As the world becomes swarmed by reports of famous artists – musicians, comedians, actors, painters – being alleged or in some case convicted of sexual harassment, or hold racist, homophobic, and sexist worldviews, the conversation on whether we should support the art that they produce or not has dominated public discussion in recent years.
With this kind of discussions, opinions are usually polarized – with people believing that the art is a separate entity from the artist and others considering the opposite. Most common of the arguments in support of the art-and-artists-are-separate-entities is the claim that it is possible to respect the art but not the artist.
But, this argument is problematic as problematic can get. In the first place, there is no such thing as separation between the art and the artist. They two always go together or as one.
A singer who released a song will always be ‘the artist who released the song.’ We have not heard of a song from an anonymous singer in the 21st century, have we? When an artist creates art, the art will automatically bear the artist’s name. In the same manner, the artist will always carry the art in him. To illustrate, you refer to the art as “I Believe I Can Fly By R. Kelly” not “I Believe I Can Fly By Anonymous.” There is no way that you can separate the songs of R. Kelly from him, one way or the other.
The “inseparable” narrative is a necessary message to send to the artist to make sure that they don’t use their power to abuse other people or to echo an anti-black sentiment. It has to be recognized that these artists have a platform to influence people, the more that we support the art that they do regardless of how bad or rotten their identities are, the more their platforms will thrive.
When Manny Pacquiao, the world’s best and most achieved boxer, was previously criticized by Filipinos for his homophobic remarks saying “gays are worse than animals.” While many criticized his statement, a lot of his supporters have invoked the separation of his entity as a politician from his existence as a boxer.
This is where the line should have been drawn. Manny Pacquiao became famous because of his boxing; and because of the social status he gained from being good at the sport, the world champion also earned a platform where he can reproduce his anti-gay agenda. Moreover, the reason why he is a senator in the Philippines right now is that people love him for being a man who brought honor to the country through his boxing wins, and not because he deserves to be a legislator or he has the actual merits to be one.
The support that the art gets from people empowers them. It gives them the money; it gives them the platform that they have now; it gives them power. And it is this same money, fame, and power that they use to commit their disgusting acts. Bill Cosby would not have been invited to a Playboy event to harass Chloe Goins if he was not “THE” Bill Cosby. R. Kelly would not have been able to meet the underage women he allegedly sexually abused if he did not have concerts.
In one way or another, supporting the art of a problematic artist makes you a complicit to the act.
Meanwhile, the case of dead artists is where everything becomes more complicated.
While dead artists will not have any material or financial gain from the art that they created when they were alive, supporting problematic dead artists will only immortalize them. And as they are celebrated, the trauma of their victims or the effect of their words will be memorialized with them. This is precisely why a conversation regarding putting down confederate memorabilia has been happening all over. When an ideology is celebrated even after the death of those advocating it, the effect will be the same as when they were alive.
The bottom line of this is simple: Artists and their art are a single entity. They cannot be separated. We as consumers of their art should be able to take a stand against their behavior and crimes as we are the ones who make them. It is our responsibility to tell them that they are wrong and we don’t tolerate their actions. One way of doing this is by dismissing their art and making them understand that actions have consequences. We have to make them realize that their art is powerless without us because power is us. /apr
Robocalls Are Terrorizing Debtors More Aggressively As Student Loan Crisis Worsen
Navient has sent more than 3.3 million robocalls to student loan debtors in 2018 alone.
Two of the most prolific problems that terrorize American citizens in this day and age are robocalls and student loan debts. The worse part of it all is that these two problems are feeding off each other to maximize their impact.
Robocalls and student loan debt has one thing tangent to each other: collection agencies. As the student loan crisis gets worse and worse every year, collection agencies get more and more aggressive in terrorizing debtors, experts say.
They’re calling dead people
One emblematic case for this phenomenon is the case of Navient Corp., one of the nation’s largest student-loan servicing companies with 12 million customers. The collection agency tasked for handling student loan debt collection by the federal government is reportedly becoming more and more belligerent in their collection process, including the calls they send to debtors.
In one particular instance, the company has called a debtor’s sister; they called a number for her grandmother, who died a decade ago; they called a number for her father, who died three years ago; and they began calling her friend and housemate.
And this case is not isolated. According to the data revealed by YouMail Robocall Index, Navient ranks 45th in the most number of robocalls sent in 2018. The collection agency has aggregately sent 3,302,400 robocalls from last year alone.
Meanwhile, the company has been slapped with a series of lawsuits and complaints on how they handle their business, and complainants are calling them out for their “illegal tactics.”
More than 1,100 lawsuits and complaints against Navient has been filed at the Federal Trade Commission in the last three months alone, and more than 150 submitted to the Federal Communications Commission since January 2018 over the company’s “harassing” robocalls.
Furthermore, Navient has also been in the center of two class-action suits over alleged unsolicited calls, agreeing to settle for up to $19.7 million in 2017 and another $2.5 million that was finalized this year. In the 2017 case, plaintiffs are accusing Navient of calling them to collect for student loans they did not make; and the second case blames the collection agency of user automatic dialers to get information about borrowers from third parties.
Nonetheless, the data still reveals that the robocalls are flourishing amidst complaints and lawsuits involving Navient and their calling practices.
“Robocalls from these companies have only gotten worse,” said Billy Howard, an attorney with The Consumer Protection Firm, a law firm in Tampa. “They’re being emboldened by these little small settlements that they force people into. Litigation is just another day at the office to them.”
What is being done?
There could be some sort of relief for student loan debtors as the FCC recently voted to allow telecom companies to block robocalls by default and enable carriers to create tools that would help people avoid numbers that are not in their contact lists.
“Allowing call blocking by default could be a big benefit for consumers who are sick and tired of robocalls. By making it clear that such call blocking is allowed, the FCC will give voice service providers the legal certainty they need to block unwanted calls from the outset so that consumers never have to get them,” said Chairman Pai.“And, if this decision is adopted, I strongly encourage carriers to begin providing these services by default—for free—to their current and future customers. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this latest attack on unwanted robocalls and spoofing.”
In a similar tone, the Senate and the House of Representatives both have a version of a bill that aims to end the terrorizing robocalls to Americans. Senate’s release, the TRACED (Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence) Act had an almost unanimous vote in the Senate floor with only Rand Paul not voting for it. Meanwhile, the ‘Stop Bad Robocall Act’ has also been proposed by a bipartisan committee in the House and is already set to be voted on this week. It empowers the government and regulatory bodies like the Federal Communication Commission and the Federal Trade Commission to levy heavier punishments against robocallers who violate the law.
‘A Coffee With Ren’ Was Mere Propaganda For ‘Huawei’ And China
Huawei CEO asserts that Huawei’s goal is to serve the good of humanity and announced that they are rebuilding their infra to improve trustworthiness.
As the tension between U.S. and China intensifies and Huawei getting caught right in the middle, the Chinese company stands in its position that they are “serving the humanity” and announced that they are going to improve their technological infrastructure to make it more trustworthy.
Ren Zhengfei, the founder and Chairman of Huawei, understands that their company and their developments are the forefronts of Chinese innovations, and in a live-streamed panel discussion last week, Ren started the company’s position as a “force for the good of humanity and just for scientific advancement and tech development.”
In the panel discussion entitled “A Coffee with Ren,” the company’s highest authority did not dwell on the latest announcement that it would drop $30 billion of revenue, as the brewing US-China trade wars put Huawei in the center of the chaos; instead, he reiterated his message that the company is innocent of what Washington accuses.
The U.S. denounces the company of stealing American technology and intellectual property and installing backdoors on its technology and infrastructures that aids the Chinese government in its cyber espionage and economic sabotage propaganda.
“In the next five years, we will invest US$100 billion in reshaping network architecture, so that networks can be simpler, faster, more secure, and more trustworthy […]At the very least, we should be able to meet the standards of Europe’s GDPR when it comes to privacy protection.” Ren said.
“Of course, our revenue will need to double. If we face financial difficulties, we may cut our R&D investment, but the amount will still be close to that figure. We need to restructure networks and make more contributions to humanity […] Huawei employees are everywhere — in the poorest areas of Africa, in places stricken with malaria, Ebola, or AIDS, and in the wilderness. We don’t make much money there. We are there because of the commitment we have for humanity,” he added.
The US vs. Huawei
For the last few months, Huawei’s credibility has been questioned following an all-out campaign of the Trump administration against the smartphone giant. Washington has been talking to its allies in Europe and Asia-pacific to persuade them to drop Huawei from their bid to install 5G networks in different territories.
Trump’s message was simple: drop Huawei from your 5G technology infrastructure, or else you will suffer consequences. With consequences, the U.S. meant a plethora of economic and security support that they are willing to withdraw from countries who refuse to drop Huawei’s bid.
A few months ago, America’s ambassador to Germany, sent a letter to Berlin to warn them that if they push through with their plans of allowing the Chinese tech company from bidding to build Germany’s 5G system, the U.S. will no longer be able to share sensitive intelligence information with the country — as working with Huawei constitute an adverse security risk for both U.S. and Germany. Trump’s administration has made similar threats to other European nations.
The U.S. believes that the Chinese Communist Party is using Huawei as a tool to carry out massive cyber espionage and economic sabotage campaigns against the west, and allowing them to build the data infrastructure in their countries, would make that task easier for Huawei and the Chinese government.
A Coffee With Ren was a mere propaganda
The live-streamed event, A Coffee with Ren, was propagated for both China and Huawei’s sake; especially since Tian Wei, host of World Insight on the state-run China Global Television Network, moderates the panel discussion.
The edited transcript of the event reflected what the Twitter account @HuaweiFacts calls the “official truth and facts.” Deflection from the issue has become a go-to for both Tian and Ren during the panel discussion. For example, Tian warded off and suppressed questions regarding China’s censorship of Google, and these questions were purposely left out from the “official transcript.”
One panelist was techno-utopian economist George Gilder, whose 1981 best-seller Wealth & Poverty. During his message, the “Official Truth” included his contention that “the basic challenge of the world economy today is to address the scandal of money,” and that the $5.1 trillion of currency trading every 24 hours “accomplishes nothing.” But his statement regarding cryptocurrency being used to steal money from the future “to consume in the present” has also been left out of the transcript.
‘Libra’ Could Be A Victim Of Bad Rep Over Facebook Security
Will Libra survive a storm coming?
Popular social media network and tech giant, Facebook, unveiled its most ambitious venture yet two days ago: The Libra cryptocurrency. However, following an initial market excitement, it seems that the project, even if it’s still has a long way before it can be officially rolled out, has already faced tremendous skepticisms across sectors.
Libra, as Facebook said, is a secured currency; unlike Bitcoin. The new digital money banks on real currencies and government certificates. It also runs on its blockchain technology, the Libra Blockchain, which assures the protection of every transaction involving the new online coin.
Furthermore, as part of Facebook’s assurance that Libra is unlike any other, albeit volatile cryptocurrency already roaming around the internet, the California-based company also announced that the coin would be overseen by an organization it spearheads — The Libra Association. Members of the new organization backing up the new cryptocurrency include payment and financial service providers, among others, like PayPal, Mastercard, and VISA. But of course, Facebook is the face of the organizations.
While Facebook will not have direct control of the Libra currency, the tech company is planning to profit from it by launching a subsidiary, Calibra, which serves as a crypto exchange company for Libra. Calibra is also a digital wallet, where users can store their Facebook coins and process transactions like transferring funds and sending remittances.
Facebook’s security reputation
But security isn’t something Facebook can display around as its badge of honor. The social media platform has been involved in controversies after controversies related to the security that they provide to their users.
One of the biggest blunders faced by Facebook that summoned CEO Mark Zuckerberg in Congress was the allegations that the company allowed U.K.-based firm Cambridge Analytica to use Facebook user data in attempts to sway public opinion in the 2016 elections. According to reports, Cambridge-Analytica improperly accessed 87 million Facebook users’ data. Following the highly-covered Congress testimony, Zuckerberg has promised to fix its security problems and to make sure that the same incident will not happen.
But it is not the end of Facebook’s security mishaps. Only recently, Facebook was involved in another data breach, where the company has admitted that it has been saving user passwords in human-readable format, and allowed those passwords to be exposed to thousands of Facebook employees. While Facebook defended the incident by saying that its employees did not use the exposed data in any way, multiple sectors have still slammed Facebook over the apparent recklessness of the company that leads to the exposure of thousands of user passwords.
The intense pressure on Facebook to secure user data may affect how Libra will perform in the market once the tech giant starts to roll it out early next year. As early as now, skepticism looms over Libra’s head as experts believed that it could be a venture, just many of other investments from Facebook, that users refuse to adopt.
Data shows users don’t trust Facebook in handling their money
And the numbers are glaring. In a study, most Facebook users (91%) said that they would not use the payment feature on Facebook Messenger. In 2015, Facebook rolled a payment option that can be done through its messaging app by connecting the U.S. issued credit and debit card as well as other payment merchants like Paypal. According to research firm Statista, around 79% of Facebook users who are aware of the feature did not use the payment option in Facebook Messenger.
In a greater scheme, consumer attitude towards online payments has also gone sour. Among those who currently access their bank and financial accounts online, about a quarter of people said they’re considering no longer doing so with mobile apps or via the internet, the MagnifyMoney survey added.
“This is largely because many U.S. consumers are more comfortable paying with either a credit card or cash instead of their mobile device,” the company added. “Additionally, the technology shift at the point-of-sale on the merchant side has been slow.” eMarketer expects that percentage to climb gradually.
Governments are skeptical too
The growing skepticism amongst users isn’t the only problem faced by Facebook’s Libra. Lawmakers also have their eyes on the recent project of Facebook. US Representative Maxine Waters, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, asked Facebook to halt work on the unit it answers questions about privacy and security.
European officials have also expressed concern regarding Libra, citing that the system, if widely adopted, could shake the global economy and rival national banks. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire sent a letter to officials from the G7 and International Monetary Fund calling for a group to examine Libra’s impact on the global financial system. Le Maire said that Libra must not become a “sovereign currency,” while a German politician noted Facebook’s potential to become a “shadow bank” to the global financial system.
Nonetheless, the lawmakers come forward with the acknowledgment that they are yet to understand the dynamics of Libra and what it means for the global economy. But whether or not Facebook can convince governments of the benefits of having a digital currency is worth watching out for.
Check Out What’s New:
- Israeli Researchers Test Drug That Starves Pancreatic Cancer Cells To Death
- Resident Evil 5 And 6 Invades Nintendo Switch This Fall
- Lenovo Patches Security Flaw Exposing 36TB Of Financial Data In The Wild
- Outpouring Support For KyoAni After Arson Attack
- This Free Service Detects And Blocks Suspicious Behaviors Of Android Apps
- ‘User Data Are Not Transferred To Russia,’ Says FaceApp
- ~$27.8 Million Worth Of Crypto Stolen From Japanese Crypto-Exchange, BitPoint
- Hong Kong Malvertiser Runs Malicious Tech Ads In Microsoft Apps
- 2.2 Million More Patient-Victims Of AMCA Data Breach Came Forward
- ‘Detective Pikachu’ Now the Highest Grossing Video Game Movie Of All Time
Arts & Entertainment3 weeks ago
‘Criminal Minds’ Season 15: A Tear-Jerking Finale Is Coming
Technology2 weeks ago
Google Stops Trends Alerts In New Zealand Following Criticisms From NZ Government
Business3 days ago
Political Stand-Off: Chinese-Canadian Goods
Science1 month ago
Norway’s Celebrity Beluga Whale ‘Hvaldimir’; A Russian Spy Or Child Therapist?
Technology3 weeks ago
Cloud Service Provider, ‘PCM’ Fell Victim To A Data Breach Aimed To Collect Gift Cards
Science3 weeks ago
Summer Penis Is Giving Men Big Dick Energy
Technology3 weeks ago
‘Google,’ ‘University of Chicago’ Faces Class Action Over ‘Electronic Health Record’ Breach
Technology2 weeks ago
‘Uncall’ Promises To Remove Your Number From Generic Robocall Lists And Dark Web Databases