Jennifer Lawrence Just Apologized for Her Offensive Butt Story

The government of New Zealand, along with the country’s major broadband providers are working to silence the hate speech created by the Australian terrorist accused in Friday’s Christchurch mosque attacks. Videos of the attacks, along with a 74-page, anti-Muslim, white supremacist manifesto have been repeatedly published, and removed, from various online platforms. And, in her latest show of leadership, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has vowed to deny the shooter the notoriety he clearly wanted by refusing to mention his name.

“He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist,” Ardern said in an address to Parliament on Tuesday, March 19. “But he will, when I speak, be nameless.”

“And to others, I implore you,” she added, “speak the names of those who were lost, rather than the name of the man who took them. He may have sought notoriety, but we in New Zealand will give him nothing. Not even his name.”

New Zealand’s three largest internet providers, Vodaphone NZ, Spark, and 2degrees, voiced a similar perspective in an open letter to Jack Dorsey (Twitter), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), and Sundar Pichai (Google, which owns YouTube), dated March 19.

“You may be aware that on the afternoon of Friday 15 March, three of New Zealand’s largest broadband providers, Vodafone NZ, Spark and 2degrees, took the unprecedented step to jointly identify and suspend access to web sites that were hosting video footage taken by the gunman related to the horrific terrorism incident in Christchurch,” the letter reads.

The letter goes on to acknowledge how, in the global marketplace, this decisive effort at content restriction marks an “extraordinary step” in limiting access to harmful material. Yet, the leaders behind these three New Zealand broadband companies remain steadfast in the belief that taking this step was “the right thing to do.” Their letter implores the three powerful tech CEOs to consider doing the same on their respective social media platforms, as a general practice.

“Although we recognize the speed with which social network companies sought to remove Friday’s video once they were made aware of it, this was still a response to material that was rapidly spreading globally and should never have been made available online,” the letter continues. “We believe society has the right to expect companies such as yours to take more responsibility for the content on their platforms.”

The Association of New Zealand Advertisers agreed, releasing a statement explaining that local businesses would consider pulling their advertising dollars from Facebook if the company didn’t take immediate action to silence hate speech.

“The events in Christchurch raise the question — if the site owners can target consumers with advertising in microseconds, why can’t the same technology be applied to prevent this kind of content being streamed live?” the group said in a statement, according to The New York Times.

In response, Facebook VP and Deputy General Counsel, Chris Sonderby penned a blog post on the company’s site, explaining how Facebook is working to remove videos like the one the shooter uploaded while the Christchurch attack was happening.

“We removed the attacker’s video within minutes of their outreach to us, and in the aftermath, we have been providing an on-the-ground resource for law enforcement authorities,” the post says. “We will continue to support them in every way we can. In light of the active investigation, police have asked us not to share certain details.”

The Facebook blog post also outlined how Friday’s video became viral (and out of Facebook’s hands) so quickly: a user of the website 8chan posted a link to a copy of the video to a file sharing site before Facebook was even notified of the video’s existence. Sonderby also writes that the company helped other social networks identify the video to get it removed, and have been working in conjunction with the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) to be proactive about curbing terror and extremism online.

(Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty)

The Trump administration has been quietly working behind the scenes to create a proposal that would use social media to target people receiving federal disability payments,according to theNew York Times. Under the proposal, the federal government would use social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to look out for posts that would call into question people’s ability to work.

“There is a little bitty chance that Social Security may be snooping on your Facebook or your Twitter account,” Robert A. Crowe, a lawyer from St. Louis who has worked with Social Security claimants, told the Times. “You don’t want anything on there that shows you out playing Frisbee.”

In a 2018 budget request, Social Security asked for additional funding to look into expanding its already-existing social media monitoring. Its goal is to find fraudsters among the nation’s more than 10 million benefits recipients, who could ostensibly be bilking the system of millions of dollars. Currently, Social Security only investigates social media in rare cases where a file has been flagged and they want to further investigate whether a claim is fraudulent.

Other government agencies have already endeavored to use social media to track non-residents, visitors, and immigrants. Back in 2017, the Department of Homeland Security announced its intent to use social media monitoring to screen immigration and visa applicants for content it may deem ineligible for US entry. And in 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom Of Information request to find out how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the DHS were collecting, and interpreting, content from social media sites.

Although there have been verifiable instances of people utilizing Social Security benefits fraudulently (such as the 57-year-old Louisiana man who was recently ordered to pay back $134,000 in bilked benefits), fewer people altogether have been relying on SSDI in recent years. Applications for new users were down 29 percent last year, per the Times.

The Times also reports that, in November, Social Security requested a rule change that would deny benefit recipients charged with fraud a guaranteed in-person court case, and instead offer a video conference hearing in its place. Critics of this proposal worry that the change would be inefficient and undermine individuals’ right to due process.

Proposed changes are all the more puzzling given that the Social Security system is, in fact, one of the most efficiently-run government bodies working today. According toSlate, although in-power Republicans have been open about their desire to chip away at Social Security, the program’s administrative costs barely factor into the federal budget at all due to a huge funding surplus in the trillions of dollars.

Congress doesn’t even manage funds for the administration of the program. Instead, it limits how much of the surplus and dedicated revenue the Social Security Administration can use for running the program (hence the spending request on social media monitoring). But since Republicans began their eight-year control of the House in 2010, the party has incrementally restricted how much money the program is allowed to spend, while canceling or significantly decreasing programming allowances.

Whether or not SSDI claimants will be permanently placed under scrutiny remains to be seen. But if the administration deems this use of tracking a success, it could mean the beginning of social media monitoring for the rest of us, too. It could also pave the way for private companies to begin tracking staff in ways that could lead to greater power imbalances and diminished transparency in the workforce.

Then, of course, there’s the fact that social media doesn’t always give us a picture of reality that’s, well, real. “Social media sites are not exactly clear and reliable evidence,” Michael J. Astrue, the last Senate-confirmed Social Security commissioner, told a hearing in 2012. He stepped down in 2013.

Astrue argued for more (and better trained) fraud investigators instead, reminding the hearing how false news easily spreads online. He quipped: “Facebook puts up phony websites under my name all the time.”

(Photo by BSIP/UIG via Getty Images)

One Tree Hill fans go through a lot throughout the show's 9-season run. Everything from family drama to psycho stalkers, kidnappers, and murder. But there's one down-to-earth moment in the series that confuses fans just as much as the outlandish ones: when Brooke (Sophia Bush) marries Julian (Austin Nichols) and her BFF Peyton (Hilarie Burton) isn't there.

Here's why Peyton (and Hilarie Burton) didn't come back for Brooke's wedding on One Tree Hill.

Does Brooke marry anyone in One Tree Hill?

Warner Bros. TV

Yes, Brooke Davis marries film producer Julian Davis after he proposes in the season 7 finale, "Almost Everything I Wish I'd Said the Last Time I Saw You" — my favorite episode of television ever!

Check out The One Moment That Proves Brooke Davis Is The Best Character On One Tree Hill for more!