Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts

25 February 2019

Facebook: Issue Corrections To Fake News! [Petition]

this photo went viral in France as a symbol of police brutality... but it's completely fake!
This photo went viral in France as a symbol of police brutality... but it's completely fake!
Dear friends,
This shocking photo of a young woman, left beaten and bleeding by police at a protest, went viral on social media in France. 
It’s the sort of thing Avaaz might launch an urgent campaign on. But there’s just one problem -- the image has nothing to do with France. It was taken in Madrid, years ago. It’s fake. Untrue. A lie.

And it’s dangerous.

Disinformation like this has the power to turn protests violent, destroy trust in our democracies and make us hate, even kill each other. But there's a simple solution to this threat: distribute corrections to dangerous fake news -- to EVERYONE who has seen it!

Avaaz has pitched the idea to key decision-makers all over the world, and many of them love it. Facebook is sensitive to its public image, and Avaaz staff are meeting top executives there this week -- let's get massive public backing from people everywhere for them to correct the record on fake news!

⏩ Tell Facebook: Correct the Record! ⏪
In many countries newspapers are required to issue corrections if they print false information -- why shouldn’t the same rules apply to Facebook and Twitter, who reach many times more people?

This isn’t about censorship -- no content would be taken down or deleted. Instead, the social media companies would make sure people who had been given false information were provided with the full facts so they can make informed decisions.

The Avaaz team has pitched this idea to politicians across the planet, as well as regulators, experts, academics, free speech advocates, and to social media executives at all the major platforms. Most of them see that this could really work, but it's still missing massive public demand to make it happen.

If Facebook moves, others will follow. Sign the petition calling on Facebook to correct the record on fake news, and when this is huge, we’ll deliver our voices direct to Facebook and to lawmakers all over the world:

⏩ Tell Facebook: Correct the Record! ⏪
Armies of bots and trolls, often bought and paid for by billionaires and governments, thrive on a social media drowning in their lies. They'll fiercely attack our effort. But Avaaz has always stood for the authentic voice of the people, let's make sure that voice gets heard loud and clear, before more lies are spread.

With hope and determination,

Loup Dargent

On behalf of Christoph, Luca, Martyna, Alice, Risalat, Fadi, Ricken, and the rest of the Avaaz team

More Information:

The Petition:

To Facebook, Twitter, and all technology platforms:

As citizens across the world, we urgently call on you to 'Correct the Record' -- by working with independent fact checkers to show effective corrections to each and every person who sees verifiably false or misleading content on your platform. It’s the best thing you can do to restore public trust and protect democracy and freedom of speech.

7 December 2018

3 Ways Facebook And Other Social Media Companies Could Clean Up Their Acts – If They Wanted To

Mark Zuckerberg - under fire, but not without options.
Mark Zuckerberg - under fire, but not without options. (AP Photo/Francois Mori)
Facebook is in crisis mode, but the company can take major steps to fix itself – and the global community it says it wants to promote. Facebook founder, CEO and majority shareholder Mark Zuckerberg need not wait for governments to impose regulations. If he and other industry leaders wanted to, they could make meaningful changes fairly quickly.

It wouldn’t be painless, but Facebook in particular is in a world of hurt already, facing criticism for contributing to civil unrest and sectarian turmoil around the world, delayed responses to disinformation campaigns, misleading users about data-handling policies, and efforts to discredit critics – not to mention a budding employee revolt.

Facebook, Twitter, Google and other social media companies are causing society-wide damage. But they tend to describe the problems as much smaller, resulting from rogue individuals and groups hijacking their systems for nefarious purposes. Our research into how social media can be exploited by manipulative political operatives, conducted with Joan Donovan at the Data & Society research institute, suggests the real problem is much larger than these companies admit.

We believe the roots lie in their extremely profitable advertising systems, which need a major overhaul. We have identified some key changes that these giant powerhouses could make right away. These moves could reduce opportunities for political manipulation and limit the harm to democratic societies around the world.

Users’ minds in the crosshairs
Facebook, Google, Twitter and other social media companies have built an enormous digital influence machine powered by user tracking, targeting, testing and automated decision-making to make advertising more effective and efficient. While building this supercharged surveillance system, companies have promised users and regulators that targeted advertising is mutually beneficial for both consumers and advertisers.

In this bargain, users are supposed to receive more relevant ads. Facebook, for instance, explains that its “interest-based advertising” serves users who “want to see ads that relate to things they care about.” It’s true that these methods can identify ads that connect with users’ actual interests. But the very same data-driven techniques that tell a surfer about a new board design can also identify strategic points where people are most vulnerable to influence.

In particular, the leading social media advertising systems let political operatives experiment with different ads to see which are the most effective. They can use these tools not only to see if certain issues resonate with particular targets but also test for fears or prejudices that can be invoked to influence political behavior.

This misleading ad impersonated racial justice activists to urge black Americans not to vote for Hillary Clinton.( U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Intelligence – Democrats)

One key way to do this is to make people feel that someone else represents an emotionally charged threat to their identity. In 2016, for instance, Russia-linked operatives bought thousands of Facebook ads targeted to specific audiences suggesting Hillary Clinton had insulted their group’s dignity or threatened their safety. Some ads alleged Clinton espoused disrespect for specific occupations, like coal miners, or racial groups, like African-Americans. Others claimed she would confiscate guns or supported radical political movements seeking to overturn familiar ways of life.

Targeting political ads is not unique to online advertising, but the tools of digital ad systems are vastly more powerful than traditional mass media. Advertisers can try out several versions of an ad simultaneously and receive almost instant feedback on which ones most effectively drive specific audiences to share, like or comment on them. This digital feedback loop helps political operatives refine their tactics, probing for just the right images, words and emotions to influence very specific subgroups of citizens.

Move fast and fix things
Members of Congress and even some key Silicon Valley figures have begun discussing the need for tighter government oversight and greater accountability in digital advertising. Change need not wait for politics.

Based on our analysis, here are some steps companies could take right away – on their own. These moves may hurt the firms’ finances, but would demonstrate serious and lasting commitment to limiting their platforms’ usefulness in political manipulation campaigns.

As their first move, social media companies could stop allowing their ad services to be used as freewheeling experimental laboratories for examining their users’ psyches. Just as marketers and academic researchers must obtain permission from their test subjects, political advertisers that run online ad experiments could get informed consent in advance from every user who is involved. Companies should ask for users’ consent in specific notifications about ad experiments and not penalize users for opting out by limiting their access to services. We suspect many users would opt out of these tests if given the choice, but in any case this policy would help draw public attention to the hidden manipulation tools that platforms offer to their real customers: the political and commercial advertisers who pay the bills.

Make targeted political advertising transparent
To increase transparency and limit the ability of special interests to secretly influence politics, social media companies could refuse to work with so-called dark money groups. All political advertisers should be required to disclose their major donors in a format users can easily access.

A new policy banning dark money ads would respond to evidence that political operatives have used impersonation and manipulative ad tactics to stir in-fighting or sow division among coalitions of their adversaries. Impersonation clearly work best when ad sponsors are able to hide their identities and motives. Anonymous ads are also more likely to violate ethical standards simply because no one fears being held responsible for them.

Make platforms more democratic
A more significant change social media companies could make would be to introduce democratic oversight of how they collect and use people’s data.

Facebook’s Zuckerberg recently took an initial step in this direction, announcing that he will create independent review panels to handle users’ appeals against the company’s removal of content it judges inappropriate. He explained that he wanted to ensure “these decisions are made in the best interests of our community and not for commercial reasons.”

Whatever you think about this plan – and it has been greeted with plenty of skepticism – Zuckerberg’s reasoning acknowledges that because social platforms have become so central to democratic life, their own policies and design decisions require democratic accountability.

A more ambitious vision would let independent ethics panels representing diverse communities of users set enforceable policies for ethical political advertising. Similar sorts of groups are common in medicine and are emerging in artificial intelligence, among other fields. The details of how such committees operate will be critical to their success. If these committees are set up in partnership with nonprofit organizations with proven records of advocating for democratic communication and campaign finance transparency, perhaps they could help social media companies earn greater public trust by prioritizing democracy over maximizing their profits.The Conversation

About Today's Contributors:
Anthony M. Nadler, Associate Professor of Media and Communication Studies, Ursinus College and Matthew Crain, Assistant Professor of Media, Journalism and Film, Miami University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

Related Stories:

5 November 2018

Arron Banks Criminal Investigation: Could Evidence Against Him Make Brexit Void?

Banks needs to account for Brexit spending
Banks needs to account for Brexit spending. (PA/Stefan Rousseau)
The National Crime Agency is to open a criminal investigation into Brexit campaign backer Arron Banks after the Electoral Commission revealed that it had reasonable grounds to suspect that Banks was “not the source” of millions of pounds in loans to the organisation Leave.EU. Banks has denied that there was any funding from Russia in the £8 million he donated to the Brexit campaign.

There have also been fines for overspending on Brexit campaigns and questions about how voter data was used.

All these events have led to a new legal case being listed for an oral hearing in the High Court on December 7. This will argue that Brexit must be declared void and that the notification of Article 50 must be nullified. It is being led by two Queens’ Counsel against the prime minister. So, if the investigation against Banks confirms wrongdoing, can Brexit be declared void in court?

There is no doubt that potentially criminal overspending, data-harvesting and Russian interference delegitimise the Brexit poll in the public’s eye. But it also matters because at common law, votes can be void when they break the law. The common law principle applies to all votes: both elections and referendums.

The constitutional principle was applied in a case called Morgan v Simpson. In 1975, a group of citizens in Croydon argued that a Greater London Council candidate’s election was invalid because 44 votes had not been counted. First, the Court of Appeal held if an “election was conducted so badly that it was not substantially in accordance with the law as to elections, the election is vitiated, irrespective of whether the result was affected or not”. It also said that where there is an irregularity – even one that isn’t major – that “did affect the result”, a vote must also be declared void.

This is part of the general legal principle that “fraud unravels everything”. “Fraud” in law is an objective concept. It would implicate any potentially fraudulent funding of Brexit.

It means that the people’s “order” that the prime minister trigger article 50 and negotiate to leave the European Union could be unravelled.

It could include the fraudulent appropriation of Facebook data. If official campaign Vote Leave knowingly overspent, that might be have implications too, as would potentially fraudulent funding of Brexit by Russia through Arron Banks. It means that the people’s “order” that the prime minister trigger Article 50 and negotiate to leave the European Union could be unravelled.

The case that argues Brexit is void, which gets its first hearing on December 7, is called Wilson v Prime Minister. The barristers’ argument is well worth reading in full, but the opening sentence is gives the gist: it asks whether a “free and fair vote is one of the constitutional requirements of the United Kingdom”. Wilson and the other claimants submit that it is.

Now, it’s a big thing to litigate the very validity of Brexit. But if Russian athletes win Olympic medals when they are taking drugs, their victories are not valid. The same is true of a corrupt vote.

What’s clear is that the UK is in a terrible situation. There is a very real risk of ending a 210-year union between Britain and Northern Ireland, and the 311-year union between England, Wales and Scotland.

For Russia, the power to disable two permanent members of the United Nations Security Council in two years is an earth-shaking geopolitical victory. It didn’t work with Marine Le Pen in France, and it can’t touch China. But if it gave the UK Brexit, and the US Trump, British parliamentarians need to look impartially and dispassionately at what has been unfolding, and act.

The British constitution is not codified, but it is written in the case law and the statute books. The law tells us every vote must be free and fair. If Brexit was not, as more and more evidence appears to show, it’s time to bury it.The Conversation

About Today's Contributor:
Ewan McGaughey, Senior Lecturer in Private Law, King's College London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Bonus Related Images:
(Via The Brexit Comic - Facebook Page)
Is this your collar I can feel Mr Banks?
"Is this your collar I can feel Mr Banks?" - The Brexit Comic
Three Wise Mays
"Three Wise Mays" - The Brexit Comic
*BREAKING*  Johnson & Gove admit Vote Leave was wrong to stoke fears about immigration ... oh and breaking electoral law ...
"*BREAKING* Johnson & Gove admit Vote Leave was wrong to stoke fears about immigration ... oh and breaking electoral law ..." The Brexit Comic

15 October 2018

Google, Facebook, and Twitter Release Data on Political Ads (More or Less)

When it Comes to Political Ads, President Trump, Texas Senate Candidate Beto O'Rourke, and Senate Republican PAC are Big Spenders
When it Comes to Political Ads, President Trump, Texas Senate Candidate Beto O'Rourke, and Senate Republican PAC are Big Spenders (Image via
Using cutting-edge machine learning and data scraping tools, computer scientists at the New York University Tandon School of Engineering today released the first database and analysis of political advertising based on more than 884,000 ads identified by Google, Twitter, and Facebook.
The team launched their user-friendly Online Political Ads Transparency Project in July with data from Facebook, which was the first company to provide it. But the researchers were forced to switch techniques when Facebook blocked their data collection two weeks later. 
Today's report is the first to include not only Facebook (including Instagram), but also data newly shared by Twitter and Google.
Although they found numerous roadblocks to meaningful transparency – ranging from faulty archives constructed in haste by the social media giants to varying definitions of "political advertising" and throttling of data collection by Facebook – NYU Tandon Computer Science and Engineering Assistant Professor Damon McCoy and his team nonetheless reported meaningful insights:
  • President Donald Trump and his PAC registered the largest number of ads of any candidate, due in large part to the preponderance of small, micro-targeted advertising. Virtually all were aimed at raising funds during the study period, September 9-22, 2018. The researchers found similar dominance by President Trump in their initial, Facebook-only, analysis. 
  • The Democratic candidate for Senate from TexasBeto O'Rourke, continued to be the apparent largest spender, mostly seeking small donations from outside his state via Facebook and Twitter. Although O'Rourke was the rare federal candidate unaffiliated with a PAC, he was like other candidates in using social media to raise funds outside their districts, McCoy noted.    
  • The Senate Leadership Fund, a Republican Super PAC, was the largest spender on Google and across all three platforms combined.
  • Priorities USA, a left-leaning PAC, was among the big spenders, but exact figures are not available because it collaborated on ad placements with other PACs. 
  • Left-leaning organizations are the big spenders on Facebook and Twitter; on Google, the trend is reversed. 
  • Facebook apparently carries the most political ads, but Google apparently ranks higher in impressions and spending. This is due, in part, to the large number of small, micro-targeted ads on Facebook (60 percent) and because the majority of spending on Google (61 percent) is by PACs, which are more like to have large budgets. But analysis is muddied by the fact that both Google and Facebook disclose only ranges; only Twitter discloses exact spending and impressions. Each of the giants also defines "political advertising" differently. For example, Facebook alone includes non-media for-profit companies promoting slanted political content, companies selling merchandise with political messages, and solar panel firms with environmental messages. Google and Twitter, meanwhile, limited their reporting to only federal candidates, at least initially. 
  • PACs accounted for 23 percent of the spending on Facebook during the study period. 
  • The very top spenders during the study period on Facebook, though, were Facebook itself and its own Instagram – Facebook to publicize its responses to Russian election hacking and Instagram to spread a get-out-the-vote message. But the researchers pointed out that the company seemed to overcharge itself, based upon impressions.
Ads that appeared on Facebook and Twitter were more often left-leaning and those on Google right-leaning during the study period.
Ads that appeared on Facebook and Twitter were more often left-leaning and those on Google right-leaning during the study period. (Image via NYU Tandon School of Engineering)
Collaborators on the Online Political Ads Transparency Project are NYU Tandon doctoral student Laura Edelson, NYU Shanghai visiting undergraduate student Shikhar Sakhuja, and Ratan Dey, a former NYU doctoral student studying under Professor Keith Ross and now an assistant professor of practice in computer science at NYU Shanghai.
McCoy conceived the project to build easy-to-use tools to collect, archive, and analyze political advertising data. Although Facebook became the first major social media company to launch a searchable archive of political advertising, for both Facebook and Instagram, in May 2018, McCoy found the archive difficult to use, requiring time-consuming manual searches. He decided to apply versions of the data scraping techniques he had previously used against criminals, including human traffickers who advertised and used Bitcoin.
Despite the difficulty the team subsequently encountered accessing Facebook data, they report it has by far the most comprehensive political archive among the three social media companies. The report outlines problems with the API – an interface with other platforms – introduced in beta form by Facebook to allow researchers access to its archives.
Google's data is the easiest for the public to access, as a BigQuery dataset, available in its entirety via the Google Cloud service. But it is updated in real time, with no archiving, so the NYU researchers are capturing the data daily, to share and archive.
Twitter has no easily accessible political ad archive, so the NYU research team is scraping all political advertising data identified by Twitter and sharing and archiving for the public, as well.
Although the researchers used the September period for comparison purposes, they have now compiled data from late May through October 3, with a gap of about six weeks while Facebook blocked its data scraping. 
They praised the social media companies for implementing fixes they recommended and continue to work toward transparency.
NYU Tandon School of Engineering Logo (PRNewsFoto/NYU Tandon School of Engineering)
The work was funded in part by the National Science Foundation under a grant to McCoy for research that explores bias and the manipulation of online data.

Visit the project and download data at:
SOURCE: NYU Tandon School of Engineering

27 September 2018

Women's Rights Organisations Speak Out in Defence of Sexual Assault Survivors

The following is a press release from Equality Now:
"International women's rights organization Equality Now has joined forces with 80 leading women and human's right groups* to place a full page advert in The Washington Post expressing collective concern about attacks on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford since her story of sexual assault was shared.

It takes great courage for survivors of sexual assault to come forward, especially in public circumstances, and we must recognize the high cost that women pay for speaking out about their experiences.

As an organization working for women's and girls' rights in the US and globally, Equality Now understands how difficult it is for victims, given that they are often shamed and blamedby society and sometimes by the legal system itself.

Such difficulties have been highlighted by the many thousands who have given their own deeply personal accounts using the hashtag #WhyIDidntReport.

There are numerous reasons why someone doesn't report a sexual assault, including fear of not being believed, of retaliation, or mistrust of authority. Victims frequently face blame and interrogation for what they were wearing, what they were drinking, or how they did or didn't behave.

All too often, when a victim does find the strength to confide in someone they are told not to pursue things any further.

And then there is the knowledge that justice is rarely served as the vast majority of perpetrators do not go to prison.
In the wake of #MeToo, this is a landmark moment for how accusations of sexual assault are handled.

There can never be equality in a culture that normalizes or trivializes sexual assault and sexual harassment.

Dr. Blasey Ford is sharing the experience of a 15-year-old adolescent girl that was subjected to a sexual assault. We must think about what message we are sending to girls and boys across the country about whether or not they too would be heard or believed.

This is not a partisan issue. We all have a responsibility not to silence survivors, to guarantee that laws and legal systems are based on equality, and that victims have access to justice.

In addition, we need to ensure that schools, communities and organizations do not promote or tolerate a culture where such behaviour is normalized or trivialized.

By giving survivors the space to be heard we can change the status quo. We remain committed to achieving equality in laws, policies and legal processes and to supporting survivors of sexual assault and harassment.

Shelby Quast, Equality Now's Americas Director, says: "We all have to work together to ensure those who have experience sexual assault and harassment are supported, protected and given access to fair legal process. Never should they be subjected to further attack, irrespective of whether or not the perpetrator is a public figure or in a position of power."

Now more than ever we must all work together to build a more equal world in which women and girls can be safe, fearless and free."

Sexual violence takes many forms
Sexual violence takes many forms (Via Equality Now)

25 September 2018

Are Millennials Interested in Art? Yes, New Park West Gallery Study Finds

Millennials almost twice as likely to say they know something about or appreciate art as Baby Boomer generation
Millennials are much more interested in art than previous generations, and social media may be driving their attraction to it, according to a new study conducted by Park West Gallery, one of the world's largest private art galleries.
Millennials are almost twice as likely as Baby Boomers to say they both know something about art (63% to 34%), and almost universally agree that they appreciate art, the research found. In fact, four out of five Millennials said that art was important to them, the highest percentage of any age group.
"Some people believe that Millennials are tied to their smartphones, and therefore might be less interested in the fine arts. In fact, just the opposite appears to be true: there's a generational shift in which younger people are more attracted to art than older generations," said Albert Scaglione, founder and CEO of Park West Gallery. "During the auctions we hold around the world, we see more young people every day, and we witness the personal connection that people of all ages have to art. Art was always created to inspire, and people today are craving that inspiration as much as ever."
The study also found that social media is driving additional interest in art among all demographics, especially Millennials, allowing people to find and interact with art in new ways. 
Some of the other key findings include:
  • 53% of people say they have interacted with art on social media
  • 55% say that social media plays an important role in discovering new art
  • 54% say social media enhances the way they experience art
  • 79% of Millennials say social media allows them to interact with art in new and interesting ways, versus 61% and 37% of Gen X and Baby Boomers, respectively
  • 65% of Millennials say they buy artwork with the intention of sharing it with others on social media, versus 45% and 25% of Gen X and Baby Boomers, respectively.
The Internet and social media have become powerful tools to learn about and discover art, but when it comes to buying, most Americans (87%) still want to see it in person before purchase. 
While the internet is the most popular method to learn about art, retails stores (33%), street fairs (29%) and art auctions (12%) are still the most popular ways to buy it.
"New tools are giving people exciting new ways to learn about and experience art – collections are no longer just on our walls but in our pockets," said Jason Betteridge, an auctioneer at Park West Gallery. "But while social media is a part of our future, we can't lose the in-person connection."
While the vast majority of Americans (91%) like art, most still view it as a luxury, and economic concerns still prevent some from purchasing. Although most Americans have purchased at least one piece of art, the majority (57%) of Americans would not consider buying artwork that costs more than $500.
79% of Millennials say social media allows them to interact with art in new and interesting ways, versus 61% and 37% of Gen X and Baby Boomers, respectively
79% of Millennials say social media allows them to interact with art in new and interesting ways, versus 61% and 37% of Gen X and Baby Boomers, respectively (PRNewsfoto/Park West Gallery)
Park West Gallery commissioned the survey to understand the state of art among average Americans in our digital age, speaking with 1,000 people from a diverse array of socio-economic backgrounds.

President Donald Trump And Attorney General Sessions Lack Support For Breaking Up Tech, New NetChoice Survey Finds

Americans Prefer Ad-Supported Online Services Instead of Paying for Them
Americans Prefer Ad-Supported Online Services Instead of Paying for Them (Infographic via NetChoice)
Americans overwhelmingly value the contributions of the technology industry and do not support antitrust enforcement, despite aggressive rhetoric from President Trump, a new NetChoice survey of 1,200 U.S. consumers found.
President Trump's draft Executive Order would put tech in the crosshairs of U.S. antitrust authorities. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is also holding a meeting with several State Attorneys General today to discuss accusations of social media bias. 
But Americans don't support an antitrust crack down on America's most innovative businesses.

New polling shows that only about 5% of Americans (on both sides of the political aisles) say the federal government should focus anti-competitive enforcement on the tech industry. 
Further, just 1 in 5 Americans say the break-up of big tech would most benefit consumers.
No Support for Heavy-Handed Government Intervention on Tech Platforms
No Support for Heavy-Handed Government Intervention on Tech Platforms (Infographic via NetChoice)
The value of tech to consumers and businesses is clear.
Over 70% of Americans say that digital advertising platforms like Google and Facebook are valuable to both small businesses and the national economy. 
Just 13% say that they have had a negative experience with large Internet platforms and 72% say that services like Facebook, Google, and Amazon make it easier for them to connect with people in their community.
Consumers Are Empowered with Social Media Choices
Consumers Are Empowered with Social Media Choices (Infographic via NetChoice)
"President Trump's fixation on breaking up tech platforms lacks support from Americans," said Steve DelBianco, president of NetChoice. "Antitrust policy needs to be guided by facts, not emotional outbursts. The government cannot violate the First Amendment by forcing Internet platforms to suppress negative news. Internet platforms are a boon for American consumers, businesses, and, in turn, the U.S. economy. The President should listen to regular Americans and allow U.S. tech companies to continue to thrive and innovate."
Americans Believe Online Platforms Empower Business Advertising and Community Engagement
Americans Believe Online Platforms Empower Business Advertising and Community Engagement (Infographic via NetChoice)

About the Survey:
From August 6-8, 2018 Zogby Analytics conducted an interactive survey of 1,222 adults focused on consumer attitudes toward Internet platforms and government regulation. 
The survey, commissioned by NetChoice, has a margin of error of +/- 2.8%.  It is available at
SOURCE: NetChoice

29 May 2018

CAIR Applauds ABC's Cancellation of 'Roseanne' Following Roseanne Barr's Islamophobic, Racist Tweet

Roseanne Barr
Roseanne Barr (image via BBC)
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today applauded ABC's decision to cancel the "Roseanne" sitcom after the show's star Roseanne Barr posted a racist and Islamophobic tweet.
In a tweet posted Tuesday, Barr referred to Valerie Jarrett, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, as a "child" of the "Muslim Brotherhood" and "Planet of the Apes."

"We welcome the swift and appropriate action taken by ABC and hope it sends a message that the promotion of hatred and bigotry will not be accepted by our nation's entertainment industry," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. "Ms. Barr has a First Amendment right to express her views, however Islamophobic or racist, but she does not have a constitutional right to a program on a national television network."

He noted that CAIR recently expressed appreciation for a "Roseanne" episode challenging Islamophobia. "Ms. Barr's tweet unfortunately does not express the inclusiveness and rejection of bigotry we saw in the episode on Islamophobia," said Awad.
⏩ ABC's 'Good Morning America' Quotes CAIR Director on 'Roseanne' Islamophobia Episode:

⏩ CAIR has reported an unprecedented spike in bigotry targeting American Muslims and members of other minority groups since the election of Donald Trump as president.

The Washington-based organization's recently-released 2018 Civil Rights Report, "Targeted," showed a 17 percent increase in bias-motivated incidents against American Muslims from 2016 to 2017, and a 15 percent increase in the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in that same time period.
Community members are being urged to report any bias incidents to police and to CAIR's Civil Rights Department at 202-742-6420.

CAIR launched an app to share critical "know your rights" information and to simplify the process to report hate crimes and bias incidents. CAIR is urging American Muslims and members of other minority groups to download the app and utilize this resource to stay informed and empowered.

For a quick download of CAIR's civil rights app, click here

You Might Also Like