#I remembered that it's supposedly very very easy to get attention on TikTok with little effort | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

deansmom · 3 years

Text

You know those tiktoks that are like “what your favorite mcu character says about you” or “what you need to hear if this is your favorite MCU character”? Here’s a better one:

If your favorite MCU character is:

Bucky Barnes: [what you need to hear]

your past does not define you. no matter what it is you did or didn’t do, no matter how traumatic it was - you are more than that. that’s just a small part of you.

It’s okay to make peace with the parts of yourself that you don’t like or are ashamed of. It’s all part of you, for better or worse, and the sooner you forgive yourself for it and embrace that part of you, the easier it will be to move forward.

You’re a better person and worth more than your abuser could ever be. Your mistakes or actions in your past don’t make you a bad person. You’re trying to grow, to learn, to become a better version of yourself and that’s amazing.

You are a good person. Full stop. You are a good person who is deserving of love. I know it’s scary and maybe you feel like you don’t deserve to be happy, or like you’re not good enough for the person you’re interested in, but guess what? That voice in your head is wrong.

It wasn’t your fault. Your trauma wasn’t your fault. There’s nothing that you could have done differently to prevent it, okay? It wasn’t your fault. You made it out the other side - you won.

You are not atlas. You do not have to carry the weight of the world on your shoulders - but if you insist on it, it’s okay to ask for help carrying it. The people who love and care about you are there to help.

Bucky Barnes: [what it says about you]

You’ve probably always naturally been an empathetic person and a caretaker, but you probably also took on a lot of responsibility at a young age.

You’re a little bit resentful about the responsibility you had as a kid and you struggle with those feelings re: your parents. (It’s okay to be angry or hurt or upset about that by the way because it wasn’t fair, it wasn’t your job and you shouldn’t have had to handle all of that. You can love people who love you, while also acknowledging that they didn’t always treat you fairly or appropriately.)

You’re probably a relatively anxious person, or grew up neurodivergent and/or queer in a place where you didn’t feel safe coming out. You probably also struggled with some internalized homophobia for a while. And yes, these things do cause trauma, if nobody’s told you yet. If you’re like me: you don’t remember large chunks of your life and that’s okay. They’re still there waiting for you, whenever you’re ready to look for them.

You probably had a rebellious phase at one point or were reckless or just experienced some general trauma, and have a lot of shame surrounding that part of your life.

You’ve grown up having so many jobs and being so many different things to different people, that you’ve reached adulthood and realized you don’t really know who you are outside of your role as caretaker/best friend/older sibling/spare parent.

Now you’ve gotten control of your life back, or you’re trying to, and it’s scary. Figuring out who you are outside of all that is scary. You’re doing great! Just remember that healing is not linear and it’s okay to backslide sometimes.

Wanda Maximoff: [what you need to hear]

Hey buddy. Loss is hard and grief is weird and volatile and sometimes, it overpowers you and your rational thought. But that person who is driven by grief? That’s not really who you are. What matters more is what you do going forward.

You’re never truly alone, even when it might feel like it. Depression is very, very good at making us feel like there’s nobody else in the world who’s ever felt the way you’re feeling and guess what? That’s not true. I know it feels that way now, but I promise you there are people who love and care about you and are waiting and willing to talk when you’re ready.

You are not weak for seeking help. Asking for help is the strongest thing you can do. Talk therapy would probably make everything a little bit easier for you to carry.

Feeling like you’re the odd one out no matter where you go, like you’ll never fit in, like you’re dangerous? You’re not. I know that sounds like an empty promise, but speaking from experience everybody belongs somewhere. You’ll find your place and your people, I promise.

I’m so sorry for your loss. Your grief is valid. Your anger is valid. I see you, I love you, I support you and I know that you’re going to be okay even though it doesn’t feel like it right now.

Wanda Maximoff: [what it says about you]

You’re probably neurodivergent or queer and have always felt relatively ostracized from your peers and that frustrates you.

You’ve suffered a lot of loss in your life, and you probably haven’t dealt with most of the grief in your life. That’s okay, but you don’t have to be strong all the time. There are people who love you and who will help you carry that grief.

You didn’t have a stable parental figure in your life and the trauma of growing up too quickly or alone feels like it’s taken over your life.

You try to project a strong, confident image of yourself but you’re worried that people can see through it so sometimes you overcompensate by pushing others away.

You probably have untreated adhd to be honest and get frustrated with yourself easily for struggling to do supposedly easy tasks.

Loki: [what you need to hear]

It’s okay to love a parent who was abusive. Yes, they hurt you, but they’re still your parent and I know you feel weird and guilty about it, but that’s normal. There’s nothing wrong with you for feeling that way. Relationships, especially with abusive or neglectful loved ones in your life are hard. All of your feelings are valid, and still having some level of fond feelings for your abuser is normal. You’re not broken.

Your past actions do not define you and the people who genuinely care about you, who are worth keeping around, can see that you’re making a genuine effort to be or do better. They’ll love you no matter what, as long as you’re trying.

I know you don’t want to think about it, because you probably think it’s embarrassing, but listen: your past actions were deliberate and hurtful, and those people are owed a genuine apology, when you’re ready.

Identity is hard, especially when you’re adopted and your whole life apparently was kind of a lie - again, it’s okay to be angry about that. Your feelings are valid. It’s also more than okay to not want anything to do with those other people, that other part of your life. There is no right or wrong answer.

It’s okay to set boundaries with your parents and family. Standing up for yourself makes you brave, not selfish.

It’s never too late to become a better person.

You are loved. You are so, so loved - you just have to let people do it.

Loki: [what it says about you]

Probably had less than stellar parents, if not outright neglectful and emotionally manipulative. You struggle with that a lot.

Closeted in some way with some gender issues that either scare you too much to unpack, or you’ve fully embraced them and said fuck gender. Love that for you.

Chaotic and messy, maybe a little bit selfish but ultimately a good person at heart.

That being said, you put up a mean front and don’t like people to see the real you because you’re afraid that they’ll see what you see (hint: they won’t).

Didn’t get enough attention as a child, probably the middle or youngest, and your other sibling(s) are NT and annoyingly good at everything you aren’t.

#I want to do more of these but I’m about to pass out again lmao #personal

33 notes · View notes

neethypaksham · 3 years

Text

Following widespread criticism, the Kerala government has decided to withdraw an Ordinance that gives unbridled powers to the police to arrest anyone expressing or disseminating any matter that it deems defamatory. However, the move to introduce such a law in the first place shows that State governments believe that existing laws are not adequate to deal with social media abuse. To what extent is this true? Vrinda Bhandari and Rishab Bailey discuss this question in a conversation moderated by Jayant Sriram. Edited excerpts:

The principal argument of the Kerala government in bringing this law was that the Central government had not brought in legislation yet to replace the revoked Section 66A, and that had left the police hamstrung in effectively dealing with social media abuse and cyber crime. Are there effective laws to deal with these issues and is it then a question of implementation being weak?

Vrinda Bhandari: I think the Kerala experience shows a belief that many State governments have, that the existing laws are inadequate. But our existing laws are actually adequate. We have the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that criminalises speech that is obscene, defamatory, that insults the modesty of women and intrudes upon her privacy. It punishes anonymous criminal intimidation, it punishes voyeurism, it punishes digitally enabled stalking, hate speech, and even non-consensual sharing of sexual images online. In addition to that, you have the Information Technology Act of 2000 that punishes speech that is obscene. The IT Act also places obligations on intermediaries, where intermediaries have a duty of due diligence; they have to take down content based on a request by the government or a court order. This obligation is actually very broadly worded — any information that is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, libellous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially or ethnically objectionable, disparaging, etc. As you can see, there is a strong and wide gamut of laws that covers all of these offences.

Yet, you do have States which believe that the laws are inadequate. Apart from Kerala, you have Chhattisgarh, for instance, which recently brought in an amendment to criminalise sexual harassment online. This looked at criminalising “obscene, lewd, filthy or indecent comments online”. And we saw this law being misused against Mohammad Zubair, the Alt News co-founder.

State governments must also be focused on improving the criminal justice system in order to make it easier for women to be able to access the system to make complaints, and for the police to be able to prosecute the complaints properly.

Rishab Bailey: There is no doubt that there is a problem with hate speech in the online space. This is something that’s been discussed at various levels of government. In fact, in 2017, the Law Commission of India recommended that two new provisions be introduced to the IPC to specifically deal with online hate speech. The Central government has also initiated consultations on amendments to the IT Act. One of the issues being taken up in this context is likely to be the scope of offences under the Act; in particular, whether Section 66A needs to be replaced with a better drafted provision.

Of course, putting in place arbitrary or poorly defined offences is really not going to help the situation. So, in the Kerala example, rather than rush into making a new law that is likely to be struck down by the courts, it might have been better if the government had actually outlined the specific problem and conducted more transparent consultations with the stakeholders involved to try and figure out solutions.

Enforcement and implementation of existing laws is not very good. It’s common knowledge that it’s generally not very easy for victims or individuals to file and proceed with complaints. Given the massive usage of the Internet in India, the huge amounts of hate speech online or what you and I would normally recognise as hate speech, there is a really low number of cyber crimes as per the NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau) data. In 2017, for example, there were only about 21,000 cases in India, which is a huge jump from the 12,000 odd cases in 2016. But that still appears to be a fairly low number in the Indian context.

I want to take you back a little. What does the legal landscape on regulation of content online look like post the famous Supreme Court judgment of 2015 that struck down 66A of the IT Act? Has there been any significant legislation or guidelines on grievance redressal or removal of offensive content and do these work effectively?

RB: To answer your question quite simply, there hasn’t been any single legislation that deals with online content, though, as Vrinda mentioned, there have been some States that have put in place amendments to the IPC. What a lot of the public discussion has focused on is how intermediaries need to do more to make the Internet a safer place. To this end, there have been some efforts to amend existing legal frameworks. Two are worth mentioning. The first was a Private Member’s bill, which was introduced in Parliament by the Congress’ Arunachal East MP, Ninong Ering. It was called the Social Media Accountability Bill and it sought to impose a range of obligations on social media platforms, and also create a new regulator to oversee the space. However, the Bill wasn’t actually taken up by Parliament.

Then there were proposed changes to the intermediaries rules under the IT Act that were released to the public in December 2018. They lay down the due diligence guidelines that intermediaries need to follow in order to not face prosecution for illegal content being shared by users on their platforms.

These amendments basically sought to increase the number of obligations on intermediaries of all types, so they would be required to use automated tools to filter illegal content and would also be required to ensure the liability of all the users and so on. The draft faced a lot of criticism from civil society and industry due to the possible chilling effects on free speech, the problems associated with automated filtering of content, and the cost to platforms. So, no new rules have as yet been announced by the government despite the fact that we keep hearing that this may be done any time.

In the absence of any changes in the legislative structure, courts and governments have largely resorted to blocking content or forcing intermediaries to take steps to limit the spread of illegal content. You might remember, for example, how the Madras High Court threatened to ban TikTok because it was supposedly enabling the circulation of obscene content. It’s also important to remember that the government from time to time issues directions, which has happened most recently in the context of WhatsApp, where they have been asked to take certain steps pertaining to illegal content on their platform. You also have an independent regulator, like the Election Commission, which has taken some steps in the context of electorally sensitive content.

What kind of precedent will this set, given that part of the motivation for this law was reportedly a surge in criticism of the Kerala government? Can other States also argue that what has followed 66A is still too transient and in the realm of proposal and so they need new laws?

VB: I think though it might have been politically motivated, one praiseworthy fact about the Kerala government is that it backtracked once there was significant criticism, and that is very rare to see. I hope that may give some cause of concern to other States before they rush to implement some laws, or they recognise that there are possibilities of misuse and will try to tailor the laws narrowly. I think one thing we want to be clear on is if a law is worded in a manner that is so broad that just does not allow any kind of reasonable interpretation and can be completely and patently subject to different interpretations, such a law will not stand. So, I think, yes, the fact that the Kerala government took this step may mean that other States may also take this up. Like I said before, Chhattisgarh has already passed an amendment using similarly broad language to criminalise online sexual harassment and I would argue that this law has already been misused. But I would hope that the Kerala government’s most recent move of withdrawing the Ordinance will make other States stop and think before they pass such laws, or have proper public consultation.

RB: The Kerala government has actually set a good precedent, not just for the States, but also for the Central government. Governments can actually afford to be responsive to criticism and take back laws that face significant public opposition.

Like the Kerala government using the Police Act, are there other State laws that governments can adapt to content online? Is the multiplicity of such laws a problem in this case?

RB: I wouldn’t say that it’s a problem as such, because our Constitution does recognise that States can make criminal law. What could be problematic is if you have a variety of laws being passed to deal with the same issue which might lead to inconsistency. Second, very often State amendments are not going to get public attention in the same way that Central laws do. For example, numerous States have amended laws such as the Goondas Act to apply these to the digital space. However, there’s very little discussion on how exactly these laws are actually being implemented.

VB: The interesting point with regard to State laws is that in Shreya Singhal, which struck down Section 66A, the same judgment also struck down Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act which had similar provisions to Section 66A. The court said that Section 118(d) is also vaguely worded and over-broad and adopted a similar analysis to 66A.

This may be a purely hypothetical conjecture on my part, but I think one of the reasons that this Kerala example became so big, the reason it is received a lot of media attention is because it was Kerala that was doing it, and it was just a combination of factors that led to this example being discussed. And I think that’s why the government also backtracked, whereas I think in many cases, when amendments are made, especially State-level amendments, they don’t get that kind of national attention.

0 notes