TV
Game of Thrones QUIZ: What Type of Viewer Are You?
Are you a "Game of Thrones" super fan, a discerning credit, or that annoying person nobody wants to watch with? Take the quiz to find out your "Game of Thrones" viewer type.
05.10.2019
Culture News
European Panel Officially Rules that We Are All Banksy Now
Now that Banksy's "Flower Thrower" trademark has been revoked, anyone can profit off his work.
09.17.2020
This week anonymous street artist Banksy officially lost the European trademark to his "Flower Thrower" mural.
The guerrilla graffiti artist had engaged in a prolonged legal battle with the small greeting card company Full Colour Black—which was selling products featuring the image of a Palestinian man throwing a bouquet of flowers. But now a panel at the European Union Intellectual Property Office has announced their decision to revoke the artist's trademark on the grounds that he could not definitively prove himself to be the mural's creator.
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyMTIyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNzAyMTA3NX0.p05Eq8mXwW7gPH5qfG0cwJaxhMMEUbGBnLwloAtaDOU/img.jpg?width=980" id="3f664" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="eeaa3c02ea4c037347119b40ce626b30" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Banksy Flower Thrower Mural">
</p><p>The trademark—which was established through Banksy's "handling service," Pest Control, back in 2014—is distinct from the traditional method for an artist to protect their work through copyright. For a copyright to be valid, the creator must be positively identified, which was not really an option for Banksy, the famously anonymous graffiti artist—who has made a name for himself out of being nameless.<br></p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-632"></div>
<!-- End Ezoic - undersecond12 - under_second_paragraph --></p><p><!-- Ezoic - under_second_paragraph - under_second_paragraph -->
</p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-813"><center><script async="" src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:inline-block;width:468px;height:60px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4301469008561137" data-ad-slot="9626795938"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script></center></div>
<!-- End Ezoic - under_second_paragraph - under_second_paragraph --><p></p><p>Trademark, by contrast, is intended to help consumers identify genuine goods based on their branding. It's why Wal-Mart doesn't sell $5 Gucci knock-offs. Essentially, Banksy had attempted to avoid exposing his identity by operating as a brand rather than an individual. But in order to defend that trademark, there had to be a business using that branding. Enter <a href="https://grossdomesticproduct.com/" target="_blank">Gross Domestic Product</a>.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-633"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent1 - mid_content --></p><p>Last Fall, Banksy introduced his online store along with <a href="https://hyperallergic.com/521125/banksy-opens-london-art-shop-same-week-he-sets-12m-auction-record/" target="_blank">a physical store front in the Croydon area of South London</a>. The store offered "solutions for wealth" including a "clutch" consisting of a brick with some leather straps attached for nearly $1000, a faux tiger-skin rug resembling the flayed, cavity-riddled corpse of Tony the Tiger, and—critically—prints of "flower thrower."</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-634"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent11 - mid_content --></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyMTIwOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwMjQ5MTM1M30.UIRlcZ5gybVpj4Psp3iikO9mnteBoiJCZKjWvUsyHYk/img.jpg?width=980" id="fc068" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6f968e71de13caa87eb17ee8b9035ef7" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="gross domestic product">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">A view into the Gross Domestic Product Storefront in Croydon</small></p><p>If Banksy had been satisfied with allowing the store to function outwardly as a simple cash grab, the plan might have worked. Unfortunately, he wanted the world to know that he was too cool for anything like that.<br></p><p>Referring to the whole ordeal as "possibly the least poetic reason to ever make some art," Bansky explicitly acknowledged that his true motivation for launching Gross Domestic Product was to defend his trademark. A note posted at the Croydon storefront stated that "This shop has come about as a result of legal action. A greeting cards company are trying to sieze [sic] legal custody of the name Banksy from the artist, who has been advised the best way to prevent this is to sell his own range of branded merchandise."<span></span></p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-635"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent2 - long_content --></p><p>Unfortunately for Banksy, trademark law explicitly states that a business must be operating in good faith—in genuine pursuit of profit—in order to retain a copyright. So it's not that surprising that <a href="https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/brand-management/gross-domestic-failure-banksy-trademark-portfolio-risk-after-eu-registration-declared-invalid" target="_blank">the EUIPO came back with a decision</a> stating that: "Banksy was trying to use the sign only to show that he had an intention of using the sign, but his own words and those of his legal representative, unfortunately undermined this effort."</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-636"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent22 - long_content --></p><p>What is somewhat surprising is that <a href="https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/012575155" target="_blank">the panel's statement</a> went further, indicating that Banksy's efforts to retain the rights to his work while concealing his identity were futile—that trademark is subject to the same problems as copyright, because he can never prove himself to be the true owner of his work.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-637"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent3 - longer_content --></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d7d7facd4e3557cd99486ef1fc5c1acd"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xoe3Nn5vuBg?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Who is Banksy?</small>
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xoe3Nn5vuBg" target="_blank">www.youtube.com</a>
</small>
</p><p>As the panel put it, Banksy "cannot be identified as the unquestionable owner of such works as his identity is hidden ... Therefore, the filing of a trademark cannot be used to uphold these rights which may not exist, or at least may not exist for the person claiming to own them."<br></p><p>The panel also stated that, "Banksy has chosen to remain anonymous and, for the most part, to paint graffiti on other people's property without their permission, rather than to paint it on canvases or his own property," In other words, if you want to hide who you are in order to avoid the consequences of violating other people's property rights, you basically nullify your own property rights.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-638"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent33 - longer_content --></p><p></p><center><script async="" src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script><!-- Popdust Mobile Banner 320x100 --><ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:inline-block;width:320px;height:100px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4301469008561137" data-ad-slot="6952751205"></ins><script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script></center><p></p><p>Considering <a href="https://www.popdust.com/banksy-overrated-2645155215.html" target="_blank">how long it's been since anyone was really upset at their property getting the Banksy treatment</a>—it's the "vandalism" equivalent of throwing a gold brick through someone's window—it's hard not to read some stuffy spite into the EUIPO's statement. They are the enforcers of the established order of society, and if Banksy wants to sit on the sidelines and criticize the established order, then they don't have to do him any favors.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-639"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent4 - longest_content --></p><p>What this means for the future is that any and all of Banksy's artwork—not just the "Flower Thrower"—may be subject to unregulated reproduction within the European Union. Essentially, unless Banksy decides to reveal his identity, anyone on Earth has as much claim to his creations as he does.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyMTI1Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzODA0NTM3MX0.y4IkeLmPOyfCtHcfAk4BABoxqy5zNcNaTnaKyBynO3c/img.jpg?width=980" id="45b70" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d76f06edfe50e309ad6a62272394c726" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Ash snow banksy">
</p><p>You could move to Paris tomorrow (if not for the fact that Americans are currently barred from the EU...), and open up a store selling nothing but Banksy-branded merchandise—from Hip-Hop Rat to Balloon Girl, to that kid catching ash on his tongue. You could even tell all your customers that you're Banksy, and there's seemingly nothing <del><a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1034538/Graffiti-artist-Banksy-unmasked---public-schoolboy-middle-class-suburbia.html" target="_blank">Robin Gunningham</a></del> Pest Control could do to stop you.<br></p><h2></h2><h2></h2><p>With his trademark officially cancelled, you have as much legal claim to Banksy's art and secret identity as anyone else. We are all Banksy now.</p>
Keep Reading
Show less
Culture News
Can Kim Kardashian Really Live Without Instagram and Facebook? Can You?
With social media giants like Facebook and Instagram woven into our daily lives, does a boycott have real weight?
09.16.2020
Kim Kardashian has nearly 190 million followers on Instagram, where she's in the habit of posting at least once a day.
If her followers were a nation, they would be the 8th most populous on the planet. But the citizens of Kardashia (Kimeroon? The United Kimdom?) will not be receiving any diplomatic news or thirst traps from their dear leader on Wednesday.
As she announced on Instagram on Tuesday, she is taking part in the one-day boycott of Instagram and Facebook organized by Stop Hate for Profit and promoted by other celebrities, from Katy Perry to Leonardo DiCaprio.
<p><!-- Ezoic - under_second_paragraph - under_second_paragraph -->
</p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-813"><center><script async="" src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:inline-block;width:468px;height:60px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4301469008561137" data-ad-slot="9626795938"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script></center></div>
<!-- End Ezoic - under_second_paragraph - under_second_paragraph --><p></p><p>With less than two months remaining before the 2020 presidential election, Kardashian expressed that she felt compelled to "freeze" her accounts for the day because "misinformation shared on social media has a serious impact on our elections and undermines our democracy."</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-632"></div>
<!-- End Ezoic - undersecond12 - under_second_paragraph --></p><div id="ddfd7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b1deef6ef599e53030d794eba74d5e69"><blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-version="4" style=" background:#FFF; border:0;
border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15);
margin: 1px; max-width:658px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px);
width:calc(100% - 2px);">
<div style="padding:8px;">
<div style=" background:#F8F8F8; line-height:0; margin-top:40px; padding:50% 0; text-align:center;
width:100%;">
<div style=" background:url();
display:block; height:44px; margin:0 auto -44px; position:relative; top:-22px; width:44px;">
</div></div><p style=" margin:8px 0 0 0; padding:0 4px;">
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CFKvmvIgADq/" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;
word-wrap:break-word;" target="_top">Login • Instagram</a></p>
</div></blockquote></div><h4>Stop Hate for Profit<br></h4><p>A coalition of organizations including the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, and Sleeping Giants, Stop Hate for Profit launched in June of 2020 with a stated goal of "hold[ing] social media companies accountable for hate on their platforms." Their particular aim of fighting the spread of racism, anti-semitism, and electoral misinformation has been focused on The Facebook Company—which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-633"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent1 - mid_content --></p><p><a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-facebook-ad-boycott-could-pay-off-for-companies-more-than-advertising-on-facebook-2020-07-01" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Back in July the coalition led a push for more than 1,100 companies</a>—from Microsoft to Starbucks to Coca-Cola—to "pause" their Facebook advertising for that month. The sum of these companies' advertising amounts to billions of dollars in annual revenue for Mark Zuckerberg's monolith, yet Facebook's stock barely budged—and has, in fact, been steadily climbing since.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-634"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent11 - mid_content --></p><p>Still, the advertising boycott seemed to be effective in forcing some concessions. As it's laid out on Stop Hate for Profit's website, it was in the wake of that effort that Facebook "announced the creation of a senior role to oversee civil rights ... established a dedicated team to study algorithmic racial bias" and "publicly released their long-delayed civil rights audit."</p><p>While Facebook may have hoped for those to be the kind of hollow corporate gestures that placate investors without really altering the profit model or addressing activists' concerns, the civil rights audit included the assessment that the way the company had caused "<a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/08/888888476/report-slams-facebook-for-vexing-and-heartbreaking-decisions-on-political-speech" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">significant setbacks for civil rights</a>."</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-635"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent2 - long_content --></p><p>Of particular concern was <a href="https://www.popdust.com/mark-zuckerberg-trump-2646117777.html" target="_self">Zuckerberg's lenient approach to President Donald Trump</a> and his campaign for violating Facebook's official policies in a number of posts and ads. Unfortunately, it's not clear that any social media platform has the perfect solution for handling the fact that bigotry is baked into the highest levels of the US government.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-636"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent22 - long_content --></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQwMTczOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNTk3NjQ3M30.9_1nO8lxDtr1VDSOA-f3ho6Q28srnMWlyrCHwNwCGZ4/img.jpg?width=980" id="f8fcf" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="17a727f5ada6145a21b1cdd48e07629d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Trump looting tweet">
</p><p>While <a href="https://www.popdust.com/trump-looting-shooting-2646126939.html" target="_self">Twitter has added fact checks</a> and limited the ways users could interact with a number of Donald Trump's tweets in recent months, their approach has sometimes been clumsy. And efforts to remove toxic communities from <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/reddit-bans-subreddits-thedonald-chapotraphouse" target="_blank">Reddit attempted a balanced approach</a> that some claimed drew a false equivalency between violently hateful groups and groups violently opposed to hatred.<br></p><p>It's a difficult needle for online platforms to thread—especially when they're already widely <a href="https://www.popdust.com/trump-twitter-2646109103.html" target="_self">accused of suppressing and "shadow-banning" conservative voices</a>. How much does it serve the public interest to erase records of the president's hate and lies?</p><h4>The Sad Necessity of Social Media Censorship</h4><p>Do we really want privately owned, profit-seeking companies to be in charge of what information we're allowed to see? If you want to spread the idea that Mark Zuckerberg deserves to be in jail, do you want him to have a say in who sees that? Should there be any censorship on social media at all?</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-637"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent3 - longer_content --></p><p>Sadly, we don't have the choice to allow these platforms to exist as bastions of unfettered free speech. The reality is that their profit models are based on keeping people engaged, and—without oversight—that leads to algorithms that promote outrage, hatred, and misinformation.</p><p><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/us/blm-protests-peaceful-report-trnd/index.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">True stories about peaceful BLM protests</a> just don't spread as well as <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/09/13/912449209/oregon-officials-warn-untrue-antifa-rumors-waste-precious-resources-for-fires" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">lies about Antifa fire-bombing the Pacific Northwest</a>. Functionally, this results in platforms that actively promote hatred and division for personal profit. And Facebook just so happens to be ground zero.</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-638"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent33 - longer_content --></p><p>In addition to the deluge of fabricated stories that spread across the platform in the lead-up to the 2016 US presidential election, Facebook has been implicated in election interference in countries around the world. They have promised to do better this November, but have done little to prove it.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-youtube">
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6a60cbeab2ac36f02018d502d7b3c74a"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xT9BRUoXhh8?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="Add Photo Caption...">Rep. Ocasio-Cortez questions Mark Zuckerberg on when Facebook will fact check</small>
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="Add Photo Credit...">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT9BRUoXhh8" target="_blank">www.youtube.com</a>
</small>
</p><p>Even more worrying, <a href="https://time.com/5880118/myanmar-rohingya-genocide-facebook-gambia/" target="_blank">the platform was instrumental in inciting recent hatred and genocidal violence against the minority population of Rohingya people in Myanmar</a>. In a volatile context in which racialized violence is already a major concern—like, for example, the United States in 2020—a platform like Facebook has a massive potential to fan the flames of hatred and division.<br></p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-639"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent4 - longest_content --></p><p>One recent example of exactly that involved a militia group calling themselves "Kenosha Guard." The group—which was, by its nature, a violation of Facebook's policies—promoted an event for armed citizens to patrol the streets of the Wisconsin city.</p><p>While it's not clear that Kyle Rittenhouse saw the event before<a href="https://www.libertyproject.com/kyle-rittenhouse-rusten-sheskey-qualified-immunity-2647394285.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> taking an assault rifle across state lines and killing two strangers</a>, what we do know is that Facebook had ample time to remove the group and the event—which multiple users flagged for violating their policies—yet the pages were allowed to remain up even after blood had been shed.</p><p>Stop Hate for Profit hopes that pressure applied by celebrities and ordinary users during their <a href="https://www.stophateforprofit.org/week-of-action-toolkit" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Week of Action</a> can push the company to "take action to address racism, hate, and disinformation on its platforms."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQwMjAxNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NTcwNzYyNn0.jX0NHEq-esvg-M5hMFu5KT6dpl974KXISId9B8OhSYM/img.jpg?width=980" id="ba33d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c6cf01ce967d26061295b9f0a6d30069" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Kyle Rittenhouse's Facebook">
</p><p>In addition to Wednesday's boycott, the schedule calls for users to spend Thursday and Friday spreading awareness of Facebook's "role in inciting violence, spreading racism and hate, and contributing to electoral disinformation." But is any of this likely to bring about real change?<br></p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-640"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent44 - longest_content --></p><h4>Can a Boycott Even Work?</h4><p>Sure, Kim Kardashian is among the highest profile figures on Instagram, but she's only taking one day off the platform. Even if every one of her 189 million followers followed her lead, it would hardly put a dent in the company's profits for September. And let's face it, many of those people are so addicted to social media that even one day off is out of the question.</p><p>The only way Mark Zuckerberg is likely to take the push seriously is if there's a threat of extending Wednesday's action to a sustained boycott. Which raises the question: Is it even possible for Kim Kardashian to quit Instagram and Facebook? Is it possible for any of us?</p><p></p><center><script async="" src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script><!-- Popdust Mobile Banner 320x100 --><ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:inline-block;width:320px;height:100px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4301469008561137" data-ad-slot="6952751205"></ins><script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script></center><p></p><p>In the case of Kim and the rest of the Kardashian-Jenner clan, so much of their livelihood is tied to messaging directly to their fans. While Kim stated in her post that she can't "continue to allow the spreading of hate, propaganda and misinformation," does her family (leaving aside the fact that her husband <a href="https://www.popdust.com/why-you-shouldnt-vote-kanye-2020-2647173266.html" target="_self">Kanye West is himself a prolific source of propaganda and misinformation currently attempting to interfere in the election</a>) really have a choice?</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-641"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - bottomofpage - bottom_of_page --></p><p>In addition to using Zuckerberg's platforms to promote their various fashion and makeup ventures, they get paid big bucks for sponsored posts—with <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/49124484" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Kylie Jenner reportedly earning more than $1 million per sponsored post in 2019</a>.</p><p><a href="https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a33977997/scott-disick-khloe-kardashian-upset-kuwtk/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">With <em>KUWTK</em> officially ending</a>, the reality TV dynasty will be all the more dependent on social media to maintain their celebrity and their incomes. Is there a viable option for reaching the masses that doesn't profit Mark Zuckerberg? Will they switch to vlogging on YouTube, or posting all their selfies on Twitter? Will the whole family end up <a href="https://www.popdust.com/why-is-bella-thornes-onlyfans-account-hurting-sex-workers-2647394390.html" target="_self">on OnlyFans</a>?</p><div id="d5377" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d0575d0c8ddca6a522fb9b8c99b33ecf"><blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-version="4" style=" background:#FFF; border:0;
border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15);
margin: 1px; max-width:658px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px);
width:calc(100% - 2px);">
<div style="padding:8px;">
<div style=" background:#F8F8F8; line-height:0; margin-top:40px; padding:50% 0; text-align:center;
width:100%;">
<div style=" background:url();
display:block; height:44px; margin:0 auto -44px; position:relative; top:-22px; width:44px;">
</div></div><p style=" margin:8px 0 0 0; padding:0 4px;">
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B9crewEANXO/" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif;
font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;
word-wrap:break-word;" target="_top">Login • Instagram</a></p>
</div></blockquote></div><p>More to the point, can we, as a society, really let go of the digital communities that keep us connected? According to every commercial that has aired during quarantine, we need those connections "<a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90491778/every-covid-era-commercial-is-the-same-and-this-supercut-video-proves-it" target="_blank">now more than ever</a>."<br></p><p><strong>But if those connections support companies that profit from hate-mongering and efforts to undermine democracy, can we live without the tether of social media?</strong> Can we go back to chat rooms, phone calls, and Christmas cards? Can we still exist without blasting our thoughts and our lives out into the world?</p><p><div id="ezoic-pub-ad-placeholder-645"> </div>
<!-- End Ezoic - incontent_4 645 - longest_content --></p><p>Failing that, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/interface/2020/7/30/21346575/tech-antitrust-hearing-recap-bezos-zuckerberg-cook-pichai" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">will Congress manage to break up big tech companies</a>, so they're more susceptible to public pressure? Or do we just need to wait for some benevolent tech company to come along and connect us without giving a platform to hatred and lies?</p><h2></h2><p>Because if we can't make a credible threat of abandoning Facebook and Instagram, Mark Zuckerberg will just keep offering hollow solutions—he'll have no reason to stop harvesting his billions from the violent collapse of our society.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep Reading
Show less
