Save $1.00 on any (1) Dove Hair Treatment or Styling Product & $3.00 on any (2) Dove Hair Shampoo or Conditioner with the SavingStar Dove Hair Care Coupons
Looking to spread your wings and learn how to fly? Learn from Dove! Check out our Dove Company History and Review feature here at Maple Holistics!
In a world where we use emojis on a daily basis, it’s hard to believe the lack of diversity when it comes to emoji hair types, but that’s all about to change. PLUS: The Rules Every Latina With Curly Hair Should Know
Dove Hair Care: YANK DOVE HAIR COMMERCIAL FOR DOG IN BACK OF PICK-UP TRUCK
by Mike Godwin @ Future Tense
Fri Aug 04 09:19:28 PDT 2017
No one can dispute that there is sex trafficking in the United States, or that criminals now use the internet to facilitate sex trafficking and other crimes, just as they also use mobile phones and even the U.S. Postal Service. Make no mistake: Sex trafficking is reprehensible, and its perpetrators deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
But some members of Congress seem to believe the internet itself is to blame for sex trafficking. And they're now trying to rush through legislation that would make it easier for state governments (as well as the federal government) to punish online service providers when criminals use their services.
That’s nuts. The internet we know and rely on today depends on a carefully balanced framework of laws that, by design, protect online service providers from being sued in every jurisdiction or prosecuted by every ambitious prosecutor who wants a headline.
Congress very deliberately set up this legal framework so that crimes on the internet—an inherently interjurisdictional medium—are primarily a federal matter. Currently, there are two basic federal laws that provide safe harbors to online platforms for content disseminated by their users. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act deals specifically with copyright infringement, while Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally addresses most other kinds of legal liability that service providers might routinely face. So, for example, YouTube wasn’t liable for copyright infringement when a user uploaded a video of a baby dancing to a Prince song on its site, and AOL wasn’t liable for any defamation when Matt Drudge republished a defamatory statement about Sidney Blumenthal on its site. This is as it should be: Individual perpetrators, not intermediary platforms, are usually the more appropriate targets.
This framework may not be perfect. For instance, there may be room for the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown provisions to be improved even if it generally gets the balance right. But these two laws help support and protect the innovative online ecosystem we have today. Neither the narrow provisions of the DMCA nor the broad protections of Section 230 offer platforms a blanket protection against prosecution or lawsuits. Importantly, Section 230’s liability protection does extend to federal criminal laws—including sex trafficking or conspiracies to facilitate criminal activity. But without the limited protections the DMCA and Section 230 provide, it’s likely that services like Wikipedia, Facebook, and Twitter wouldn’t exist. These laws are essential to making today’s robust online public squares possible, and they will likely be essential for the next generation of online entrepreneurs.
Yet now that entire online ecosystem is in danger. Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., have recently introduced the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 (S.1693), which would unravel Section 230 protections and to make platforms liable for being in the middle of sex-trafficking enterprises. SESTA's sponsors have made clear they’re specifically going after Backpage.com and other internet classified-ad websites that some might use to market sex services.
But here’s the thing: the U.S. Justice Department already has the authority to investigate and prosecute them. They also can punish corporate online platforms when they cross the line. In fact, Portman has already asked the DOJ to do exactly that in the case of alleged wrongdoing by the online-classifieds service Backpage.com. Furthermore, SESTA’s language is so broad that it could lead to state lawsuits and prosecutions of sites that don’t carry any advertising at all. It could sweep in every online service that hosts user-generated content—perhaps even including email services and comments sections.
To draw an analogy, the bill would be as if Congress decided that FedEx was legally liable for anything illegal it ever carries, even where it’s ignorant of the infraction and acts in good faith. That would be a crazy notion in itself, but rather than applying only to FedEx's tech equivalents—the giants like Google and Facebook—it also would apply to smaller, less well-moneyed services like Wikipedia. Even if the larger internet companies can bear the burden of defending against a vastly increased number of prosecutions and lawsuits—and that’s by no means certain—it would be fatal for smaller companies and startups. Amending Section 230's broad liability protection for internet service providers would expand the scope of criminal and civil liability for those services in ways that would force the tech companies to drastically alter or eliminate features that users have come to rely on. It could strangle many internet startups in their cribs.
SESTA's co-sponsors—who also include Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.; and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, among others—are rumored to be attempting to push the bill through quickly without the kinds of hearings and evidence-gathering that ought to be afforded to an issue of this magnitude and complexity.* It has been suggested that SESTA could be attached to the National Defense Authorization Act, a large “must-pass” funding bill for the U.S. Defense Department. For this to happen, it would have to go through McCain, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. He may be a co-sponsor of the legislation, but let’s hope the maverick sticks with his laudable talk of returning to regular order—and this overly broad bill is subjected to the greater consideration and scrutiny it deserves under the normal committee process.
I’m not saying Congress shouldn't consider laws—including potentially amending Section 230—that would improve the prosecution of sex trafficking and better protect children from sexual abuse. But we need to update those laws in thoughtful ways that also safeguard the internet on which we’ve grown to rely. Both the substance and process for this legislation drastically falls short of the kind of reasoned balancing of interests we have every right to expect from Congress. Worse, it could hobble the fast-paced economic and personal benefits we expect and hope for from the internet. When we think about protecting our children, we need to think about saving the internet for them, too.
*Correction, Aug. 28, 2017: This post originally misstated what state Sen. Claire McCaskill represents. It’s Missouri, not Connecticut.
by Jill Robbins @ Babble
Tue Aug 22 08:30:05 PDT 2017
We come from different places. Our chairs look different. But at the end of the day, our needs are the same.
The post This Walmart Ad Isn’t Selling Anything — But It Might Just Restore Your Faith in Humanity appeared first on Babble.
If you’re in need of haircare and are a fan of Suave & Dove, be sure to head to Walgreens this week!
by April Glaser @ Future Tense
Fri Aug 04 15:52:51 PDT 2017
There’s a court case in Illinois that challenges Facebook’s collection of biometric data without users’ permission, and the social media giant is fighting tooth and nail to defend itself.
Carlos Licata, one of the plaintiffs on the case, sued Facebook in 2015 under a unique Illinois law, the Biometric Information Privacy Act, which says that no private company can collect or store a person’s biometric information without prior notification and consent. If companies do collect data without giving notice and getting permission, citizens are allowed to sue.
That case is expected to progress this year, according to the Chicago Tribune, and if the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could challenge Facebook’s entire business model—and it could have huge ramifications for other data-driven Silicon Valley powerhouses, like Google and Amazon.
Facebook has been trying to fight the Illinois law for years, and the company has quietly worked to kill numerous other similar state laws that have popped up in around the country, according to a detailed report released Monday by the Center for Public Integrity. In 2017 alone, at least five states—Washington, Montana, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Alaska—have considered consumer protection laws about facial recognition. Only Washington’s passed, and it is watered down considerably when compared to the Illinois law. It holds that companies have to get permission before handing the data over to a third party and doesn’t allow people to sue companies directly if the law is violated. The law also has a loophole exemption for biometric data gathered from photographs or video, which almost defeats the purpose. Facebook now counts 2 billion monthly users, and roughly 350 million photos are uploaded to the site every day. The company’s research suggests that Facebook holds “the largest facial dataset to date”—powered by DeepFace, Facebook’s deep learning facial recognition system.
Even if Facebook never sells its biometric data troves and keeps them locked in encrypted storage, the company still stands to turn big profits, as businesses look to tailor ads to specific customers based on their mood, age, eye gaze, or other personal attributes that could indicate a propensity to buy.
Facebook has innovated heavily in this space. It’s worked on a feature that can identify a user even if her face is hidden, drawing from other potentially unique identifiers, like body shape, hair, posture, and clothing. The Center for Public Integrity also found that Facebook has patented technologies that can deliver ads based on a person’s perceived emotions.
Retail shops are already using facial recognition to find repeat customers or identify shoplifters, while the FBI’s face recognition database is said to have access to more than 400 million images. In fact, about half of all American adults are in at least one law enforcement facial recognition data base, according to research from Georgetown Law. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Customs and Border Protection officers have started to scan people’s faces at airports to track people overstaying their visas.
Facebook has taken an aggressive approach to fighting state biometric privacy laws. The company does most of its lobbying legwork by way of industry groups, like the Internet Association and CompTIA. (Those groups also count companies like AT&T, Amazon, and Google as members.) Still, Facebook has increased its own lobbying fund five times since it started pushing for federal policy around 2011. Back then it spent $1.4 million on lobbying, but that number has ballooned to $8.7 million in 2016, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And this year, Facebook reportedly hired a lobbyist specifically to grapple with legal issues in Illinois.
Washington state Rep. Jeff Morris told the Center for Public Integrity that Facebook’s representative lobbied “ferociously” there. And one of the attorneys who helped to write Montana’s biometric privacy bill, which was killed, said that lawyers and representatives from the tech industry swarmed the state when it was introduced.
Facebook and other data-dependent tech companies are taking what Morris called an “NRA approach” to policy change. “They basically say, ‘You’ll take our innovation out of our cold, dead hands,’ ” he said in the report.
And Facebook users should pay attention: When you tag a friend in a photo, that’s feeding a massive facial recognition dataset. There’s no telling how your biometric data could be used to target ads, locate, or track you or your friends and family in the future. But one thing is certain: it will be a lot harder to leave the house unnoticed.
Over our wall
Okay ladies…lets talk hair! Clean hair, dirty hair, bedhead whatever you got. Rencently @Dove found that 8 in 10 women feel pressure to wear their hair a certain way. It never even dawned on me that this was actually a thing. I mean I know women feel that pressure with being a certain dress size Read More
I have some news that I've been waiting to share with you for awhile now, but no longer! I am over-the-moon excited to tell you that for the next year, I'm going to be joining the Dove Hair team as their Brand Ambassador.
by Ray Mohamed @ Beauty, Fashion and Lifestyle Blog | Separated Sisters
Thu Feb 23 00:40:47 PST 2017
I recently teamed up with Beauty Bulletin and Dove Hair to find our perfect hair-care solution for my targeted hair problems. My paring was the Dove Pure Care Dry Oil range. It is aimed at dry hair and replaces oil without making hair greasy. It nourishes, strengthens and adds shine to hair while keeping hair soft, smooth and untangled. There is a second product in the Advanced Hair Series namely the Oxygen Moisture range – which was reviewed by Donna over on beautybulletin.com Firstly, the smell of the Pure Care Dry Oil shampoo is amazing! It’s infused with macadamia oil. The shampoo lathers well and cleans effectively with just one wash. I really enjoyed the fact that my hair felt clean and strong but not dried out after washing. My hair was easy to style and remained clean for the next few days. The smell of the conditioner is just as amazing as the shampoo – macadamia nut oil is my new favourite scent! I always leave my conditioner on for a few minutes to develop and soften my hair fully. It rinses super well and leaves my hair feeling soft but not soapy. My hair was easy to style […]
by April Glaser @ Future Tense
Tue Sep 12 16:27:00 PDT 2017
It takes a lot of selling points to justify a $1,000 phone, and one of the most enticing features of Apple’s new iPhone X is Face ID, which unlocks your phone by simply looking at you. It is also the creepiest.
Rather than asking you to touch the home button with your finger to unlock, the iPhone X will use its camera to compare your face to scans stored on the phone—a method the company claims is much more secure than a fingerprint.
But unlocking your phone with your face also unlocks a flood of privacy and usability concerns, not the least of which being whether someone will be able to unlock your phone with your picture. (Apple says that will probably be impossible.) And then there’s potential scenario of police confiscating your phone and unlocking it by holding it up to your face.
Right now, police can’t force you to reveal your password to unlock your phone and search it without a warrant—similar to the same way police need a warrant to search your house. But some courts have ruled that law enforcement can force you to use your fingerprint to unlock a phone. And so there’s a real concern about what will happen when cops can simply hold your phone in front of you to get inside. As Elizabeth Joh, a law professor at the University of California–Davis who specializes in police use of technology, wrote on Twitter, it’s “a criminal procedure question waiting to happen.”
Some good news is that the new facial-recognition feature on the iPhone X also comes with a software upgrade that reportedly will allow users to disable Face ID unlocking by simply tapping the power button quickly five times. Doing so reverts the phone to unlock with your password. But a little-known software trick like that won’t necessarily protect everyone who gets their phone confiscated.
Apple reportedly uses presence recognition to make sure it’s really you there, and not a photo of you. And as for the fear that someone who looks like you might be able to break into your phone, Apple’s thought about that, too. Face ID works by mapping a face with 30,000 invisible dots, which is used to create a mathematical 3-D model. The company calls the special camera hardware it uses to map faces its True Depth system. And since Face ID uses artificial intelligence, it actually gets more secure and exact every time you look at your phone, building on its model. In other words, it learns your face as you use it.
And as you grow older or grow a beard and change your hair, Face ID is supposed to pick up on those changes, too. Phil Schiller, the senior vice president of marketing at Apple, said at the event that wearing a hat or glasses or changing your facial hair won’t cause the system to malfunction. But even if Apple thinks it can be sure it’s you, the phone doesn’t seem to have a way to tell if you’re unlocking it under duress—like, for example, if an abusive partner is forcing you to look at your phone. Sure, Apple could one day add a feature that can read your facial expression, but that would probably be difficult to make reliable. Humans, after all, have a hard enough time as it picking up on how we feel without special software.
One thing that differentiates Apple’s biometric play from other tech giants, like Facebook, is that Apple isn’t creating a massive database of faces that it may one day use to tailor advertisements to you. Rather, similar to the way Touch ID worked, the image of your face is stored locally on the phone; it’s not shipped back to Apple. Retail shops are already using facial recognition to find repeat customers or identify shoplifters, and Facebook could one day work with stores to point out who walked in, how they’re feeling based on the Facebook activity, and what kinds of ads they’re most likely to respond to. Apple won’t.
Privacy concerns with Face ID, unfortunately, might not be addressed until after a police officer actually forces someone to unlock their phone with their face. But a more immediate privacy concern, and one that also probably won’t be resolved until we get to play with the new iPhone X, is whether the facial-recognition sensors will allow us to be as private as we prefer to be when glancing at our phones.
Think about it: At the moment, if you want to slyly check your iPhone under the table or in your coat pocket, you can just pull it halfway out and unlock it with your finger. But with Face ID, it might be hard to be as inconspicuous, and that raises a whole other level of privacy concerns. Our smartphones, after all, are rather private places. We can have clandestine conversations, quietly and privately search the web without anyone really being able to look over our shoulder, or just check sports scores while pretending to listen to someone. But all of that is aided by an iPhone that allows us to quietly unlock it under the table—not one that requires you to look straight at it.
Breitbart Told the FBI It Was the Victim of a Cyberattack. But Apparently Its Own Advertising Was to Blame.
by Jacob Brogan @ Future Tense
Fri Sep 08 10:58:49 PDT 2017
In January 2016, Breitbart News Network—the far-right media company currently chaired by White House exile Steve Bannon—realized it had a problem. Describing the issue in an email to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a representative of the company wrote that its site had been “under constant DDoS attack for the past two days.” Hoping that the bureau could help ascertain “the identity of the criminal,” the Breitbartian asked, “Is this something we can possibly collaborate on?”
That email appears in a trove of heavily redacted documents available on the FBI’s public “Vault,” a collection of documents made available under the Freedom of Information Act. As other emails and memos in the file indicate, the FBI took Breitbart’s request seriously, as it should have. The investigation, however, soon revealed that things weren’t quite what they seemed.
DDoS—or distributed denial of service—attacks are one of the most important weapons of contemporary cyber warfare. They typically involve sustained and repeated requests from multiple computers or internet-enabled devices on a site, a process that often takes it offline. In October of last year, an Internet of Things-enabled botnet temporarily downed much of the internet on the United States’ east coast. On other occasions, DDoS attacks have served more explicitly political functions, which seemed to be the case when one disabled Planned Parenthood’s website in 2015.
It stands to reason, then, that the Trump-aligned Breitbart might have been the victim of similarly inclined malefactors. In fact, a popular post from February of this year on Reddit’s r/The_Donald accused a “former Berkeley student” of advocating just such an attack on the media company. In response, one seemingly appalled commenter offered a link to the FBI’s tip line.
As Gizmodo’s Brendan O’Connor noted on Twitter, however, the supposed attack in January 2016 seems to have been nothing of the kind. The majority of the problematic traffic didn’t appear to be coming from malicious attackers at all. Instead, a bureau representative wrote in a later memo, “a large portion of that traffic was due to a malfunctioning ad network.”
The call, in other words, was coming from inside the house. No free speech martyr, Breitbart instead appears to have been the victim of its own sales team.
To be fair, redactions in the FBI’s documents make it hard to determine the exact details of the story. The investigation does appear to have continued after the advertising revelation, but the bureau’s subsequent analysis and findings have been removed from the FOIA’d file. It’s certainly possible, then, that a “criminal” really was behind the attack. Possible, but not likely.
In any case, Breitbart may not have to worry about a repeat incident. Advertising on the site has declined precipitously since the presidential election, thanks in part to a sustained boycott effort. If that trend continues, it’s possible that Breitbart will soon be safe from its most dangerous enemies.
by Jacob Brogan @ Future Tense
Tue Sep 12 13:45:27 PDT 2017
The audiences at Apple’s annual announcement events are notoriously vocal. Presented with a parade of incremental advancements—and the occasional real leap forward—they dutifully hoot and applaud, their celebrations so routinized that it’s hard to distinguish real enthusiasm from mere signs of life.
One detail at this year’s event did, however, seem to produce a genuine reaction from the crowd: the company’s description of a new feature that it calls animoji, which has apparently been in the works since at least 2011. “We use emojis to communicate with others to express emotion,” declared Apple Senior Vice President Philip Schiller, gesturing broadly with his hands, his own face placid. “But of course you can’t customize emojis; they only have a limited amount of expressiveness to them.” Never mind that the relative simplicity of emojis is the key to their charm. It is, as many have argued, precisely their limitations that can make them such provocative tools. With animojis, Apple is prepared to change that, offering us the ability to bring these minimalistic characters to life.
Animojis “are emojis that you control with your face,” Schiler said as a toothy panda mask bobbed and grinned (somehow more menacing than charming) on the massive screen behind him. “Animojis track more than 50 facial muscle movements. They’ve been meticulously animated to create amazing expressiveness.” As Craig Federighi went on to explain, these animations are possible thanks to the facial recognition hardware packed into the new iPhone X. It is, in other words, of a piece with the same technology that will let you unlock your phone by looking at it and swiping up.
His salt and pepper hair a CGI’d swoosh, Federighi demonstrated that animoji will be included directly within the phone’s messaging app. “It immediately starts tracking me, so I can make whatever expression I want,” Federighi said as he snarled like a “ferocious” cat, bawked like a chicken, and whinnied like a unicorn, “mythical creature, favorite of the startup.” The system even lets you bring the poop emoji to life. Or, as Federighi put it, “If you were, by chance, wondering what humanity would do when given access to the most advanced facial tracking technology available, you now have your answer.”
The demonstration concluded with an exchange of audio animoji messages between Federighi (speaking as a fox) and Apple CEO Tim Cook (as an alien) in which the latter told his subordinate to “wrap this up.” It was a cute bit, but it was also one that should trouble those concerned with the increasing reach of mobile technology. Here, in ascending order of significance, are three reasons:
The first is the least worrisome, but it may be the most irritating. In effect, the potential for spoken, animated messages that Federighi showed off promises to reinvent voicemail for a generation of users who prefer text messages. It does so, however, with one crucial—and potentially maddening—difference: To watch the animation, you have to look at your phone while listening to the audio snippets (as you would while reading a text message) instead of holding it to your ear (as you would while checking a traditional voicemail).
This approach will likely encourage users to play the messages aloud through the phone’s speakers—possibly over and over again, especially if they find the animation amusing. In other words, unless you happen to have headphones attached, Apple is inviting you to fill the surrounding space up with the sonic clutter of your friends’ voices. Those sitting next to you on the bus are unlikely to find the results as amusing as you do.
Second, animoji looks like a sly gambit designed to help sell the almost $1,000 iPhone X. The feature likely won’t be available on devices without facial recognition technology—and the X seems to be the only handset in Apple’s lineup that has this capacity yet. But where I may not be able to create animojis on my iPhone 6, I almost certainly will be able to receive them through its messaging ecosystem.
Thus, like iMessage itself—which already distinguishes between your communications with Apple users and those on other platforms—the mere ability to use animoji will become a status symbol. It may, in effect, signify that your interlocutor was willing to plunk down a cool grand for the privilege of ventriloquizing an anthropomorphic pile of poop. While that arguably reflects poorly on them, your inability to respond in kind may say something even worse about you. In that respect, animoji itself is a kind of blackmail.
Third and finally, the very charms of the system are themselves troubling. As many have already noted, and as others will point out, employing facial recognition as a security feature comes at a risk, since it potentially makes it easier for others to unlock your device by holding it up to your face. It also represents the consumer-level creep of technology that can be used to identify protesters and otherwise put personal privacy in jeopardy.
Apple surely knows all of this, and that’s likely why it spent so much of its presentation focused on this adorable but largely inconsequential new feature. With animoji, Apple is, as the literary theorist Roland Barthes might put it, effectively inoculating us against such concerns. You may not, the company implicitly acknowledges, like living in a techno-surveillance state. But you’re going to love playing with this talking panda face. Have fun!!!!
The worst part? If the audience reaction is any indication, Apple is almost certainly right.
by Jacob Brogan @ Future Tense
Wed Jul 19 11:17:00 PDT 2017
On Tuesday, the Space Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representative’s Committee on Science, Space, and Technology met for what could have been a routine hearing. For just over a minute, however, that two-hour session diverged into stranger and more speculative territory.
As Space.com reports, the hearing “was a general discussion of NASA’s upcoming planetary-science missions, with a focus on the 2020 rover and Europa Clipper.” Along the way, Kenneth Farley, a professor of geochemistry at the California Institute of Technology and a Mars Rover 2020 project scientist, brought up evidence suggesting that Mars may have been habitable long, long ago.
To be clear, those indications point to the mere possibility of microbial life, not, as Space.com puts it, of “intelligent organisms.” Nevertheless, Farley’s comments were enough to pique the curiosity of one member of the subcommittee, California Republican Dana Rohrabacher.
Requesting a minute to bring up what he called “the most important thing,” Rohrabacher asked, “You have indicated that Mars … was totally different thousands of years ago. Is it possible that there was a civilization on Mars thousands of years ago?”
In the video, you can see a young boy behind Rohrabacher suddenly lean over to whisper something to his own seat mate. Farley, meanwhile, barely seems to pause before responding with a correction.
“So, the evidence is that Mars was different billions of years ago … not thousands of years ago,” Farley said. “There is no evidence that I am aware of.”
“Would you rule that out?” Rohrabacher broke in.
Here, Farley took a more conclusive tone, though he still maintained a scientist’s commitment to uncertainty: “I would say that is extremely unlikely.”
At this point, the conversation moved on, giving Space Subcommittee Chairman Brian Babin the last word on the issue: “Looking forward to finding out what’s up there. That’s for sure.”
Now, it’s easy enough to make fun of Rohrabacher’s line of questioning, and plenty have. Where Space.com takes a flatly dismissive tone, Ars Technica points out, “[L]ast month InfoWars host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones entertained the notion that Earth children have been kidnapped and sent to slave camps on Mars.” Mashable, meanwhile, compared Rohrabacher to an “internet troll” and derided him for “wast[ing] NASA’s time.”
That’s all fair enough, but it’s worth remembering the U.S. government has wasted time of its own on these questions in the past. As I’ve reported before, in 1984, the U.S. Army had “psychic spy” Joseph McMoneagle astrally project to Mars. According to a document about that attempt, publicly available via the Central Intelligence Agency’s Reading Room site, McMoneagle says he saw evidence of ancient Martians, who had slipped into hibernation as a buffer against the planet’s increasingly inimical conditions.
That’s silly stuff, but, hey, the information is out there and Rohrabacher was just asking questions! I reached out to Rohrabacher’s spokesman, who simply told me, “Because of his position on the space committee, [Rohrabacher] not infrequently gets inquiries about this from far and wide. He was looking for something definitive. Apparently, many of those who covered the exchange didn’t hear the wink in his voice.”
We’ll leave it to you to determine whether you can identify that supposed “wink,” but we’ll say this much: Rohrabacher’s office neither confirmed nor denied whether the history of psychic spying influenced the representative’s line of inquiry.
We worked with Dove to show the data of their hair care study with this great infographic. It's all about the great hair affair!
Spark & Chemistry
If you're looking for some hair products for black or coarse hair, try the Love Your Curls hair care line from Dove Hair.
Dove is known for creating flawless campaigns highlighting "real beauty," and the brand's new #LoveYourCurls video isn't any different. A handful of
by @ Future Tense
Fri Sep 15 11:52:00 PDT 2017
Tech companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook have revolutionized our lives, connecting us in ways that were once unimaginable—to one another, to information, and to entertainment. Conventional wisdom leads us to believe that the technologies unleashed by these corporations have empowered us as individuals. But is that really the case?
In World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech, a powerful critique of the role these companies play in our economy and in our lives, Franklin Foer argues that the success of these tech juggernauts, with their gatekeeping control over our access to the world's information, has created a new form of dangerous monopoly in America life. Does our infatuation with the technological wonders these companies offer distract us from the price we pay as a society in terms of surrendered privacy, intellectual property rights, and diversity of worldviews? Is our sense of individual empowerment merely an algorithm-fed illusion?
Join Future Tense on Wednesday, Oct. 4, in New York for a conversation with Franklin Foer and The Slate Group Chairman Jacob Weisberg to discuss World Without Mind and the role of these new technologies in our lives. For more information and to RSVP, visit the New America website.
by VIBE @ Vibe
Fri Nov 06 11:34:25 PST 2015
Dove seeks to empower women with Love Your Curls campaign and culry-hair emojis.
by Wendy Lewis @ Beauty In The Bag – What's In Your Bag?
Sun Sep 10 09:00:55 PDT 2017
Eliut Rivera has been published in several publications, such as Elle, Allure, W, Harper’s Bazaar and more, he has also won the prestigious Allure Best of Beauty Long Hair Stylist Award. Since founding Eliut Salon in 2003, Eliut has hired a talented team of stylists and colorists. Eliut Salon is known for beautiful blowouts, stylish […]
Dove Celebrity Hair Stylist, Mark Townsend, has been giving us plenty of advise on how to get beautiful, healthy hair for the summer, and now it's time to get personal. From his favorite trends & inspirations to celebrity clientele, check out the below Q&A with Mark for all the scoop! 1. What is the one Dove…
by Jacob Brogan @ Future Tense
Wed Sep 06 12:56:00 PDT 2017
In an IBM commercial from 2016, an adorable, gap-toothed girl named Annabelle sits down on a couch to chat with Watson, the company’s supercomputer. Reminding her that her birthday is coming up, it asks whether she’ll be having a cake. She cheerily responds that she will, even though she was too sick the year before. “The data your doctor shared shows you’re healthy,” it tells her in its clipped voice, adding that it helps physicians identify cancer treatments. “Watson, I like you,” Annabelle chirps as the segment concludes.
Chatty and personable, the Watson of this commercial—as in many of IBM’s more celebrity-focused spots—seems designed to assuage public fears about malevolent artificial intelligence: This is a HAL 9000 who would happily open the pod bay doors for you, so long as you asked nicely. Even the computer’s name—a reference to former IBM chairman Thomas J. Watson—also evokes that of Sherlock Holmes’ bumbling colleague, arguably suggesting that A.I. is there to help advance our stories, not to replace the human mind.*
That’s a worthy ideal, and one that squares with the hopes of artificial intelligence researchers who believe advanced algorithms will facilitate human labor instead of supplanting it. It is, notably, the goal of IBM’s Watson for Oncology, the ambitious project referenced in that commercial, which promises to let doctors “Spend less time searching literature and [electronic medical records], and more time caring for patients.” Despite the occasional, enthusiastic article proposing that the supercomputer will become the “best doctor in the world,” its goal has always been to ease the work of clinicians, not to supplant them.
The trouble is, Watson may not even be good at that relatively modest task.
In a lengthy and heavily reported article from Stat, Casey Ross and Ike Swetlitz write that the widely touted oncology system doesn’t appear to be as useful as IBM’s marketing suggests. As they put it, their reporting “suggest[s] that IBM, in its rush to bolster flagging revenue, unleashed a product without fully assessing the challenges of deploying it in hospitals globally.”
As Jennings Brown has written in Gizmodo, Watson has long been more a triumph of marketing than anything else, but Stat offers a deep dive into the supercomputer’s practical limitations. Among other things, Watson for Oncology fails to live up to the most sweeping promise of AI-assisted medical care: that it would help generate novel treatment regimens from individual patient data. To the contrary, Ross and Swetlitz explain, Watson’s recommendations rely “exclusively on training by human overseers, who laboriously feed Watson information about how patients with specific characteristics should be treated.”
That training comes entirely from the work of physicians at Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital in New York. After receiving a given patient’s medical records, Watson reportedly crawls through the database those doctors have created and provides a list of recommended treatment plans. It organizes these suggestions according to their probable efficacy, though the design of the system is such that it cannot explain why it weighs one over another.
It’s here that the true problems begin to reveal themselves. According to one of Ross and Swetlitz’s sources, for example, Watson sometimes suggests a chemotherapy drug for patients whose cancer has spread to the lymph nodes, even when it has been given information about a patient whose cancer has not spread to the lymph nodes.
In other cases, its recommendations show a clear geographic bias: Because its proposals derive from a single hospital, they fail to take the treatment protocols of other countries into account. Where Memorial Sloan Kettering’s patients are, Ross and Swetlitz write, “generally affluent,” other hospitals may not have access to the same resources. Accordingly, Watson threatens to devolve into another example of algorithmic bias, normatively imposing judgments that apply to a specific population, whether or not they are optimal in other parts of the world.
Such considerations come to a head, Ross and Swetlitz suggest, in IBM’s failure to empirically demonstrate that Watson improves medical care in any meaningful way. While some reporting does indicate that the computer can save clinical research time in certain contexts, no studies on Watson for Oncology have yet appeared in peer-reviewed publications. Where research has been conducted, it’s not always positive: Unpublished work from Denmark, for example, indicates only 33 percent agreement between the computer’s proposals and those of medical professionals. And even where the alignment is higher, Ross and Swetlitz write, “[S]howing that Watson agrees with the doctors proves only that it is competent in applying existing methods of care, not that it can improve them.”
As CNBC reports, a “recent Gallup survey [found] that about one in eight workers, or 13 percent of Americans … believe it’s likely they will lose their jobs due to new technology, automation, robots or AI in the next five years.” Given that A.I. is likely to leave millions unemployed in the years ahead, it’s tempting to suggest that 87 percent of Americans aren’t worried enough. As Stat’s investigation shows, however, oncologists are probably safe—at least for now.
*Correction, Sept. 6, 2017: This post originally misidentified the origin of the name of the IBM supercomputer Watson.
Dove Hair Calls for an Expanded View of ‘Beautiful Hair’
This Dove defrizzing oil delivers salon-caliber softness and polish—for under seven bucks.
NEW YORK (AP) – Dove has enlisted actress Rashida Jones to star in a new campaign that encourages people to ‘make friends with your hair’…
by Nancy Weinberg Simon @ Beauty In The Bag – What's In Your Bag?
Wed Sep 06 03:00:41 PDT 2017
Though no one would ever classify my skin or hair as oily, I do notice that clay-based beauty products always find a place in my bathroom, especially in the dog days of summer. It’s important to note though, that all clay used beauty products are not created equal. Though most of these products do absorb […]
by Sarah Cottrell @ Babble
Mon Sep 11 09:45:16 PDT 2017
She's been entertaining fellow hotel guests, partaking in wheel chair races down the hallway, and basically being all sorts of awesome.
The post Kristen Bell’s Hurricane Irma Updates Prove Yet Again Why She’s Our Favorite Human appeared first on Babble.
Dove seeks to empower women with Love Your Curls campaign and culry-hair emojis.
I received Dove Dermacare scalp in the mail through bzzagent for free and was super excited to try it! My husband and I tend to have dry scalps, so I was interested to see if we could find a product that would suit both of our needs. I tried it first, and while it made my scalp feel AMAZING it made my actual hair too dry. I wasn't supreme though, I am of mixed race and my hair tends to need extra conditioning. If it was separate (a shampoo and a conditioner instead of 2 in 1) I would more than likely be obsessed. It did make my hair shiny which was a huge plus! My husband tried it next and it was perfect on his hair! Soft, shiny, and smelt great! I would definitely recommend to anyone who doesn't have to worry about extra conditioning to their hair. I will be looking it to the rest of Dove's haircare line.
Gorgeous In Grey
Wants fresh, delish smelling tresses? Try Dove shampoo and conditioner! Read my review here.
Dove Dove Hair Silk for dry/ damaged/ coloured hair: rated 4.6 out of 5 on MakeupAlley. See 19 member reviews.
by Paige Herman-Axel @ Beauty In The Bag – What's In Your Bag?
Tue Sep 19 03:00:05 PDT 2017
It’s been a long, strange trip but the pot our hippie forbearers fought to smoke has become mainstream—and part of a growing personal-care scene—but not without confusion. For starters, hemp and marijuana are both variations of the cannabis plant. Hemp-based hair- and skincare products are nothing new, as hemp oil has been used to soothe […]
by April Glaser @ Future Tense
Wed Jul 26 12:38:59 PDT 2017
If Trump’s Federal Communications Commission has its way, the internet of the future is probably going to look a lot like the internet of today—and that’s a bad thing. New websites and innovative startups will have a hard time finding an audience without network neutrality protections––the rules that prohibit internet providers from speeding up access to some websites and not others.
Ajit Pai, the current chairman of the FCC, is laser-focused on, as he eloquently put it late last year, “taking a weed whacker” to the network neutrality framework—known as the open internet rules—that the FCC passed in 2015 under President Obama. He’s already started whacking away. In May, Pai introduced a new proposal that would undo the Obama-era net neutrality rules, which the current Republican-led FCC could vote on by the end of the year.
On Tuesday, a House subcommittee held a hearing to discuss the future of the FCC and where its plans to unravel open internet protections are headed next. And Republicans at the hearing wasted no time backing Pai’s plan to rescind the open internet rules.
“Chairman Pai, we hope you’re keeping that ‘weed whacker’ handy because it has a lot of work to do,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee, said in her opening remarks.
Pai’s proposal to undo the open internet rules argues that net neutrality has dissuaded internet providers, like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T, from investing in building out and upgrading their networks. Likewise, at the congressional hearing, Pai said that a convincing argument that investment in internet infrastructure actually was on the rise could persuade him to stop trying to roll back net neutrality protections .
The problem with this argument, though, is that according to the internet providers themselves, investment in their networks actually has gone up since the net neutrality rules were passed.
In the first quarter of 2017, AT&T told investors it “expanded the company’s 100% fiber network powered by AT&T Fiber, which is now in parts of 52 metros with plans to reach at least 23 more metros, across the 21 states.” AT&T further pointed out that it “expects to add 2 million fiber locations in 2017.” If the 2015 network neutrality rules did dissuade infrastructure build out as Pai says, AT&T certainly didn’t get the memo.
In Comcast’s call to investors in February 2016, the telecomm noted that its increased capital spending was due to an uptick in “investment in network infrastructure to increase network capacity.”
And Verizon, too, has told investors that it continued to spend on expanding its network post-net neutrality. “In 2015, Verizon invested approximately $28 billion in spectrum licenses and capital for future network capacity,” the company said in its January 2016 investor report. In April of this year, Verizon noted that its capital spending of $3.1 billion “was largely network-related to maintain leadership in our markets.”
Small internet providers have been even more explicit about the importance of network neutrality for their success. In June more than 40 small internet providers from across the country wrote a letter to the FCC to share that none had experienced “any barriers to investment” as a result of the 2015 decision. They also shared their concerns that repealing the rules would increase the market power of large internet providers like Comcast or Verizon, making it even more difficult for smaller providers to compete.
Now, it is possible that internet providers might have invested even more without the net neutrality rules. But even if that’s true, investments may be stunted for any number of reasons, including the proposed merger between Time Warner and AT&T, the presidential election, or Verizon’s acquisition of Yahoo, to name a few. It’s unclear what kind of proof Ajit Pai needs to persuade him that network neutrality rules have not caused investment in broadband infrastructure to slump.
To support his proposal, Pai cited research claiming that capital expenditure from internet providers has gone down 5.6 percent since 2014. But that doesn’t necessarily mean net neutrality is to blame. Reducing overall spending can be a result of shifting investments and priorities at the company—and again, internet providers themselves say that they are still investing in infrastructure.
But one thing is clear: Without network neutrality rules, internet providers stand to make a whole lot of money. That’s because the companies will be able to operate what’s essentially a two-way toll, collecting money from both internet subscribers and websites that want to reach those users at faster speeds. This will inevitably put new, smaller businesses at an extreme disadvantage.
One of the great promises of the internet is that there’s no telling what someone might innovate next. The possibilities are endless––that is, unless internet providers aren’t forced to treat everyone equally.
Pai’s claims that internet providers aren’t investing in their networks is misleading, at best, and potentially ruinous for the future of a vibrant internet if his proposal to gut net neutrality rolls through unchallenged without a big public fight. And the scary thing is that in the current political climate, with so many major changes underway all at once, net neutrality may become a casualty.
by Michael Todd @ Lemonly
Mon Dec 08 08:47:28 PST 2014
Enjoy the latest from https://lemonly.com
It’s a Hollywood party in the mid-1920s. Among the small jazz orchestra, the gold and black dresses, and white and black bowties, a man with slicked-back gray hair raises his hands and asks for the crowd’s attention: “Listen, everybody, I’ve got a few little surprises for you tonight. All right, everyone, sit down, sit down. …
Learn more by visiting us at https://lemonly.com
by Jacob Brogan @ Future Tense
Thu Sep 14 07:48:00 PDT 2017
In his official portrait, Nintendo’s iconic hero Mario poses with confident insouciance, hands placed jauntily on his hips, gut projecting outward. This is the look of a man who knows he can get away with anything, no matter how internally contradictory or tacky, including a pair of white gloves that ill befit his blue overalls with their oversize gold buttons. Even a red cap with his own logo emblazoned on it—a true sign of class if ever there was one, I’m sure.
This week, however, we have seen a new Mario. Mario as never before. Mario, if you will, gone wild.
On Wednesday, Nintendo showed off a promotional video for the forthcoming Super Mario Odyssey. Though there was much to enthuse over here for the franchise’s most ardent fans—an ice kingdom! An airship shaped like a top hat!—one truly novel detail stood out: Mario takes off his shirt during a trip to the beach. What’s more, for what is apparently the first time, he appears to have nipples.
The reaction was immediate and overwhelming. “Shirtless Mario Leads To Widespread Pandemonium,” read the headline to a Kotaku post that rounded up so many tweets I stopped counting them. “Here’s What Mario’s Nipples Look Like, I Guess,” Entertainment Weekly obligingly reported. “Mario’s Nipples EXPOSED *NOT CLICKBAIT*,” promised a YouTube video.
If our protagonist’s partial nudity is shocking (and OK, yes, it is not), the surprise derives as much from its seeming break with tradition as it does from Nintendo’s family-friendly reputation. Indeed, Mario’s conventional attire says as much about the history of gaming hardware as it does about the character himself.
The stark contrasts of his traditional uniform—evident in that official portrait—are persistent evidence of the limited color palettes available on the Nintendo Entertainment System and other early gaming machines. Taking advantage of those carefully managed resources, Shigeru Miyamoto and his collaborators blocked out their hero’s look in a way that would ensure the player’s avatar stood out against the background. In Super Mario Bros., for example, his original overalls typically appear to be white or brown, presumably to create a clear contrast with the flat blue of the sky behind him.
As the power of Nintendo’s hardware—and the cleverness of its software designers—increased, the appearance of their hero began to change, but always conditionally so. The raccoon-like Tanooki suit, introduced in Super Mario Bros. 3, for example, demonstrates their growing ability to work within, and expand upon, the console’s limitations. Even as the underlying technology grew more sophisticated, however, they maintained many of the original choices structurally dictated by earlier restraints. What started as a response to a machine’s finitude became the hallmark of narrative continuity. That the delicately shaded and dynamically lit Mario of the newest title still resembles the character we met more than 30 years ago is, in other words, a testament to the evolutionary history of digital architecture.
But if Mario as we see him now is a consequence of the ways he has been, perhaps we should think differently about his newly revealed torso. Remember, Mario lives in a world peopled almost entirely by animate mushrooms and sentient turtles. Mario may look human, but how do we know that we’re not simply projecting on him, imposing our own anthropocentric expectations of what a hero should be?
Think again about those gilt buttons on his overalls in the portrait above, the sole remaining hallmark of his former working class profession. (He is, we are told, not a plumber these days.) They seem to be positioned almost exactly where his “nipples” appear to be in the new footage. What if those round discolorations aren’t holdovers from mammalian prenatal development after all? Maybe they are, instead, evidence that his conventional costume fits his whale-like body just a little too tightly.
Perhaps, reader, you think my hypothesis ridiculous, and it may well be, but there are other signs that things are not what they seem. As many (here at Slate and on the wider internet) were quick to note, Mario’s bare body is strangely hairless, as if his chest and newly revealed arms had been shorn clean by Bowser’s cleansing fire. His face is hirsute as ever, but strangely so. Pausing the video, we note that his mustache, eyebrows, and coiffure are all different shades and textures. Is Mario—like the Mephistophelian Judge in Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian—beset with alopecia universalis? Is he, perhaps, wearing a wig? Does a hastily spirit-gummed toilet brush adorn his upper lip?
It’s possible that we will never know. We may think we’ve see our hero as we really is, but I suspect that his body still holds many secrets. Gaming systems will keep advancing, but our hero will remain what he always has been. We have, I think, yet to see his true form. Let us pray that we never do.
by April Glaser @ Future Tense
Tue Aug 29 15:38:18 PDT 2017
Net neutrality was on the chopping block as soon as Trump took office, and this week will mark another milestone on the Obama-era regulation’s likely route to extinction.
Wednesday is the last day for the public to file comments with the Federal Communications Commission on the fate of net neutrality, which President Trump’s chairman, Ajit Pai, wants to completely undo. Net neutrality is the concept that internet service providers should treat all traffic that travels over their networks equally—an idea that attracted more than 4 million comments when the agency passed the regulations in 2015.
Pai, a Republican who also served on the FCC under President Obama and took over the agency in January, introduced a new proposal that would rescind the net neutrality rules, which the Republican-led FCC could vote on by the end of the year. After the comment window closes on Wednesday, the FCC is supposed to come back with a response for how it plans to move forward.
If the net neutrality rules are repealed, internet service providers stand to make major profits: They’ll be able to charge both customers for internet access and websites for fast lane access. And when websites load slowly, people navigate away, so the companies that can afford to be in the fast lane will have a huge advantage over startups or smaller competitors.
Pai has been pushing hard to repeal the current regulations. In the FCC’s May proposal, he argued that net neutrality has dissuaded internet providers from investing in building out and upgrading their networks. Last month the chairman testified to Congress that he could be persuaded to stop trying to roll back net neutrality if he heard a convincing argument that investment in internet infrastructure was actually on the rise. But clearly Pai isn’t paying close attention to what internet providers are reporting on their investment calls: AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon all said they’ve been spending big to expand and improve their networks’ infrastructure since the network neutrality rules passed.
The public has been speaking up this time around—the current docket has more than 21 million comments. But even with the fate of the open internet at stake, Pai’s proposal might sail through without a huge public fight. Net neutrality could very well become another casualty of Trump’s reign.
by April Glaser @ Future Tense
Fri Aug 25 12:42:34 PDT 2017
A handful of the world’s most powerful companies are in a race to build the same technology: driverless cars. The one that does it first, but most importantly, best, stands to change the future of American cities forever. And now, after years of work, Google’s sister self-driving car project, Waymo, is gunning to take the lead. Both Waymo and Google are owned by the same parent company, Alphabet.
In the past few months, the typically secretive company has been inviting select reporters to peek at what their team has been working on, including a secret mock city about 100 miles east of Silicon Valley built to test its fleet of robot cars. As the Atlantic reported in sweeping detail earlier this week, the fake city is a fenced-off plot of land that the Waymo team calls Castle, named after the Castle Air Force Base that used to operate there. And inside, the engineers have built all kinds of intersections and driveways and roads, but except for the pink Air Force dormitories that remain from the old base, there are no buildings that one would typically find in an American town. One stretch of road has a series of neighboring driveways with no houses behind them.
“It is truly a city for robotic cars: All that matters is what’s on and directly abutting the asphalt,” writes the Atlantic’s Alexis Madrigal, who was given access to the facility. Waymo engineers have reconstructed intersections that have proven difficult for their self-driving cars to maneuver in the past, like a two-lane roundabout they previously encountered in Austin, Texas. And like any good fake city, Castle has a full collection of props like bicycles, skateboards, plants, kids' toys, dummies, and of course, a lot of traffic cones, all of which are used to mock scenarios the robot cars might encounter in the real world.
Inside Castle, the self-driving vehicles can log thousands of miles in a controlled setting, where cars driven by people are staged to quickly cut off a self-driving car in order to test the robot’s rate of deceleration. Beyond simply making sure that the car doesn’t hit anything, self-driving car engineers also need to ensure that the ride is smooth. No one, after all, will want to ride in a self-driving car if every time it comes to an unexpected stop your cell phone falls to the floor.
While the fake city is impressive, Waymo has still clocked millions of more miles in computerized simulations, where thousands of virtual cars drive about 8 million miles a day, perfecting the software that gets uploaded onto the real cars. The simulation program, called Carcraft, includes models of Austin, Mountain View, and Phoenix.
Waymo isn’t the only Silicon Valley company with virtual worlds for their robot cars to practice. Uber, which also has an ambitious self-driving car initiative, is hiring for multiple positions for its self-driving car project that describe building “games and 3D virtual environments” and “realistic worlds and situations.” The ride-sharing company has also tested its self-driving cars in real cities, like Pittsburgh, Tempe, and San Francisco. Uber is also in mired in a contentious court case with Waymo stemming from Uber’s acquisition of Otto, a self-driving truck startup. The founder of Otto, Anthony Levandowski, formerly worked as a top engineer leading Waymo’s self-driving car efforts and allegedly came on board at Uber with stolen trade secrets from Waymo.
Apple is also working on self-driving car technology, but as the New York Times reported earlier this week, those efforts are being scaled back. Originally, the team at Apple was working on designing what could become an Apple-branded autonomous car, but now the tech giant is focusing on the internal technology that gets baked into autonomous vehicles, rather than a full car. Ford, Toyota, and General Motors are all also working on self-driving car projects.
As companies continue to barrel ahead with their robotic car ambitions, regulators seem less prepared. On Thursday, Recode reported that a federal advisory board focused on regulating driverless car technology made up of executives from Ford, General Motors, Lyft, and other transportation companies hasn’t met since Donald Trump took office. Trump has also yet to nominate someone to chair the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the agency that will be charged with implementing any self-driving car legislation.
Still, lawmakers seem excited about the prospect of self-driving cars, which could save thousands of lives. The House advanced a bill in July that would grant self-driving automakers more opportunities for exemptions from existing safety standards, a move that could allow as many as 100,000 autonomous cars to hit the road.
Before robot cars start to drive regularly alongside human drivers, companies are going to want to be extremely confident that their technology is safe and ready to deal with the vast amount of unpredictability that comes with navigating through the real world. One bad mistake could quickly turn people off to an idea that many may already be skeptical of, setting adoption of the technology back for years. All of which is why fake cities like Castle, where robot cars can practice all day long, are so important for getting the technology right now, while American roadways are still packed with human drivers behind the wheel.
by Zoe @ FTM
Sun Sep 24 04:00:13 PDT 2017
Newest Printable Coupons 9/24: Save On Barilla, Puffs, Garnier & More Good Morning! Here are the Newest Printable Coupons of the day. Save up to $20 with these latest coupons that include brands like Barilla, Puffs, Garnier & More. All these coupons are preclipped for you Baby & Toddler Save $1.50 Any ONE (1) Baby Dove […]
The post Newest Printable Coupons 9/24: Save On Barilla, Puffs, Garnier & More appeared first on FTM.
by Mark Joseph Stern @ Future Tense
Fri Jul 28 11:07:54 PDT 2017
Does the First Amendment bar public officials from blocking people on social media because of their viewpoint?
That question has hung over the White House ever since Donald Trump assumed the presidency and continued to block users on Twitter. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University has sued the president on behalf of blocked users, spurring a lively academic debate on the topic. But Trump isn’t the only politician who has blocked people on social media. This week, a federal court weighed in on the question in a case with obvious parallels to Trump’s. It determined that the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause does indeed prohibit officeholders from blocking social media users on the basis of their views.
Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors involved the chair of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, Phyllis J. Randall. In her capacity as a government official, Randall runs a Facebook page to keep in touch with her constituents. In one post to the page, Randall wrote, “I really want to hear from ANY Loudoun citizen on ANY issues, request, criticism, compliment, or just your thoughts.” She explicitly encouraged Loudoun residents to reach out to her through her “county Facebook page.”
Brian C. Davidson, a Loudon denizen, took Randall up on her offer and posted a comment to a post on her page alleging corruption on the part of Loudoun County’s School Board. Randall, who said she “had no idea” whether Davidson’s allegations were true, deleted the entire post (thereby erasing his comment) and blocked him. The next morning, she decided to unblock him. During the intervening 12 hours, Davidson could view or share content on Randall’s page but couldn’t comment on its posts or send it private messages.
Davidson sued, alleging a violation of his free speech rights. As U.S. District Judge James C. Cacheris explained in his decision, Randall essentially conceded in court that she had blocked Davidson “because she was offended by his criticism of her colleagues in the County government.” In other words, she “engaged in viewpoint discrimination,” which is generally prohibited under the First Amendment. Cacheris elaborated:
Defendant’s offense at Plaintiff’s views was therefore an illegitimate basis for her actions—particularly given that Plaintiff earned Defendant’s ire by criticizing the County government. Indeed, the suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards. By prohibiting Plaintiff from participating in her online forum because she took offense at his claim that her colleagues in the County government had acted unethically, Defendant committed a cardinal sin under the First Amendment.
In response to Randall’s claim that Davidson retained the ability to express his views elsewhere, Cacheris cited the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Packingham v. North Carolina, in which the court asserted that social media may now be “the most important” modern forum “for the exchange of views.”
“The Court cannot treat a First Amendment violation in this vital, developing forum differently than it would elsewhere,” Cacheris wrote, “simply because technology has made it easier to find alternative channels through which to disseminate one’s message.”
Cacheris’ ruling seems quite right to me, especially in light of Packingham, which explicitly noted that citizens can use social media to “petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct manner.” The decision’s reasoning can also be applied neatly to Trump’s practice of blocking Twitter users with whom he disagrees. When Trump blocks Twitter users, they can still see his tweets—by, for instance, viewing them in an incognito window. But they cannot engage directly with his tweets, at least not without resorting to an intricate and unreliable workaround. (Knight mentions “a third-party application” that can “mitigate the implications of the block,” but it is “burdensome” and seems to rely “on a temporary glitch in Twitter’s interface.”) This inability to respond to Trump may seem to present only a minor burden on speech. But it poses a real First Amendment problem nonetheless, inflicting a potentially unconstitutional burden on protected political speech.
There’s just one lingering issue with this comparison: It isn’t clear whether Trump intends his personal Twitter page to function as a public forum the way Randall did. (Trump has a presidential account, @POTUS, from which he does not block users—but he doesn’t use it for interesting communications.) Public officials have more latitude to censor expression in personal, private forums than they do in forums that they use to speak in their official capacity. Trump’s lawyers will almost certainly argue that his personal Twitter feed is a private forum, not a government project.
But that argument will likely fail. As Trump’s recent tweets banning transgender military service demonstrate, the president uses Twitter not just to convey official policy but also for lawmaking. This habit would seem to turn his feed into a quintessential public forum. And so, under the First Amendment, he lacks the power to block those users who tweet their discontent at @realDonaldTrump.
"Dove Damage Therapy Intensive Repair shampoo effectively and gently cleans my hair. It moisturizes my hair and leaves it feeling very soft..." Find out what others think about this duo.
I Heart Publix
I wanted to point out a great deal that you guys are going to want to get ready for. In the upcoming Advantage Buy flyer, we’ll see a big Dove coupon. The hair care is on sale right now so wh…
by Kaitlin Stanford @ Babble
Wed Aug 16 16:56:17 PDT 2017
Just stop it right now.
The post This Adorable Baby Is Wearing a Fake Wig of Hair Rollers, and We Cannot Handle the Cute appeared first on Babble.
The Dieline | Packaging & Branding Design & Innovation News
Being a global brand has its challenges. It’s obviously important to keep your products and image consistent across countries and continents, but they must also be suited for the different market trends that exist in each location.
by Jill Robbins @ Babble
Wed Sep 13 08:30:19 PDT 2017
"Beauty is pushing forward and not giving up."
The post This Badass Mom, Teacher, and Amputee Is Redefining What “Real Beauty” Truly Means appeared first on Babble.
Looking for hair care that gives you beautiful, healthy-looking locks? Visit our page for tips, tricks and the products to make it happen…
Today I am talking about my summer hair care essentials and especially about some new Dove products!! Hint- they are amazing!!!
by Tonya Riley @ Future Tense
Wed Sep 20 12:02:15 PDT 2017
Greetings, Future Tensers,
This week, Future Tense continues to celebrate the “Future of the Future,” a look at how we try to predict tomorrow. It seems like every major tech breakthrough is always “five to 10 years away.” Grace Ballenger and Aaron Mak took a look at dozens of predictions of the technologies coming in “five to 10 years” from the past three decades, such as consumer virtual reality. You’ll notice that many of them still haven’t come to fruition. When it comes to fashion, it might be a relief that some of our wildest visions didn’t come true, as demonstrated in this fun compilation of the best of future fashion from television and movies.
But futurism isn’t just all VR goggles and weird hairdos. ”Threatcasting” attempts to imagine the worst-case scenarios of our future to help prepare us for a safer one, explain Brian David Johnson and Natalie Vanatta. One inherent flaw to the field of futurism, says Joey Eschrich, is that it tends to assume capitalism will continue. Mark Joseph Stern points out that even Supreme Court justices try to make predictions about the ramifications of legal decisions, even if their guesses are normally pretty far off.
Other things we read this week while cringing at another story on discriminatory A.I.:
- Better laws for big data: Rep. Ted Lieu advocates for laws that would require faster disclosures of data breaches after the Equifax hack.
- International “technoneurosis”: Chen Qiufan argues that China needs to stop letting “fear and greed” drive its technological progress
- Buckle up: The Trump administration thinks the best regulation for self-driving cars is almost no regulation. April Glaser explains why that’s a very bad idea.
- Cringe-worthy keywords: After ProPublica reported on how Facebook’s automated advertising tools let people target “Jew haters” and other offensive categories, Slate uncovered the problem goes much, much deeper.
- Move over, space race: Competition between China and the United States to build the world’s fastest supercomputer could help us make better predictions about future events like earthquakes, writes April Glaser.
- Mario has nipples: Jacob Brogan asks what other secrets our favorite video game characters’ bodies may hold.
The Future of Mental Health Technology: From chatbots that provide therapeutic conversation to apps that can monitor phone use to diagnose psychosis or manic episodes, medical providers now have new technological tools to supplement their firsthand interactions with patients. Join Future Tense in Washington on Sept. 28 to consider how these and other innovations in technology are reimagining the way we treat mental illness. RSVP to attend in person or watch online here.
Is Big Tech an Existential Threat?: In World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech, a powerful critique of the role companies like Amazon and Google play in our economy and in our lives, Franklin Foer argues that the success of these tech juggernauts, with their gate-keeping control over our access to the world's information, has created a new form of dangerous monopoly in America life. Join Future Tense in New York on Oct. 4 as Foer discusses his new book with Slate Group Editor-in-Chief Jacob Weisberg. RSVP to attend here.
No longer nostalgic for the ’90s,
For Future Tense
Shampoo to the rescue!
Take the challenge and skip a wash with DOVES, dry shampoo. Save time during the holidays and still keep your locks in tact, feeling fresh.
Our tester enlists a man’s help to determine whether a fortifying hair styling gel or paste works best.
The Unilever-owned brand wants women to ignore societal pressures and wear their hair as they choose to.
Preventing Hair Loss: we reached out to Dr. Glynis Ablon, an expert in men’s hair loss, to learn more about its causes and how to stop it before it starts.