Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 156

Why are robot-makers trying to outdo each other with terrifying robots?

SpotMini robot by Boston Dynamics (Credit: YouTube/BostonDynamics)

If you’re building technology that recalls the robot oppressors of “The Matrix” or “Black Mirror” it is probably not a good idea (from a public relations standpoint), to show off your robots’ potential to bring on the apocalypse. Most Silicon Valley companies have absorbed this branding wisdom. Case in point: Google often prompts comparisons to “The Terminator’s” internet-gone-haywire SkyNet, but the company wisely directs their marketing dollars in the direction of cute Google Doodles and other PR stunts to lend the company a softer, less apocalyptic edge. Likewise, if you ask Apple’s voice assistant Siri, they swear they don’t know HAL, the evil computer from “2001: A Space Odyssey.” And Facebook, constantly in the news for its easy availability as a disinformation weapon by intelligence agencies, is now emphasizing how the platform is a place to “focus on meaningful connections.”

These are sound public relations strategies from tech companies who are well-aware of their products’ potential to be perceived as tools of hegemonic oppression. Apparently, many robotics researchers didn’t get the memo.

Today and yesterday, we were treated to new test videos from robotics manufacturer Boston Dynamics, featuring their four-legged robots opening doors for one another, and, today, opening the same door while resisting a researcher’s attempts to deflect it with a hockey stick. In the video, “Testing Robustness,” the stick-wielding researcher is relatively gentle with his blunt instrument, before yanking the dogbot by its leash. Still, you get the impression he doesn’t really want to hurt the robot, a model called a SpotMini for its resemblance to a dog (I’d feel more comfortable seeing a follow-up video showing how it fares against a shotgun, or a crucible full of liquid iron, or both).

The videos terrified many. “The new video of Boston Dynamics’ robot dog is even more horrifying than the first one,” tech news site BGR cautioned in their headline. Devin Coldewey’s headline in TechCrunch was perhaps the most prophetic: “Humans sow seeds of destruction by abusing poor robot just trying to walk through a door.”

“Seems like at this point you don’t want to anger them,” Coldewey wrote. “They will find you. Or rather, they’ll find the company’s designated robot abuser and punish him for stopping poor robots from doing what they have been told to do. Soon Spot Mini will not be the one on a leash.”

Indeed, the SpotMini’s resilience in the face of intervention, and its plodding, methodical dedication to its mission is creepily reminiscent of all kinds of sci-fi robots that wouldn’t give up in their missions to seek and destroy. The trope of the indestructible robot is a sci-fi horror staple: the Terminators, every single model in every single movie in the franchise; the bullet-dodging, expressionless agents of “The Matrix;” and the unnamed “dog” robot in the episode “Metalhead” from the latest season of “Black Mirror.”

In the span of that 45-minute episode, an autonomous drone robot-dog chases a terrified trespasser across a barren landscape, handily converting whatever it can find into a weapon while overcoming nearly any attempt to defeat it. The “Black Mirror” team’s robot intentionally resembled the Boston Dynamics design, and prances and capers in a similar manner. Series creator Charlie Brooker admitted in an interview with Entertainment Weekly that the design of that episode’s robot dog was lifted from “watching Boston Dynamics videos.” “And with those [Boston Dynamics] videos, there’s something very creepy watching them where they get knocked over, and they look sort of pathetic laying there, but then they slowly manage to get back up,” Brooker said.

It’s reminiscent of another creepy robot that was presaged almost precisely in the third season of “Black Mirror.” Episode 6, titled “Hatred in the Nation,” took place in a near-future United Kingdom, where Colony Collapse Disorder (a very real thing!) had killed off much of the world’s honeybee population. As modern agriculture is utterly reliant on bees as pollinators, humans in this fictional future were forced to construct artificial robot honey-bees, which appeared as tiny drones that fly from flower to flower. Yet the bees seem to be controlled by an unseen hand, and can be programmed to act as tiny assassins.

Compared to other futuristic technologies, “Hatred in the Nation” ranked right up there on the realism scale. Researchers at Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology have developed drones the size of insects that could act as “artificial pollinators.” That particular “Black Mirror” episode was back in the news this week after a pair of headlines in some of the more sensationalist British tabloids, including the Daily Mirror and the Daily Star, the latter of which interviewed a researcher who claimed that the drone bees could be hacked to release a chemical sting to kill. I should note that the abilities of the drone bees are limited; one critic called the drones as they exist today “comically inept.” In other words, don’t fear the bee-bots just yet.

Robotics researchers must contend with the long history of fictitious evil robots that predates them. Yes, the software makers have their share of evil computers — from HAL 9000 to “Tron’s” Master Control Program to “Dr. Who’s” B.O.S.S. Perhaps because computers are more containable, and indeed, are jammed in every conceivable electronic device, we’ve learned to accept them as normal. The robots, not so much; outside of a stray Roomba, we don’t have a plethora of friendly or unfriendly robots in our day-to-day lives, and many of our observations about robots are negative (Remember that homeless-policing snitchbot in San Francisco last year? That wasn’t doing any favors for the robot PR people). One wonders if the roboticists are cognizant that they are fighting an uphill PR battle.

$38 million awarded to police shooting victim Korryn Gaines’ family is — and isn’t — justice

(Credit: Getty/Andrew Burton)

Last week, people all over celebrated the $38 million-dollar verdict won by the family of Korryn Gaines against the Baltimore County Police Department.

Gaines, 23, was shot and killed in her home on August 1, 2016, after a six-hour standoff with police. Her 5-year-old son Kodi, who survived, was also hit in the face and elbow. A viral video of the standoff was broadcast on Gaines’ Instagram and Facebook Live. The police did not file charges against the officers. A jury of six women in a civil suit, however, found that the initial shots from the police officers were unreasonable, thereby violating her and her son’s civil rights.

The family’s attorneys could be seen cheering as they exited the courtroom. And for good reason — the huge settlement should send a strong message to police departments everywhere. Part of me is happy for the attorneys and the Gaines family; however, I’m sad at the same time.

Her son will receive the bulk of that money, which will secure him financial freedom while also making him a target. No one around him will ever treat him the same because of the money. I know I’d easily choose to have my fallen loved ones back over any dollar amount. Most of us would.

Of course, the cop who shot Gaines and Kodi still has his job. So what, if anything, did he or any other police officers learn from this situation?

J.Wyndal Gordon, attorney for the Gaines family, released an account of how he and the team of lawyers he worked with won the case:

$37M+ for the Wrongful Death and civil rights action brought by Korryn Gaines and her family. Gaines was shot in the back by BaCo Officer, Royce Ruby, as he aimed at an area through the wall where he believed the back of her head would be —from behind a brick wall in an adjacent apartment. Gaines was in the kitchen fixing her son a peanut butter & jelly sandwich at the time Ruby fired his first shot.

Gaines’ son was shot in the face by the same bullet that entered Gaines’ back pierced her lungs bilaterally, traveled through her spine, then exited her body, ricocheting off of the refrigerator, and ultimately striking and embedding in her son’s face. How in the heck could she have the strength to rack and fire a shotgun twice after such devastating, immobilizing, disabling, and paralyzing injuries?

Read the rest of Gordon’s statement here.

The jury deliberated for three weeks, surveying piles of evidence­­, and ultimately deciding that Ruby was wrong to open fire, and yet he wasn’t charged by his own department with any criminal offense. He is free, and was allowed to keep his job. Not only did Ruby retain employment, he was promoted to the rank of corporal while the investigation was pending, according to Kenneth Ravenell, another Gaines family attorney.

I’m not a cop, but promoting someone who is under an investigation that could warrant criminal charges seems extremely unethical. I’m not a lawyer, but a jury awarding millions of dollars to a family because the story of the so-called-innocent-killer-cop was inconsistent and/or false while the same killer-cop gets to keep his job seems extremely hypocritical.

And to make matters worse, the Gaines family may not even receive all — or even any — of the money they were awarded. Last week the Baltimore Sun reported that the Gaines win was one of the highest in the state’s history; however, the state government has a history of lowering amounts on appeal, and then working religiously to get out of paying anything at all. The Sun article references multiple cases where victims were awarded damages and the city found legal reasons for not paying, like officers not “acting within the scope of his employment” or claiming to not be responsible because the officer “acted with malice.”

Dealing with the system as it stands is virtually impossible. You can lose even when you think you’ve won. I hope the family gets what they were promised — what they deserve — because Korryn’s killer definitely will not.

Missouri’s GOP governor indicted in revenge porn blackmail scheme

Eric Greitens (Credit: AP/Charlie Riedel)

Missouri’s Republican governor was taken into custody Thursday after being indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of felony invasion of privacy charge stemming from a 2015 extramarital encounter.

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner announced in a press release that Gov. Eric Greitens allegedly took a photo of a nude woman, blindfolded and hands bound, without her knowledge on March 21, 2015, and then threatened to release the sexually explicit photograph.

The allegations first became public last month, after Greitens, a first-term governor who took office in 2017, admitted to a sexual relationship with his former hair stylist. Shortly after delivering his first state of the state address in January, local TV station KMOV released a partial transcript of a recording of the woman saying Greitens tried to blackmail her with the photo to keep her quiet about the relationship. Greitens is married with children.

The recording was provided to KMOV by the woman’s ex-husband, who secretly taped her admission. The woman, who has not been named, told her ex-husband, “he used some sort of tape, I don’t what it was, and taped my hands to these rings and then put a blindfold on me … I didn’t even know. I feel like I don’t even know. I was just numb.”

“This was a consensual relationship,” Gov. Greitens told the AP last month. “There was no blackmail, there was no violence, there was no threat of violence, there was no threat of blackmail, there was no threat of using a photograph for blackmail. All of those things are false.”

But after opening an investigation into the allegations last month, Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner said on Thursday that “the Grand Jury has found probable cause to believe that Governor Greitens violated Missouri State Statute 565.252, which was in place at the time of the violation.” As Gardner explained of the indictment, “this statute has a provision for both a felony and misdemeanor.” Because the photo was taken “in a place where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the defendant subsequently transmitted the image contained in the photograph in a manner that allowed access to that image via a computer,” Greitens was charged with a felony. “The law makes it a felony if a person transmits the image contained in the photograph or film in a manner that allows access to that image via a computer,” Gardner explained. 

The penalty for first-degree invasion of privacy in Missouri is up to four years in prison.

Greitens, who ran for office in 2016 on a family values platform, has repeatedly declined to answer direct questions about whether or not he took any photos of the unnamed woman. On Thursday, his lawyer told local news outlets that the charges against the governor were “baseless and unfounded.”

Officials confirmed to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that Greitens was taken into custody and then booked at the St. Louis Justice Center on Thursday. He has since been released on his own recognizance.

Greitens can pardon himself because Missouri limits pardon power to post-conviction. He likely will not make it that far, as some prominent Republican lawmakers in Missouri were quick to react to news of his indictment by calling for his resignation, the New York Times reported.  

GOP MO Sen @robschaaf tells me re: Greitens:

“If he doesn’t resign the House…should move swiftly to bring this to a resolution”

— Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) February 22, 2018

His wife, Sheena, released a statement shortly after Greitens admitted to the affair, saying that she had already forgiven him and asked others to forgive him as well.

“We understand that there will be some people who cannot forgive—but for those who can find it in your heart, Eric asks for your forgiveness, and we are grateful for your love, your compassion, and your prayers.”

Earlier this week, the GOP-led Missouri state House approved a bill to crack down on “revenge porn,” making it a class D felony to share sexually explicit images or recordings without the consent of the person pictured. Sponsored by Republican Rep. Jim Neely, the bill also created a class E felony for those who even threaten to disseminate “private sexual images.”

Only hours before he was indicted on a felony charge, the Republican Governor’s Association proudly boasted about Greitens’ character.

With @EricGreitens, the people of Missouri have a leader in office focused on returning money to the pockets of taxpayers – not government. https://t.co/Zb9dFSzRXc

— The RGA (@The_RGA) February 22, 2018

Big Pharma investors cash in on Trump’s tax plan

(Credit: Getty/Spencer Platt/Gary Gershoff)

The GOP-led tax plan may have taken months of debate in Washington, but the pharmaceutical industry had already made up its mind as to what to do with its newly-reaped funds from a diminished corporate tax rate. And no, Big Pharma didn’t plan to spend their tax refund gift on, say, actual research; rather, they spent it on stock buybacks.

During the ongoing legislative debate and since the plan was officially signed by President Donald Trump in late December, a total of nine drug companies have shelled out a combined $50 billion on new share buyback programs, Axios reported. “That money is enriching hedge funds, other Wall Street investors and top drug company , but it isn’t necessarily helping patients,” Axios wrote. The corporate tax rate dropped from 35 percent to 21 percent as a result of the new tax plan.

In fact, the combined $50 billion spent between nine drug companies far outweighs company investments into employees and drug research and development, as Axios noted. Of course, the buck doesn’t stop there. Quarterly dividends have also been increased for companies such as AbbVie, which “increased its cash dividend by 35% while at the same time committing to a new $10 billion share repurchase program.” AbbVie, a spin-off of Abbott Laboratories, focuses on discovery and development for biopharmaceuticals and small molecule drugs.

Stock buybacks only benefit investors, known as shareholders, who are generally far wealthier than the average American. For example, while stock market increases have been great for many companies, only about half of Americans own any stock at all. This means that while major drug companies shower wealthy investors, they are also raising drugs prices and neglecting to put funds towards research and development.

The revelation poked yet another hole in the Trump administration’s pledge that its tax plan would serve the working class. Trump and several administration officials have touted the tax plan’s success, and lauded companies that provided employees with $1,000 bonuses in the name of tax reform. But Trump has also been silent when those same companies discreetly enacted mass layoffs, and many Americans aren’t buying the idea that the legislation has helped them.

Big Pharma has long been a huge lobbying force in American politics, and Trump has stacked his administration with industry sycophants. The industry’s presence and influence can’t be understated; the tax plan pushed by Trump and Republicans is an indicator of Big Business’s sway on the administration. Indeed, the powerful pharmaceutical lobby has also played a key role in the nation’s opioid crisis, which Trump has previously pledged to aggressively combat and eventually eradicate. That simply is not possible if Big Pharma continues to be enabled by lawmakers on Capitol Hill, or by the sitting president.

Twitter cracks down on bot behavior

(Credit: Getty/Leon Neal)

Facing increased scrutiny over its role as a weapon of disinformation, Twitter is taking gradual steps to keep trolls and bots from seizing important conversations on its platform. This time, the tech conglomerate is focusing on minimizing automation and the use of multiple accounts. This change will eventually result in terminating services of those who control multiple accounts that tweet the same content, follow users en masse, and perform simultaneous Retweets or likes to steer public opinion.

Twitter employee Yoel Roth explained in a blog post that “these changes are an important step in ensuring we stay ahead of malicious activity targeting the crucial conversations taking place on Twitter — including elections in the United States and around the world.”

Indeed they are. The indictment filed last week by Special Counsel Robert Mueller shed light into the behavior of the accused Russian trolls who allegedly meddled with the 2016 election. The details of the indictment document released last week showed that the defendants, a Russia-backed group, attempted to interfere with the election through information warfare tactics — going so far as to organize trending hashtags like the #Hillary4Prison, according to the indictment document.

Now, Twitter is asking users to avoid posting simultaneous identical posts or “substantially similar content to multiple accounts.”

“As an alternative to posting identical content, you can Retweet content from one account from the other accounts you wish to share that post from,” Roth explains. “This should only be done from a small number of distinct accounts that you directly control.”

Twitter is also advising users to avoid simultaneous actions such as likes, Retweets, or follows from multiple accounts.

“The use of any form of automation (including scheduling) to post identical or substantially similar content, or to perform actions such as Likes or Retweets, across many accounts that have authorized your app (whether or not you created or directly control those accounts) is not permitted,” Roth writes.

Developers have until March 23 to make changes to their apps and platforms to keep them from partaking in the aforementioned activity. Changes are also coming to TweetDeck, the social media dashboard owned by Twitter.

“Today, we’re also introducing changes to TweetDeck’s multiple account functionality to reflect this guidance,” Roth explains. “Users of TweetDeck will no longer be able to select multiple accounts through which to perform an action such as Tweeting, Retweeting, liking, or following.”

Mass simultaneous tweeting isn’t always a bad thing, though—especially in times of crisis. For this reason, Twitter is making one exception to its new policy.

“As a sole exception to this rule, applications that broadcast or share weather, emergency, or other public service announcements of broad community interest (for example, earthquake or tsunami alerts) are permitted to post this content across multiple accounts who have authorized an app,” Roth wrote.

Meanwhile, Twitter has quietly taken the initiative to purge bots from its platform, which have visibly impacted some right-wing opinion leaders’ follower count. Indeed, many conservative personalities have perceived the follower count fall as part of a grand conspiracy against them.

I lost around 4000 or so. https://t.co/HZRz0y4aJM

— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) February 21, 2018

That twitter attack on conservatives hit me too last night. I was deemed “ineligible” to use twitter ads and had followers purged. @twitter should ashamed, we have to organize a response. #TwitterLockOut pic.twitter.com/1Df4jY3Vv6

— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) February 21, 2018

https://twitter.com/mflynnJR/status/9...

Twitter has not made an official announcement regarding its purge, but it did release the following statement to Gizmodo:

“Twitter’s tools are apolitical, and we enforce our rules without political bias. As part of our ongoing work in safety, we identify suspicious account behaviors that indicate automated activity or violations of our policies around having multiple accounts, or abuse. We also take action on any accounts we find that violate our terms of service, including asking account owners to confirm a phone number so we can confirm a human is behind it. That’s why some people may be experiencing suspensions or locks. This is part of our ongoing, comprehensive efforts to make Twitter safer and healthier for everyone.”

 

Kylie Jenner says Snapchat is dead, company suffers $1.3 billion loss in market value

Kylie Jenner (Credit: Getty/Nicholas Hunt)

Snapchat’s future has been looking grim ever since it unveiled its new interface. A Change.org petition has even been circulating, collecting more than 1.2 million signatures, asking the tech company to remove its latest update. Now, Kylie Jenner — who was once dubbed the “Queen of Snapchat” — has seemingly ceased her operations on the platform. Indeed, she asked on Twitter yesterday, “Does anyone else not open Snapchat anymore?”

“Or is it just me… ugh this is so sad,” she tweeted.

sooo does anyone else not open Snapchat anymore? Or is it just me… ugh this is so sad.

— Kylie Jenner (@KylieJenner) February 21, 2018

still love you tho snap … my first love

— Kylie Jenner (@KylieJenner) February 21, 2018

In response to Jenner, some influential social media stars agreed.

It sucksssss :( feel like there is no connection anymore.

— Manny MUA (@MannyMua733) February 21, 2018

Jenner’s public display of distaste of the platform may have caused the company’s stock to plummet as the market closed on Feb. 22. According to Bloomberg, Snapchat parent’s shares decreased as much as 7.2 percent, which equaled an estimated “wipe out” of $1.3 billion in market value.

Snapchat initially announced its redesign in November with the intent of separating content out for its users by source.

“One of the complaints we’ve heard about social media is that photos and videos from your friends are mixed in with content from publishers and creators and influencers. But your friends aren’t content. They’re relationships,” Evan Spiegel, Snap’s CEO, said in an explainer video about the update.

Users haven’t embraced the move with fondness. Snapchat has responded to users who have signed the petition, letting them know they’ve been heard, but there hasn’t been any indication that a reversal of the update will happen in the foreseeable future. Instead, the company said it will be implementing another update “in the coming weeks,” which will make it “easier” to find the stories that they want.

“We hear you, and appreciate that you took the time to let us know how you feel. We completely understand the new Snapchat has felt uncomfortable for many,” the company wrote in response to the Change.org petition.

Some critics say that’s not good enough; they still want the old version back.

“We didn’t ask for more updates we just want the old snapchat back????” one signee, Jess Gray, wrote in response.

Trump blames video games on gun violence, but defends NRA (again)

(Credit: Getty/Chris Kleponis)

President Donald Trump tried to defend the NRA on Thursday, trying to blame everyone but the gun lobby for the epidemic of mass shootings.

“We’re going to take action,” Trump told reporters on Thursday. “Today we want to hear from you about how we can improve physical security at our schools, tackle the issue of mental health which is a very big issue, this person that was caught after having killed so many people, 17, and badly injuring so many others… and we want to ensure that when we see warning signs we act quickly, and when we have somebody that’s mentally unstable, like this guy that was a sicko, and there were a lot of warning signs, a lot of people were calling saying ‘hey, he’s going to do something bad,’  people have to act.”

After claiming that gun prosecutions have increased “very significantly” during his administration and that he has also cracked down on gangs like MS-13, the president then described his stance on mandatory background checks.

“I’ve called many senators last night . . . they’re into doing background checks that they wouldn’t be thinking about maybe two weeks ago,” Trump told reporters. “We’re going to do a strong background check, we’re going to work on getting the age up to 21 instead of 18, we’re getting rid of the bump stocks and we’re going to be focusing very strongly on mental health.”

The NRA is opposed to background checks as well as raising the age limit on gun purchases  — facts that Trump either didn’t know or chose to ignore on Thursday.

“I don’t think I’ll be going up against them. … They’re good people,” Trump told reporters when asked about the NRA’s stance on raising the age limit. “The NRA is ready to do things. People like to blame them.”

The president also discussed the alleged role of mental health in causing mass shootings and, finally, placed some of the blame on video games.

“I’m hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people’s thoughts,” Trump said. “And you go one further step and that’s the movies. . .  maybe they have to put a rating system for that.”

Movies and video games are already subject to a rating system, one that accounts for violence and sexual content as well as other factors.

Trump also expressed disgust with active shooter drills, describing them as “a very negative thing,” and instead said that he’d “much rather have a hardened school.”

He repeated this point, proclaiming, “We have to harden our schools, not soften them up” and that establishing gun free zones made committing mass shootings there like “going in for the ice cream.” He also suggested “a little bit of a bonus” for trained teachers who arm themselves, arguing, “I want my schools protected just like I want my banks protected.”

Arming teachers to stop gun violence is one of the worst Trump ideas yet

(Credit: Getty/gradyreese)

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump endorsed one of the worst ideas to prevent school shootings: Arming teachers.

“If you had a teacher who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly,” Trump said at a “listening session” with survivors of the recent attack in Parkland, Florida.

Every time the country’s attention turns to the problem of gun violence, critics of gun control turn to this idea. It never makes any sense.

Here are a few of the many things that could go wrong with teachers having guns at school:

A student could gain access to the firearm
Someone could discharge the firearm accidentally, which happens all the time
The gun could go missing, causing panic
A teacher could misuse the weapon for any number of reasons

And these consequences don’t even touch on the effects on students, including those struggling with anxiety, who would know their teachers are or might be in possession of a loaded gun.

Even in cases that defenders of this idea think are ideal, it’s far from clear that armed teachers improve the situation. Mother Jones found that there’s no credible instance of the mythical “good guy with a gun” actually stopping a mass shooter. And people who try can cause even more problems for cops who are trying to respond to the situation. The armed teachers could identify the wrong person as the shooter, accidentally fire at a bystander, or be mistaken for the shooter themselves. They’re almost certainly better off in these horrible situations doing their best to protect students and letting the police do their jobs.

But this idea isn’t even really meant to be taken seriously. Trump himself once blasted Hillary Clinton for saying that he wanted “guns brought into the school classroom,” which shows that even he even recognized how bad an idea it is.

The NRA and their allies talk about this idea because they have nothing else to say. They have no actual solutions to reduce gun violence in the United States, and they’re absolutely opposed to any of the ideas that would actually work. That’s why we’re in this mess and keep having this conversation.

Oprah responds to Trump’s “hate-tweet”

Oprah Winfrey; Donald Trump (Credit: Getty/Rich Polk/AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Oprah Winfrey addressed President Donald Trump’s tweet where he called her “very insecure” Sunday with Ellen DeGeneres.

On Thursday’s episode of “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” the host asked Winfrey what her thoughts were about the president’s biting words. “I woke up and I just thought,” Winfrey said, as she raised her arms up in confusion, her expression baffled, “I don’t like giving negativity power, so I just thought, ‘What?'”

Trump’s tweet came after Winfrey hosted a segment on “60 Minutes” where she invited Michigan voters in support of and opposed the president back on the show reflected on his first year in office.

Just watched a very insecure Oprah Winfrey, who at one point I knew very well, interview a panel of people on 60 Minutes. The questions were biased and slanted, the facts incorrect. Hope Oprah runs so she can be exposed and defeated just like all of the others!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 19, 2018

Winfrey explained that after the “hate-tweet,” she rewatched the segment to see if any of his accusations had merit. “I went back and looked at every tape, I called the producer, because what actually happened was when you do ’60 Minutes,’ you sit in a room with at least seven other people who critique the piece before you air it,” she said. “You have a whole panel of people looking at whether it was fair.” Winfrey added that she advocated for more Republican perspectives to be included in the conversation to ensure the segment’s balance. “So I was working very hard to do the opposite of what I was hate-tweeted about,” she said.

But Trump has a well-documented habit of categorizing any critique of himself or his administration, (but mostly himself) as biased or inaccurate. So it makes sense that Winfrey simply speaking to Democrats with opposing views would result in the president’s Twitter tirade. Certainly, the publicity is only anchoring Winfrey’s popularity, especially as people continue to fantasize about her potential run for president. It’s a possibility even Trump is toying with, or likely threatened by, as he added in the same tweet calling her insecure: “Hope Oprah runs so she can be exposed and defeated just like all of the others!”

It seems like Trump is trying to get ahead of Winfrey’s still very unconfirmed campaign and rile his supporters in formation against the beloved media mogul, just in case Winfrey does in fact decide to run.

She has repeatedly denied the claims though, even as CNN reported last week that three sources close to Winfrey revealed that she says “she is ‘not running’ for president right now, but she has not ruled it out in private conversations.” But it is hard to imagine that “three confidants” of Winfrey would speak to such a massive broadcaster like CNN without getting the clear from Winfrey herself. Even Winfrey’s own language leaves room for interpretation. A spokesperson for Winfrey told CNN, “there are no plans in the works for her to run,” which reads more like a ‘not-right-now’ rather than ‘never.’

Just given the sheer amount of coverage surrounding her potential bid, there is a certainly a feasible market for Winfrey should she change her mind. Not to mention her obvious power: the president writes a nasty tweet and Winfrey is dispelling the claims on “Ellen” days later. Surely she is not going through the show’s booking agent for such press access. Or just maybe, we are all so desperate for a viable 2020 contender that we just can’t bear to take Winfrey’s answer at face value. Either way, Oprah Winfrey wins, which means the president is probably “sad!”

Parents should talk to their tweens about the risks of porn

(Credit: Getty/AntonioGuillem)

Editor’s note: This article includes references to graphic sexual content that may be inappropriate for some readers.

Today teenagers are viewing far more pornography than their parents realize. And the porn they’re watching is much more “hardcore” than moms and dads could possibly imagine.

These were the main messages of “What Teenagers are Learning From Online Porn,” a recent New York Times story by Maggie Jones. It quickly became one of the most read and shared articles.

While this may be a surprise to many American parents who perhaps imagine porn as merely a naked centerfold, it wasn’t to scholars like me who immerse ourselves in the world of mainstream porn. We know how widespread violent, degrading and misogynistic pornography has become, as well as the implications for the emotional, physical and mental health of young people.

In an effort to better understand the problem from a “front-line” perspective, feminist activist Samantha Wechsler and I have been traveling the world talking to parents about the issue. The question we’re asked most often is: “What can we do about it?”

‘Hardcore’ porn is everywhere

Surveys and our own experiences show that parents are deeply concerned about the easy access their kids now have to porn via mobile devices.

The statistics paint a dismal picture. A recent U.K. study found that 65 percent of 15- to 16-year-olds had viewed pornography, the vast majority of whom reported seeing it by age 14. This is especially problematic given the findings of another study that found a correlation between early exposure to pornography and an expressed desire to exert power over women.

Yet for all this concern, they know surprisingly little about what mainstream porn looks like, how much their kids are accessing and how it affects them. The Times article, however, cited a 2016 survey that suggested most parents are totally unaware of their kids’ porn experiences. Jones called this the “parental naivete gap.”

This matches our own experiences. In the presentations we do at high schools, we ask parents to describe what they think of when they hear the word “porn.” They invariably describe a naked young woman with a coy smile, the kind of image many remember from Playboy centerfolds.

They are shocked when they learn that the images from today’s busiest free porn sites, like Pornhub, depict acts such as women being gagged with a penis or multiple men penetrating every orifice of a woman and then ejaculating on her face. When we tell parents this, the change in the atmosphere of the room is palpable. There is often a collective gasp.

It bears repeating that these are the most visited porn sites — which get more visitors every month than Netflix, Amazon and Twitter combined. Pornhub alone received 21.2 billion visits in 2015. We are not talking about images on the fringe.

Ana Bridges, a psychologist at the University of Arkansas, and her team found that 88 percent of scenes from 50 of the top-rented porn movies contained physical aggression against the female performers — such as spanking, slapping and gagging — while 48 percent included verbal abuse — like calling women names such as “bitch” or “slut.”

Bad for your health

More than 40 years of research from different disciplines has demonstrated that viewing pornography — regardless of age — is associated with harmful outcomes. And studies show that the younger the age of exposure, the more significant the impact in terms of shaping boys’ sexual templates, behaviors and attitudes.

A 2011 study of U.S. college men found that 83 percent reported seeing mainstream pornography in the past 12 months and that those who did were more likely to say they would commit rape or sexual assault (if they knew they wouldn’t be caught) than men who said they had not seen porn.

Another study of young teens found that early porn exposure was correlated with perpetration of sexual harassment two years later.

One of the most cited analyses of 22 studies concluded that pornography consumption is associated with an increased likelihood of committing acts of verbal or physical sexual aggression. And a study of college-aged women found that young women whose male partners used porn experienced lower self-esteem, diminished relationship quality and lower sexual satisfaction.

It begins with parents

Fearing for their children’s well-being, parents at our presentations, whether in Los Angeles, Oslo or Warsaw, want to run home in a panic to have the “porn talk” with their kids.

But in reality, they often have no idea what to say, how to say it, or how to deal with a kid who would rather be anywhere else in the world than sitting across from their parents talking about porn. At the same time, public health research shows that parents are the first line of prevention in dealing with any major social problem that affects their kids.

So what can be done?

Most current efforts focus on teens themselves and educating them about sex and the perils of porn. Although it is crucial to have high-quality programs for teens who have already been exposed, the fact is that this is cleaning up after the fact rather than preventing the mess in the first place.

So a team of academics, public health experts, educators, pediatricians and developmental psychologists — including us — spent two years pooling research to create a program to help parents become that vital first line of defense.

That’s why the nonprofit we set up — Culture Reframed — initially focused on parents of tweens, addressing a key question: How do we prevent kids from being exposed to images of sexual abuse and degradation at that critical stage when they are forming their sexual identities?

What took shape was a 12-module program that introduces parents sequentially to the developmental changes — emotional, cognitive and physical — that tweens undergo and the hypersexualized pop culture that shapes those changes and is the wallpaper of tween lives.

For example, boys learn from music videos, violent video games, mainstream media and porn that “real men” are aggressive and lack empathy, that sex equals conquest, and that to avoid being bullied, they have to wear the mask of masculinity. Girls, on the other hand, learn that they have to look “hot” to be visible, be as passive as a cartoon princess and internalize the male gaze, leading them to self-objectify at an early age.

Navigating the porn minefield

Helping parents grasp the degree to which hypersexualized images shape their tweens encourages them to understand, rather than judge, why their girl wants to look like one of the Kardashians, or why their boy, hazed into hypermasculinity, is at risk of losing his capacity for empathy and connection. This helps parents approach their kids with compassion rather than with frustration and anger that can undermine the parent-child relationship.

Navigating all the minefields of living in today’s toxic porn culture — from sexting and poor self esteem to porn and peer pressure — is very tricky terrain, and parents need all the help they can get.

But ultimately, the Culture Reframed project is about so much more than providing parents with newfound confidence and skills. It’s about taking power back from the porn industry, which is out to hijack the sexuality and humanity of kids in the name of profit, and giving it back to parents.

Samantha Wechsler, interim executive director of Culture Reframed, co-authored this article.

Gail Dines, Professor of Sociology and Women’s Studies, Wheelock College