Tumgik
#peter risch
mariocki · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Ghoulies (1985)
"I think I busted my head."
"Oh, thank god, I thought that you really hurt yourself."
8 notes · View notes
alexthescaredenby · 14 days
Text
i finished the KOSA
On the Subject of Safety 
Blaine/Alex Smith 
A paper on the harmful effects of the Kid’s Online Safety Act (informally known as KOSA) on the internet as a whole, as written by a minor. 
Censorship. Control. Tyranny. All of these will come to pass if we allow the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) to become law and cause the internet as we know it to cease to exist, completely and utterly. KOSA is a new bill that has been introduced by senators Blumenthal and Blackburn, which has the stated goal “to protect the safety of children on the internet” (found on the official website of the United States Congress, here.) This is either a lie, or an incredibly misguided attempt to do what it says it sets out to do. Though it is more likely a lie, or at the very least not the entire truth. First, I must note, if for no other reason than posterity and comprehensiveness, that the bill was introduced by both a Republican senator (Blackburn) and a Democratic senator (Blumenthal). It was also backed by twenty-one Democrats (Lujan, Baldwin, Klobuchar, Peters, Hickenlooper, Warner, Coons, Schatz, Murphy, Welch, Hassan, Durbin, Casey, Whitehouse, Kelly, Carper, Cardin, Menendez, Warren, Kaine, and Shaheen) and nineteen Republicans (Capito, Cassidy, Ernst, Daines, Rubio, Sullivan, Young, Grassley, Graham, Marshall, Hyde-Smith, Mullin, Risch, Britt, Lummis, Murkowski, Lankford, Crapo, and Hawley). That totals forty-two supporters of this heinous piece of legislature. Considering that there are one-hundred Senators, if you do some simple math, you will realize that fifty-eight Senators did not support KOSA. In the context of this monumental decision, that is a frighteningly close vote. If this bill were to pass, nearly all online fandom presence would be completely eradicated, and online privacy, as well as personal autonomy, would become nonexistent. And so, I say it again, KOSA supporters are just barely not the majority in the Senate, by a margin of sixteen individuals. Even though the rewrite of the bill is a slight improvement, at it’s core, KOSA is still a harmful internet censorship bill that will damage the very communities it claims to try protect. 
In this bill, a “child” is defined as any person under the age of thirteen, and a “minor” is defined as any person under the age of seventeen. A "parent” is defined as any legal adult who is the biological or adopted parent of a minor, or holds legal custody over a minor. “Compulsive usage” is defined as “any response stimulated by external factors that causes an individual to engage in repetitive behavior reasonably likely to cause psychological distress, loss of control, anxiety or depression”, “Covered platforms” are defined as “an online platform (i.e. Snapchat, Tumblr, Reddit, Twitter/X, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), online video game (i.e. Helldivers 2, Halo, Mario Kart, Civilization 6, etc.), messaging platform (i.e. Snapchat, 4chan, etc.), or video streaming service (i.e. Twitch, YouTube, etc.) that connects to the internet that is used, or is reasonably likely to be used, by a minor” with the exception of “an entity acting in its capacity of: a common carrier service subject to the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) and all Acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, a broadband internet access service (as such term is defined for purposes of section 8.1(b) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation), an email service, a teleconferencing or video conferencing service that allows reception and transmission of audio and video signals for real-time communication, provided that it is not an online platform, including a social media service or social network; and the real-time communication is initiated using a unique link or identifier to facilitate access, or a wireless messaging service, including such a service provided through short messaging service or multimedia messaging service protocols, that is not a component of or linked to an online platform and where the predominant or exclusive function is direct messaging consisting of the transmission of text, photos or videos that are sent by electronic means, where messages are transmitted from the sender to a recipient, and are not posted within an online platform or publicly, an organization not organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members, any public or private institution of education, a library, a news platform where the inclusion of video content on the platform is related to the platform’s own gathering, reporting or publishing of news content or the website or app is not otherwise an online platform, a product or service the primarily functions as a business to business software or a VPN or similar service that exists solely to route internet traffic between locations. 
Geolocation is defined as “information sufficient to identify a street name and name of a city or town.” Individual-specific advertising to minors is defined as any form of targeted advertising towards a person who is or reasonably could be a minor, with the exception of advertising in the context of the website or app the advertising is present on, (i.e. an ad for Grammarly on a dictionary website), or for research on the effectiveness of the advertising. The rule of construction is stated to be that "no part of KOSA should be misconstrued to prohibit a lawfully operating entity from delivering content to any person that they know to be or reasonably believe is over the age of seventeen, provided that content is appropriate for the age of the person involved". To "know" something in the context of this bill is to have actual information, or to have information that is fairly implied or assumed under the basis of objective circumstances. A “mental health disorder” is defined as “a condition which causes a clinically significant disturbance or impairment on one’s cognition, emotional regulation, or behavior. “Online platform” is defined as any public platform that mainly provides a means of communication through the form of a public forum or private chatroom (i.e., Discord, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, TikTok, etc.). An “online video game” is defined as any video game or game-adjacent service, including those that provide an educational element, that allows users to create or upload content, engage in microtransactions, communicate with other users, or includes minor specific advertising (i.e., Happy Wheels, Adventure Academy, Meet Your Maker, etc.). “Personal data” is defined as any data or information that is linked or could reasonably be linked to a minor. A “personalized recommendation system (PRS)” is defined as any system that presents content to a user based on date and/or analytics from the user or similar users (i.e., a like-based system, a view-based system, a “for you” system, or a “people that watched also liked” system). Finally, “sexual exploitation or abuse” is defined as: coercion and enticement, as described in section 2422 of title 18, United States Code, child sexual abuse material, as described in sections 2251, 2252, 2252A, and 2260 of title 18, United States Code, trafficking for the production of images (child pornography), as described in section 2251A of title 18, United States Code, or sex trafficking of children, as described in section 1591 of title 18, United States Code. 
Before I continue with this paper, I would like to draw attention to the fact that nowhere in the defined terms does it define any form of physical, mental, or emotional violence towards minors, only sexual abuse or assault. This will become important later. 
Continuing with the bill, we arrive at the actual regulations, policies and laws proposed by the bill. Here begins Section 3 of the bill, or “Duty of care”. This section includes regulations on the online platform used by a minor, and the duties of it and its owner(s), creator(s), moderator(s), or manager(s). In this section, it is stated that a covered platform must, to the best of its reasonable ability, limit the following harms or dangers to any person who is known to be or reasonably believed to be a minor: 
Anxiety, depression, substance use disorders, suicidal disorders, and other similar conditions. 
Patterns of use that promote or encourage addiction-like behavior. 
Physical violence, online bullying, and harassment of the minor. 
Sexual exploitation or abuse. 
Promotion and marketing of narcotic drugs (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), tobacco products, gambling, or alcohol. 
Predatory, unfair, or deceptive marketing, or other financial harms. 
With the exception of: 
Any content that is deliberately, independently, and willingly requested or sought out by the minor. 
Any platform that provides resources or information to help mitigate the aforementioned harms to the minor. 
Again, I call attention to the fact that although physical violence is now mentioned and prohibited, it is done so by burying it in the middle of a wall of text. With as touchy of a subject as this is, one would think that more attention would be drawn to it. 
And now we get into the meat and potatoes of this rotten bill, with Section 4, or “Safeguards for minors”. In this section, it is stated that any covered platform shall provide any user who is known to be a minor or is reasonably believed to be a minor, with easy-to-use and readily accessible “safeguards” such as: 
Limiting the ability of other individuals to communicate with the minor. 
Restricting public access to the personal data of the minor. 
Limiting features that increase, sustain, or extend use of the covered platform by the minor, such as automatic playing of media, rewards for time spent on the platform, notifications, and other features that result in compulsive usage of the covered platform by the minor. 
Controlling personalized recommendation systems for the minor, and giving them the option to either opt out of the system entirely or to limit the types of content shown through the PRS. 
Restricting the sharing of GPS data of the minor sufficient for geolocation. 
As well as the options for the minor: 
Delete the account of the minor, as well as any data or content associated with the account, effectively removing any trace of the account’s existence from the platform, and the internet at large. 
Limit the amount of time spent on the platform. 
A covered platform shall also provide parents with the following tools: 
Requirements: 
The ability to manage a minor’s privacy and account settings, including the safeguards and options established under subsection (a), in a manner that allows parents to: 
View the privacy and account settings of the minor. 
In the case of a user that the platform knows is a child, change and control the privacy and account settings of the account of the minor. 
Restrict purchases and financial transactions by the minor, where applicable. 
View metrics of total time spent on the platform and restrict time spent on the covered platform by the minor. 
The bill also states that any minor(s) affected by the aforementioned systems should be given clear, prompt, and easily understood and accessible notice of if the systems have been applied, in what capacity they are applied in, and how they are applied.  
Default Tools: 
A covered platform shall provide the following tools and systems to both minor and parent(s) of that minor, and have them be enabled by default: 
A reporting mechanism, which is readily available and easily accessible and useable, to report any incidents or crimes involving the minor(s), as well as confirmation that such a report is received, and the means to track it. 
To respond to the report in a timely and appropriate manner, within a reasonable timeframe. 
An understanding and appreciation of the fact that a reasonable timeframe is: 
(A) 10 days (about 1 and a half weeks) after the receipt of a report, if, for the most recent calendar year, the platform averaged more than 10,000,000 active users monthly in the United States. 
(B) 21 days (about 3 weeks) after the receipt of a report, if, for the most recent calendar year, the platform averaged less than 10,000,000 active users monthly in the United States. 
(C) notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), if the report involves an imminent threat to the safety of a minor, as promptly as needed to address the reported threat to safety. 
Accessibility : 
With respect to the aforementioned safeguards, a covered platform shall provide: 
Information and control options in a clear and conspicuous manner that takes into consideration the differing ages, capacities, and developmental needs of the minors most likely to access the covered platform and does not encourage minors or parents to weaken or disable safeguards or parental controls. 
Readily accessible and easy-to-use controls to enable or disable safeguards or parental controls, as appropriate. 
Information and control options in the same language, form, and manner as the covered platform provides the product or service used by minors and their parents. 
The bill also states that no part of the previous statements should be construed to prohibit or prevent a covered platform from blocking, banning, filtering, flagging, or deleting content inappropriate for minors from their platform, or to prevent general management of spam, as well as security risks. It also states that regarding PRSs, it shall be illegal for a covered platform to alter or distort any analytics or data gathered from their platform with the purpose of limiting user autonomy. Also included in this section is that no part of KOSA shall be construed to require the disclosure of a minor’s personal data, including search history, contacts, messages, and location. Also stated is that a PRS for a minor is allowed under the condition that it only uses data publicly available, such as the language the minor speaks, or the minor’s age, and that covered platforms are allowed to integrate third-party systems into their platform, if they meet the requirements laid out in the bill. 
And now our train arrives at Section 5, “Disclosure”. This section includes rules regarding the disclosure of policies, rules, and terms to a user that is a minor or is reasonably believed to be a minor prior to their registration with a covered platform. 
Registration or Purchase: 
Prior to registration or purchase of a covered platform, the platform must provide clear and easily understood information on the policies of the platform, its rules, regulations, etc. As well as any PRS used by the platform, and information on how to turn it and the parental controls on and off. 
Notification: 
Notice and Acknowledgement, Reasonable Effort, and Consolidated Notices: 
In the case of an individual that a covered platform knows is a child, the platform shall additionally provide information about the parental tools and safeguards required under section 4 to a parent of the child and obtain verifiable parental consent (as defined in section 1302(9) of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 6501(9))) from the parent prior to the initial use of the covered platform by the child. 
A covered platform shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirement described in subparagraph (A) if the covered platform is in compliance with the requirements of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) to use reasonable efforts (taking into consideration available technology) to provide a parent with the information and to obtain verifiable parental consent as required. 
A covered platform may consolidate the process for providing information under this subsection and obtaining verifiable parental consent or the consent of the minor involved (as applicable) as required under this subsection with its obligations to provide relevant notice and obtain verifiable parental consent under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.). 
Guidance: the FTC may assist covered platforms with compliance with the rules and regulations in this section. 
A covered platform that operates a personalized recommendation system shall set out in its terms and conditions, in a clear, conspicuous, and easy-to-understand manner: 
An overview of how such personalized recommendation system is used by the covered platform to provide information to users of the platform who are minors, including how such systems use the personal data of minors; and 
Information about options for minors or their parents to opt out of or control the personalized recommendation system (as applicable). 
Advertising and Marketing Information and Labels: 
A covered platform that facilitates advertising aimed at users that the platform knows are minors shall provide clear, conspicuous, and easy-to-understand information and labels to minors on advertisements regarding: 
The name of the product, service, or brand and the subject matter of an advertisement; 
If the covered platform engages in individual-specific advertising to minors, why a particular advertisement is directed to a specific minor, including material information about how the minor's personal data is used to direct the advertisement to the minor; and 
Whether media displayed to the minor is an advertisement or marketing material, including disclosure of endorsements of products, services, or brands made for commercial consideration by other users of the platform. 
Resources for Parents and Minors: 
A covered platform shall provide to minors and parents clear, conspicuous, easy-to-understand, and comprehensive information in a prominent location regarding: 
Its policies and practices with respect to personal data and safeguards for minors. 
How to access the safeguards and tools required under section four. 
Resources in Additional Languages: 
A covered platform shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that the disclosures required by this section are made available in the same language, form, and manner as the covered platform provides any product or service used by minors and their parents. 
That concludes Section 5, and now our next stop is Section 6: “Transparency”. This section includes protocols for public transparency for covered platforms, including public reports on the status of potential harm to minors on their platforms.  
Scope of Application: the requirements of this section shall apply to a covered platform if: 
For the most recent calendar year, the platform averaged more than 10,000,000 active users monthly in the United States. 
The platform predominantly provides a community forum for user-generated content and discussion, including sharing videos, images, games, audio files, discussion in a virtual setting, or other content, such as acting as a social media platform, virtual reality environment, or a social network service. 
Transparency: The public reports required of a covered platform under this section shall include: 
An assessment of the extent to which the platform is likely to be accessed by minors; 
A description of the commercial interests of the covered platform in use by minors; 
An accounting, based on the data held by the covered platform, of: 
The number of individuals using the covered platform reasonably believed to be minors in the United States; 
The median and mean amounts of time spent on the platform by minors in the United States who have accessed the platform during the reporting year on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis; and 
The amount of content being accessed by individuals that the platform knows to be minors that is in English, and the top 5 non-English languages used by individuals accessing the platform in the United States; 
An accounting of total reports received regarding, and the prevalence (which can be based on scientifically valid sampling methods using the content available to the covered platform in the normal course of business) of content related to, the harms described in section 3, disaggregated by category of harm and language, including English and the top five non-English languages used by individuals accessing the platform from the United States. 
A description of any material breaches of parental tools or assurances regarding minors, representations regarding the use of the personal data of minors, and other matters regarding non-compliance. 
Reasonably Foreseeable Risk of Harm to Minors: the public reports required of covered platforms under this section shall include: 
An assessment of the reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to minors posed by the covered platform, including identifying any other physical, mental, developmental, or financial harms. 
An assessment of how personalized recommendation systems and individual-specific advertising to minors can contribute to harm to minors. 
A description of whether and how the covered platform uses system design features that increase, sustain, or extend use of a product or service by a minor, such as automatic playing of media, rewards for time spent, and notifications. 
A description of whether, how, and for what purpose the platform collects or processes categories of personal data that may cause reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to minors. 
An evaluation of the efficacy of safeguards for minors under section 4, and any issues in delivering such safeguards and the associated parental tools. 
An evaluation of any other relevant matters of public concern over risk of harm to minors. 
 An assessment of differences in risk of harm to minors across different English and non-English languages and efficacy of safeguards in those languages. 
Mitigation: The public reports required of a covered platform under this section shall include, for English and the top 5 non-English languages used by individuals accessing the platform from the United States: 
A description of the safeguards and parental tools available to minors and parents on the covered platform. 
A description of interventions by the covered platform when it had or has reason to believe that harms to minors could occur. 
A description of the prevention and mitigation measures intended to be taken in response to the known and emerging risks identified in its assessment of system risks, including steps taken to: 
Prevent harm to minors, including adapting or removing system design features or addressing through parental controls. 
Provide the most protective level of control over privacy and safety by default. 
Adapt recommendation systems to mitigate reasonably foreseeable risk of harms to minors. 
A description of internal processes for handling reports and automated detection mechanisms for harms to minors, including the rate, timeliness, and effectiveness of responses. 
The status of implementing prevention and mitigation measures identified in prior assessments. 
A description of the additional measures to be taken by the covered platform to address the circumvention of safeguards for minors and parental tools. 
Reasonable Inspection: when conducting an inspection on the systemic risk of harm to minors on their platforms under this section, a covered platform shall: 
Consider the function any PRS on their platform. 
Consult relevant parties with authority on topics relevant to the inspection. 
Conduct their research based on experiences of minors using the platform that the study is being conducted on, including reports and information provided by law enforcement. 
Take account of outside research, but not outside data for the study itself. 
Consider any implied, indicated, inferred, or known information on the age of users. 
Consider the presence of both English and non-English speaking users on their platform. 
Cooperation With Independent, Third Pary Audit: To facilitate the report required by this section, a covered platform shall: 
Provide directly or otherwise make accessible to the third party conducting the audit all: 
Information and data that the platform has the access and authority to disclose that are relevant to the audit. 
Platforms, systems and assets that the platform has the access and authority to disclose that are relevant to the audio. 
Facts relevant to the audit, unaltered and correctly and fully represented. 
Privacy Safeguards: In this subsection, the term “de-identified” means data that does not identify and is not linked or reasonably linkable to a device that is linked or reasonably linkable to an individual, regardless of whether the information is aggregated. In issuing the public reports required under this section, a covered platform shall take steps to safeguard the privacy of its users, including ensuring that data is presented in a de-identified, aggregated format such that it is reasonably impossible for the data to be linked back to any individual user. A covered platform must also present or publish the information on a publicly available and accessible webpage. 
And now the next stop on our tour is Section 7: Independent Research on Social Media and Minors. This section details the interactions between the FTC and the National Academy of Sciences in the months following the passing of this bill, if and when it passes. It states that the FTC is to seek to enter a contract with the Academy, in which the Academy is to conduct no less that 5 separate independent scientific studies on the risk of harms to minors on social media, addressing: 
Anxiety, depression, eating and suicidal disorders. 
Substance use (drugs, narcotics, alcohol, etc.) and gambling. 
Sexual exploitation and abuse. 
Addiction like behaviors leading to compulsive usage. 
Additional Study: after at least 4 years since the passing of the bill, the FTC and the Academy shall enter another contract, in which the Academy shall conduct another study on the above topics, to provide more up to data information.  
Content of Reports: The comprehensive studies and reports conducted pursuant to this section shall seek to evaluate impacts and advance understanding, knowledge, and remedies regarding the harms to minors posed by social media and other online platforms and may include recommendations related to public policy. 
Active Studies: If the Academy is already engaged in any extant studies regarding the topics described above, it may base the studies required of this section off said study, if it is otherwise compliant. 
Collaboration: In conducting the studies required under this section, the FTC, National Academy of Sciences, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consult with the Surgeon General and the Kids Online Safety Council (KOSC). 
Access to Data: The FTC may issue orders to covered platforms to gather and compile data and information needed for the studies required under this section, as well as issue orders under section 6(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 46(b)) to no more than 5 covered platforms per study under this section. Pursuant to subsections (b) and (f) of section 6 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 46), the FTC shall also enter in agreements with the National Academy to share appropriate information received from a covered platform pursuant to an order under such subsection (b) for a comprehensive study under this section in a confidential and secure manner, and to prohibit the disclosure or sharing of such information by the National Academy. 
Next is a short Section 8: Market Research.  
Market Research by Covered Platforms: The FTC, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, shall issue guidance for covered platforms seeking to conduct market- and product-focused research on minors. Such guidance shall include: 
A standard consent form that provides minors and their parents a clear, conspicuous, and easy-to-understand explanation of the scope and purpose of the research to be conducted, and provides an opportunity for informed consent in the language in which the parent uses the covered platform; and 
Recommendations for research practices for studies that may include minors, disaggregated by the age ranges of 0-5, 6-9, 10-12, and 13-16. 
The FTC shall issue such guidance no later than 18 months (about 1 and a half years) after the date of enactment of this Act. In doing so, they shall seek input from members of the public and the representatives of the KOSC established under section 12.  
As we pull off interstate 8 we come into Section 9: Age Verification Study and Report. This is where the writers evidently started pounding shots of tequila at their desks, as some of the regulations in this section are completely asinine. Here we are told about a mandatory age verification system. Gone will be the days of being born in 1427 as a kid, now our age will be known to any covered platform. Is that what you want? 
Study: The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in coordination with the FCC, FTC, and the SoC, shall conduct a study evaluating the most technologically feasible methods and options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level. 
Such study shall consider: 
The benefits of creating a device or operating system level age verification system. 
What information may need to be collected to create this type of age verification system. 
The accuracy of such systems and their impact or steps to improve accessibility, including for individuals with disabilities. 
How such a system or systems could verify age while mitigating risks to user privacy and data security and safeguarding minors' personal data, emphasizing minimizing the amount of data collected and processed by covered platforms and age verification providers for such a system. 
The technical feasibility, including the need for potential hardware and software changes, including for devices currently in commerce and owned by consumers. 
The impact of different age verification systems on competition, particularly the risk of different age verification systems creating barriers to entry for small companies. 
Report: No later than 1 year after the passing of KOSA, the agencies described in subsection (a) shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under such subsection to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives. 
Section 10: Guidance. 
No later than 18 months (about 1 and a half years) after the date of enactment of this Act, the FTC, in consultation with the KOSC established under section 12, shall issue guidance to: 
Provide information and examples for covered platforms and auditors regarding the following, with consideration given to differences across English and non-English languages: 
Identifying features used to increase, sustain, or extend use of the covered platform by a minor (compulsive usage). 
Safeguarding minors against the possible misuse of parental tools. 
Best practices in providing minors and parents the most protective level of control over privacy and safety. 
Using indicia or inferences of age of users for assessing use of the covered platform by minors. 
Methods for evaluating the efficacy of safeguards; and 
Providing additional control options that allow parents to address the harms described in section 3. 
Outline conduct that does not have the purpose or substantial effect of subverting or impairing user autonomy, decision-making, or choice, or of causing, increasing, or encouraging compulsive usage for a minor, such as: 
Minute user interface changes derived from testing consumer preferences, including different styles, layouts, or text, where such changes are not done with the purpose of weakening or disabling safeguards or parental controls, such as the following, are exceptions to this: 
Algorithms or data outputs outside the control of a covered platform. 
The establishing of default settings that provide enhanced privacy protection to users or otherwise enhance their autonomy and decision-making ability. 
Guidance to Schools: No later than 18 months (about 1 and a half years) after the date of enactment of this act, the SoE, in consultation with the FTC and the KOSC established under section 12, shall issue guidance to assist to assist elementary and secondary schools in using the notice, safeguards and tools provided under this Act and providing information on online safety for students and teachers. 
Guidance on Knowledge Standards: No later than 18 months (about 1 and a half years) after the date of enactment of this act, the FTC shall issue guidance to provide information, including best practices and examples, for covered platforms to understand the Commission’s determination of whether a covered platform “had knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances” for purposes of this act. 
Limitation on FTC Guidance: No guidance issued by the FTC with respect to this act shall: 
Confer any rights on any person, State, or locality; or 
Operate to bind the FTC or any person to the approach recommended in such guidance. 
Enforcement Actions: In any enforcement action made to a covered platform in violation of this act, the FTC: 
Shall allege a violation of this act. 
May not base such enforcement action on, or execute a consent order based on, practices that are alleged to be inconsistent with guidance issued by the FTC with respect to this aact, unless the practices are alleged to violate a provision of this act. 
And now we’re almost on the home stretch, with Section 11, otherwise known as Enforcement. This section outlines, you guessed it, the enforcement of this act. 
Enforcement by the FTC: 
Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Practices: A violation of this act shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. 
Powers of the Commission: The FTC shall enforce this act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this act. 
Privileges and Immunities: Any person that violates this act shall be subject to the penalties, and entitled to the privileges and immunities, provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.). 
Authority Preserved: Nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the authority of the FTC under any other provision of law. 
Enforcement by State Attorney General: 
Civil Actions: In any case in which the attorney general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a practice that violates this act, the State, as parens patrie (de facto parent of any citizens unable to defend themselves) , may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State in a district court of the United States or a State court of appropriate jurisdiction to: 
Enjoin that practice. 
Enforce compliance with this act. 
On behalf of residents of the State, obtain damages, restitution, or other compensation, each of which shall be distributed in accordance with State law. 
Obtain such other relief as the court may consider to be appropriate. 
Notice: Before filing an action, the attorney general of the State involved shall provide to the Commission: 
Written notice of that action. 
A copy of the complaint for that action. 
Exemption: Clause (i) shall not apply with respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of a State under this paragraph if the attorney general of the State determines that it is not feasible to provide the notice described in that clause before the filing of the action. 
Notification: In an action described in subclause (I), the attorney general of a State shall provide notice and a copy of the complaint to the Commission at the same time as the attorney general files the action. 
Intervention: On receiving notice, the Commission shall have the right to intervene in the action that is the notice's subject. 
Effect of Intervention: If the Commission intervenes in an action under paragraph (1), it shall have the right: 
To be heard with respect to any matter that arises in that action. 
To file a petition for appeal. 
Construction: For purposes of bringing any civil action under paragraph (1), nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by the laws of that State to: 
Conduct investigations; 
Administer oaths or affirmations. 
Compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documentary and other evidence. 
Actions by the Commission: In any case in which an action is instituted by or on behalf of the Commission for violation of this act, no State may, during the pendency of that action, institute a separate action under paragraph (1) against any defendant named in the complaint in the action instituted by or on behalf of the Commission for that violation. 
Venue; Service of Progress: 
Venue: Any action brought under paragraph (1) may be brought in either: 
The district court of the United States that meets applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391 of title 28, United States Code. 
A State court of competent authority. 
Service of Progress: In an action brought under paragraph (1) in a district court of the United States, process may be served wherever the defendant: 
Is an inhabitant. 
May be found. 
And now we are going to hear about the Kids Online Safety Council we’ve been hearing so much about in the last few sections in Section 12: Kids Online Safety Council. 
Establishment: No later than 180 days (about 6 months) after the enactment date of this act, the Secretary of Commerce shall establish and convene the Kids Online Safety Council to provide advice on matters related to this act. 
The Kids Online Safety Council shall include diverse participation from: 
Academic experts, health professionals, and members of civil society with expertise in mental health, substance use disorders, and the prevention of harm to minors. 
Representatives in academia and civil society with specific expertise in privacy and civil liberties. 
Parents and youth representation. 
Representatives of covered platforms. 
Representatives of the NTIA, the NIST, the FTC, the DoJ, and the DHHS. 
(6) State attorneys general or their designees acting in State or local government. 
Educators. 
Representatives of communities of socially disadvantaged individuals (as defined in section 8 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637)). 
Activities: The matters to be addressed by the Kids Online Safety Council shall include: 
Identifying emerging or current risks of harm to minors associated with online platforms. 
Recommending measures and methods for assessing, preventing, and mitigating harms to minors online. 
Recommending methods and themes for conducting research regarding online harms to minors, including in English and non-English languages. 
Recommending best practices and clear, consensus-based technical standards for transparency reports and audits, as required under this a ct, including methods, criteria, and scope to promote overall accountability. 
And now for Section 13, Filter Bubble Transparency Requirements. Almost to the end! 
Definitions: In this section: 
The term “algorithmic ranking system” means a computational process, including one derived from algorithmic decision-making, machine learning, statistical analysis, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques, used to determine the selection, order, relative prioritization, or relative prominence of content from a set of information that is provided to a user on a covered internet platform, including the ranking of search results, the provision of content recommendations, the display of social media posts, or any other method of automated content selection. 
The term “approximate geolocation information” means information that identifies the location of an individual, but with a precision of less than 5 miles. 
The term “Commission” means the Federal Trade Commission. 
The term “connected device” means an electronic device that: 
Can connect to the internet, either directly or indirectly through a network, to communicate information in the direction of an individual. 
Has computer processing capabilities for collecting, sending, receiving, or analyzing data. 
Is primarily designed for or marketed to consumers. 
Covered Internet Platform: The term “covered internet platform” means any public-facing website, internet application, or mobile application, including a social network site, video sharing service, search engine, or content aggregation service. Such term shall not include a platform that: 
Is wholly owned, controlled, and operated by a person that: 
For the most recent 6-month period, did not employ more than 500 employees. 
For the most recent 3-year period, averaged less than $50,000,000 in annual gross revenue. 
Collects or processes on an annual basis the user-specific data of less than 1,000,000 users (about the population of Delaware) or is operated for the sole purpose of conducting research that is not made for profit either directly or indirectly. 
Input Transparent Algorithm: The term “input-transparent algorithm” means an algorithmic ranking system that does not use the user-specific data of a user to determine the selection, order, relative prioritization, or relative prominence of information that is furnished to such user on a covered internet platform, unless the user-specific data is expressly provided to the platform by the user for such purpose. 
Data Provided for Express Purpose of Interaction with Platform For purposes of subparagraph (A), user-specific data that is provided by a user for the express purpose of determining the selection, order, relative prioritization, or relative prominence of information that is furnished to such user on a covered internet platform: 
Shall include user-supplied search terms, filters, speech patterns (if provided for the purpose of enabling the platform to accept spoken input or selecting the language in which the user interacts with the platform), saved preferences, and the current precise geolocation information that is supplied by the user. 
Shall include the user's current approximate geolocation information. 
Shall include data affirmatively supplied to the platform by the user that expresses the user's desire to receive particular information, such as the social media profiles the user follows, the video channels the user subscribes to, or other content or sources of content on the platform the user has selected. 
Shall NOT include the history of the user's connected device, including the user's history of web searches and browsing, previous geographical locations, physical activity, device interaction, and financial transactions. 
Shall NOT include inferences about the user or the user's connected device, without regard to whether such inferences are based on data described in clause (i) or (iii). 
Opaque Algorithm: The term “opaque algorithm” means an algorithmic ranking system that determines the selection, order, relative prioritization, or relative prominence of information that is furnished to such user on a covered internet platform based, in whole or part, on user-specific data that was not expressly provided by the user to the platform for such purpose. 
Exception for Age-Appropriate Content Filtering: Such term shall not include an algorithmic ranking system used by a covered internet platform if: 
The only user-specific data (including inferences about the user) that the system uses is information relating to the age of the user. 
Such information is only used to restrict a user's access to content on the basis that the individual is not old enough to access such content (i.e., not allowing a 13-year-old to access pornography). 
Precise Geolocation Information: The term “precise geolocation information” means geolocation information that identifies an individual’s location to within a range of 5 miles or less. 
Search Syndication Contract, Upstream Provider, Downstream Provider: 
The term “search syndication contract” means a contract or subcontract for the sale of, license of, or other right to access an index of web pages or search results on the internet for the purpose of operating an internet search engine. 
The term “upstream provider” means, with respect to a search syndication contract, the person that grants access to an index of web pages or search results on the internet to a downstream provider pursuant to the contract. 
The term “downstream provider” means, with respect to a search syndication contract, the person that receives access to an index of web pages on the internet from an upstream provider under such contract. 
User Specific Data: The term “user-specific data” means information relating to an individual or a specific connected device that would not necessarily be true of every individual or device. 
Requirement to Allow Users to View Unaltered Content on Internet Platforms: Beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, it shall be illegal: 
For any person to operate a covered internet platform that uses an opaque algorithm unless the person complies with the opaque algorithm requirements. 
For any upstream provider to grant access to an index of web pages on the internet under a search syndication contract that does not comply with the requirements of paragraph (3). 
Opaque Algorithm Requirements: The requirements of this paragraph with respect to a person that operates a covered internet platform that uses an opaque algorithm are the following: 
The person provides notice to users of the platform: 
That the platform uses an opaque algorithm that uses user-specific data to select the content the user sees. Such notice shall be presented in a clear, conspicuous manner on the platform whenever the user interacts with an opaque algorithm for the first time and may be a one-time notice that can be dismissed by the user. 
In the terms and conditions of the covered internet platform, in a clear, accessible, and easily comprehensible manner to be updated no less frequently than once every 6 months: 
The most salient features, inputs, and parameters used by the algorithm. 
How any user-specific data used by the algorithm is collected or inferred about a user of the platform, and the categories of such data. 
Any options that the covered internet platform makes available for a user of the platform to opt out or exercise options under clause (ii), modify the profile of the user or to influence the features, inputs, or parameters used by the algorithm. 
Any quantities, such as time spent using a product or specific measures of engagement or social interaction, that the algorithm is designed to optimize, as well as a general description of the relative importance of each quantity for such ranking. 
The person makes available a version of the platform that uses an input-transparent algorithm and enables users to easily switch between the version of the platform that uses an opaque algorithm and the version of the platform that uses the input-transparent algorithm. 
Exceptions for Certain Downstream Providers: Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to an internet search engine if: 
The search engine is operated by a downstream provider with fewer than 1,000 employees. 
The search engine uses an index of web pages on the internet to which such provider received access under a search syndication contract. 
Search Syndication Contract Requirements: The requirements of this paragraph with respect to a search syndication contract are that: 
As part of the contract, the upstream provider makes available to the downstream provider the same input-transparent algorithm used by the upstream provider for purposes of complying with paragraph (2)(A)(ii). 
The upstream provider does not impose any additional costs, degraded quality, reduced speed, or other constraint on the functioning of such algorithm when used by the downstream provider to operate an internet search engine relative to the performance of such algorithm when used by the upstream provider to operate an internet search engine. 
Prohibition on Differential Pricing: A covered internet platform shall not deny, charge different prices or rates for, or condition the provision of a service or product to an individual based on the individual’s election to use a version of the platform that uses an input-transparent algorithm as provided under paragraph (2)(A)(ii). 
Enforcement by FTC: 
Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices: A violation of this section by an operator of a covered internet platform shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). 
Powers of Commision: Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the FTC shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section. 
Privileges and Immunities: Except as provided in subparagraph (C), any person who violates this Act shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.). 
Common Carriers and Nonprofit Institutions: Notwithstanding section 4, 5(a)(2), or 6 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44, 45(a)(2), 46) or any jurisdictional limitation of the Commission, the Commission shall also enforce this act, in the same manner provided in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph, with respect to: 
Common carriers subject to the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto 
Organizations are not organized to carry on business for their own profit or that of their members. 
Authority Preserved: Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law. 
Rule of Application: Section 11 shall not apply to this section. 
Rule of Construction to Preserve Personal Blocks: Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or prohibit a covered internet platform’s ability to, at the direction of an individual user or group of users, restrict another user from searching for, finding, accessing, or interacting with such user’s or group’s account, content, data, or online community. 
Skipping over Section 14, as it is incredibly short (don’t worry, it’s one line, and I’ll say it at the end), we arrive at Section 15, or “Rules of Construction and Other Matters”. 
Relationships to Other Laws: Nothing in this Act shall be construed to: 
Preempt section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g (about 2.72 lb), commonly known as the “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974”) or other Federal or State laws governing student privacy. 
Preempt the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (15 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) or any rule or regulation promulgated under such Act. 
Authorize any action that would conflict with section 18(h) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(h)). 
Fairly Implied on the Basis of Objective Circumstances: For purposes of enforcing this act, in making a determination as to whether covered platform has knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that a user is a minor, the FTC shall rely on competent and reliable empirical evidence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including consideration of whether the operator, using available technology, exercised reasonable care. 
Protections for Privacy: Nothing in this act shall be construed to require: 
The affirmative collection of any personal data with respect to the age of users that a covered platform is not already collecting in the normal course of business. 
A covered platform to implement an age gating or age verification functionality. 
Compliance: Nothing in this act shall be construed to restrict a covered platform's ability to: 
Cooperate with law enforcement agencies regarding activity that the covered platform reasonably and in good faith believes may violate Federal, State, or local laws, rules, or regulations. 
Comply with a civil, criminal, or regulatory inquiry or any investigation, subpoena, or summons by Federal, State, local, or other government authorities. 
Investigate, establish, exercise, respond to, or defend against legal claims. 
Application to Video Streaming Services: A video streaming service shall be deemed to be in compliance with this act if it predominantly consists of news, sports, entertainment, or other video programming content that is preselected by the provider and not user-generated, and: 
Any chat, comment, or interactive functionality is provided incidental to, directly related to, or dependent on provision of such content. 
If such video streaming service requires account owner registration and is not predominantly news or sports, the service includes the capability: 
To limit a minor’s access to the service, which may utilize a system of age-rating. 
To limit the automatic playing of on-demand content selected by a personalized recommendation system for an individual that the service knows is a minor. 
To provide an individual that the service knows is a minor with readily-accessible and easy-to-use options to delete an account held by the minor and delete any personal data collected from the minor on the service, or, in the case of a service that allows a parent to create a profile for a minor, to allow a parent to delete the minor’s profile, and to delete any personal data collected from the minor on the service. 
For a parent to manage a minor’s privacy and account settings, and restrict purchases and financial transactions by a minor, where applicable. 
To provide an electronic point of contact specific to matters described in this paragraph. 
To offer clear, conspicuous, and easy-to-understand notice of its policies and practices with respect to personal data and the capabilities described in this paragraph. 
When providing on-demand content, to employ measures that safeguard against serving advertising for narcotic drugs (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), tobacco products, gambling, or alcohol directly to the account or profile of an individual that the service knows is a minor. 
And finally, we arrive at Section 16, the last Section, combined with Section 14, which I glossed over earlier. If any part of this act is deemed obsolete, ineffective, or unnecessary at any point in time, it may be removed from the act without any effect to the rest of it. Unless otherwise specified, all regulations in this act shall come into effect 18 months (about 1 and a half years) after the passing of this bill. 
As you can see, this bill makes an impressive amount of sense, and if it were simply used as intended, it would be wonderful. However, because we can never have nice things, legislators, politicians, and the common public have twisted this bill, warping it to serve their selfish desires. Firstly, Senator Blackburn, one of the people behind this whole thing, blatantly said to a camera that she was going to “use KOSA to protect kids from the transgender in this culture.” With the queer community already under fire from all sides, this is the last thing they need, as all it does is further demonize them, and paint them as evil, pedophilic freaks to be feared and hated. A lot of regulations outlined in this bill also provide a concerning amount of control over the children it claims to protect, and it isn’t giving it to the child. It’s giving it to their parents. The adults who, as much as we hate to admit it, don’t always have the best interests of their children at heart. And what’s more, now the conservative Republicans care about people with disabilities, but it’s only when they’re trying to push a different marginalized group off the net. However, as soon as we try to do something as simple as mandating wheelchair ramps for all government buildings, they say “we don’t have the money for that!”. Okay, since obviously you don’t understand basic common sense Mr. Conservative, let me explain this for you: let’s say that KOSA will be fully enforced on every single website out of the over 1 BILLION that currently exist. Let’s say that about half of those comply fully willingly with KOSA, just for the benefit of the doubt. That still lives 500 million noncompliant websites. Let’s say that with legal proceedings and other costs, it would cost 500 dollars in USD per website to bring those websites into compliance. It would cost 250 BILLION dollars in USD to bring 500 million websites into compliance. Now let’s do some math on the wheelchair ramp problem, I’ll use small businesses as an example, since that’s the main subject of complaints on this topic. There are 33,185,550 small businesses registered in the United States. With the average cost per linear foot of concrete ramp being 225 dollars in USD, and saying that every small business has 2 doors that need ramps that are 1 linear foot, that means that every small business would have to pay 450 dollars in USD to make their businesses accessible. Every 3-5 years, you’ll want to reseal that concrete, costing about 3-5 dollars in USD per square foot. That means that a one time expense of 450 dollars to build the original ramps (on average, grossly oversimplified, but you get it), with an recurring cost every 3-5 years of a mere 6-10 dollars in USD. It would cost 4e-9% of what it would cost to enforce KOSA to make every registered small business in the US accessible. That is less than 1% of the money it would cost to enforce KOSA. 
This bill would also enforce a strict “no horny” policy on damn near every website that you can think of. And as much as we like to demonize and vilify them, sex workers, porn actors, and hentai artists are people too, and some of them make a living off what they do. By enacting KOSA, you are driving the lives of more than 2 million people (about the population of Nebraska) into the dirt. KOSA places the value of a child’s innocence over those lives. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am absolutely against child pornography and exposing small children to porn, but we shouldn’t lock down everyone's access to explicit content to preserve 22.1% of the US population’s childlike innocence. KOSA also can lock those children into abusive and dangerous conditions and make the lives of orphans a living hell. By giving the parents of minors total control over their child’s account, you are allowing them to lock down their lives, and expose these children to, at best, harmful misinformation, extremism, and general naivety, and at worst, physical abuse and/or death. That’s another 600,000 lives ground into the dirt under the boot of “safety”. And that little bit about “parens patrie”? That basically means that if you can’t defend yourself (i.e. are homeless, an orphan, etc.), the government is your parent now. Growing up with a faceless, nameless entity in place of any parental figure is NOT a healthy way for a child to live. Again, that’s another 2,823,104 human beings crushed by KOSA. In total, out of just the three categories of people I listed here, over 4,883,104 human beings, with lives, emotions, thoughts, joys and pains, are being royally screwed over by this absolutely horrid bill. 
 We as a society are better than this. Come on people. What memo did I miss that decided that we only need equality for some people? Instead of bickering amongst ourselves like children, we should work together and solve our problems! Isn’t that what we all want!? But no, instead we fight over our inviolable rights as human beings like toddlers over a shovel in the sandbox, instead of behaving like civilized people. And what’s worse, it paints anyone who doesn’t fit the perfect ideal of an American citizen in shades of evil, demonizing and alienating them even more than they already are. What the hell are we doing here? Instead of waving our bureaucracy around, we should get off the chair and do something about it. How many times have we done something without taking a risk? That’s right, NEVER. 
If we claim to be champions of equality, yet only desire it for ourselves, we are just as bad as those whose actions we decry. So please, dear reader, I beg of you. Stop KOSA, stop censorship, stop tyranny if you value this world at all. 
54 notes · View notes
disasterhimbo · 1 month
Text
Tumblr media
Source
[ID: a quote tweet by Stephen Semler (@stephensemler) dated March 23, 2024. It is responding to a tweet by the Associated Press (@AP) that says, “BREAKING: Senate passes $1.2 trillion funding package in early morning vote, ending threat of partial shutdown.”
It says, “All but two Democratic senators just voted to:
-give Israel $3.8B in weapons, violating US law
-defund a UN inquiry into Israel's violations of international law
-defund UNRWA, worsening famine in Gaza
-sanction the UN Human Rights Council if it highlights Israeli abuses.”
It contains an image of only text showing who voted yea, who voted nay, and who abstained. 74 senators voted yea, including 47 democrats, 25 republicans, and 2 independents. 24 senators voted nay: all republicans except Senator Bennet (Democrat, Colorado), and Senator Sanders (Independent, Vermont). 2 Republican senators abstained. Full transcription of this image under the cut.]
Transcript of the image contained in the tweet:
“YEAS --- 74
Baldwin (D-WI)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boozman (R-AR)
Britt (R-AL)
Brown (D-OH)
Butler (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Capito (R-WV)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Cotton (R-AR)
Cramer (R-ND)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fetterman (D-PA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kelly (D-AZ)
King (1-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lujan (D-NM)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Moran (R-KS)
Mullin (R-OK)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Ossoff (D-GA)
Padilla (D-CA)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Romney (R-UT)
Rosen (D-NV)
Rounds (R-SD)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Sinema (I-AZ)
Smith (D-MN)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warner (D-VA)
Warnock (D-GA)
Warren (D-MA)
Welch (D-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)
Young (R-IN)
(This is the end of the yeas.)
NAYS --- 24
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blackburn (R-TN)
Budd (R-NC)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Hagerty (R-TN)
Hawley (R-MO)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Lummis (R-WY)
Marshall (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Ricketts (R-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schmitt (R-MO)
Scott (R-SC)
Tuberville (R-AL)
Vance (R-OH)
(This is the end of the nays.)
Not Voting - 2
Braun (R-IN)
Scott (R-FL)”
(This is the end of the transcribed image.)
32 notes · View notes
faerie-hideaway · 5 months
Text
U.S. users email your representatives this, and make sure to include your zip code:
I am your constituent. I am strongly in favor of defunding Israel. I want my opinion logged on every single one of these pieces of legislation. It is an atrocity that the USA is sending our taxpayer dollars, weaponry, and other support to Israel in order to aid in the genocide of the Palestinian people. It does not reflect the will of your constituents, and I demand that you correct this by voting for/against the following bills, resolutions, and legislation.
To be frank, I will be basing my vote for you in upcoming elections on this issue. I will be watching closely to see how you vote on issues regarding funding to Israel. I will not vote for you in the next election if you vote to send any money, support, or weaponry to Israel. I will be voting for you if you vote to block money, support, and weaponry to Israel.
This is the current legislation I am for, and the current legislation I am against. I would like your office to record my opinion for each bill, and I would like you to take this into consideration when you vote.
I am FOR the following, and expect you to vote for this and co-sponsor, either now or when matching legislation reaches your office.
H.Res. 786: by Rep. Cori Bush
H.Res. 388 by Rep. Rashida Tlaib
H.R. 3103 by Rep. Betty McCollum
I am against Joe Biden’s proposal to spend billions of dollars on Israel via a package for Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and the US border. Biden is asking for $100 BILLION for this package and it is only 1 YEAR'S worth of funding. This is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable, and I am against you voting for ANY bill that spends even $1 on Israel. I do not care what else is in the bill. If it gives money to Israel, I am against it.
I am AGAINST the following, and expect you to vote against this and not co-sponsor, either now or when matching legislation reaches your office.
S. 3083 by Sen. Bill Hagerty [R-TN]
S.Res. 417 by Sen. Charles “Chuck” Schumer [D-NY]
H.Res. 797 by Rep. Cory Mills [R-FL7]
S. 3081 by Sen. Steve Daines [R-MT]
H.Res. 796 by Rep. Ernest “Tony” Gonzales [R-TX23]
S.Res. 413 by Sen. Marco Rubio
H.R. 552 by Rep. Lance Gooden
H.R. 5959 by Thomas Tiffany
S. 3081 by Sen. Steve Daines
H.Res. 789 by Rep. Jefferson Van Drew
H.Res. 771 by Rep. Michael McCaul
H.R. 5932 by Rep. David Schweikert
H.Res. 768 by Rep. Michael McCaul
H.Res. 770 by Rep. Zachary (Zach) Nunn
H.Res. 701 by Rep. Bradley “Brad” Schneider
H.Con.Res. 61 by Rep. Janice “Jan” Schakowsky
S. 2587 by Sen. Jon Tester
H.Res. 606 by Rep. Andrew Ogles
S. 2413 by Sen. Robert “Bob” Menendez
S. 2438 by Sen. Christopher Coons
H.R. 4709 by Rep. Josh Gottheimer
S.Con.Res. 14: by Sen. Tom Cotton
H.Con.Res. 57 by Rep. August Pfluger
H.R. 4665 by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart
S. 2265 by Sen. Dan Sullivan
S. 2226 by Sen. John F. “Jack” Reed
H.Res. 581 by Rep. Gregory Steube
S. 2240 by Sen. Christopher Coons
H.R. 4564 by Rep. Claudia Tenney
H.R. 4365 by Rep. Ken Calvert
H.R. 4076 by Rep. Chris Pappas
H.R. 3932 by Rep. Michael Turner
H.R. 3907 by Rep. Lois Frankel
S. 1802 by Sen. Gary Peters
H.R. 3792 by Rep. Joe Wilson
S. 1777 by Sen. Jacky Rosen
H.R. 3393 by Rep. Carlos Gimenez
H.Res. 409 by Rep. Carlos Gimenez
S. 1637 by Sen. Marco Rubio
H.R. 3266 by Rep. Brad Sherman
S. 1504 by Sen. Tom Cotton
H.R. 3099 by Rep. Michael Lawler
S.Res. 188 by Sen. Robert “Bob” Menendez
H.Res. 346 by Rep. Randy Weber
H.R. 2973 by Rep. Cathy Anne McMorris Rodgers
S. 1334: by Sen. Jacky Rosen
S. 1300 by Sen. Benjamin Cardin
H.Res. 311 by Rep. Ann Wagner
H.R. 2670 by Rep. Mike Rogers
H.R. 2531 by Rep. Bradley “Brad” Schneider
S. 1143 by Sen. Jerry Moran
H.R. 1777 by Rep. Joe Wilson
H.R. 1218 by Rep. August Pfluger
H.R. 1102 by Rep. Chip Roy
S. 510 by Sen. Tom Cotton
S. 489 by Sen. Rick Scott
S. 430 by Sen. James Risch
S. 431 by Sen. James Risch
H.R. 987 by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
H.Res. 92 by Rep. Josh Gottheimer
H.Res. 76 by Rep. Max Miller
H.R. 687 by Rep. Gregory Steube
H.R. 211 by Rep. Gregory Steube
S. 224 by Sen. Tom Cotton
S. 189 by Sen. Marco Rubio
I am against any legislation that allows troops to deploy to the Middle East in support roles for Israel, as proposed by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
I am against Netanyahu’s ground invasion of Gaza, which will inevitably lead to mass killings of Palestinian civilians and escalate violence. If there are any future bills supporting this, you need to vote against them and not co-sponsor.
The U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Act stipulate that only Congress can authorize the president to use military force in a foreign war, except in cases of self-defense. Previous administrations from both parties have ignored this, with unauthorized strikes in places like Syria and Libya. I want you to stand against ANY use of military force that supports Israel or hurts Palestine.
And of course, I am against the usual funding of $3.8 billion PER YEAR to Israel. This 10-year agreement began in 2016. I do not want a renewal in 2026, and in the next election, I will vote for representatives who WILL NOT VOTE TO FUND ISRAEL. I will be keeping track of how you vote now, and I will not vote for you if you decide to fund Israel in any way.
I am a single-issue voter for this. I want you to defund Israel. I do not want a single dollar spent on supporting Israel. I will be paying attention to how you vote in the upcoming weeks and months, and if you vote to fund or provide weapons, troops, or intelligence to Israel, I will NOT vote for you in the next election.
We are paying attention to the budget. We know when you're giving aid to a country committing genocide instead of helping your constituents in the USA. Both myself and tens of thousands of other constituents have spent years saying that we don’t want our hard-earned taxpayer dollars going to Israel. The lack of willingness to fund anything for American citizens, but the quickness with which you take action for Israel is telling. It is unacceptable.
As an elected official, you have the opportunity to listen to the public and stand against genocide. Israel is currently committing war crimes against Palestine. You can stop this by defunding Israel. THOUSANDS of Palestinian people have been killed, 1/3 of them children, in just a couple of days. One child every 15 minutes is being killed. YOU can prevent this by refusing to send additional weapons and funding to Israel.
We are currently spending BILLIONS of dollars EVERY YEAR on Israel. I do not want my money going towards the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians. Not a dollar more.
15 notes · View notes
alexlacquemanne · 11 months
Text
Mai MMXXIII
Films
Quand la Panthère rose s'emmêle (The Pink Panther Strikes Again) (1976) de Blake Edwards avec Peter Sellers, Herbert Lom, Leonard Rossiter, Colin Blakely, Lesley-Anne Down, André Maranne, Michael Robbins et Burt Kwouk
Le Dimanche de la vie (1967) de Jean Herman avec Danielle Darrieux, Jean-Pierre Moulin, Olivier Hussenot, Françoise Arnoul, Berthe Bovy, Anne Doat, Hubert Deschamps et Jean Rochefort
Romance inachevée (The Glenn Miller Story) (1954) de Anthony Mann avec James Stewart, June Allyson, Henry Morgan, Charles Drake, George Tobias et Barton MacLane
La Canonnière du Yang-Tsé (The Sand Pebbles) (1966) de Robert Wise avec Steve McQueen, Richard Attenborough, Richard Crenna, Candice Bergen, Marayat Andriane et Makoto Iwamatsu
Deux Heures moins le quart avant Jésus-Christ (1982) de Jean Yanne avec Coluche, Michel Serrault, Jean Yanne, Michel Auclair, Françoise Fabian, Mimi Coutelier et Darry Cowl
Le Dernier Voyage (2020) de Romain Quirot avec Hugo Becker, Paul Hamy, Lya Oussadit-Lessert, Jean Reno, Bruno Lochet et Émilie Gavois-Kahn
Le Dernier Métro (1980) de François Truffaut avec Catherine Deneuve, Gérard Depardieu, Heinz Bennent, Jean Poiret, Andréa Ferréol, Paulette Dubost, Jean-Louis Richard et Maurice Risch
Les cadavres ne portent pas de costard (Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid) (1982) de Carl Reiner avec Steve Martin, Rachel Ward, Carl Reiner, Reni Santoni, George Gaynes, Barbara Stanwyck, Ava Gardner, Burt Lancaster, Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant et Ingrid Bergman
Docteur Folamour ou : comment j'ai appris à ne plus m'en faire et à aimer la bombe (Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb) (1964) de Stanley Kubrick avec Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden, Keenan Wynn, Slim Pickens, Peter Bull et Tracy Reed
Un homme est passé (Bad Day at Black Rock) (1955) de John Sturges avec Spencer Tracy, Robert Ryan, Anne Francis, Dean Jagger, Walter Brennan, John Ericson, Ernest Borgnine et Lee Marvin
Le Monde, la Chair et le Diable (The World, The Flesh and the Devil) (1959) de MacDougall avec Harry Belafonte, Inger Stevens et Mel Ferrer
La Belle Saison (2015) de Catherine Corsini avec Izïa Higelin, Cécile de France, Noémie Lvovsky, Kévin Azaïs, Lætitia Dosch et Benjamin Bellecour
Le Grand Embouteillage (L'ingorgo) (1979) de Luigi Comencini avec Annie Girardot, Fernando Rey, Miou-Miou, Gérard Depardieu, Ugo Tognazzi, Marcello Mastroianni, Stefania Sandrelli, Alberto Sordi, Orazio Orlando, Gianni Cavina, Harry Baer et Ángela Molina
Ariane (Love in the Afternoon) (1957) de Billy Wilder avec Gary Cooper, Audrey Hepburn, Maurice Chevalier, Van Doude, John McGiver et Lise Bourdin
Voici le temps des assassins (1956) de Julien Duvivier avec Jean Gabin, Danièle Delorme, Gérard Blain, Lucienne Bogaert, Germaine Kerjean, Gabrielle Fontan et Jean-Paul Roussillon
Séries
Castle Saison 1, 2
Des fleurs pour ta tombe - Jeunes Filles au père - Amis à la vie, à la mort - Sexe, Scandale et Politique - Calcul glacial - La Piste du vaudou - Crimes dans la haute - Mémoires d’outre-tombe - Où est Angela ? - Double face - La Mort à crédit - Quitte ou Double - L'Enfer de la mode - L'Escroc au cœur tendre - L'auteur qui m'aimait - Pour l'amour du sang - Dernières paroles
Coffre à Catch
#113 : Unforgiven 2008 : Matt Hardy will not die ! - #114 : Matt Hardy champion, les débuts de Jack Swagger ! - #115 : La ECW, c'est bien, mais avec Vianney c'est mieux ! - #116 : Maryse : Pourquoi es-tu si belle? - # 117 : All Star Main Event + Gérard Lenorman !
James May : Notre Homme au Japon
Allez ! - Chou farci - Déodorant - Salut Bim ! - Le garçon de la pêche - Prune salée
Friends Saison 8
Celui qui venait de dire oui - Celui qui avait un sweat rouge - Celui qui découvrait sa paternité - Celui qui avait une vidéo - Celui qui draguait Rachel - Celui qui perturbait Halloween - Celui qui voulait garder Rachel - Celui qui engageait une strip-teaseuse - Celui qui avait fait courir la rumeur - Celui qui défendait sa sœur - Celui qui ne voulait pas aller plus loin - Celui qui passait une soirée avec Rachel - Celui qui découvrait les joies du bain - Celui qui découvrait le placard secret - Celui qui visionnait la vidéo de l'accouchement - Celui qui avouait tout à Rachel - Celui qui voyait dans les feuilles de thé - Celui qui était trop positif
Inspecteur Barnaby Saison 8
Un cri dans la nuit - Les Régates de la vengeance - Requiem pour une orchidée - Pari mortel - Double vue - Le Saut de la délivrance - L'assassin est un fin gourmet - Rhapsodie macabre
L'agence tous risques Saison 4, 5
Qui est qui ? - Cowboy George - La roue de la fortune - Services en tous genres - Club privé - Harry a des ennuis - Un monde de fou - La mission de la paix - Les orages du souvenir - Un témoin capital : 1re partie - Condamnation : 2e partie - Exécution : 3e partie - Match au sommet - Théorie de la révolution - Mort sur ordonnance - Une vieille amitié
Columbo Saison 2
Rançon pour un homme mort - Requiem pour une star
Les Petits Meurtres d'Agatha Christie Saison 3
Jusqu'à ce que la mort nous sépare - Meurtres du troisième type
Affaires Sensibles
Algues vertes : le danger qui empoisonne la Bretagne - James Jesus Angleton : paranoïa à la CIA - THE GRIM SLEEPER : Le faucheur en embuscade 1985-2007 - La création du festival de Cannes - 2000, les Jeux paralympiques de Sydney : la fraude des basketteurs espagnols
Bardot
Une enfant sage - B.B - La Madrague - Le papillon - Bébé - La vérité
Les Enquêtes de Morse saison 9
Mascarade - Prélude - Sorties de scène
James May's Cars of the People Saison 1, 2
Transports et totalitarisme - Rien n'arrête les nouilles - Les voitures qui nous ont toujours fait rêver - La puissance de la vapeur - 4x4 - Boom (et effondrement) d'après-guerre
The Grand Tour Saison 4, 3, 1, 2
The Grand Tour présente… Seamen - The Grand Tour présente… La Chasse au trésor - Eaux salées et eaux douces - The Grand Tour: A Scandi Flick - Virée à l’Italienne - Spéciale Colombie : Première partie - Spéciale Colombie ; Deuxième partie - Oh, Canada - Coup de vieux
Livres
Orage de chaleur de Richard Castle
Cinq Gars pour Singapour de Jean Bruce
Lucky Luke, tome 27 : Le 20ème de cavalerie de Morris et René Goscinny
Garôden de Jirô Taniguchi et Baku Yumemakura
Une enquête du commissaire Dupin : Etrange printemps aux Glénan de Jean-Luc Bannalec
Détective Conan, tome 9 de Gôshô Aoyama
Il était une fois… Le cinéma, Tome 1 : Des frères Lumière à Charlie Chaplin de Jean-Pierre Georges et Dentiblu
2 notes · View notes
mightyflamethrower · 16 days
Text
Tumblr media
Billionaire Doomsday Prepping: What Is Zuckerberg Hiding?
75THE WELLNESS COMPANY (SPONSORED)
4 Jan 2024121
5:40
The following content is sponsored by The Wellness Company.
It’s not often that construction workers sign NDAs.
But every worker on Mark Zuckerberg’s $270 million doomsday bunker on a Hawaiian island has been asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement and swear secrecy. As reported by Wired:
That price for a private residence is unparalleled in the local construction industry—as is the level of secrecy and security. “The only other time you see that is when you’re doing secure military installations,’ says one local construction industry official affiliated with the site. ‘For a private project to have an NDA attached to it is very rare.”
The massive compound might as well be a military installation: the plans call for accommodations for at least 30 people, with food production, water storage, blast doors, advanced security systems, and a medical facility.
Zuck isn’t alone in this frightening trend for 2024.
Zuck, who made his Big Tech billions by collecting data on the interactions of almost every human on planet Earth, is not the only billionaire to be building an apocalypse shelter.
Peter Thiel’s attempt to build a giant bunker in New Zealand was rejected by the locals in 2022 due to its potential impact on the landscape. While there has been no solid proof, rumors are swirling that upwards of 15 other billionaires have been building advanced survival compounds, according to dataconomy.com.
When billionaires prep for the end of the world, we should pay attention.
No matter what’s coming in 2024, the most important thing you can do is be prepared ahead of time with food, ammo, gold, and medication: That’s where The Wellness Company’s Medical Emergency Kits come in.
The Wellness Company and their great doctors – like Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Drew, Dr. Harvey Risch, and Dr. Jim Thorp – are regularly in the media fighting warning Americans to take charge of their own health and wellness.
Dr. Thorp, one of the nation’s leading critics of the U.S. public health policies, believes that now – more than ever – people should be prepared for the next crisis:
We can’t rely on our crumbling healthcare system to have our backs in an emergency. I’ve strongly recommended “stockpiling” critical medications for years – like the meds found in our Medical Emergency Kits. Early intervention is KEY at the first sign of symptoms. Taking an active approach by being prepared for the next illness has helped my family tremendously.
The Wellness Company and their doctors are medical professionals that you can trust and their new Medical Emergency Kits are the gold standard when it comes to keeping you safe and healthy.
Have Ivermectin, Amoxicillin, and Z-Pak on hand.
Be ready for the next crisis. This medical emergency kit contains an assortment of life-saving medications – including antibiotics, antivirals, and antiparasitics. The Medical Emergency Kit includes a guidebook to aid in the safe use of these life-saving medications.
This kit is prescription-only – you can’t find it in any store or pharmacy. Order your kit at The Wellness Company and simply fill out a short questionnaire after purchase and a trusted Wellness Company doctor will confirm your suitability and issue your prescription Medical Emergency Kit.
The Wellness Company Medical Emergency Kit includes:
1 note · View note
msclaritea · 8 months
Text
33 Senate Democrats join Republicans to block DC crime bill | The Hill
Senators on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to block the District of Columbia’s updated criminal code from becoming law, marking the first time in more than three decades that a D.C.-passed bill has been nixed by Congress and the White House. 
The Senate advanced the resolution, 81-14, with 33 Democrats voting alongside every Republican and Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.). 
Senate Democrats of all stripes joined with the GOP, including some of the party’s leadership. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) both backed the resolution.
Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in the upper chamber, however, split with Schumer to vote “no.”
Unsurprisingly, the most vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2024, headlined by Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio), all supported the resolution.
Fourteen senators who caucus with the Democrats voted against the measure: Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Durbin. 
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) voted present. Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and James Risch (R-Idaho) were absent.
The Senate Democrats had political cover to vote “yes” after President Biden told them last week he would not veto the resolution if it reached his desk — reversing a statement of administration policy backing Washington, D.C., home rule prior to the House vote last month.
The House passed the resolution to block the crime bill on a 250 to 173 vote, with 31 Democrats voting with all Republicans.
The D.C. City Council passed its crime bill unanimously in January and overrode a veto by Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) in February, 12-1. 
It has been the subject of intense criticism from Republicans and some Democrats for some provisions, such as the lower penalties for a number of violent crimes, including robberies and carjackings. 
“Carjackings and car thefts have become a daily routine. Homicides are racking up at a rate of four per week,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said during a speech on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “This is our capital city. But local politicians have let its streets become a danger and an embarrassment.”
In his tweet last week announcing his decision, Biden specifically mentioned sentences for carjackings as a reason. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, there have been 101 carjackings across the District this year alone, roughly the same as the 106 reported by this point last year. Half have involved juveniles. Twenty-two of this calendar year’s cases have been closed, and 14 people have been arrested on related charges. 
“I just think it needs more work,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) told reporters of the D.C. bill, citing the mayor’s veto of the bill earlier this year. 
But the 180-degree turn by the administration has infuriated some House Democrats who have complained that the White House put them in a bad spot. 
It also handed House Republicans a gift on the messaging side, as the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) launched an ad campaign against 15 Democrats who voted against doing away with the crime bill. 
“Forget safe streets and neighborhoods — House Democrats remain more concerned with promoting policies that appease violent criminals,” Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the NRCC’s chairman, said in a statement. “This is just a preview of how these extremist House Democrats will be held accountable for coddling criminals all cycle long.”
The crime bill has also been criticized for other reasons, including that it would increase the number of jury trials for misdemeanor offenses. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine.) who voted for the resolution blocking the bill, told The Hill earlier in the week that there’s not “enough jurors in the world to do that.”
D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson on Monday attempted to withdraw the bill and keep it from being brought up for a vote. However, the Home Rule Act, which governs the District, does not allow for the withdrawal of legislation. 
A number of Senate Democrats, however, stood by the District and opposed the resolution. Cardin told reporters earlier in the week that the matter is “a D.C. issue.”
“The Senate shouldn’t be voting on that,” Cardin said. “To me, it’s a fundamental issue of home rule.”
So-called Progressives at it again. This is the same action that's keeping San Francisco filled with crime; Socialists deliberately letting crime go wild to hurt Democrats. It's not just random juveniles committing these carjackings. It's just one of the easiest crimes to pull. Everyone should remember the ones who voted against protecting citizens and all of them, Booker and Dick Durbin should be challenged for their seats. Booker plays the Righteous Brother well but he's not with Dems and Durbin tried to pull a sleazy move months ago, by throwing Senator Fienstein under the bus, causing the drama on the judicial committee. I'm guessing the D.C. Council are a bunch who got in on a sympathetic wave post George Floyd. To vote against the Mayor is huge red flag.
0 notes
martinwilliammichael · 10 months
Text
0 notes
andronetalks · 10 months
Text
Lancet Study on Covid Vaccine Autopsies Finds 74% Were Caused by Vaccine – Study is Removed Within 24 Hours
The Daily Sceptic BY WILL JONES6 JULY 2023 1:28 PM   A Lancet review of 325 autopsies after Covid vaccination found that 74% of the deaths were caused by the vaccine – but the study was removed within 24 hours. The paper, a pre-print that was awaiting peer-review, is written by leading cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch and their colleagues at the Wellness…
View On WordPress
0 notes
didanawisgi · 10 months
Text
A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths after COVID-19 Vaccination
5 Jul 2023
Nicolas Hulscher
University of Michigan at Ann Arbor - School of Public Health
Paul E. Alexander
Government of the United States of America - Department of Health and Human Services
Richard Amerling
Wellness Company
Heather Gessling
Wellness Company
Roger Hodkinson
Wellness Company
William Makis
Cancer Control Alberta - Alberta Health Services
Harvey A. Risch
Yale School of Public Health
Mark Trozzi
Wellness Company
Peter A. McCullough
Wellness CompanyMore...
Abstract
Background: The rapid development and widespread deployment of COVID-19 vaccines, combined with a high number of adverse event reports, have led to concerns over possible mechanisms of injury including systemic lipid nanoparticle (LNP) and mRNA distribution, spike protein-associated tissue damage, thrombogenicity, immune system dysfunction, and carcinogenicity. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate possible causal links between COVID-19 vaccine administration and death using autopsies and post-mortem analysis.  Methods: We searched for all published autopsy and necropsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination up until May 18th, 2023. We initially identified 678 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. Three physicians independently reviewed all deaths and determined whether COVID-19 vaccination was the direct cause or contributed significantly to death.  Findings: The most implicated organ system in COVID-19 vaccine-associated death was the cardiovascular system (53%), followed by the hematological system (17%), the respiratory system (8%), and multiple organ systems (7%). Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases. The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days. Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration. A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.  Interpretation: The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, their mechanisms, and related excess death, coupled with autopsy confirmation and physician-led death adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death in most cases. Further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying our findings.
1 note · View note
zelenkonews · 2 years
Text
The Wellness Company (TWC) has officially launched. This was one of Dr. Vladimir Zelenko's final projects and something that he strongly believed was necessary to revolutionize the entire landscape of healthcare. The Chief Medical Team for The Wellness Company consists of Drs. Peter McCullough, Harvey Risch, Heather Gessling, and Richard Amerling. Many of you already know of these doctors and they are all terrific individuals that Zev trusted, respected and hand-picked for this team. Please check out the website below and let me know what you think. I would love to get your feedback and hear if this is something that you would be interested in. https://www.twc.health/ Dr. Zelenko Protocols Created all in one vitamin so you don't have to take them separately. Z-Stack to Boost Immunity: https://zstack.life Z-Dtox to Detox & Boost immunity: https://zstack.life/z-dtox/ Z-DTox is stronger than Z-Stack and is for higher-risk patients Higher risk people are >45 years old Chronic medical problems Who took the shot Z-DTox has 1. EGCG instead of Quercetin 2. Higher dose Zinc 3. NAC that prevents blood closet
0 notes
gold2558 · 2 years
Text
PART 1
Following is the 1st of many lists to “BE REMOVED FROM CONGRESS”
ROMNEY GOP- Rino
KINSZIGER OUT- Rino
CHENEY OUT- Rino
GRAHAM
BURR
BLUNT
TOOMEY OUT- Rino
COLLINS GOP- Rino
TALAIB
PETE AGUILAR
OCASIO CORTEZ
PETERS
STABENOW
SLOTKIN
STEVENS
SCHIFF
PIGLOSI
SCHUMER
NADLER
WHITHEAD
PRESSLEY
OMAR
MCConnell-Rino
Cornyn GOP-Rino
Mace GOP-Rino
Kemp GOP-Rino
Clyburn
Harris
BIDEN
Fienstein
Bass
Sasse GOP-Rino
Jefferies
SWALWELL
Leahy
Durbin
Van Hollen
Khanna
Sanders
FAUCI
Leahey
Upton
Waters
Cardin
Blumenthal
Cortez
Liz Warren
Kildee
Levin
Dave Joyce GOP
Jamie Raskin
Ed Markey
Jim Risch GOP RINO?
Mike Crapo GOP Rino?
LiSA MURKOWSKI-RINO
SHITMER WHITMER
Fred Upton GOP- Rino
Jerry Moran GOP- RINO
Todd Young GOP-Rino
Katie Hobbs
FAUCI CCP COMMIE TO PRISON NOW!
PART 2
Just to name a few, more to come. REMOVE THEM AT “FIRST OPPORTUNITY”REMEMBER THESE NAMES PEOPLE those marked GOP ARE RINOS/Trump haters. The balance of them are devout socialists communists that must be removed.
All of the above they are a mix of Trump haters & Rinos +liberal Socialist Communists all out for self enrichment of your money & on your dime. These “Swamp creatures”
MUST BE REPLACED WITH NEWBIES. The above named Need to be on a Terminal List, not just a removal list. the Rinos are to be replaced with “America First candidates” & anyone of them that deviates once from Party platform or our GOP PRESIDENT THEY ARE TO BE REPLACED AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY IS THIS CLEAR?
1 note · View note
kwebtv · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Captain James Cook  -  ABC (Aus)  -  October 6, 1987
Biography / Miniseries  (4 episodes)
Running Time:  120 minutes episode
Stars:
Keith Michell - James Cook
John Gregg - Joseph Banks
Erich Hallhuber - Lt. John Gore
Jacques Penot as Charles Clerke
Peter Carroll as Solander
Xabier Elorriaga as Sandwich
Maurice Risch as Monkhouse
Barry Quin - Lt. Hicks
Fernando Rey - Admiral Hawke
Carol Drinkwater - Elizabeth Cook
Geoff Morrell - Perry
1 note · View note
ednamiller45 · 2 years
Link
0 notes
mplaylistdiaries · 2 years
Text
May 2018 Playlist
Summary: I feel like this playlist got a bit dark again and is still pretty short, but we’re just going to run with it for now. Anyways, this month was sort of weird because I started questioning my sexuality during this period. Now, I already knew that I was gay, or at least pansexual but I started questioning whether or not I really was either of them since I didn’t really feel sexually attracted to men or women. Unless, I built an intimate connection with them, but even then there’s not really a guarantee of that happening either. In addition, I was still technically hiding my sexuality from my parents and in this period I was seriously wondering whether or not I should wait until I graduated and moved out of my parents house to tell them about it or if I should try and do it now. Unfortunately, my sister didn’t really give me a choice on it since she decided to out me when I told my parents about her doing some drugs that made me seriously concerned about her safety. So, I suppose this playlist reflects all of the emotions and feelings I felt in that moment. 
PLAYLIST LINK
When Your An Addams by Addams Family Company
To Be A Princess by Barbie as the Princess and the Pauper
Our Word by Jessie Shelton & 36 Questions
Silent Scream by Anna Blue
Where is the Justice? by Jermey Jordan
My alcoholic friends by Dresden dolls
Say My Name by Alex Brightman, Sophia Anne Caruso, Kerry Butler, and Rob McClure
Radio Friendly Pop Song by Matt Fishel
Alive by Anthony Warlow
Youth by Daughter
First Burn by Julia Harriman, Lexi Lawson, Ari Afsar, Rachelle Ann Go, Shoba Narayan
When He Sees Me by Kimiko Glenn, Jessie Mueller, Keala Settle, and Waitress Ensemble
The Confrontation by Anthony Warlow
Meet Me On The Battlefield by SVRCINA
Blackout by In The Heights OBC
Beautiful by Barrett Wilbert Weed, Katie Ladner, Alice Lee, Jessica Keenan Wynn, Elle McLemore
Meet the Plastics by Grey Henson, Barrett Wilbert Weed, Taylor Louderman, Ashley Park, Kate Rockwell, Erika Henningsen
Anything You Can Do by Bernadette Peters & Tom Wopat
Candy Store by Jessica Keenan Wynn, Alice Lee, and Elle McLemore
There! Right There! by Amber Efe, Kate Shindle, Laura Bell Bunny, Manuel Herrera, Matthew Risch, and Legally Blonde Ensemble
The Smartphone Hour (Rich Set A Fire) by Katie Ladner, Katlyn Carlson, Lauren Marcus, “Be More Chill” Ensemble
Dear parents by Tate McRae
Heart of Stone by Natalie Paris & Six
One Normal Night by Addams Family Company
My Little Reason Why by Lisa Hannigan, aivi & surasshu, and Rebecca Sugar
The Campfire Song by Jonathan Raviv, Rob Rockicki, and Lightning Thief Musical Company
For the Record by Jonathan Groff, Jessie Shelton, and 36 Questions
Derek’s Tune by The Chieftains
It’s Over, Isn’t It? By Deedee Magno Hall & Steven Universe
Escapism by Steven Universe (ft. AJ Michalka, Grace Rolek, Zach Callison) 
Fuyu no hanashi by The Given {The Seasons} (Ft. Yano Shougo)
On My Own by Carrie Hope Fletcher
Waiting in the Wings by Eden Espinosa
My Grand Plan by Kristin Stokes & Rob Rockicki
Seishun Kyousoukyoku by Sambomaster
Running out of time by Vivo
Barbie 12 Dancing Princesses Theme Song by Arnie Roth
One Day by Tate McRae
That Distant Shore by Jennifer Paz & Steven Universe
Hikaru Nara by Goose House
Reasons to Stay by Kate Vogel
Rin by ASCA
Keep Your Head Up Princess by Anson Seabra
Ima made Nandomo by The Massmissle
RUST by ASCA
Ever After High by Keeley Bumford
FICTION by Sumika
Ophelia by The Lumineers
Silhouette by Rain Lee
“Talk to me” by Cavetown
Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story by OBC of Hamilton
0 notes