Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 961
November 3, 2015
The fate of San Francisco hangs in the balance: The pivotal Election Day contests that could change everything
I love many things about living in New York City, but one thing I hate is that I can no longer vote in my hometown, San Francisco. Elections in New York area boring. Elections in San Francisco really matter. Thanks to the city's small size and the unbelievable ease with which propositions can be put on the ballot, voters have a great deal of power in their hands.
Today's elections in San Francisco have come around at a particularly intense time. The civil war taking place there over the reach and influence of the tech industry has become an international story. From the soccer field face-off between some Dropbox bros and local kids, to Airbnb's recent cartoon-villain ads that got the company into so much trouble, to those Google bus protests, everyone has been given a front-row seat to what is happening to the City by the Bay—where, as the New York Times chillingly put it this week, there is so much money sloshing around that "the days when a regular family could raise children here are probably over."
This sort of change is hardly limited to San Francisco; cities everywhere are experiencing surges in inequality and an influx of mega-wealth. But San Francisco has been chosen as the epicenter of the tech industry, and so it has been subjected to a particularly rapacious transformation. If you are from there, you can sense it almost instantly.
This is actually the second time that tech has brought this sort of turmoil to San Francisco. The first dot-com boom at the turn of the 21st century was similarly contentious. (This is where I disclose that my family was evicted from our house during that period by owners who wanted desperately to raise the rent, which they duly did.) But that was nothing compared to what is happening now. There's a very good reason for that: The technology industry is now so integral to our lives that it's not going anywhere any time soon.
I don't know what it feels like for people from other cities to experience the kind of dislocation that is roiling San Francisco, but I am very aware of the specific feeling that comes from seeing this particular place be so dramatically altered.
San Francisco is small. Even the lengthiest journeys take about a half hour in the car. This means that, if you grow up there, or if you live there for any extended period of time, essentially every part of the city leaves its mark on you. You experience every neighborhood in some form or another. People from San Francisco have a particularly intimate relationship with their city.
So when you see what is happening in San Francisco—when you gaze open-mouthed at the vast pockets of money that have colonized places you once adored and turned them virtually unrecognizable—it is deeply, almost startlingly unsettling. It only becomes more unsettling when you are then told that your hidebound anti-development ways are the cause of the problem. (This is not true, by the way.) People are freaked out about what is taking place in San Francisco because they feel like this city that nurtured them and understood them and loved them back has been ripped from them overnight and given to people with no understanding of what they've done.
To give just one example: Last week, my sister—who has lived in San Francisco virtually all her life and knows it better than anyone I can think of—went to a party in Golden Gate Park, only to find that it was a "cholo"-themed affair, where rich white bros were dressing up like stereotypical Latinos. When she told me about it, the sheer strangeness of something like that happening in San Francisco hung over our conversation even more than the racism.
Neither of us should have been so surprised. Latinos are being driven out of the city at breathtaking rates. A recent study projected that the Latino population of the Mission—San Francisco's most precious neighborhood, its sunniest jewel, and the epicenter of its Latino life—is set to fall to 31 percent by 2025. That's down from 60 percent in 2000. I have read a lot of depressing statistics this year, but none made me so sad as this one.
That's where Tuesday's elections come in. From top to bottom, they are referendum on where the city's relationship with the tech industry is going. The most bitterly contested struggles in the race are happening over two ballot initiatives. One, Prop. F, would tighten regulations on Airbnb, which has been aggressively exploiting loopholes in local laws and, because it takes rental units off the market, has become a symbol of San Francisco's housing crisis. Airbnb has spent $8 million to defeat Prop. F. Another initiative, Prop. I, would temporarily halt the construction of luxury housing in the Mission.
Ironically, the one race that's a sure thing is the one for mayor. Ed Lee—who was installed as interim mayor when the last one left, then went back on a pledge not to run for a full term—is guaranteed an easy victory. Perhaps this is because the tech industry that he has so enthusiastically handed the keys to the city in recent years is backing him with enough ferocity to scare off any serious challengers.
Instead, people are putting their energy into one race for the Board of Supervisors, San Francisco's legislative body. The city is divided into 11 districts, and currently, the so-called "moderates" (read: the allies of Lee and his friends) have a one-vote advantage over the progressive faction. The race in District 3, between a Lee appointee and former progressive supervisor Aaron Peskin, could tip the balance in favor of the left, which would be a very, very big deal.
Whatever winds up happening, this is not just a fight about local ordinances. It's symbolic of the wider discussion we need to have about the kind of society we want to live in. The tech industry brings many wonderful things to our lives, but it is also a driving force behind the attempt to privatize virtually every part of public life, mostly to benefit the rich. San Francisco has become a breeding ground for this kind of experimentation, at a deeply lamentable cost. Even though I can't vote there anymore, I am hoping that the people can use their power to turn the tide back in the right direction.
Ted Cruz’s crazy dad has a dire warning for the GOP: Nominating Jeb Bush means electing Hillary Clinton & destroying America
Speaking to crowd in Lake Elmo, Minnesota last month, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz's father, Rafael, predicted that America will be destroyed if Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 election, reports Right Wing Watch. Declaring that "we are ready to take America back," without identifying from whom, Cruz said he was encouraged by what he called a "groundswell all across America of people saying 'I am sick and tired of this garbage, I'm not going to take it anymore,'" to cheers of "Amen" from the audience. Warning that "we don't have enough time," Cruz confidently predicted that "it will happen," ostensibly referring to the nomination of his son. He then explained that the only thing that could derail a surefire Republican takeover of the White House is if the mischievous forces of "the Republican establishment" are successful in manipulating Republicans to support a “mushy, middle-of-the-road, stand-for-nothing moderate like Jeb Bush.” “And if Jeb Bush gets the nomination, Hillary will be our next president and this country will be destroyed,” Cruz warned, wagging his finger at the crowd. The elder Cruz has made a similar comment in the past, remarking in April that if Clinton were to win the general election, “you might as well kiss this country goodbye.” Cruz encouraged Republicans to go around the liberal media to "get the message" out that his son is the only GOP candidate that has the guts to speak out against "the Washington cartel." Watch Rafael Cruz rail against the GOP establishment ad fearmonger about a possible Clinton presidency: Speaking to crowd in Lake Elmo, Minnesota last month, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz's father, Rafael, predicted that America will be destroyed if Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 election, reports Right Wing Watch. Declaring that "we are ready to take America back," without identifying from whom, Cruz said he was encouraged by what he called a "groundswell all across America of people saying 'I am sick and tired of this garbage, I'm not going to take it anymore,'" to cheers of "Amen" from the audience. Warning that "we don't have enough time," Cruz confidently predicted that "it will happen," ostensibly referring to the nomination of his son. He then explained that the only thing that could derail a surefire Republican takeover of the White House is if the mischievous forces of "the Republican establishment" are successful in manipulating Republicans to support a “mushy, middle-of-the-road, stand-for-nothing moderate like Jeb Bush.” “And if Jeb Bush gets the nomination, Hillary will be our next president and this country will be destroyed,” Cruz warned, wagging his finger at the crowd. The elder Cruz has made a similar comment in the past, remarking in April that if Clinton were to win the general election, “you might as well kiss this country goodbye.” Cruz encouraged Republicans to go around the liberal media to "get the message" out that his son is the only GOP candidate that has the guts to speak out against "the Washington cartel." Watch Rafael Cruz rail against the GOP establishment ad fearmonger about a possible Clinton presidency:
A social media star comes clean: “Everything I was doing was edited and contrived to get more value”
Essena O'Neill is Internet semi-famous. Over the past few years, the now 19 year-old Australian has racked up half a million followers on Instagram and over 270,000 subscribers on YouTube. She has parlayed her "vibrant visual diary of her healthy and happy life in the sun" into modeling offers and sponsorship deals. But she now says it was a carefully cultivated illusion, the kind that social media makes so tempting and so easy to maintain. And she says she wants to do something different. Last week, she began telling her followers she was making changes. She now says she's deleted her Tumblr and 2,000 photos from her Instagram account that were mere "self-promotion." Her Instagram now tells the stories behind some of those original photos -- like a bikini shot she says is "NOT REAL LIFE - took over 100 in similar poses trying to make my stomach look good. Would have hardly eaten that day. Would have yelled at my little sister to keep taking them until I was somewhat proud of this. Yep so totally #goals." In another, she says, "Only wore workout wear for the photo. What does this inspire? To have to be tiny to be healthy? To have to be born into a genetically small frame and win the genetic lottery?" In an emotional Monday video she claims is her "last ever" post to YouTube, O'Neill rails against "how fake it all is." Appearing barefaced and nervous, she says that "Taking myself off social media is a wakeup call to anyone and everyone who follows me. I had the dream life… To a lot of people, I'd made it… I was surrounded by all this wealth, all this fame, all this power, and I had never been more miserable. I'm the girl that had it all, and I'm here to tell you that having it all on social media means absolutely nothing to your real life…. Everything I was doing was edited and contrived to get more value, to get more views." O'Neill now warns her followers that "When you're following someone and they have a lot of followers and they're promoting a lot of products, they are paid.… Companies know the power of social media, and they are exploiting it." But she says that the reason she's doing her current about face isn't because of the corporate aspect; it's what living a life that increasingly revolved around the acquisition of likes and new followers was doing to her. O'Neill has now launched a new site called Let's Be Gamechangers, aimed at changing the relationship between users and social media. Her new goals, she says, include promoting her ideals of "real health," veganism, and love and connection. She also uses the site to look back on her own constructed image -- like examining a revealing photo she painstakingly created on her fifteenth birthday and noting, "Craving attention validated through social media I believe shows a gap in real life connections." She's now soliciting subscribers and, intriguingly, has a currently empty placeholder for "cool products." And naturally, as the Guardian reports, she's already receiving criticism for her very public — and instantly viral — move, as well as responses from other YouTubers disputing her account of her evolution. She wrote on a post added on Tuesday, "How ironic, the week I quit social media I receive 'my second fame'. All this backlash saying 'She's fake, hoax, attention seeker.'" Social media can be an amazing outlet for storytelling and social change, and it can be a trip to Troll Town with a side of empty validation seeking. There may not have been a truer sitcom moment this year than Billy Eichner on "Difficult People" admitting to checking his social media account "Like I’m f__king pressing for medication in a hospital." Plenty of people a lot older and far more obscure than O'Neill grapple regularly with how to manage our online lives without falling down the sludge hole of Internet toxicity. It's hard work. It's good when someone reminds us of that. What O'Neill does next appears to be a work in progress. But she seems to have already figured out a key component of a healthy online life when she says, "For those who seek light (real happiness), you'll never find it in social approval, for that in itself is an illusion based on artificial ideas and emotions."Essena O'Neill is Internet semi-famous. Over the past few years, the now 19 year-old Australian has racked up half a million followers on Instagram and over 270,000 subscribers on YouTube. She has parlayed her "vibrant visual diary of her healthy and happy life in the sun" into modeling offers and sponsorship deals. But she now says it was a carefully cultivated illusion, the kind that social media makes so tempting and so easy to maintain. And she says she wants to do something different. Last week, she began telling her followers she was making changes. She now says she's deleted her Tumblr and 2,000 photos from her Instagram account that were mere "self-promotion." Her Instagram now tells the stories behind some of those original photos -- like a bikini shot she says is "NOT REAL LIFE - took over 100 in similar poses trying to make my stomach look good. Would have hardly eaten that day. Would have yelled at my little sister to keep taking them until I was somewhat proud of this. Yep so totally #goals." In another, she says, "Only wore workout wear for the photo. What does this inspire? To have to be tiny to be healthy? To have to be born into a genetically small frame and win the genetic lottery?" In an emotional Monday video she claims is her "last ever" post to YouTube, O'Neill rails against "how fake it all is." Appearing barefaced and nervous, she says that "Taking myself off social media is a wakeup call to anyone and everyone who follows me. I had the dream life… To a lot of people, I'd made it… I was surrounded by all this wealth, all this fame, all this power, and I had never been more miserable. I'm the girl that had it all, and I'm here to tell you that having it all on social media means absolutely nothing to your real life…. Everything I was doing was edited and contrived to get more value, to get more views." O'Neill now warns her followers that "When you're following someone and they have a lot of followers and they're promoting a lot of products, they are paid.… Companies know the power of social media, and they are exploiting it." But she says that the reason she's doing her current about face isn't because of the corporate aspect; it's what living a life that increasingly revolved around the acquisition of likes and new followers was doing to her. O'Neill has now launched a new site called Let's Be Gamechangers, aimed at changing the relationship between users and social media. Her new goals, she says, include promoting her ideals of "real health," veganism, and love and connection. She also uses the site to look back on her own constructed image -- like examining a revealing photo she painstakingly created on her fifteenth birthday and noting, "Craving attention validated through social media I believe shows a gap in real life connections." She's now soliciting subscribers and, intriguingly, has a currently empty placeholder for "cool products." And naturally, as the Guardian reports, she's already receiving criticism for her very public — and instantly viral — move, as well as responses from other YouTubers disputing her account of her evolution. She wrote on a post added on Tuesday, "How ironic, the week I quit social media I receive 'my second fame'. All this backlash saying 'She's fake, hoax, attention seeker.'" Social media can be an amazing outlet for storytelling and social change, and it can be a trip to Troll Town with a side of empty validation seeking. There may not have been a truer sitcom moment this year than Billy Eichner on "Difficult People" admitting to checking his social media account "Like I’m f__king pressing for medication in a hospital." Plenty of people a lot older and far more obscure than O'Neill grapple regularly with how to manage our online lives without falling down the sludge hole of Internet toxicity. It's hard work. It's good when someone reminds us of that. What O'Neill does next appears to be a work in progress. But she seems to have already figured out a key component of a healthy online life when she says, "For those who seek light (real happiness), you'll never find it in social approval, for that in itself is an illusion based on artificial ideas and emotions."
I don’t want to “heart” your tweet: Twitter’s dumb new fix gets zero stars
You can say a lot with a heart. You can also anger and annoy an enormous number of people with one, too, which is what Twitter seems to have done by changing its symbols around. And it may be setting off the biggest backlash in online iconography since Apple’s San Francisco font. Here’s the social media platform’s announcement today:
We are changing our star icon for favorites to a heart and we’ll be calling them likes. We want to make Twitter easier and more rewarding to use, and we know that at times the star could be confusing, especially to newcomers. You might like a lot of things, but not everything can be your favorite. The heart, in contrast, is a universal symbol that resonates across languages, cultures, and time zones. The heart is more expressive, enabling you to convey a range of emotions and easily connect with people. And in our tests, we found that people loved it.Well, presumably some people really did love it. But the noise on social media today reveals that a lot of people don’t. “Twitterers expressed annoyance at noticing the change,“ CBS News reports, “with some even threatening to quit using Twitter all together.” Tweeters had various reasons for their frustration: https://twitter.com/laurenlaverne/sta... https://twitter.com/CarolynEd1/status... https://twitter.com/t_marshall25/stat... Part of the problem may be gender related: Unlike Facebook (which uses a thumb’s up for its “likes”) and Instagram (which also uses a heart), Twitter leans slightly male, according to research by Pew Research Center. Are the reasons women tend to be more comfortable than men with emotional expressions and symbolism cultural or biological? Who knows, but a lot of men are going to be uncomfortable “hearting” something, and users of all gender expressions seem freaked out by the change. So what was Twitter’s braintrust – and, presumably, new chief Jack Dorsey – thinking here? “Innovation” and “disruption” are the key words in Silicon Valley, so something like this was probably inevitable. It’s also the kind of cosmetic thing new bosses like to do to show people they are serious characters. And in Twitter’s defense, the use of “favorite” was pretty annoying: the world is better off with it gone. But the reason the heart is such a misfired idea has more to do with the nature of Twitter. The tech crowd has such a weirdly messianic sense of mission – the whole “change the world” rhetoric – that Twitter’s brass may not quite get what people use their site for. Mostly, it involves passing around witty comments, bitter complaints, silly videos, and outrage-stoking news stories. Everyone has his or her balance of these categories, but rarely do we share something because we love it. Sometimes we send it out because it looks interesting, or because the news it reports pisses us off. The level of emotional intensity that inspires love as a reaction, or to cause us to reach for a heart, rarely enters into it. The Atlantic's Elizabeth Bruenig dissents from the bad vibes around Twitter's heart:
Most people on Twitter probably don’t use the platform the way members of the media do, and it certainly makes more sense to slap a twinkling heart onto a family member’s daily status update than a tweet linking to a story of horrific human rights abuses. Twitter was probably thinking of its broader user base, rathern than its concentrated media constituency, when it made the change. Or maybe it is just screwing with us.But Twitter isn’t Facebook – which involves people mostly engaging with friends and relatives and posting pictures of kids and vacations and great looking meals, and which tends to be more lighthearted than Twitter. And Twitter isn't Instagram, a highly-curated image-sharing space where pretty pictures prompt the "heart" icon with ease. The people we follow on Twitter are often people we’ve never met or spoken to, but whose words and images we’re curious to see. Isn’t a heart a little, uh, intimate for this kind of thing?You can say a lot with a heart. You can also anger and annoy an enormous number of people with one, too, which is what Twitter seems to have done by changing its symbols around. And it may be setting off the biggest backlash in online iconography since Apple’s San Francisco font. Here’s the social media platform’s announcement today:
We are changing our star icon for favorites to a heart and we’ll be calling them likes. We want to make Twitter easier and more rewarding to use, and we know that at times the star could be confusing, especially to newcomers. You might like a lot of things, but not everything can be your favorite. The heart, in contrast, is a universal symbol that resonates across languages, cultures, and time zones. The heart is more expressive, enabling you to convey a range of emotions and easily connect with people. And in our tests, we found that people loved it.Well, presumably some people really did love it. But the noise on social media today reveals that a lot of people don’t. “Twitterers expressed annoyance at noticing the change,“ CBS News reports, “with some even threatening to quit using Twitter all together.” Tweeters had various reasons for their frustration: https://twitter.com/laurenlaverne/sta... https://twitter.com/CarolynEd1/status... https://twitter.com/t_marshall25/stat... Part of the problem may be gender related: Unlike Facebook (which uses a thumb’s up for its “likes”) and Instagram (which also uses a heart), Twitter leans slightly male, according to research by Pew Research Center. Are the reasons women tend to be more comfortable than men with emotional expressions and symbolism cultural or biological? Who knows, but a lot of men are going to be uncomfortable “hearting” something, and users of all gender expressions seem freaked out by the change. So what was Twitter’s braintrust – and, presumably, new chief Jack Dorsey – thinking here? “Innovation” and “disruption” are the key words in Silicon Valley, so something like this was probably inevitable. It’s also the kind of cosmetic thing new bosses like to do to show people they are serious characters. And in Twitter’s defense, the use of “favorite” was pretty annoying: the world is better off with it gone. But the reason the heart is such a misfired idea has more to do with the nature of Twitter. The tech crowd has such a weirdly messianic sense of mission – the whole “change the world” rhetoric – that Twitter’s brass may not quite get what people use their site for. Mostly, it involves passing around witty comments, bitter complaints, silly videos, and outrage-stoking news stories. Everyone has his or her balance of these categories, but rarely do we share something because we love it. Sometimes we send it out because it looks interesting, or because the news it reports pisses us off. The level of emotional intensity that inspires love as a reaction, or to cause us to reach for a heart, rarely enters into it. The Atlantic's Elizabeth Bruenig dissents from the bad vibes around Twitter's heart:
Most people on Twitter probably don’t use the platform the way members of the media do, and it certainly makes more sense to slap a twinkling heart onto a family member’s daily status update than a tweet linking to a story of horrific human rights abuses. Twitter was probably thinking of its broader user base, rathern than its concentrated media constituency, when it made the change. Or maybe it is just screwing with us.But Twitter isn’t Facebook – which involves people mostly engaging with friends and relatives and posting pictures of kids and vacations and great looking meals, and which tends to be more lighthearted than Twitter. And Twitter isn't Instagram, a highly-curated image-sharing space where pretty pictures prompt the "heart" icon with ease. The people we follow on Twitter are often people we’ve never met or spoken to, but whose words and images we’re curious to see. Isn’t a heart a little, uh, intimate for this kind of thing?You can say a lot with a heart. You can also anger and annoy an enormous number of people with one, too, which is what Twitter seems to have done by changing its symbols around. And it may be setting off the biggest backlash in online iconography since Apple’s San Francisco font. Here’s the social media platform’s announcement today:
We are changing our star icon for favorites to a heart and we’ll be calling them likes. We want to make Twitter easier and more rewarding to use, and we know that at times the star could be confusing, especially to newcomers. You might like a lot of things, but not everything can be your favorite. The heart, in contrast, is a universal symbol that resonates across languages, cultures, and time zones. The heart is more expressive, enabling you to convey a range of emotions and easily connect with people. And in our tests, we found that people loved it.Well, presumably some people really did love it. But the noise on social media today reveals that a lot of people don’t. “Twitterers expressed annoyance at noticing the change,“ CBS News reports, “with some even threatening to quit using Twitter all together.” Tweeters had various reasons for their frustration: https://twitter.com/laurenlaverne/sta... https://twitter.com/CarolynEd1/status... https://twitter.com/t_marshall25/stat... Part of the problem may be gender related: Unlike Facebook (which uses a thumb’s up for its “likes”) and Instagram (which also uses a heart), Twitter leans slightly male, according to research by Pew Research Center. Are the reasons women tend to be more comfortable than men with emotional expressions and symbolism cultural or biological? Who knows, but a lot of men are going to be uncomfortable “hearting” something, and users of all gender expressions seem freaked out by the change. So what was Twitter’s braintrust – and, presumably, new chief Jack Dorsey – thinking here? “Innovation” and “disruption” are the key words in Silicon Valley, so something like this was probably inevitable. It’s also the kind of cosmetic thing new bosses like to do to show people they are serious characters. And in Twitter’s defense, the use of “favorite” was pretty annoying: the world is better off with it gone. But the reason the heart is such a misfired idea has more to do with the nature of Twitter. The tech crowd has such a weirdly messianic sense of mission – the whole “change the world” rhetoric – that Twitter’s brass may not quite get what people use their site for. Mostly, it involves passing around witty comments, bitter complaints, silly videos, and outrage-stoking news stories. Everyone has his or her balance of these categories, but rarely do we share something because we love it. Sometimes we send it out because it looks interesting, or because the news it reports pisses us off. The level of emotional intensity that inspires love as a reaction, or to cause us to reach for a heart, rarely enters into it. The Atlantic's Elizabeth Bruenig dissents from the bad vibes around Twitter's heart:
Most people on Twitter probably don’t use the platform the way members of the media do, and it certainly makes more sense to slap a twinkling heart onto a family member’s daily status update than a tweet linking to a story of horrific human rights abuses. Twitter was probably thinking of its broader user base, rathern than its concentrated media constituency, when it made the change. Or maybe it is just screwing with us.But Twitter isn’t Facebook – which involves people mostly engaging with friends and relatives and posting pictures of kids and vacations and great looking meals, and which tends to be more lighthearted than Twitter. And Twitter isn't Instagram, a highly-curated image-sharing space where pretty pictures prompt the "heart" icon with ease. The people we follow on Twitter are often people we’ve never met or spoken to, but whose words and images we’re curious to see. Isn’t a heart a little, uh, intimate for this kind of thing?You can say a lot with a heart. You can also anger and annoy an enormous number of people with one, too, which is what Twitter seems to have done by changing its symbols around. And it may be setting off the biggest backlash in online iconography since Apple’s San Francisco font. Here’s the social media platform’s announcement today:
We are changing our star icon for favorites to a heart and we’ll be calling them likes. We want to make Twitter easier and more rewarding to use, and we know that at times the star could be confusing, especially to newcomers. You might like a lot of things, but not everything can be your favorite. The heart, in contrast, is a universal symbol that resonates across languages, cultures, and time zones. The heart is more expressive, enabling you to convey a range of emotions and easily connect with people. And in our tests, we found that people loved it.Well, presumably some people really did love it. But the noise on social media today reveals that a lot of people don’t. “Twitterers expressed annoyance at noticing the change,“ CBS News reports, “with some even threatening to quit using Twitter all together.” Tweeters had various reasons for their frustration: https://twitter.com/laurenlaverne/sta... https://twitter.com/CarolynEd1/status... https://twitter.com/t_marshall25/stat... Part of the problem may be gender related: Unlike Facebook (which uses a thumb’s up for its “likes”) and Instagram (which also uses a heart), Twitter leans slightly male, according to research by Pew Research Center. Are the reasons women tend to be more comfortable than men with emotional expressions and symbolism cultural or biological? Who knows, but a lot of men are going to be uncomfortable “hearting” something, and users of all gender expressions seem freaked out by the change. So what was Twitter’s braintrust – and, presumably, new chief Jack Dorsey – thinking here? “Innovation” and “disruption” are the key words in Silicon Valley, so something like this was probably inevitable. It’s also the kind of cosmetic thing new bosses like to do to show people they are serious characters. And in Twitter’s defense, the use of “favorite” was pretty annoying: the world is better off with it gone. But the reason the heart is such a misfired idea has more to do with the nature of Twitter. The tech crowd has such a weirdly messianic sense of mission – the whole “change the world” rhetoric – that Twitter’s brass may not quite get what people use their site for. Mostly, it involves passing around witty comments, bitter complaints, silly videos, and outrage-stoking news stories. Everyone has his or her balance of these categories, but rarely do we share something because we love it. Sometimes we send it out because it looks interesting, or because the news it reports pisses us off. The level of emotional intensity that inspires love as a reaction, or to cause us to reach for a heart, rarely enters into it. The Atlantic's Elizabeth Bruenig dissents from the bad vibes around Twitter's heart:
Most people on Twitter probably don’t use the platform the way members of the media do, and it certainly makes more sense to slap a twinkling heart onto a family member’s daily status update than a tweet linking to a story of horrific human rights abuses. Twitter was probably thinking of its broader user base, rathern than its concentrated media constituency, when it made the change. Or maybe it is just screwing with us.But Twitter isn’t Facebook – which involves people mostly engaging with friends and relatives and posting pictures of kids and vacations and great looking meals, and which tends to be more lighthearted than Twitter. And Twitter isn't Instagram, a highly-curated image-sharing space where pretty pictures prompt the "heart" icon with ease. The people we follow on Twitter are often people we’ve never met or spoken to, but whose words and images we’re curious to see. Isn’t a heart a little, uh, intimate for this kind of thing?
Inside the Uber apocalypse: Why the fast-growing tech giant could be in serious trouble
The New York Times performed a public service over the weekend with the first two installments of a three-part series on the shady clauses in consumer and employment contracts that enable corporations to divert legal disputes into secret, extra-judicial arbitration panels. The corporation pays the arbitrators hearing the case, and the rulings, from what we can tell about this opaque process, favor the corporation, if only because an arbitrator siding with the people who do the hiring ensures them more work in the future. It’s amazing that we’ve allowed corporations to build their own parallel legal system, rupturing the fundamental right of access to courts. “It’s in two amendments of the Bill of Rights,” said Sen. Al Franken, one of Congress’ leading critics of mandatory arbitration, on a conference call reacting to the Times series. “The Second Amendment is supposed to be important, but that’s one amendment. [Trial by jury] is really important, that’s in two amendments.” (It’s the Sixth and the Seventh, incidentally.) Two partisan Supreme Court rulings, 2011’s AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and 2013’s American Express v. Italian Colors, entrenched arbitration in the law, preventing even criminal lawsuits from proceeding and significantly limiting class action cases. As the Times points out, Chief Justice John Roberts, who participated in the majority in both cases, unsuccessfully tried to limit class actions as a private lawyer for Discover Bank. When in a position to make the decision by himself, Roberts capitalized, and consumers and workers have suffered ever since. But a case out of California could upend this blockade of the justice system, and it’s perhaps fitting that the company involved routinely breaks the law as part of its business strategy. Uber, the ride-sharing app, not only may have gone too far in the way it treats its drivers; it could bring down the arbitration house of cards in the process. Uber treats its 300,000 drivers as independent contractors, allowing it to avoid granting worker’s compensation, overtime pay and other relevant labor benefits. Low labor costs enable the company to undercut competitors and win business. If forced to actually follow the law, Uber is just another car service. A non-trivial number of drivers are not happy with being the low-paid cog in the Uber business model, and have sued the company over misclassifying their employment status. The California Labor Commission awarded $4,152.20 in business expenses and back wages to driver Barbara Berwick in June. But Uber can handle one driver at a time; a class action incorporating all its drivers would be a fatal blow. And this September, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen ruled that drivers could form a class to litigate employee misclassification. The critical question is how big that class will be. Like so many other companies, Uber included a clause in its standard employment contract, binding driver disputes to an arbitration process. However, its initial language was faulty. One part of the contract says a private arbitrator gets to rule on whether a particular case goes to arbitration, but another part gives that choice to a judge. Also, an opt-out clause allowed drivers to retain their right to sue, but it was hidden on the second-to-last page of the contract, and required drivers to hand-deliver a letter to Uber’s headquarters in San Francisco, or mail it overnight through a “nationally recognized overnight delivery service.” Judge Chen ruled in June in a separate case that the arbitration language was contradictory, and the opt-out was “illusory” and “additionally meaningless.” A state judge in San Francisco backed up Chen’s contention in September. Uber updated its arbitration language in June 2014, and Chen removed drivers who signed after that from the class action. But all contracts under the old language are suspect. And in the June ruling, Judge Chen expressed problems with the new language as well, throwing the entire effectiveness of the arbitration clauses into disarray. Lawyers for the class action are separately trying to nullify the new arbitration language. They have appealed to the National Labor Relations Board, asking them to invalidate the arbitration agreement entirely as incompatible with state and federal labor laws. The Wall Street Journal amusingly calls this a “technicality.” But the consequences are enormous. If Uber’s position holds, only 15,000 drivers would be eligible for the California class action. But if the plaintiffs win, all 160,000 of Uber’s California employees would be eligible. A successful, globally enforceable case would set a key precedent for other states and probably spell the end of Uber, at least as it’s currently structured. A successful NLRB decision would still have to survive judicial review, and appeals to both of Judge Chen’s cases will be heard by the Ninth Circuit. That means that the cases could eventually filter up to the same Supreme Court judges who have repeatedly ruled for arbitration and against individuals seeking justice. But a couple factors could make things different this time. First, Judge Chen’s argument that Uber’s arbitration contracts aren’t enforceable because of shoddy language and the inability to opt out makes this less a standard arbitration case ruled by precedent, and more a case about contract law, which could prove less effective for the companies. Second, there’s the issue of whether arbitration laws pre-empt labor laws; you can easily see the Roberts court argue that, but that’s a far more invasive argument than its prior rulings. Third, the Times series puts a much bigger spotlight on the Court’s actions in this area, and that matters; just ask John Roberts in the Obamacare cases. It’s one thing to take away access to courts under cover of darkness, but it’s harder when people are watching. And Uber arguing so strenuously for arbitration, which corporations all characterize as a simpler and more effective process for individuals seeking relief, gives the game away. Uber would rather retreat to a secret system where decisions are almost never made public, to keep their scam of misclassifying their employees going. Arbitrations were originally enacted to settle disputes between corporations, not to shield corporations from their customers or employees. The Uber cases could finally reverse this dispiriting trend of corporate immunity from prosecution.
Kris Kobach just got busted: Leader of GOP’s voter suppression crusade spoke before white nationalist group
Kansas Secretary of State and the right-wing's most prominent anti-immigration activist Kris Kobach was recently outed for speaking at the annual Writers’ Workshop of the The Social Contract Press (TSCP), a group classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a white nationalist publishing house. According to SPLC, The Social Contract Press' publisher John Tanton is also the founder of the modern nativist movement. Kobach was spotted by the Center for New Community at the October 25 gathering in Washington, D.C. U.S. Rep. Brian Babin, a Republican freshman from Texas who recently proposed legislation to suspend refugee resettlement programs as the Syrian crisis finally made U.S. headlines, was also a featured speaker. From SPLC:
Given TSCP’s publisher, it’s not surprising that articles from their eponymous journal The Social Contract have propagated the myth that Latino activists want to occupy and "reclaim" the American Southwest, argued that no Muslim immigrants should be allowed into the United States and claimed that multiculturalists are trying to replace “successful Euro-American culture” with “dysfunctional Third World cultures.”https://twitter.com/Hunter7Taylor/sta... Kobach has helped several states, including Arizona with its notorious SB1070, craft their own anti-immigrant laws laws. He has also been a leader in the GOP's national crusade to enact voter suppression measures. After pushing the Kansas legislature to give him prosecutorial powers over election fraud cases, duplicating and complicating the existing jurisdiction of local prosecutors, he has so far failed to bring any evidence in the more than 100 cases of fraud he promised to prosecute back in June, only filing charges in three cases. [image error]Kansas Secretary of State and the right-wing's most prominent anti-immigration activist Kris Kobach was recently outed for speaking at the annual Writers’ Workshop of the The Social Contract Press (TSCP), a group classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a white nationalist publishing house. According to SPLC, The Social Contract Press' publisher John Tanton is also the founder of the modern nativist movement. Kobach was spotted by the Center for New Community at the October 25 gathering in Washington, D.C. U.S. Rep. Brian Babin, a Republican freshman from Texas who recently proposed legislation to suspend refugee resettlement programs as the Syrian crisis finally made U.S. headlines, was also a featured speaker. From SPLC:
Given TSCP’s publisher, it’s not surprising that articles from their eponymous journal The Social Contract have propagated the myth that Latino activists want to occupy and "reclaim" the American Southwest, argued that no Muslim immigrants should be allowed into the United States and claimed that multiculturalists are trying to replace “successful Euro-American culture” with “dysfunctional Third World cultures.”https://twitter.com/Hunter7Taylor/sta... Kobach has helped several states, including Arizona with its notorious SB1070, craft their own anti-immigrant laws laws. He has also been a leader in the GOP's national crusade to enact voter suppression measures. After pushing the Kansas legislature to give him prosecutorial powers over election fraud cases, duplicating and complicating the existing jurisdiction of local prosecutors, he has so far failed to bring any evidence in the more than 100 cases of fraud he promised to prosecute back in June, only filing charges in three cases. [image error]
November 2, 2015
Abortion and “Jane the Virgin”: Ultimately, giving birth is the one choice that matters on this show
When it debuted in 2014, the "Jane the Virgin" was one of TV’s freshest and most unexpected surprises. The critically acclaimed dramedy stars Golden Globe-winner Gina Rodriguez as an aspiring writer who accidentally gets artificially inseminated after a hospital mix-up—and decides to keep it. This causes obvious tension in her relationship with Michael (Brett Dier) and a romance to blossom with Rafael (Justin Baldoni), the soon-to-be father of her child. If this all sounds ripped from a telenovela, that’s because it is—the CW show was adapted from a Venezuelan program of the same name—but what makes "Jane the Virgin" so extraordinary is the way it treats the daily stresses of pregnancy and motherhood as just as noteworthy as Jane’s neverending love triangle. Last season found Jane struggling to prepare for the responsibilities of parenting, and this season has devoted entire episodes to breastfeeding and getting your baby to blink. This past installment found Jane trying to decide between being a stay-at-home mom and going to grad school, and the show emphasized that, for mothers, there is no wrong choice. It’s an incredibly non-judgmental view of motherhood—in a culture that too often tells women that however you’re raising your child, you’re doing it wrong. (Hell, Kim Kardashian has been shamed for everything from how much North West cries to
having swollen ankles
.) But what’s disappointing is that "Jane the Virgin" is unable to show the empathy for all the choices women have to make about their bodies. The show's pilot was lauded for its pro-choice depiction of a matter-of-fact conversation about abortion when Jane finds out she's pregnant, and later, for a conversation about whether or not Jane would terminate the pregnancy if tests showed severe abnormalities (she wouldn't, and they didn't). But in a recent episode, Rafael’s ex-girlfriend Petra (the fantastic Yael Grobglas) stole a remaining sample of his sperm (spoilers ahead) and drunkenly knocked herself up with a turkey baster. Petra asks his advice, which puts Rafael in a difficult position: Should he encourage her to have it “taken care of” or help his manipulative ex-wife raise a child he doesn’t want? Confusingly, the show emphasizes that it’s Petra’s body and her call, but abortion — in many ways, the least dramatic choice Petra could make here — is a non-starter. The Big A is treated as a dirty word. While the misstep is disappointing, pop culture has long struggled with how to present a woman’s right to choose in ways that are validating and non-dismissive. In the late Adrienne Shelly’s "Waitress," Keri Russell never considers abortion, despite the fact that she’s in an abusive, loveless marriage. "Juno" dismisses the procedure after its titular character gets cold feet during her Planned Parenthood visit, after a pro-life protester tells her that her child has fingernails. In "Knocked Up," Katherine Heigl decides to raise a child with her one-night stand—despite the objections of everyone around her—for reasons that are unclear. In a 2007 editorial for the Huffington Post, Lisa Wade called "Knocked Up" “pro-life ideology disguised by dick jokes”—despite the fact that, like "Juno" screenwriter Diablo Cody, its creator, Judd Apatow, is pro-choice. I wouldn’t say that any of these movies or shows are against a woman’s right to choose, but the issue is that they rarely present it as a realistic option. Cody argued that she intended to show the “human, teenage reasons” that someone might choose not to have an abortion, which is fair, but too rarely do we ever get to see the “human, teenage reasons” that a girl like Juno might choose to terminate her pregnancy. However, a number of recent films have portrayed a woman’s right to choose in ways that are honest and reflect the hard decisions women have to make. Paul Weitz’s recent "Grandma" follows a young woman (Julia Garner)—one not much older than Juno—who asks her estranged grandmother (Lily Tomlin) to fund her abortion; because she can’t afford to help, the pair embark on a "Thelma and Louise"-style road trip to raise the money. Whereas "Grandma" emphasizes the financial burdens of pregnancy, the much-praised "Obvious Child" sets its abortion drama in the plot of a traditional romantic comedy. Giving the buddy comedy and the rom-com a pro-choice twist might not feel revolutionary to some, but these films are incredibly important to women who might be struggling with the stigma of abortion. This is why Amelia Bonow and Lindy West started the #ShoutYourAbortion hashtag in September: to show women that it’s OK to talk about their experiences with the issue. “The fact that even progressive, outspoken, pro-choice feminists feel the pressure to keep our abortions under wraps—to speak about them only in corners, in murmurs, in private with our closest confidantes—means that opponents of abortion get to define it however suits them best,“ West wrote in the Guardian. West is absolutely right: The real danger of silence—whether that’s in TV, movies, or real life—is those against a woman’s right to choose are anything but quiet. In recent months, an ongoing Republican “investigation” into Planned Parenthood (following a number of viral hoax videos on the Internet) has sought to defund women’s health centers across the country, and it has worked. States like Texas and Ohio have already voted to cut taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, while states like South Carolina, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, Louisiana, and Alabama have all considered doing the same. This would leave millions of women without local options for reproductive health. Although I don’t expect "Jane the Virgin" or any other television program to take an explicit stand on that issue (although I wouldn’t complain), the show has a responsibility to show women everywhere that all of the decision they make about their own bodies are important and valid. A recent study found that 99 percent of all women who have terminated a pregnancy don’t regret it, and we need to show that abortions aren’t evil or demonic; for many women, it was simply right for them. If "Jane the Virgin" really wants to get motherhood right, it needs to recognize all the women who choose not to become mothers through abortion — not just theoretically, but for real — and remind us why that’s OK, too.When it debuted in 2014, the "Jane the Virgin" was one of TV’s freshest and most unexpected surprises. The critically acclaimed dramedy stars Golden Globe-winner Gina Rodriguez as an aspiring writer who accidentally gets artificially inseminated after a hospital mix-up—and decides to keep it. This causes obvious tension in her relationship with Michael (Brett Dier) and a romance to blossom with Rafael (Justin Baldoni), the soon-to-be father of her child. If this all sounds ripped from a telenovela, that’s because it is—the CW show was adapted from a Venezuelan program of the same name—but what makes "Jane the Virgin" so extraordinary is the way it treats the daily stresses of pregnancy and motherhood as just as noteworthy as Jane’s neverending love triangle. Last season found Jane struggling to prepare for the responsibilities of parenting, and this season has devoted entire episodes to breastfeeding and getting your baby to blink. This past installment found Jane trying to decide between being a stay-at-home mom and going to grad school, and the show emphasized that, for mothers, there is no wrong choice. It’s an incredibly non-judgmental view of motherhood—in a culture that too often tells women that however you’re raising your child, you’re doing it wrong. (Hell, Kim Kardashian has been shamed for everything from how much North West cries to
having swollen ankles
.) But what’s disappointing is that "Jane the Virgin" is unable to show the empathy for all the choices women have to make about their bodies. The show's pilot was lauded for its pro-choice depiction of a matter-of-fact conversation about abortion when Jane finds out she's pregnant, and later, for a conversation about whether or not Jane would terminate the pregnancy if tests showed severe abnormalities (she wouldn't, and they didn't). But in a recent episode, Rafael’s ex-girlfriend Petra (the fantastic Yael Grobglas) stole a remaining sample of his sperm (spoilers ahead) and drunkenly knocked herself up with a turkey baster. Petra asks his advice, which puts Rafael in a difficult position: Should he encourage her to have it “taken care of” or help his manipulative ex-wife raise a child he doesn’t want? Confusingly, the show emphasizes that it’s Petra’s body and her call, but abortion — in many ways, the least dramatic choice Petra could make here — is a non-starter. The Big A is treated as a dirty word. While the misstep is disappointing, pop culture has long struggled with how to present a woman’s right to choose in ways that are validating and non-dismissive. In the late Adrienne Shelly’s "Waitress," Keri Russell never considers abortion, despite the fact that she’s in an abusive, loveless marriage. "Juno" dismisses the procedure after its titular character gets cold feet during her Planned Parenthood visit, after a pro-life protester tells her that her child has fingernails. In "Knocked Up," Katherine Heigl decides to raise a child with her one-night stand—despite the objections of everyone around her—for reasons that are unclear. In a 2007 editorial for the Huffington Post, Lisa Wade called "Knocked Up" “pro-life ideology disguised by dick jokes”—despite the fact that, like "Juno" screenwriter Diablo Cody, its creator, Judd Apatow, is pro-choice. I wouldn’t say that any of these movies or shows are against a woman’s right to choose, but the issue is that they rarely present it as a realistic option. Cody argued that she intended to show the “human, teenage reasons” that someone might choose not to have an abortion, which is fair, but too rarely do we ever get to see the “human, teenage reasons” that a girl like Juno might choose to terminate her pregnancy. However, a number of recent films have portrayed a woman’s right to choose in ways that are honest and reflect the hard decisions women have to make. Paul Weitz’s recent "Grandma" follows a young woman (Julia Garner)—one not much older than Juno—who asks her estranged grandmother (Lily Tomlin) to fund her abortion; because she can’t afford to help, the pair embark on a "Thelma and Louise"-style road trip to raise the money. Whereas "Grandma" emphasizes the financial burdens of pregnancy, the much-praised "Obvious Child" sets its abortion drama in the plot of a traditional romantic comedy. Giving the buddy comedy and the rom-com a pro-choice twist might not feel revolutionary to some, but these films are incredibly important to women who might be struggling with the stigma of abortion. This is why Amelia Bonow and Lindy West started the #ShoutYourAbortion hashtag in September: to show women that it’s OK to talk about their experiences with the issue. “The fact that even progressive, outspoken, pro-choice feminists feel the pressure to keep our abortions under wraps—to speak about them only in corners, in murmurs, in private with our closest confidantes—means that opponents of abortion get to define it however suits them best,“ West wrote in the Guardian. West is absolutely right: The real danger of silence—whether that’s in TV, movies, or real life—is those against a woman’s right to choose are anything but quiet. In recent months, an ongoing Republican “investigation” into Planned Parenthood (following a number of viral hoax videos on the Internet) has sought to defund women’s health centers across the country, and it has worked. States like Texas and Ohio have already voted to cut taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, while states like South Carolina, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, Louisiana, and Alabama have all considered doing the same. This would leave millions of women without local options for reproductive health. Although I don’t expect "Jane the Virgin" or any other television program to take an explicit stand on that issue (although I wouldn’t complain), the show has a responsibility to show women everywhere that all of the decision they make about their own bodies are important and valid. A recent study found that 99 percent of all women who have terminated a pregnancy don’t regret it, and we need to show that abortions aren’t evil or demonic; for many women, it was simply right for them. If "Jane the Virgin" really wants to get motherhood right, it needs to recognize all the women who choose not to become mothers through abortion — not just theoretically, but for real — and remind us why that’s OK, too.
The most “Hunger Games” thing ever is a “Hunger Games” theme park — and it’s happening
Good news, sadists fans of wholesome family fun: “The Hunger Games,” a series about children brutally slaughtering each other for sport, is getting the theme park treatment. The New York Times reports that, much like Universal’s Harry Potter theme park, Lionsgate is looking to capitalize on the popularity of its young adult mega-franchise by building theme parks in China and the U.S. When chief exec Jon Feltheimer floated the idea, his team was predictably skeptical, given the film’s dark content. But then the studio’s chief brand officer Tim Palen "realized there was a major opportunity — not just to create something smart and captivating that ‘Hunger Games’ fans would love, but to bring all of our franchises alive in new ways.” Along with "Hunger Games," other Lionsgate films like “Step Up,” “Divergent” and “Twilight” could also provide inspiration for rides and attractions. Lionsgate’s approach is to license its film properties to external developers, instead of developing the parks themselves like Disney and Universal. In the works so far is a "Hunger Games"-themed “Avatron Smart Park” in Atlanta, slated for 2019, and a 237,000-square-foot “experience center” in Hengquin, China, that will include rides and shows connected to six major films. There is also Dubai Parks and Resorts’ Motiongate Park, which will feature attractions based on Lionsgate, DreamWorks and Sony Pictures films. Motiongate is slated to open next year, so we have some idea of how this whole thing could look: Per the Times, the Lionsgate area of the park will be mostly "Hunger Games" themed, featuring "a re-creation of the fictional District 12, a mining region where Katniss grew up” including "costumed characters and real-life versions of Peeta Mellark’s bakery and the Hob black market.” (The poverty-stricken, resource-poor bakeries of District 12 -- now with more funnel cake!). Meanwhile “A lavish roller coaster will be designed to resemble the movies’ high-speed Capitol trains,” and “a simulator-style ride, similar to Disney’s well-known Star Tours attraction, will take people on a hovercraft tour of Panem, the post-apocalyptic nation where 'The Hunger Games' takes place.” Palen acknowledged that they initially had some trouble getting studios to bite on the “Hunger Games” concept, but he says that “as we had more discussions with potential partners and the franchise has continued to grow, we uncovered a wealth of opportunities.” Any takers for the post-apocalyptic hovercraft tour, kids?! via GIPHYGood news, sadists fans of wholesome family fun: “The Hunger Games,” a series about children brutally slaughtering each other for sport, is getting the theme park treatment. The New York Times reports that, much like Universal’s Harry Potter theme park, Lionsgate is looking to capitalize on the popularity of its young adult mega-franchise by building theme parks in China and the U.S. When chief exec Jon Feltheimer floated the idea, his team was predictably skeptical, given the film’s dark content. But then the studio’s chief brand officer Tim Palen "realized there was a major opportunity — not just to create something smart and captivating that ‘Hunger Games’ fans would love, but to bring all of our franchises alive in new ways.” Along with "Hunger Games," other Lionsgate films like “Step Up,” “Divergent” and “Twilight” could also provide inspiration for rides and attractions. Lionsgate’s approach is to license its film properties to external developers, instead of developing the parks themselves like Disney and Universal. In the works so far is a "Hunger Games"-themed “Avatron Smart Park” in Atlanta, slated for 2019, and a 237,000-square-foot “experience center” in Hengquin, China, that will include rides and shows connected to six major films. There is also Dubai Parks and Resorts’ Motiongate Park, which will feature attractions based on Lionsgate, DreamWorks and Sony Pictures films. Motiongate is slated to open next year, so we have some idea of how this whole thing could look: Per the Times, the Lionsgate area of the park will be mostly "Hunger Games" themed, featuring "a re-creation of the fictional District 12, a mining region where Katniss grew up” including "costumed characters and real-life versions of Peeta Mellark’s bakery and the Hob black market.” (The poverty-stricken, resource-poor bakeries of District 12 -- now with more funnel cake!). Meanwhile “A lavish roller coaster will be designed to resemble the movies’ high-speed Capitol trains,” and “a simulator-style ride, similar to Disney’s well-known Star Tours attraction, will take people on a hovercraft tour of Panem, the post-apocalyptic nation where 'The Hunger Games' takes place.” Palen acknowledged that they initially had some trouble getting studios to bite on the “Hunger Games” concept, but he says that “as we had more discussions with potential partners and the franchise has continued to grow, we uncovered a wealth of opportunities.” Any takers for the post-apocalyptic hovercraft tour, kids?! via GIPHYGood news, sadists fans of wholesome family fun: “The Hunger Games,” a series about children brutally slaughtering each other for sport, is getting the theme park treatment. The New York Times reports that, much like Universal’s Harry Potter theme park, Lionsgate is looking to capitalize on the popularity of its young adult mega-franchise by building theme parks in China and the U.S. When chief exec Jon Feltheimer floated the idea, his team was predictably skeptical, given the film’s dark content. But then the studio’s chief brand officer Tim Palen "realized there was a major opportunity — not just to create something smart and captivating that ‘Hunger Games’ fans would love, but to bring all of our franchises alive in new ways.” Along with "Hunger Games," other Lionsgate films like “Step Up,” “Divergent” and “Twilight” could also provide inspiration for rides and attractions. Lionsgate’s approach is to license its film properties to external developers, instead of developing the parks themselves like Disney and Universal. In the works so far is a "Hunger Games"-themed “Avatron Smart Park” in Atlanta, slated for 2019, and a 237,000-square-foot “experience center” in Hengquin, China, that will include rides and shows connected to six major films. There is also Dubai Parks and Resorts’ Motiongate Park, which will feature attractions based on Lionsgate, DreamWorks and Sony Pictures films. Motiongate is slated to open next year, so we have some idea of how this whole thing could look: Per the Times, the Lionsgate area of the park will be mostly "Hunger Games" themed, featuring "a re-creation of the fictional District 12, a mining region where Katniss grew up” including "costumed characters and real-life versions of Peeta Mellark’s bakery and the Hob black market.” (The poverty-stricken, resource-poor bakeries of District 12 -- now with more funnel cake!). Meanwhile “A lavish roller coaster will be designed to resemble the movies’ high-speed Capitol trains,” and “a simulator-style ride, similar to Disney’s well-known Star Tours attraction, will take people on a hovercraft tour of Panem, the post-apocalyptic nation where 'The Hunger Games' takes place.” Palen acknowledged that they initially had some trouble getting studios to bite on the “Hunger Games” concept, but he says that “as we had more discussions with potential partners and the franchise has continued to grow, we uncovered a wealth of opportunities.” Any takers for the post-apocalyptic hovercraft tour, kids?! via GIPHY
