Emily Doyle

897 notes

fyeahcopyright:

The image above is an illustration about implications of Net Neutrality. Here’s what is going on today: 
There’s a protest organized by a number of large websites, including etsy, Netflix, dailydot, Tumblr staff and Twitter; organizations like the thehpalliance (alongside a lot of youtube filmmakers/vidders - you can add a video too!) are supporting it as well. 
Over the last few months, the FCC has been taking comments on a proposal that would require telecom providers to ensure that “all users have access to an internet experience that is sufficiently robust, fast and effectively usable”. 
Tech and content companies including Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Twitter, wrote to the FCC claiming the rules “would enable phone and cable internet service providers to discriminate both technically and financially against internet companies and to impose new tolls on them”.
[X]
In other words, what you’re seeing today is important, and changes to the nine-months-ago status of Net Neutrality could be problematic (I’m not saying “would be” because codification of Net Neutrality in the FCC’s rules would actually be a change, and awesome) but it doesn’t mean that there’s something newly threatening that’s happened in the last few days. 
Sign the petitions if you want - although the FCC comment period is closed - and make your voice heard, but don’t panic that there’s something new that you may’ve missed in the last week. 
ETA: And check out the tumblr staff post about why your images and icons may look like they’re loading slowly.

fyeahcopyright:

The image above is an illustration about implications of Net Neutrality. Here’s what is going on today:

There’s a protest organized by a number of large websites, including etsy, Netflix, dailydot, Tumblr staff and Twitter; organizations like the thehpalliance (alongside a lot of youtube filmmakers/vidders - you can add a video too!) are supporting it as well. 

Over the last few months, the FCC has been taking comments on a proposal that would require telecom providers to ensure that “all users have access to an internet experience that is sufficiently robust, fast and effectively usable”. 

Tech and content companies including Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Twitter, wrote to the FCC claiming the rules “would enable phone and cable internet service providers to discriminate both technically and financially against internet companies and to impose new tolls on them”.

[X]

In other words, what you’re seeing today is important, and changes to the nine-months-ago status of Net Neutrality could be problematic (I’m not saying “would be” because codification of Net Neutrality in the FCC’s rules would actually be a change, and awesome) but it doesn’t mean that there’s something newly threatening that’s happened in the last few days. 

Sign the petitions if you want - although the FCC comment period is closed - and make your voice heard, but don’t panic that there’s something new that you may’ve missed in the last week. 

ETA: And check out the tumblr staff post about why your images and icons may look like they’re loading slowly.

180,178 notes

staff:

Today’s the day. The day you help save the internet from being ruined.

Ready? 

Yes, you are, and we’re ready to help you.

(Long story short: The FCC is about to make a critical decision as to whether or not internet service providers have to treat all traffic equally. If they choose wrong, then the internet where anyone can start a website for any reason at all, the internet that’s been so momentous, funny, weird, and surprising—that internet could cease to exist. Here’s your chance to preserve a beautiful thing.)

Cable companies already have too much control.

321 notes

toptopz asked: What do you think about the recent backlash on Milo Manara's Spider-Woman cover? I liked it, although I understand why some people might get upset.

rozzingit:

brianmichaelbendis:

I do understand it. it was a mixed message and I’m glad that Marvel copped to it.  frankly, my feelings mirrored Amy Reeder’s

“If you want to know my opinion on Milo Manara’s Spider-woman cover, I’m going to have to disappoint you and say I feel super divided on it. I love Milo Manara!! It’s a variant cover…so it’s sort of an erotica variant! Of course, I’d also like to see Katie Cook do her own version…that’d make Marvel’s choice seem a little less like a systemic problem. And yes, it’s all a different story with context, but without context, it is a bit jarring and I don’t negate that because the Internet really changes our experience these days. And the image itself does remind me a lot of images by artists I DON’T respect…

“That’s not my point. My point is, it’s not an easy thing to evaluate or explain what is okay and what’s not. Some sexy drawings of women I can get behind, some I can’t. Some of that’s context. But a lot of it is what seemed like a weird intuition that I couldn’t really pinpoint, until recently.

“The word that changes everything for me is ‘personhood.’ Does this woman seem like a person? Do they have life breathed into them? A personality? Or are they an object? Do they feel manufactured or repetitive? Would guys who like this appreciate that I am a living, breathing woman? Or would they complain I talk too much?”

–Rocket Girl artist Amy Reeder,

 to add to that I find that there is a very creepy undertone of certain people trying to shame creators. I could do without that altogether. it’s creepy.

 I was more offended by the creators redrawing the cover ‘properly’  how insipid.

 if you don’t like something don’t buy it. if enough people don’t buy it just won’t exist. this creator shaming, to me, is creepier than anything you might think is wrong in this business.

 all an uproar does is put the spotlight on something and that thing ends up being waaaay more financially successful than it would’ve been without it. this is a truth as old as our culture.

 one of my kids might end up going to college because of Glenn Beck’s racist shit about miles morales :)

 sometimes I see people pulling panels out of context in a weird attempt to shame people.  like, if you showed the next panel the panel you showed would and does have a different context.

 in my opinion, artists should be able to express themselves without fear of shaming. that idea is the most important to me. I get concerned about what kind of vanilla, soulless crap we are going to end up with if everybody is subconsciously worried about being shamed.

 I was glad manara came out and defended himself and didn’t back down from his art even though I don’t think he needed to.

 if you don’t like it, don’t buy it. say it over and over.

 and now take a moment and curb your desire to yell at me because I have an opinion that might disagree with your own. thank you :-)

omg we can’t have artists putting out vanilla, soulless crap with women with realistic bodies that work how bodies actually do

psh how insipid people examining the artwork and noting how the body form has been warped beyond what is real so as to make it sexier

ugh it’s so gross how people criticize artists for drawing grossly sexualized imagery of women!!

I feel like I am seeing a lot of this kind of ‘don’t criticize us creators!’ attitude from big comic people lately. I find it concerning that Bendis seems to be living under the belief that creators are above criticism and that The Creation is the most important thing, no matter what it is. And it’s great that people make things! And also fine when they don’t want criticisms…until they start putting that work out into the world (especially in a very commercial and public way), where it has real effects on society. At that point, you should really accept some responsibility about the message of your work. Creations don’t exist in vacuums.

In this case, it’s not as simple as ‘if you don’t like it, don’t buy it’. People are allowed to be frustrated at a huge corporation printing a broken-anatomy pinup variant cover for a solo-title book of a female superhero. Even if that means re-drawing the cover with more realistic anatomy just to show how broken the figure is. Nothing wrong with liking sexy art. It’s upsetting to some that women’s bodies need to be broken to be deemed sexy because it treats them like objects and not people.

Also, that seems like an abuse of the word ‘creepy’. Criticizing a creator is worse than the real problems with sexism/racism/wages/etc in ‘this business’? Really?

Filed under comics feminism

125,536 notes

thehumanbutt:

congalineofdurin:

lifting-spirits:

mr-noodle-arms:

willycheesesteak:

Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy - Dancing Groot

“Baby Groot dancing is 100 percent me. I was too embarrassed for anyone to be there, so I made everyone leave the room and I set up a camera and I videotaped myself dancing. Then I sent the video to the animators and had them animate over that. I begged them not to leak the video! Two of my closest friends came to an early screening and said ‘Hey, I recognize those moves! That’s you dancing isn’t it?!’” - Vin Diesel

reblogged before but that comment just makes it that much better

READ THE COMMENT

Vin Diesel is actually precious and we must protect him

Guys, no. Sorry. Not Vin Diesel.

As for whose moves Baby Groot’s are based on, if you thought it might be former b-boy extraordinaire Vin Diesel, you’d be wrong. The real inspiration is even better: James Gunn himself.

Source: Yahoo Movies

(via saosmash)