Kim Kardashian Sex Tape Watch - Online Now Part 1 Target
On October 2, 2016, while attending Paris Fashion Week, Kardashian was robbed at gunpoint in the apartment where she was staying. Five individuals, dressed as police officers, bound and gagged her, then stole $10 million worth of jewelry. The thieves got in her residence by threatening the concierge. Once they accessed Kardashian's room, they held a gun to her head, tying her wrists and legs and wrapping duct tape around her mouth as a gag. Kardashian, who was placed in the bathtub, was physically unharmed and reportedly begged for her life. She managed to wriggle her hands free from the plastic ties around her wrists and scream for help. The thieves escaped. On October 6, 2016, it was revealed that filming for the next season of Keeping up with the Kardashians had been placed "on hold indefinitely" after the robbery.
Kim Kardashian Sex Tape Watch - Online Now Part 1 target
Joel McHale has made a living poking fun at pop culture and reality shows as host of "The Soup," and for the most part, he says that his targets have taken it in stride. It seems, at least from the audience's perspective, that he has carte blanche to take the gloves off, but as he tells Just Jared, having his show on the same parent network as the world's biggest reality stars can cause some major complications.
In late 2018, Pew Research Center reported that social media sites had surpassed print newspapers as a news source for Americans, when one in five U.S. adults reported that they often got the news via social media.i By the following year, that figure had increased to 28% and the trend is only risingii. Combine that with a deeply divided polity headed into a bitterly divisive 2020 U.S. presidential election season and it becomes crucial to understand the information that Americans are exposed to online about political candidates and the topics they are discussing. It is equally important to explore how online discourse might be used to intentionally distort information and create and exploit misgivings about particular identity groups based on religion, race or other characteristics.
Collect and share data on identity-based hate: Developing ways to counter online hate requires that we know which groups are targeted, the extent to which they are targeted, and the nature of the attacks. Without this information, it is impossible for platforms, researchers, and civil society to address these problems in a way that is informed by empirical evidence.
Expand tools and services for targets of hate: At present, Platforms are doing little to nothing for targets of hate. Platforms should offer far more services and tools for individuals facing or fearing online attacks, including assisting with tracking and capturing information, providing resources, and creating better customization options to mitigate harm.
Dedicate resources to studying the impacts of online hate: Congress should commission a report to study how the online hate ecosystem impacts the election process, how misinformation sways voters, and how aspiring political candidates at every level are impacted by content that targets them based on their identity.
The United States presidential and midterm elections of 2016 and 2018 saw an unprecedented rise in the use of social media for online political canvassing and discussion. Subsequent studies explored the nature of the disinformation and toxicity that engulfed political discourse on the internet during those election cycles, finding that many of the efforts to divide Americans were driven by bot activityvi as well as by non-state actorsvii. Over the same period, ADL also tracked a significant rise in harassing conduct and antisemitic content targeting Jewish social media usersiii,ix This research is all the more necessary because social media platforms do not provide any transparency around the scope, reach, and nature of content used to attack identity-based groups, like the Jewish, Black, Muslim, Hispanic, LGBTQ+ and other communities on their respective platforms.
The most prominent conspiracy theory targeting Jewish incumbents relates to George Soros, the Hungarian-American Jewish billionaire financier, philanthropist and Holocaust survivor. Soros, 89, got his start in philanthropy supporting the fall of Communism and transition to (more) open societies in the former Soviet Union and communist bloc countries. Beginning in the mid-1990s, he expanded his philanthropic focus to the United States and has since donated billions of dollars of his personal wealth to liberal and anti-authoritarian causes around the world, making him a favored target among many on the extreme-rightxii. Conspiracy theorists often insert Soros into a series of repackaged historical antisemitic myths, particularly the notion that rich and powerful Jews work behind the scenes, plotting to control countries and manipulate global eventsxiii.
Developing ways to counter online hate requires that we know who is being targeted, the extent to which they are targeted, and the nature of the attacks. Without this information, it is impossible for platforms, researchers, and civil society to create solutions to these problems in a way that is informed by empirical evidence. Platforms should adopt robust accountability and transparency standards. This should include regularly scheduled external, independent audits so that the public knows the extent of hate and harassment on a given platform, with a focus on quantifying violative content that targets each group with a breakdown on how those groups are being targeted. Audits would also allow the public to verify that the company followed through on its stated actions and to assess the effectiveness of company efforts across time. Companies should provide information from the audit and elsewhere through more robust transparency reports.
Candidates for political office should advocate for Congress to commission a report to study the ways in which the online hate ecosystem impacts the election process, how misinformation sways voters, and how aspiring political candidates at every level are impacted by content that targets them based on their identity. Incumbents should commission further study into these research topics and should work with civil rights organizations and technology companies to collectively scope out this research.
If you look at the news industry, newspapers and news channels ruled the industry for decades. They are still not outdated, but you can now see companies investing in OTT (Over-the-Top) to stream news online via apps. Such apps target the users who want to know news around the world, but at their comfort.
Kez's case may be extreme, due to the intense violence of the incident, but his experience falls under a growing area of crime. According to a 2018 report, one in 12 Brits have reported a burglary after posting on social media, with more than half admitting they had location tagging turned on. Another survey found that 78 percent of burglars use social media as a tracking method to see who they want to target. A burglary ring in the US used social media to track wealthy people who had shared their valuable art collections online. One mayoral candidate in Houston was relieved of his works by Andy Warhol, Picasso and Monet after he hosted an art gala at his home, making it easy for thieves to know what he had, and where.
"Some people think you're posting to show off," he says. "It's not. Why would I want to show off and get stabbed? I post to document my success, to show that people coming from lower working class backgrounds can do it, and to show there's countless ways to make money on the internet. People can still look at all that negatively, but I think that depends on the person. Social media is basically part of the job for me. I'm not saying that posting online isn't real, but you only post the best parts of your life. My Insta is basically like my brand."
Even though I like the idea of these reps. in theory, I have some concerns. First, I hate to be nitpicky, but after two decades of practicing employment law on the defense side, I have some questions. What's the definition of "sexual misconduct"? What happens of the company handbook or policies do not define "sexual misconduct"? The Salesforce.com agreement did not define it. So how does the target know what to disclose? Next, how should an agreement define "sexual harassment"? What if the allegation would not pass muster under Title VII or even under a more flexible, more generous definition in an employee handbook? When I was in house and drafting policies, a lot of crude behavior could be "harassment" even if it wouldn't survive the pleading requirements for a motion to dismiss. Does a company have to disclose an allegation of harassment that's not legally cognizable? And what about the definition of "allegation"? The Salesforce.com agreement did not define this either. Is it an allegation that has been reported through proper channels? Does the target have to go back to all of the executives' current and former managers and HR personnel as a part of due diligence to make sure there were no allegations that were not investigated or reported through proper channels? What if there were rumors? What if there was a conclusively false allegation (it's rare, but I've seen it)? What if the allegation could not be proved through a thorough, best in class investigation? How does the target disclose that without impugning the reputation of the accused?
Second, I'm not sure why independent contractors would even be included in these representations because they're not the employees of the company. If an independent contractor harassed one of the target's employees, that independent contractor shouldn't even be an issue in a representation because s/he should not be on the premises. Moreover, the contractor, and not the target company, should be paying any settlement. I acknowledge that a company is responsible for protecting its employees from harassment, including from contractors and vendors. But a company that pays the settlement should ensure that the harasser/contractor can't come near the worksite or employees ever again. If that's the case, why the need for a representation about the contractors? Third, companies often settle for nuisance value or to avoid the cost of litigation even when the investigation results are inconclusive or sometimes before an investigation has ended. How does the company explain that in due diligence? How much detail does the target disclose? Finally, what happens if the company legally destroyed documents as part of an established and enforced document retention and destruction process? Does that excuse disclosure even if someone might have a vague memory of some unfounded allegation five years ago?