

Richard S J Tol; The Economic Impacts of Climate Change, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rex027

Masernimpfung: Was Deutschland von Tansania lernen kann

Weltweit wünschen sich Eltern gesunde Kinder. Dabei treffen sie vor allem beim Thema Impfungen ganz unterschiedliche Entscheidungen, wie der Vergleich von Deutschland und Tansania zeigt.
Reposted fromzeitung zeitung via02mydafsoup-01 02mydafsoup-01

Michel Chevalier : Visionary of Modern Europe ? - Books & ideas

Michel Chevalier : Visionary of Modern #Europe ? - Books & ideas


Leading 19th century statesman, political economist, architect of the 1860 commercial treaty between France and the United Kingdom, and campaigner for peace between European nations, Michel Chevalier had also been a dominant voice in the Romantic socialism of Saint-Simonianism: the eclectic nature of his thought would lend itself to a particular vision of Europe, forerunner of today’s European Union.

In December 1880 a group of French workers completed the first stage of a colossal engineering project near Sangatte. The building of an underground railway tunnel linking France and Britain, the first Channel Tunnel, had begun. First conceived by a French mining engineer Albert Mathieu-Favier in 1802, this great venture found its leading crusaders after the 1830 Revolution. One of them, a young, ambitious and visionary French mining engineer Michel Chevalier (1806-1879) seized on the idea of a channel tunnel to articulate a new economic and political vision for France, Britain, and Europe. Throughout his life Chevalier laboured to make this vision a reality, and in 1875 he founded La compagnie de chemin de fer sous-marin entre la France et l’Angleterre. Investors on both sides of the channel were transported by Chevalier’s vision and poured money into the company. But his and their faith in the project was dashed when the British military successfully lobbied its government to withdraw its support, fearing the tunnel would be used as an invasion route. In 1883 work on the project was stopped. It would take over a century to reverse that decision.


[Revised entry by Lisa Bortolotti on January 29, 2018. Changes to: Main text, Bibliography] This entry focuses on the phenomenon of clinical delusions. Although the nature of delusions is controversial, as we shall see, delusions are often characterised as strange beliefs that appear in the context of mental distress. Indeed, clinical delusions are a symptom of psychiatric disorders such as dementia and schizophrenia, and they also characterize delusional disorders. The following case descriptions include one instance of erotomania, the delusion that...
Reposted from02mydafsoup-01 02mydafsoup-01

January 29 2018

Play fullscreen
The Marketplace of Ideas Doesn't Work
[Dr. Layman]
Reposted fromshikaji shikaji

January 28 2018

1076 0499 500

Der eine wollte mithelfen, dass "in unserem Vaterland wieder Ruhe und Ordnung einkehrt". Der andere traute den alten Parteien nicht mehr über den Weg, fühlte sich missbraucht als "Stimmvieh". Und wieder ein anderer interessierte sich für die Nationalsozialisten, weil er in der Presse nicht die Wahrheit erfahre und "Adolf Hitler und seine Bewegung in der Presse fürchterlich heruntergerissen" wurden. So beschreiben Deutsche im Sommer 1934, warum sie schon früh in die NSDAP eingetreten sind.

Play fullscreen
4 chords

"how did we get to a point where all of the music on the radio is using the same four chords? (I V vi IV)"
Reposted fromshikaji shikaji
Play fullscreen
Banking On Bitcoin - Full Documentary Film
Reposted fromFreeminder23 Freeminder23

January 27 2018

Ep. 476: The Overview Effect

After they’ve been to space, many astronauts report that seeing the world from above has given them a totally new perspective on humanity and the state of our planet. It’s called the Overview Effect. Today we’ll talk about this, and what this perspective can teach us all.

We usually record Astronomy Cast every Friday at 3:00 pm EST / 12:00 pm PST / 20:00 PM UTC. You can watch us live on here on AstronomyCast.com, or the AstronomyCast YouTube page.

If you would like to support Astronomy Cast, please visit our page at Patreon here – https://www.patreon.com/astronomycast. We greatly appreciate your support!

If you would like to join the Weekly Space Hangout Crew, visit their site here and sign up. They’re a great team who can help you join our online discussions!

This episode is sponsored by: RxBar.

Show Notes

Overview Effect named in 1987
First noted in Apollo missions to moon
High altitude pilots have some of this
Ron Garan’s spacewalk experience TedTalk
Rusty Schweikart, Edgar Mitchell, Tom Jones, and Mike Massimino are all reported to have experienced the effect. (Ian O’Neill article on Universe Today)
JP Chastain’s talk on Overview Effect
See images from the astronauts’ perspective in Image Detective!
Overview video


Transcription services provided by: GMR Transcription

Transcription here

Reposted from02mydafsoup-01 02mydafsoup-01

January 06 2018

Als Massaker von Paris ging ein Blutbad in Paris am 17. Oktober 1961 während des Algerienkriegs (1954–1962) in die Geschichte ein. Die Pariser Polizei ging brutal gegen eine nicht genehmigte, aber friedliche Demonstration mehrerer zehntausend Algerier vor, zu der die algerische Unabhängigkeitsbewegung FLN aufgerufen hatte. Schätzungen gehen davon aus, dass mindestens 200 Menschen getötet wurden.[Wikipedia] Sie wurden erschossen, erschlagen und zum Teil in der Seine ertränkt. Die blutig verlaufene Massendemonstration wurde in den französischen Medien seinerzeit nahezu flächendeckend totgeschwiegen und erst mit großem zeitlichem Abstand zum Gegenstand einer öffentlichen Diskussion in Frankreich.
Der Film rekonstruiert die Geschehnisse eines großen Verbrechens, das 1961 in Paris geschah. Er spricht mit Zeitzeugen - Algeriern und Franzosen - befragt Historiker und recherchiert in den Archiven. Eine Geschichte so spannend wie ein Krimi, in dem die Verantwortlichen und Hintermänner in den obersten Etagen der Macht saßen.Es geschah am 17. Oktober 1961. 30.000 in Paris lebende Algerier versammelten sich in den Straßen der Hauptstadt zu einem Schweigemarsch gegen den Algerienkrieg und gegen die vom Pariser Präfekten Papon verhängte Ausgangssperre für die Algerierfranzosen. Tausende Polizisten, mobilisiert von einem zynischen Präfekten, gingen mit ungewöhnlicher Brutalität vor und machten regelrecht Jagd auf die Demonstranten. Mindestens 200 von ihnen wurden erschossen und in die Seine geworfen. “Wir kamen ohne Waffen, ohne Messer oder Stöcke”, so ein Teilnehmer von damals, “nur unsere leeren Hände hatten wir.” Am nächsten Morgen ging das Leben in Paris weiter, wie wenn nichts geschehen wäre. Kein Wort in den Zeitungen, im Fernsehen kein Bild. Die Zensur war total. Dabei war alles unter den Augen der Öffentlichkeit geschehen, doch die Bürger schwiegen. Dieses Schweigen hat bis heute angedauert. Das Öffnen der Archive der Stadt Paris bestätigte die schreckliche Wahrheit. 

January 05 2018

January 04 2018

0202 9e56 500


19th Century Church Renovated With 21st Century Technology

Moment Factory, multimedia studio based in Canada, has transformed  Montreal’s Notre-Dame Basilica Church into an immersive installation, complete with sound, lighting, and projections that will teleport the visitors into a whole new world.

Keep reading

Reposted fromSaturnine Saturnine viaRK RK

December 20 2017

The Legend of Korra is Garbage and Here's Why

Reuploaded due to salty Legend of Korra fans mass-flagging the previous video and having it locked to private.
Reposted fromshikaji shikaji
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!