Slow: Busy First Day At Spoutible And Envelope Navigating USPS [UPDATEd]

While there were some influential (the word influencer grates) folks invited to try out Spoutible.com early, the pre-registered folks, like me, got our first look yesterday.  At 10am Alaska time.  The previous post covers what Spoutible is/hopes to be.  It appears to have been wildly successful in terms of lots of people signing up, but it's also been a massive traffic jam as the servers had trouble keeping up with everyone clamoring through the front door.  It took forever (30 seconds to over five minutes) for the site to respond to the cursor.  Here's this morning's Tweet from the driver behind Spoutible.

Clearly the 100,000 (my mind also remembers 200,000) folks who preregistered were eager to sign in right after the gates opened.  And that seems to have made it so sluggish that I've decided to wait a few days before trying to use it again.  Boozy had said Tuesday that they had built the platform with anticipation of lots of users.  Was he wrong?  Or were there more sinister players involved in making the debut hard to navigate?  I'm not accusing, just thinking out loud.  

The rest of the world can join next Wednesday as Bouzy launches this safer, less toxic version of Twitter.  And I will say, I saw no hate and lots of joy there.  Though I didn't see that much because of how slow it was.  

[UPDATE Feb 2, 2023 10pm:  I did go back and now Spoutible is running at a good pace.  They've fixed things, for now.]

And here's my other visual today (Feb 2):

We* mailed an 8X10-ish envelope at the midtown post office of January 14, 2023.  I made the envelope using old calendars pages.  It's going to Chile.  

As you can see, it purportedly left the midtown post office about five hours after we gave it to the clerk.  Then it took three days to get to the Anchorage distribution center.  (Not sure what that is - Airport Post office?  Something else?) THREE DAYS!  I've gotten mail from Los Angeles in three days.  

Four days later it was reported "in transit to next facility."  I took this to mean it was on it's way to Seattle.  But clearly I was wrong.  Why did this take four days?  It's got got a scannable code on it.  It's not some holiday mailing rush.

Nine days later it left Anchorage!  It took 15 days, just over two weeks to get from the midtown post office until it finally (it seems) departed from Anchorage.  It went first class and registered.  

I've had problems sending things to Chile in the past, but generally on the other end.  Just want this on the record here.  Not quite sure who to try to contact at the post office.  I'd leave a note for my mail carrier, but we're spending time with our daughter and her family.  

*I was sending it, but my wife actually took it to the post office.

Spoutible - From The Bird To The Whale

 Tomorrow, Spoutible will be available for the 150,000-200,000 people who have preregistered.  

⚠️Today at 5 PM EST, we are ending the preregistration phase. So if you have not preregistered for Spoutible yet, please do so now, or you will have to wait a week to create an account when it is open to everyone.https://t.co/N5QWQKI768

— Christopher Bouzy (@cbouzy) January 31, 2023

Right now [well I was from 9am PST to 11ish]  I'm listening to Christopher Bouzy on a Twitter Space talking to several thousand people about tomorrow's launch.  I've heard him several times before talking about how they plan to make a platform that's easy for Twitter users to navigate, yet corrects many of the problems of Twitters.

[I'd also note that Boozy was the creator of Bot Sentinel, a site where you can check on people who post on Twitter.  Using Twitter's standards, Bot Sentinel rates users so you can see if the account is normal or harasses people.  They'll use that technology to track Spoutible users and I heard earlier you will be able to see the Bot Sentinal rating of people who reply to you.  At right is an example of a Bot Sentinel report.] 

First I'll list some key points I heard, then I'll just leave a very rough transcript of what was said (starting about an hour into the discussion)

Overview of Key Points as I heard them

• User safety and security - the platform was designed to give users a safe space for discussion.  To that end a number of features have been put in place.
• General security of the site aimed at making it harder to be hacked, and if hacked, harder to steal personal info of users because all is encrypted
• Users can delete replies and block hateful users, this also blocks replies to the blocked users
• Spoutible has tighter security for users joining (they have to give their phone number which also prevents someone from making more than two accounts with one number) and more vigilant system to detect users abusing the rules
• Key feature ways to keep mis- and disinformation to a minimum 
• Money and size less important to Spoutible than safety and security
• Acknowledgement, repeatedly that 
• no system is completely safe from hackers
• that there will be mistakes, but they'll jump to fix them as fast as possible
• determining the  right balance on issues (ie what is misinformation) will always be difficult
• we're just starting, give us time to discover and fix bugs, work with us
• Want to promote media and news outlets important
• Only three months old, but have experience of Twitter, and will be adding features and tweaking system as it develops
• Intentionally made it easy for Twitter folks to move over to Spoutible - it will feel comfortable and familiar.  
• Expects that Twitter users with lots of followers will stay on Twitter until followers move over - but working on ways to post on both platforms at once

My notes - (not sure what time I moved to the laptop to take notes) (These are pretty rough, but I hope I've gotten the gist of the questions and the answers)

Anne - how quick a turnaround response to a hate attack? (She said she'd been a victim with death threats etc. on Twitter, had to call FBI and that Twitter was slow in responding.)

Christopher - we have tools to address swarming, trying to get folks to harass you, they'll get time out.  On the other side, sometimes people say dumb things, and they we won't take action if they aren't crossing the line.  

Crossing the line - is used a lot.  But Christopher recognized that figuring out where that line is.  

We have tools - you can delete replies and block people.  Would like to have folks hold off on those things until the platform has been up a while.  But you have tools to block things yourself if necessary.

Michael Morgan (was a test account for the last couple of weeks - says was not paid and is not connected to Spoutible)

Safe, Fresh, has your interests at heart.  Some platforms push the issues that rile you.  On Spoutible that isn't going to happen.  

Smoke detector - tells you about accounts.  [ I wasn't sure what Smoke Detector means.  sounds like some sort of warning system, or notification system.]

Spoutible eels like wearing comfortable slippers as you move from Twitter.

Q:  Will edition up tomorrow have push notifications?  What will Spoutible do to address feature parity  with other platforms.

Christopher:  We are trying to get Spoutible out as soon as possible, so focused on what people wanted first.  So yes, there will be push notifications so you know when people respond.  We can add features in suitable time frame.  Twitter, sometimes take months.  Some stuff we'll do in days, other in months.  The push stuff we'll have up soon.

Freature parity, laugh, we're trying not to fall into the trap, but don't have an  answer for that.

Melinda:  Thanks, sounds very good.  Planning on platform or stand-alone app, like Tweet deck, but they cancelled it.  Like it because dynamic.  Going to do something like that?

Christopher:  Tweet deck does still exist.  Don't worry about being nervous - I'm nervous.  It's in the pipeline to allow customize platform.  Most don't want that because they want to maximize platform.

Going to launch own app store to allow developers to extend the capability of Spoutible.  Not having that made making Spoutible work was much harder.[Not sure how to fix that sentence.]  Not sure when, but we'll do it.  Part of the road map to allow developers to come in.

Rick:  Working with media orgs?  Birdwatch?

Christopher:  That's the plan - like to work with other outlets to let you to text certain stuff.  Don't want just anyone to come in.  Not sure how, but will invite journalists to discuss.  Important to platform, but also to democracy in general.  Want to work with outlets to keep garbage off.  Don't want mis- and disinformation rampant.  Do we take off this misinformation?  Tag it?  Something deadly like treat COVID with bleach, will be removed.  Want to be the platform for media, researchers - people who fight this stuff.

???:  You're being really thoughtful in how you approach this stuff.  Use tools available and protect yourselves.  

Christopher:  Thanks for saying this.  I have a vision and had for a while.  Tried to get Twitter folks to see this, but they went on as business as usual.  Rare opportunity.  Twitter isn't the same anymore. If we had launched five months ago, it would have failed.  You wouldn't have moved.  I think we have a chance now - people want to leave for a better alternative - content moderation at scale is difficult, but we've built Spoutible with that in mind.  Someone being doxxed with phone number, user can remove themselves.  Be patient with us.  There'll be bugs.  Twitter had a long time to do this.  Give us time.  We've only had three months.  A year from now if you don't see us listening, then call us out.  First few weeks allow us to get our bearings.

Q:  Thanks, doing great job.  1.  Will you be able to keep media and reporters 

Christopher?  Will we address folks in the media who target Spoutible?  yes

2.  Have global manpower to support?  They have people in other countries, do you have that?

3.  Do you communicate with followers across the platform.  I have followers who are important for online fundraisers, will I be able to communicate with them.  

Christopher: 1.  going after journalists, I am pro journalists, news outlets, even ones negative to me.  But there are people who do that actively.  It would probably be addressed by the panel, do we ban the president, do we kick off journalists who are attacking?  Difficult questions.

2.  International?  Not yet.  Focusing on US first.  But there will be people using the platform, but if someone is spouting in another language, there are translators doing it automatically and can see.  But ultimately we will have people.  I believe in work from home model - you can have people moderating in France or Brazil and not have everyone in central place.  My team is spread around the world to develop safe platform. 

3.  Want to allow folks to cross post, - allow to Tweet and Spout simultaneously.  But present owner may shut that down.  One tech hurdle.  Spout 300 characters but Twitter fewer.  If you want to cross post you'll have to reduce # of characters.  I'm going to be Tweeting a while trying to get people over here.  People with 500k are going to stay on Twitter as well.  Not giving up those followers.  But eventually hope followers move.  If he shuts it off, he shuts it off.  Haven't figured out how to have seamless transition from one platform to another and keep all your followers.  

Dr. Kate - a lot of people earn a living saying terrible things about people.  Would you moderate for me or expect me to block them.  

Christopher -Say Meghan Markle.  How help this lady to breathe?  VP Harris and others.  Overwhelmingly women and women of color who go through this.   You have those tools in place you can use to prevent them from posting in your feeds.  I have been victim of people profiting off of hate.  On Spoutible will be extremely hard to do that. [But of course people will take that as a challenge.]  We also have to be proactive knowing who is own our platform.  If account is focused on attacking Meghan Markle or VP Harris we'll take it off.  Other platforms have this policy, but they don't enforce it.  Youtube channels could have 50 videos on Markle, they don't take it down.  On Spoutible, they will get removed.  Not just user, but Spoutible will too.  We know hostile nations will do this.  Why we want phone numbers.  We won't be perfect, but your experience on Spoutible will be vastly better than on Twitter

Gadi Ben-Yehuda - been on T since 2006.  I'm a  social media director, ability to manage those.  Someone mentioned Tweet deck, if I'm overseeing multiple accounts can I use single platform?  Encouraging businesses and more important government on.  My school is delayed, National Park Service.

Christopher:  Yes.  Extremely important.  But flip side to third parties to post on your behalf is completely different from a hostile foreign nation.  Only certain verified will be able spout on behalf of a user.  Outreach - we've had conversation, but focus for last few months was to get this up and running and then go for govt. agencies.  There are a lot of officials who have preregistered and even are on and testing.  Hope word of mouth.  Also want local organizations and authorities, so amber alert will be available on spoutible.  How can we make the platform better?  Part of us communicating?  Gotta be honest.  Only three months.  

Akunjee - They successfully brought in ways to onload people onto platform.  Get to set ethos - these are the sort of people here.  There townhall system allowing local conversations, to set up discussions on those issues.  Going to look at these?  

Christopher - Yes, no.  Not opposed to.  Open to suggestions.  How we've developed this platform - allowing you to give your ideas.  We took a lot and implemented them.  I took flak.  I had a vision.  Wanted you to participate.  So far worked well.  Something like that is a feature we'd be interested in that.  If you ask 10 people you get 10 different answers.  But if ask 10K you start seeing patterns.  I said earlier, no Nazis on the platform.  Misinformation/Disinformation number 2.  Took top stuff you wanted us to address.  Yes.  Clubhouse could work well on Spoutible.  Totally against waitlists.  You build something, you want a few folks to test.  We did.  But then need to open up.  If you have a waitlist, it stifles the momentum.  Even what we're doing, a week for the preregistered people, will slow us down, but I think it's for ???.  Not studio 54, you can come in, you can't.  Once the preregistered week is over, all can join

Julie - I was targeted by horrific racists - N word, videos, my 5 year old daughter.  Had to call FBI.  Eventually Twitter .   He duplicated my account  - bio, pics, etc.  And he Tweeted terrible things in my name.  Twitter wanted my drivers license.  I didn't want to give them that info.  If that happens on Spoutible.  Would we have to give Drivers License to verify identity.

Christopher.  Look at this from Twitter's perception, and sorry you had to go through this.  Horrible on platform and feel like platform not helping.  From Twitter's perspective.  How do I know that picture belongs to you.  Basic verification - customer service that handles bank security.  We don't want that.  But whatever company we partner with, what will they do with it?  Sell it?  No.  Just for verification.  If user targeted, get verified.  If another account steals it, we can take it down.  If this account is doing other stuff and doing crazy stuff - we'll take them down for other stuff.  But if stealthy, we have the problem of verifying.  People in this room opposed using phone numbers to verify.  We had to find balance.  Not looking to sell numbers or spam people.  With Spoutible resend an email or two a week.  No spam stuff.  Also to keep people from creating a bunch of accounts with one phone number.  It's encrypted.  Not selling.  

Hoping to launch about 12am, maybe 3am.  Definitely tomorrow.  Probably early.  

If you preregistered, your email address is on the list.  You have to use same email address, you have to use same email address.  Still debating about phone number confirmation.  Have 60-70 people try it out, have some bugs, but it's built to handle 1 million users, but we don't get those numbers.  If we have tech difficulties, be patient.  Prepared for more people.  Don't think 200K will sign up, it will be staggered.  

Is it fast?  Fast now, but we'll see in a week if it holds up.  Built with scale in mind.   Using service called ??Detectify.  Looking for vulnerabilities in our code.  Tried our best to make it as secure as possible.  But if a hacker finds something - there are people who spend all day hacking.  If firm tells us there's a problem, we'll notify you immediately.  Microsoft finds vulnerabilities all the time.  We will be.  If it happens, all they get will be encrypted data.  

Thanks for taking this journey with us.  I promised we'll get it up by mid-Jan or February.  We did that.  I promised certain features.  We did that.  Look at what we've done in 3 months and think about what we can do in a year.  Give us time to work it out.  It's not going to feel like a beta.  

We don't have to accept this crap, this misinformation/disinformation.  We can do something about it.  If you see us turning into another Twitter, you need to hold our feet to the flames.  Not about how many users or money, but success for us is protecting users.  

-------------------

I did notice the remarkable situation of Spoutible holding this meeting on Twitter to encourage people to leave Twitter.  Did Twitter not notice?  Not care?  One commenter during the meeting asked when Twitter was going to shut them off.  Twitter never did.  

"Laws are the spider's webs which, if anything small falls into them they ensnare it, but large things break through and escape. -Solon (a Greek lawgiver, c.600 BC)"

I saw this quote in a Tweet.

I thought the quote descriptive of what generally happens in the US justice system.  Poor people get sent to prison for years for minor crimes while rich and famous people are much more likely to get much shorter terms, or no terms, for more egregious crimes.  The Sacklers, for instance, are still enjoying their billions out of prison.

The Tweet was a reply to a video showing the most well known unindicted Jan 6 conspirators.

But I try to always check on quotes - they are often  

• bogus 
• misquoted
• attributed to the wrong person.

This one is genuine, and while it's reworded, it conveys the meaning of the original, and while it cites the right source, it gives credit to Solon rather than to Anacharsis.

But it's calls attention to a truth that's been articulated 2600 years ago.

From Tufts: 

"5.

In particular we are told of private intercourse between Solon and Anacharsis, and between Solon and Thales, of which the following accounts are given.¹ Anacharsis came to Athens, knocked at Solon's door, and said that he was a stranger who had come to make ties of friendship and hospitality with him. On Solon's replying that it was better to make one's friendships at home, ‘Well then,’ said Anacharsis, ‘do thou, who art at home, make me thy friend and guest.’ [2] So Solon, admiring the man's ready wit, received him graciously and kept him with him some time. This was when he was already engaged in public affairs and compiling his laws. Anacharsis, accordingly, on learning what Solon was about, laughed at him for thinking that he could check the injustice and rapacity of the citizens by written laws, which were just like spiders' webs; they would hold the weak and delicate who might be caught in their meshes, but would be torn in pieces by the rich and powerful. [3] To this Solon is said to have answered that men keep their agreements with each other when neither party profits by the breaking of them, and he was adapting his laws to the citizens in such a manner as to make it clear to all that the practice of justice was more advantageous than the transgression of the laws. But the results justified the conjecture of Anacharsis rather than the hopes of Solon. It was Anacharsis, too, who said, after attending a session of the assembly, that he was amazed to find that among the Greeks, the wise men pleaded causes, but the fools decided them.

1 In Plut. Sol. 5 and Plut. Sol. 6.

Plutarch. Plutarch's Lives. with an English Translation by. Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. London. William Heinemann Ltd. 1914. 1.

The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.

This text was converted to electronic form by optical character recognition and has been proofread to a high level of accuracy."

I'd note that The Real Harry Ripcord profile says, "CEO of Urban Dictionary"

Southern Baptist Convention In Nashville Next Week - Tension Over Exec Committee Handling Sexual Abuse Issues

[NOTE: This started with a Tweet I read.  As I wrote this post I kept looking for more background.  And things got out of hand.  But for those readers like me who don't pay close attention to the workings of the Southern Baptist Convention, this should be of interest, because it reminds us that like all labels, the Baptists are not all the same and do disagree on things.  I thought was something that would get little attention, but I suspect by tomorrow or Monday it will be more widely covered.]

Twitter calls my attention to events and issues I'd otherwise miss.  There's tension on the Southern Baptist Executive Board over how to handle sexual abuse issues within the church. 

The issue of sexual abuse was addressed at the 2019 Convention with SBC President J.D. Greear proclaiming:

“Victims have told us, words without follow-up actions are worse than no words at all,” Greear said in what is his latest update on the Sexual Abuse Advisory Study he and the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission initiated in 2018. Victims “want to see … that we care enough about this issue to do whatever it takes to make our churches safe for survivors and safe from abuse.”

Apparently the follow-up actions have fallen short.   

This Tweet from Philip Behancourt, the former Executive Vice President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, contradicts the current president's statements.  The link offers a summary of the contradictions with links to audio.  

Southern Baptists deserve to know the truth by hearing leaders talk about sexual abuse in their own words.https://t.co/DBVdtvlY3J pic.twitter.com/Myoa1mdoFU

— Phillip Bethancourt (@pbethancourt) June 10, 2021

This is not especially surprising. Other religious organizations have grappled over the dilemma of airing dirty laundry or hiding it in fear of a financial hit. So have universities, especially in sports. Just the other day the son of a prominent coach said his father dismissed his own complaint about sexual abuse from the team doctor.  And even if it's not about sex, the urge to cover things up and protect the name and income of the organizations almost always makes it hard to acknowledge big problems.  

This is coming to light right before the SBC's annual meeting.

  The Tennessean offers this preview of next week's meeting in Nashville::

"...The largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., which is headquartered in Nashville, is grappling with how to handle sexual abuse, critical race theory and the role of women in ministry. 

All, along with the election of a new president, could come up as thousands of Southern Baptists gather in Music City.

Calls for a third-party investigation into the executive committee emerged after the two letters signed by Moore, the former head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, were recently leaked to news organizations and a Baptist blog. 

In them, Moore leveled allegations related to sexual abuse against the executive committee, which acts on behalf of the convention when it is not in session. The letters detail the mistreatment of sexual abuse victims, the mishandling of abuse claims, intimidation and more. Moore's letters also mention racism expressed behind closed doors. . ."

Here's another view from Maina Mwaura and David Phillips published in the Southern Baptist Global yesterday (June 11, 2021)

"Russell Moore, former head of the SBC Ethics and Religion Liberty Commission, wrote in a recently publicized letter that SBC Executive Committee staff and others referred in his presence to victims of sexual abuse as “crazy” and as “worse than the sexual predators themselves.”

Stone issued a 15-minute video response to Moore’s leaked letter and declared, “I find the latest attack from Russell Moore to be absolutely slanderous, and it is as inflammatory as it is inaccurate.

Yet on June 10, Pastor Phillip Bethancourt released audio clips of meetings he attended with Ronnie Floyd, chairman of the SBC Executive Committee, and Stone. Those recordings verify what Moore stated in a second leaked letter that had more recently been written to SBC President J.D. Greear.

Someone is not telling the truth. But the audio makes it clear who was attempting to block effective denominational responses to the convention’s sexual abuse problems. In fact, in one clip, Stone even puts forward the idea that the SBC Executive Committee felt they were the victims. "

The two writers are described this way at the end of the article:

"Maina Mwaura is a freelance writer and communications consultant who lives in the metro Atlanta area. A native of Orlando, Fla., he earned a bachelor of science degree in communications from Liberty University and a master of divinity degree from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. David Phillips lives in Georgia and previously was a pastor in Delaware. He earned a bachelor of science degree from Athens State College in Athens, Ala, a master of divinity degree from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and a doctor of ministry degree from George Fox Seminary and now works with an educational software company." 

I did find this podcast in which Russell Moore (who wrote the original letter) and Bethancourt (who posted the Tweet and the links to audio) talk about college ministry which touchier issues such as online pornography. They talk about issues that have come up through their ethics work - same sex marriage, race, sexual abuse crises and our denomination's failure to address it. Death of a loved one, when college student learns his parents are getting a divorce. This sexual abuse discussion comes after about ten minutes of chit chat that shows the close relationship between these two.

https://signposts-with-russell-moore.simplecast.com/episodes/a-conversation-with-phillip-bethancourt 

Toward the end Bethancourt mentions his father who was an executive at Chevron, which suggests he comes from a financially very comfortable background, which may give him some self-confidence in taking on the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Bethancourt's Tweets also includes a link to this article below which he says helped him when responding to questions from his kids about Pride month.  (Approval of homosexuality doesn't seem to be a topic open for discussion with SBC.  I learned doing a previous post that there were only two reasons for a church to be summarily dropped from the Convention - accepting homosexuality and not paying dues.)  

"Third, we need to remember the priority and uniqueness of Christian love. Christian love is not one of pure reciprocity, where I affirm you if you affirm me. The mushy “you do you” and “live your truth” ethic is the product of expressive individualism, a weaponized form of relativism that rejects all forms of moral duty outside the person’s own felt needs. Christian love, in contrast, is ordered to the truth, rejoices in the truth, and is the very essence of truth itself (1 Corinthians 13:6). When Christians proclaim the truth and beauty of God’s design, we do it out of love for our neighbor and this world, knowing that sexual sin never leads to flourishing, and abandoning God’s design for the family only further compromises society’s foundation. It is for redeeming love of sexual sinners, both you and me, that Christ came to die for us (John 3:16)."

The bolded part of the quote above seems relevant to how the Convention deals with sexual abuse - truth.  But the truth about sex seems difficult for religions that make such a big deal about chastity except in marriage.  

You can look at the Southern Baptists Convention meeting website yourself.  The program is heavy on meetings of groups - Koreans, Hispanics, Native Americans, students, women, pastor's wives, Liberty University alumni, etc.  Don't see anything in the program about sexual abuse. There are no substantive policy papers that I can find.  

 

Corona Virus View From Seattle -It's Getting Personal

Things have changed radically just since Friday when I took the train down to Vancouver, WA to attend the Citizens Climate Lobby Northwest Regional Conference.  While there hadn't been any questions about not having the conference, we were all introduced to the elbow bump in lieu of shaking hands.  And told to wash our hands regularly.

But since I got back things have gotten noticeably edgier.  Six people have died in Seattle already.  Our daughter declared that she will drive us to the airport tomorrow instead of letting us take public transportation as usual.  While I don't think of myself as elderly, I am in the higher risk age category. What's a little scary about this is that people can carry the virus with few or no symptoms, meaning it can spread much faster and wider than other epidemics.

Then I see this Tweet this morning.

I live in Seattle, I have all symptoms of COVID-19 and have a history of chronic bronchitis.

Since I work in a physical therapy clinic with many 65+ patients and those with chronic illnesses, I decided to be responsible and go to get tested. This is how that went.

— sketchy lady (@into_the_brush) March 3, 2020

There's a long thread about all her failed attempts to get help.

The basic advice from everyone seems to be to wash your hands and not touch your face.

I didn't understand the power of a sneeze until one day we were outside on a sunny day some distance away and man sneezed.  The sun was just right to light up the arc of droplets that flew from his face out about three feet.  It was about three or four times the size of his head.  The light on the droplets was beautiful if you didn't think about what it was.  And I suddenly understood how easily germs fly from person to person.  I didn't have my camera ready for that moment, but I've looked on line for something similar.  This is the best I can find:

This sneeze is not nearly as beautiful as the droplet waterfall we saw that day, but it gets the point across.  If you don't have a mask, sneeze or cough into your elbow.  Certainly away from other people.

Exposing Trolls -BotSentinal: Easy Way To Check For Twitter Bots

There's a lot of fake news out there.  Even misinformation campaigns.  Knowing what is true or false is getting harder.

So we must be ever vigilant about any bit of news - on the mainstream media, on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or in real life.  Here are some questions to embed in your brain for filtering out the crap.

• Is it believable?
• Does it support what I would like to believe? (Then I need to be especially careful)
• Is it too strange to believe?
• Is it so believable I accept it as true without thinking?  
• Is it true?
• Use fact checkers like Politifact or FactCheck.org  (UC Berkeley has a good list.)
• Who said it?  (What bias do they have?  What's their record for lying?) 
• OpenSecrets.org shows who funds organizations and their biases.  You can also just google the organization (Natl XYZ reputation) to find sites like media bias fact check to give you additional information about the media or organization
• How can you verify it?
• Google the basic idea and see if others are reporting it?  Are they all of a certain bias?  
• Are there links to verify what they say?  Go to the links and see if they are reputable

So that's general advice.  But to specifically check on Twitter I'm recommending that you check out BotSentinal.  This link takes you to the BotSentinal page below.   Then go to the green link in the upper right hand

Then you get a popup window which let's you insert a Twitter account. (They use light grays which aren't showing up well in these screen shots, sorry.)  So, you put the Twitter handle you want to analyze in the box and hit submit.

Very quickly you get a response, like this one:

OK, so how do they figure this out?  They tell us that they aren't necessarily looking for actual bots.  They are looking for Twitter users who post like bots.  From their About Us page:

"We trained Bot Sentinel to identify specific types of trollbot accounts using thousands of accounts and millions of tweets for our machine learning model. The system can correctly identify trollbot accounts with an accuracy of 95%. Unlike other machine learning tools designed to detect “bots,” we are focusing on specific activities deemed inappropriate by Twitter rules. We analyze hundreds of Tweets per each Twitter account to determine if an account exhibit irregular tweet activity, engaging in harassment, or troll-like behavior."

For them, 'troll-like behavior' means behavior proscribed by Twitter.

"Researchers rarely agree on what someone considers a troll or what constitutes harmful bot activity, so we took a different approach when training our machine learning model. Instead of creating a model based on our interpretation of a troll or bot, we used Twitter rules as a guide when selecting Twitter accounts to train our model. We searched for accounts that were repeatedly violating Twitter rules and we trained our model to identify accounts similar to the accounts we identified as “trollbots.” Note: Ideology, political affiliation, religious beliefs, geographic location, or frequency of tweets are not factors when determining the classification of a Twitter account."

What do the scores mean?

"We rate accounts based on a score from 0% to 100%, the higher the score the more likely the account is a trollbot. We analyze several hundred tweets per account, and the more someone engages in behavior that is troll-like, the higher their trollbot rating is."

When benefit of this is:

"We feel since trollbot accounts are likely violating Twitter rules, most Twitter users would want to report and avoid these accounts because they offer little value to meaningful public discourse."

So that leads us to ask:  What are Twitter Policies here?

Twitter policies are complicated.  I couldn't find a simple list. Here's a link to their General Guidelines and Policy page.  It's just a set of links to other pages which give more specific rules for what you shouldn't do on Twitter.  I'm trying to bring what seem like some of the more important ones together here.

1.  Violent threats policyWhat is in violation of this policy?
Under this policy, you can’t state an intention to inflict violence on a specific person or group of people. We define intent to include statements like “I will”, “I’m going to”, or “I plan to”, as well as conditional statements like “If you do X, I will”. Violations of this policy include, but are not limited to:

• threatening to kill someone; 

• threatening to sexually assault someone;

• threatening to seriously hurt someone and/or commit a other violent act that could lead to someone’s death or serious physical injury; and

• asking for or offering a financial reward in exchange for inflicting violence on a specific person or group of people.

Probably they should add "encourage other people to do any of these things."  There's a lot more nuance on the page, but this is the gist of the Violent Threats Policy.

Next has to do with the content of your Twitter name and profile.

2.  Abusive profile informationTwitter Rules: You may not use your username, display name, or profile bio to engage in abusive behavior, such as targeted harassment or expressing hate towards a person, group, or protected category.
Rationale
While we want people to feel free to express their individuality in their profile names and descriptions, we have found that accounts with abusive profile information usually indicate abusive intent and strongly correlate with abusive behavior. The high visibility of profile names and descriptions also means that people might involuntarily find themselves exposed to threatening or abusive content when visiting a profile page.
When this applies
We will review and take enforcement action against accounts that target an individual, group of people, or a protected category with any of the following behavior in their profile information, i.e., usernames, display names, or profile bios:

• Violent threats

• Abusive slurs, epithets, racist, or sexist tropes

• Abusive content that reduces someone to less than human

• Content that incites fear"

3.  Glorification of violence policy   (You can see the bullet points here (I hope using the term bullet point isn't considered a glorification of violence) seem to be a collection of ideas from different people, and not carefully edited)

• You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence.
• Glorifying violent acts could inspire others to take part in similar acts of violence. Additionally, glorifying violent events where people were targeted on the basis of their protected characteristics (including: race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease) could incite or lead to further violence motivated by hatred and intolerance. For these reasons, we have a policy against content that glorifies acts of violence in a way that may inspire others to replicate those violent acts and cause real offline harm, or events where members of a protected group were the primary targets or victims.
• What is in violation of this policy? 
• Under this policy, you can’t glorify, celebrate, praise or condone violent crimes, violent events where people were targeted because of their membership in a protected group, or the perpetrators of such acts. We define glorification to include praising, celebrating, or condoning statements, such as “I’m glad this happened”, “This person is my hero”, “I wish more people did things like this”, or “I hope this inspires others to act”. 
• Violations of this policy include, but are not limited to, glorifying, praising, condoning, or celebrating:
• violent acts committed by civilians that resulted in death or serious physical injury, e.g., murders, mass shootings;
• attacks carried out by terrorist organizations or violent extremist groups (as defined by our terrorism and violent extremism policy); and
• violent events that targeted protected groups, e.g., the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide. 

4.  How Twitter limits what content shows up in your searches.  Actions Twitter doesn’t like from accounts

(Current Twitter limits  These are not about what you say, but about how often you do things.)

"Please do not:

• Repeatedly post duplicate or near-duplicate content (links or Tweets).

• Abuse trending topics or hashtags (topic words with a # sign).

• Send automated Tweets or replies.

• Use bots or applications to post similar messages based on keywords.

• Post similar messages over multiple accounts.

• Aggressively follow and unfollow people.

Current Twitter limitsThe current technical limits for accounts are:

•  Direct Messages (daily): The limit is 1,000 messages sent per day.

•  Tweets: 2,400 per day. The daily update limit is further broken down into smaller limits for semi-hourly intervals. Retweets are counted as Tweets.

•  Changes to account email: 4 per hour.

•  Following (daily): The technical follow limit is 400 per day. Please note that this is a technical account limit only, and there are additional rules prohibiting aggressive following behavior. 

•  Following (account-based): Once an account is following 5,000 other accounts, additional follow attempts are limited by account-specific ratios."

For non-Twitter users, direct messages (DMs) are where you send a non-public message to another Twitter account.  I think they have to be following you to do that.  1,000 a day seems like a pretty high number for a human.

And 2400 Tweets a day also seems way too high a limit for a human.  That's 100 Tweets an hour - assuming you never sleep.  Most people can only do this pace if they have programmed their computer to automatically retweet other Tweets, I imagine.  As I tried to find the thoughts of others on this, it appears much of this is about using Twitter as a marketing tool.  Or propaganda tool.

In any case, those are the behaviors that BotSentinal says it's more-or-less trying to track to determine its scores.

There's A LOT more rules and guidelines.  This link will get you to something like a Table of Contents of Twitter Rules.

Oh, one more thing.  I checked on Donald J. Trump's Twitter feed.  This raises questions about how well BotSentinal works.  Or maybe they just give the President a lot more leeway.

Twitter Vented On Lisa Murkowski Today

After deciding not to vote for witnesses and additional documentation, Lisa Murkowski tweeted
yesterday:

Everyone should be treated equally under the law. I’ve been working hard with @SenatorCardin to make the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) part of the Constitution.
➡ https://t.co/vMcv0BYtz2 pic.twitter.com/G8cxIn7jem

— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) February 1, 2020

The Twitter responses were not friendly.  Here are a few of the one thousand plus responses:

• Shame on you forever.
• So glad to hear this. Looking forward to all the witnesses who don’t have to skip work to testify at trials.
• You don't believe tRUMP should be held accountable. He hasn't been treated equally under the law. You say he is above the law & can commit any crime & any treasonous thing he wants to. You support this dictator & GOP cheating for the 2020 election with help from other countries.
• and NO ONE should be above the law. you didn't allow witnesses and disparaged your oath to do fair & impartial justice. this stain on your legacy is everlasting
• Say What? Constitution, what is that. Law, what law? We are now a lawless Country thanks to the GOP. Shame, shame.
• You're now irrelevant! Go away.
• You've lost every ounce of credibility you ever had by voting no to witnesses. #Cowards
• You forgot to add that this excludes @potus. #impotus gets special treatment and is truly above the law even when our Senators were charged with protecting our country. Your words are meaningless now, Senator.
• Oh honey, from this point forward you own trump and his behavior and corruption. That’s your legacy.
• Oh, WOW!! How can you write that first sentence with a straight damned face.
• #MoscowMitch comes out against it. Then you’ll be “concerned” and “troubled” by his statements, then either vote how he tells you, or pretend to be independent by voting against him when the vote doesn’t matter.
• You betrayed our country
• The Constitution? Really? You always had my support until yesterday. #GOPComplicitTraitors #GOPCorruptionOverCountry
• 75% of us wanted witnesses and documents. What happened to representing the people? You're no better than trump.

First, as negative tweets, these are pretty mild. They are all fact based (Murkowski's vote against witnesses and more documents) and they tend to reflect the opinion/feelings of the writer based on that action. She's not called names or disparaged because of physical characteristics.

Second, I'm guessing most of the comments were not from Alaskans. I'm guessing most of these people don't really know much about Murkowski. Basically, most know that she was considering voting for witnesses, and then changed her mind.

Third, my response to this was that at least people should acknowledge if she gets this changed (is this what she got in exchange for voting no on witnesses?) it would be a good thing, but then raise there anger at her witness vote. (If this was her bargain, she has more faith in her party keeping its promise than I have.)

Fourth,I learned long ago that after a powerful emotional event, it's best to just lie low a bit while people vent their anger. People aren't ready for rational discussion when they are really mad. Just showing her face on Twitter was likely to unleash a flood of anger.

Fifth, people are shouting about how excluding witnesses proves it's a sham trial. But it was obviously a sham trial from the beginning when the head of the jury said he was consulting with the defendant on how to plan the case.

Sixth, allowing witnesses and documents definitely would have prolonged the trial. There's a possibility it would have revealed more blockbuster revelations than we already know about. But enough to win over 16 more Republicans to convict? I doubt it. Even if Senators don't have some hidden shame, they know that Trump can simply make crap up about them and it will blemish them for a long time. And that he would.

Seventh, but I do hope that liberals are really careful about what they see and hear. There are plenty of folks out there focusing on the competition aspects of the Democratic race, rather than on the substance. It's much easier to understand and conflict gets clicks. I'll just say, that if it's about one Democrat being nasty about another one, take it with a grain of salt. Assume it's a troll trying to divide progressives until you get evidence it's not.

Eighth, the same people who said Trump couldn't win four years ago, are giving their opinions about electability now. It's opinion based on selective or just limited data. What polls say now is pretty meaningless. Electability is less about policy and more about charisma. Reagan - a charismatic, well spoken conservative - was followed by Clinton, a charismatic, well spoken moderate. If you have both - ability to speak to the issues and to the voters - you can win. Besides, winning is going to be about getting voters to the polls, countering false reports, making sure voting machines are fixed or hacked. And these responses to Lisa Murkowski's Tweet show that people are fighting mad. If they all can be recruited to each get ten people who have never voted to vote, Trump doesn't have a chance.

Finally, for those of you who have never seen Twitter, you can go and look at it without paying and without becoming a member. Just go to Twitter.com and poke around a bit. I'm going to do several posts on Twitter in the next weeks. At the very least you should know what it looks and feels like. In the search box you can put in topics or names you'd like to see.

Why It's Easy To Stay A Trump Loyalist

One's political loyalties, are, at base, emotional.  Whether you're for Trump or against him, emotions play a big role.

Trump does a great job of distracting attention from what's really important.  His Twitter ranting keeps the Left occupied with disbelief, outrage, and non-stop explanations of why Trump is wrong, demented, lying, evil, and/or (pick your own adjective.)  Making the Left angry (a too commonly felt emotion these days)  is one of the things Trump supporters love about him.

Meanwhile there are many ways that Trump is using his presidential power to help himself and his financial supporters - from filling his hotels to cutting regulations and on and on.  A few of these are covered briefly and sporadically the media.  They spend much more time covering his tweets or the horse-race aspects of the Democratic nomination processes. (Who's ahead or behind and why.)

Refuting Trump's claims to his followers is hard, not only because of Fox Lies (a better title than News)  and trolls from wherever, but ALSO because the stories are so complicated.

Seth Abramson keeps telling us to pay attention to the details of the Trump shenanigans.

I've been following Seth Abramson  on Twitter for a couple of years now.(I can't figure out how to tell when I started following someone on Twitter, but it's at least before Proof of Collusion came out.)  He's been tracking all the media reports on Trump related activities for his books Proof of Collusion and Proof of Conspiracy.  These are two excellent ways to get the big picture of many of Trump's convoluted intrigues.

IT'S EASY TO STAY A TRUMP LOYALIST BECAUSE  all the intrigue is so complicated.  There are so many players and so many things done clandestinely. Abramson's books are like the program you get at the baseball game or the theater that explains who all the players are.

Abramson has a long Twitter thread today which makes this point.  I'm embedding the thread at the end of this post because I realize lots of my readers don't use Twitter and don't know quite how it works. Tweets can only  be 280 characters.   A thread is a series of linked Tweets so someone can tell a longer story.)

The thread explains the Trump Ukraine history from today, back through the July 24, 2019 phone call through to March 2016.

Here's some of the thread:

Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
2/ The Ukraine scandal is *insanely* complex. My research suggests it's *more* complex than the Russia case—which was already wild as hell...but media *must* find a way to explain it to America during this "lull" in the impeachment story. *Teach* America about the Naftogaz angle.
11:04 AM · Dec 24, 2019·Twitter Web App
520
 Retweets
1.7K
 Likes
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
Dec 24
Replying to
@SethAbramson
3/ Here's the simple version: Trump has been laundering campaign donations using Giuliani and Parnas in exchange for helping the two men do business in Ukraine. All of which is part of a shakedown of Ukraine to politically *and* financially benefit Trump, Putin...and nobody else.
20
729
1.8K
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
Dec 24
4/ The Ukraine scandal begins in *March 2016*. Yes—I'm serious. Trump has been scheming over how to use Ukraine to his benefit for *over four and a half years*. The July 25 Zelensky call was a *minor episode* in a *years-long* course of conduct that was criminal, start to finish.
13
564
1.5K
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
Dec 24
5/ Within *two days* of pro-Kremlin operative-in-Ukraine Paul Manafort joining Trump's campaign in March 2016, Trump—whose only Ukraine policy to that point was "let Russia have Crimea without penalty"—was *directing his national security team* to deep-six all lethal aid to Kyiv.
9
457
1.3K
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
Dec 24
6/ So Kremlin agent Manafort—who signed a deal with Putin lieutenant Deripaska in 2006 to aid Putin in America; Google it—joins Trump's campaign and *immediately* Trump is *proactively* setting up an anti-Ukraine foreign policy that goes *beyond* opposing sanctions on Russia.
5
452
1.3K
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
Dec 24
7/ Within *days* of Russia's hack of the DNC being caught, that same Kremlin agent—Manafort—is telling Trump Ukraine did it, not Russia, and Trump is going on the stump and saying "no one knows" who did the hack. Folks, this... *isn't* rocket science for a criminal investigator.
16
428
1.4K
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
Dec 24
8/ Trump then spends the next two years trying to ensure Manafort doesn't talk to the feds... partly by *threatening Ukraine* out of assisting Mueller. And that includes blocking military aid to Ukraine...*in 2017*. And yet we're pretending this is all about one call in mid-2019?
10
515
1.4K
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
Dec 24
9/ I mean *jeez*, do people realize Mulvaney was only *made* Trump's acting chief of staff in December 2018 (but Trump made *sure* he kept his OMB job!) *because* Mulvaney helped Trump shake down Ukraine in late 2017 and early 2018? That is *how Mulvaney got his damn job*, folks.
12
645
1.6K

Here are a couple more:

15/ The president's personal attorney as recently as 48 hours ago *flew on the private jet* of the chief villain in this whole story, Dmytro Firtash.
That's right: the degrees of separation between Trump and the chief villain of this years-long story is {*checks math*}... *one*.
7
511
1.4K
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
Dec 24
16/ Except it's not! It's *zero*. Because—surprise ending!—it turns out that Donald Trump was going to *go into business with Firtash* in the late 2000s, in a deal that was to be set up by... hmm, let me check my records... someone pretty obscure, surel—
—Paul Manafort.
4
451
1.4K
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
Dec 24
17/ Is anyone surprised Trump lied about how well he knows Manafort, just like he's lied about how well he knows Felix Sater (that lie was under oath!) or Lev Parnas or even (now that he's saying he never told Giuliani to go to Ukraine, and doesn't know who his clients are) Rudy?

It's so complicated that most Lefties trying to dispute Trumpies don't really have an inkling of all the details and those that do have trouble keeping it all straight.

Here's a link to the whole thread.

And I shouldn't neglect wishing a Merry Christmas to those celebrating.  Tonight is the fourth night of Chanunka.  Some might say that the fact that one of the holiest days of Christianity is a national holiday is proof that Christians hold a privileged role in the US.  But others might argue that Christmas as it's celebrated in the US nowadays is proof of the power of capitalism instead.

Enjoy your life whatever you celebrate.  Find good in every day and everyone.  

Dem Debate Tweets With A Few Of My Thoughts

This first one captures my impression of the debate.

The most important thing is that everyone on that stage tonight is leaps and bounds better than Donald Trump. Tactically, mentally, morally. We have an incredible bench. 🥰 #DemocraticDebate

— Seattle for Pete Buttigieg (@Seattle4Pete) September 13, 2019

Andrew Yang really leans into the “model minority” stereotype and the immigrant exceptionalism tropes, and it makes me uncomfortable. #DemocraticDebate

— Aya M. Waller-Bey, MPhil (@Aya__Marie) September 13, 2019

I thought that Yang made a number of good points.  He's an outsider in a number of ways - as a Chinese/American, as a business man, his  lack of political/governmental experience.  And he's smart.  That lets him raise issues we wouldn't normally get.  But he also seems a little isolated from things as well as this Tweet  from a Filipina/American who calls out his use of the smart-Asian stereotype and his implied lack of acknowledgment of non-East Asian Asians, who make up most of the Asian/American population. But it's good to see his face and ideas up there in the Democratic debates.

Bernie is asked in #DemocraticDebate how his socialism is different than Venezuela, Nicaragua & Cuba. It’s a ridiculous comparison & Bernie says the Democratic socialism he supports is more like Scandinavia. Guaranteed healthcare, worker rights, & no accumulated wealth for the 1% pic.twitter.com/Dly5fZ7WGt

— James J. Zogby (@jjz1600) September 13, 2019

Bernie seemed to have a cold, but he's been around a long time, has been fighting the status quo forever, and his ideas are now mainstream.  He's one I'd have full confidence in going one-on-one with Trump.  He knows the facts and he's got the passion.

Bernie went right to policy substance and Kamala goes right to the gloriousness of MEEEEEEEEE. Says so much. #DemDebate #DemocraticDebate

— Secular Talk (@KyleKulinski) September 13, 2019

I've been really impressed with Harris in her Senate role questioning witnesses.  But as someone pointed out tonight, she's a lot better at asking questions than answering them.  While I think this Tweeter exaggerates, she does seem to be caught off-guard with people questioning her credentials and record.

I remember a time when you would never hear a phrase like "the 1 percent", "the prison industrial complex", or "systemic racism" on the presidential debate stage.

I'm hearing it tonight bc of years of work by organizers and activists.#DemocraticDebate

— Rebecca Nagle (@rebeccanagle) September 13, 2019

Yes, I was struck by the kind of issues that were raised and how united most of the candidates were on the basic issues.  And the fact that Beto broke the tip toeing around gun issues wide open with his impassioned stance.

Beto O'Rourke:

"Hell yes, we're gonna take your AR-15, your AK-47s, we're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans any more!"

Beto DGAF, and I am HERE FOR IT.

Best line of the night. #DemocraticDebate#DemDebate

— BrooklynDad_Defiant! (@mmpadellan) September 13, 2019     

I've come to the conclusion that O'Rourke would make a much better Senator than a President.  He's got a way of saying things clearly and with passion.  I'm less confident of his overall common sense and ability to administer.  A role in the Senate is perfect for his talents.

And Butteig also made history for a presidential debate.

Pete Buttigieg's closing statement was a powerful, important message, regardless of where his candidacy goes, says reporter @ec_schneider. “Talking about coming out on a national, presidential stage is a remarkable thing.”

Catch up with the #DemDebate: https://t.co/6oalb9qphE pic.twitter.com/AOBKnRIrg9

— POLITICO (@politico) September 13, 2019

Let’s note that when asked about his comments about not giving a damn about what happened to African-Americans 300 years ago, Biden talked about playing record players to kids. Not a good answer. #DemocraticDebate

— Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) September 13, 2019

I'm afraid Biden is the great white hope in this group.  He's the link to the Democrats of old.  He's the 'safe' candidate.  Like Hilary.  (Who did actually win the popular vote and would probably have won the electoral college without Russian interference in the election - which includes what we know about things like FB ads and what we don't know about about the wins in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.)  But Trump would run circles around him in a one-on-one debate.  Trump's lies and insinuations would leave him tongue-tied.  The only possible way he could win would be because people felt sorry for him.  And that's not a good look for a president.

And talking about playing the record player to help kids learn is exactly the kind of thing that raises questions about his time having passed.  But there were folks who defended his reference to record players.

Everything old is new again including Biden 😂

— Dolly Madison ✌🏻 (@dollymad1812) September 13, 2019

I think tonight’s big winner in the #DemDebate was @CoryBooker. He put forward a clear vision for our country—one that’s optimistic and about uniting all Americans to rise together.

He's definitely on my shortlist. 📝#DemocraticDebate #DemDebate3

— Kyla Paterson is unabashedly feminist (@KylaGraceP) September 13, 2019

I think Booker is another candidate who could go head-to-head with Trump.  He too knows his facts and talks well.  And he's been a mayor and a US Senator.

Another is Elizabeth Warren:

“The mass shootings are terrible, but they get all the headlines. Children die every day on streets in neighborhood, on playgrounds. People die from violence from suicide and domestic abuse. We have a gun violence problem in this country." ~ @ewarren #DemDebate #DemocraticDebate pic.twitter.com/VwrAq8anh7

— Moms Demand Action (@MomsDemand) September 13, 2019

I'd like to see her when she wasn't turned up to full indignation mode.  She has a right to be indignant, but I'd like to hear her sometime talking in a normal voice.


I noticed a lot of obvious GOP Tweeters out to trash every candidate - except Tulsi Gabbard, who wasn't in the debate.

And here's an article about a despicable attack ad on ABC during the debate by paid for by donors to the GOP New Faces PAC,

 "opened with a photograph of the young Latinx congresswoman’s face being set on fire to reveal images of the 1970s genocide in Cambodia underneath." 

Republicans are running TV ads setting pictures of me on fire to convince people they aren’t racist.

Life is weird!

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 13, 2019

This is the kind of open hate the grew worse and worse in 1930s Germany.  No, this is not a frivolous comparison.  I've read Victor Klemperer's I Will Bear Eyewitness  in which he, among other things, documents the language used by the Nazis from the 30's through the end of WWII.  This sort of ad targeting AOC is not only blatantly untrue propaganda, but it's also a call to crazies to physically attack people like AOC.

And this reaction to O'Rourke's call to buyback assault weapons:

From the Texas Tribune:

Republican state Rep. Briscoe Cain drew fierce ire Thursday night for a gun-related tweet that many considered to be a death threat against Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke.
Twitter took the comment down within hours because it violated a rule forbidding threats of violence and O'Rourke's campaign planned to report the tweet to the FBI, according to CNN. It's against federal law to threaten "major candidates" for president.

What's The Difference Between a Memoirs and a Memoir? And an Autobiography? But That's Just The Hook. There's Also Kimani. [Updated]

I follow  Kimani Okearah @theKimansta on Twitter.  He's a photographer for the Sacramento Kings.  Well, that's not exactly right.  He's a photographer for Vox News and he covers the Kings for them.  I follow a number of folks who experience life differently than I do just to keep tabs on worlds I don't know well.  Mostly there's basketball in his Tweets, but also stuff on race, and health, and things I'm not really sure what they are about.  But there's something sweet and decent about him. I've grown to like him.

It turns out one thing we have in common is an interest in film.  He's working on a documentary.  It's called 30 Year Memoirs of a Crack Baby.  He's the crack baby and he has, among other congenital health issues, a seriously problematic large intestine.

But as I read the title I wondered, why is it memoirs instead of memoir?  So I googled.

[UPDATE 8/15/19:  Kathy in KY commented that the boxes for Memoir and Autobiography had the same texts.  (I've corrected that.)  But then that leaves this post without a distinction between memoir and memoirs.  So here's one from the blog Memoir Mind  that seems to make sense:

"Writing about one's whole life is writing one's memoirs, plural. It's more akin to autobiography, in which you tell all about what happened, often with intense detail, the personal version of the kind of research a biographer would do if they were writing a life about you. Memoirs tend to be more informal than autobiography, but still have that life-encompassing feel. Most of the people who write them are well-known - that's how and why others would buy an entire book about their entire life, or multiple books about their entire life.
Memoir, on the other hand, the currently hot trend in writing and the topic of this blog, is focused on a particular time in one's life, or a theme or thread."

And, back to the original post, below is the bigger picture with the corrected illustration.]

The Author Learning Center explains the difference between a memoir, autobiography, and a biography.    And if you look closely in their summary of a memoir, the second bullet offers a brief note on the difference.

Text comes from The Author Learning Center 

Kimani is asking for a lot of money on GoFundMe, but films cost a lot to make.  He's an expert on the topic.  And since it's a memoirs, it will be a "1st person POV" and less "formal and objective" than a memoir. [And since it's a memoirs, it will be about his whole life, not just one time, theme, or thread.]

I'd urge you to go to his GoFundMe page.  Read it.  And if you weren't born to crack addicts and taken from your parents at 6 months and put into foster home and kicked out of that home as soon as you turned 18, you're probably had a lot more 'privileges' than Kimani has had.  So you could share some of your privilege by checking out his site.

And making a donation.  It doesn't have to be a lot.  $5 would do, but if you're going to go to all the trouble, you might consider making a larger contribution.

He hasn't had a contribution for a couple of days.  I think it's because people would rather look away.  But please, overcome that urge, and give him five minutes.  And when the movie is showing (at the Anchorage International Film Festival I hope), you'll know that you helped make it possible.

I'm not putting up his picture.  I want you to imagine what he looks like.  And then go check how well you conjured up his image.  I'm going to check how many people linked from this page to his GoFundMe page.    Yes, I can do that (and so all other websites.)