Facebook profits rise amid revelations from leaked documents


LONDON — Amid fallout from the Facebook Papers documents supporting claims that the social network has valued financial success over user safety, Facebook on Monday reported higher profit for the latest quarter.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

The company's latest show of financial strength followed an avalanche of reports on the Facebook Papers — a vast trove of redacted internal documents obtained by a consortium of news organizations, including The Associated Press — as well as Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen’s Monday testimony to British lawmakers.

Facebook said its net income grew 17% in the July-September period to $9.19 billion, buoyed by strong advertising revenue. That’s up from $7.85 billion a year earlier. Revenue grew 35% to $29.01 billion. The results exceeded analyst expectations for Facebook's results.

The company's shares rose 2.5% in after-hours trading after closing up 1% for the day.

“For now, the revenue picture for Facebook looks as good as can be expected,” said eMarketer analyst Debra Aho Williamson. But she predicted more revelations and described the findings so far as “unsettling and stomach-churning.”

CEO Mark Zuckerberg made only a brief mention of what he called the “recent debate around our company." Largely repeating statements he made after Haugen's Oct. 5 testimony before a U.S. Senate subcommittee, he insisted that he welcomes “good faith criticism” but considers the current storm a “coordinated effort” to paint a “false picture" of the company based on leaked documents.

“It makes a good soundbite to say that we don’t solve these impossible tradeoffs because we’re just focused on making money, but the reality is these questions are not primarily about our business, but about balancing difficult social values," Zuckerberg said.

Haugen, meanwhile, told a British parliamentary committee Monday that the social media giant stokes online hate and extremism, fails to protect children from harmful content and lacks any incentive to fix the problems, providing momentum for efforts by European governments working on stricter regulation of tech companies.

While her testimony echoed much of what she told the U.S. Senate this month, her in-person appearance drew intense interest from a British parliamentary committee that is much further along in drawing up legislation to rein in the power of social media companies.

Haugen told the committee of United Kingdom lawmakers that Facebook Groups amplifies online hate, saying algorithms that prioritize engagement take people with mainstream interests and push them to the extremes. The former Facebook data scientist said the company could add moderators to prevent groups over a certain size from being used to spread extremist views.

“Unquestionably, it’s making hate worse,” she said.

Haugen said she was “shocked" to hear that Facebook wants to double down on what Zuckerberg calls “the metaverse,” the company’s plan for an immersive online world it believes will be the next big internet trend.

"They’re gonna hire 10,000 engineers in Europe to work on the metaverse,” Haugen said. “I was like, ‘Wow, do you know what we could have done with safety if we had 10,000 more engineers?’” she said.

Facebook says it wants regulation for tech companies and was glad the U.K. was leading the way.

“While we have rules against harmful content and publish regular transparency reports, we agree we need regulation for the whole industry so that businesses like ours aren’t making these decisions on our own," Facebook said Monday.

It pointed to investing $13 billion (9.4 billion pounds) on safety and security since 2016 and asserted that it’s “almost halved” the amount of hate speech over the last three quarters.

Haugen accused Facebook-owned Instagram of failing to keep children under 13 — the minimum user age — from opening accounts, saying it wasn’t doing enough to protect kids from content that, for example, makes them feel bad about their bodies.

“Facebook’s own research describes it as an addict’s narrative. Kids say, ‘This makes me unhappy, I feel like I don’t have the ability to control my usage of it, and I feel like if I left, I’d be ostracized,‘” she said.

The company last month delayed plans for a kids’ version of Instagram, geared toward those under 13, in order to address concerns about the vulnerability of younger users.

Pressed on whether she believes Facebook is fundamentally evil, Haugen demurred and said, “I can’t see into the hearts of men.” Facebook is not evil, but negligent, she suggested.

It was Haugen's second appearance before lawmakers after she testified in the U.S. about the danger she says the company poses, from harming children to inciting political violence and fueling misinformation. Haugen cited internal research documents she secretly copied before leaving her job in Facebook’s civic integrity unit.

The documents, which Haugen provided to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, allege Facebook prioritized profits over safety and hid its own research from investors and the public. Some stories based on the files have already been published, exposing internal turmoil after Facebook was blindsided by the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot and how it dithered over curbing divisive content in India. More is to come.

Representatives from Facebook and other social media companies plan to speak to the British committee Thursday.

Haugen is scheduled to meet next month with European Union officials in Brussels, where the bloc's executive commission is updating its digital rulebook to better protect internet users by holding online companies more responsible for illegal or dangerous content.

Under the U.K. rules, expected to take effect next year, Silicon Valley giants face an ultimate penalty of up to 10% of their global revenue for any violations. The EU is proposing a similar penalty.

___

See full coverage of the “Facebook Papers” here: https://apnews.com/hub/the-facebook-papers

___

Associated Press writer Marcy Gordon in Washington contributed to this report.

Barbara Ortutay And Kelvin Chan, The Associated Press

Whistleblower tells British panel Facebook algorithm geared for 'bad' users

"Facebook has been unwilling to accept even little slivers of profit being sacrificed for safety," former Facebook data scientist Frances Haugen said Monday.


Former Facebook data scientist Frances Haugen arrives for a Senate commerce committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on October 5. 

Pool Photo by Drew Angerer/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 25 (UPI) -- In her second appearance before a national legislative body in less than a month, whistleblower Frances Haugen told British lawmakers Monday that Facebook is "unquestionably" stoking levels of hatred and addiction through its social platform.

Three weeks after detailing her experience in the U.S. Congress, the former Facebook data scientist told the British parliamentary Online Safety Bill committee in London that the company is "making hate worse" because tapping into anger among users online is the simplest way to grow its audience.

Further, she said that Facebook algorithms actually work to send users to pages with more extreme content.

"Bad actors have an incentive to play the algorithm," she said in her testimony Monday. "The current system is biased toward bad actors, and people who push people to the extremes."

Haugen said that efforts at Facebook to shield users from harmful or hateful content aren't working mainly due to institutional biases that prioritize revenue growth.

"Facebook has been unwilling to accept even little slivers of profit being sacrificed for safety," she said.

Haugen was invited to testify before the British panel to lend expertise to proposed legislation that aims to rein in the power of social media companies and crack down on harmful content in Britain.

The landmark legislation also aims to punish social companies if they fail to safeguard users online.

Haugen went public last month with criticism that said Facebook profits from stoking political divisions and spreading disinformation, and has long known that the platform is potentially harmful to younger users.

Haugen first detailed her experience on 60 Minutes early this month and later testified before the U.S. Senate commerce committee.

RELATED  Facebook whistleblower invited to speak to European Parliament

She told Parliament Monday that Facebook's Instagram platform is "more dangerous than other forms of social media," as it creates risks of addiction and self-harm for teen and child users.

Instagram, she said, "is about social comparison and about bodies", which feeds addictive behavior in unhappy children who "can't control their use of the app, but feel like they cannot stop using it."

It may not be possible to adapt Instagram's algorithms to make it sufficiently safe for children, she warned.

Last month, Facebook announced that it was pausing the launch of Instagram Kids, a child-specific version of the photo-sharing app, to evaluate concerns about the effect of social platforms on children.

Haugen's testimony Monday came a week after the stabbing death of British lawmaker David Amess, whose killing led to calls for more scrutiny for Britain's online safety bill and additional criticism of online behaviors

Labor Party leader Keir Starmer demanded that the owners of digital platforms be criminally sanctioned for failing to shut down extremism.

Before Monday's hearing, Haugen said that she never saw Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg give any indication that he cared to protect users from potential harm.

"Right now, Mark is unaccountable," she said, according to The Guardian. "He has all the control. He has no oversight, and he has not demonstrated that he is willing to govern the company at the level that is necessary for public safety."

Facebook's independent oversight board said last week that it invited Haugen to appear in the coming weeks, and has been invited to speak before the European Parliament's consumer protection committee on Nov. 8 for a session focused on updating European Internet regulations.

Union vote at Amazon’s NY warehouse big step closer

By BOBBY CAINA CALVAN

Organizers deliver "Authorization of Rresentation" forms to the National Labor Relations Board in New York, Monday, Oct. 25, 2021. Union organizers have delivered more than 2,000 signatures to federal labor officials in a bid to unionize workers at Amazon's distribution center in New York's Staten Island. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)


NEW YORK (AP) — The National Labor Relations Board said there was sufficient interest to form a union at an Amazon distribution center in New York, after union organizers on Monday delivered hundreds of signatures to the agency — a key step in authorizing a vote that could establish the first union at the nation’s largest online retailer.

This is the second unionizing attempt in the past year at Amazon. Workers in Alabama resoundingly defeated an effort earlier this year, but organizers there are asking federal officials for a do-over.

Organizers delivered more than 2,000 signed union-support cards to the NLRB’s Brooklyn office after launching the effort in April. The specific number of signatures was not immediately available.

“This is a small victory,” said Christian Smalls, a former employee of the retail giant who now leads the fledgling Amazon Labor Union, adding, “We know the fight has just started.”

As part of its petition to hold a union vote, organizers must have submitted signatures from at least 30% from the roughly 5,500 employees who the union says work at four adjoining Amazon facilities that it seeks to represent under collective bargaining.

Monday’s development puts the company on notice that the NLRB has determined that union organizers have met the minimum threshold for Amazon to formally acknowledge and to respond to the union-organizing petition. That means the company must post notices on its premises that the union is seeking to become the bargaining representative for thousands of Amazon workers on Staten Island.

The company could have several avenues to challenge the effort, including contesting the number of employees that union organizers used to calculate the minimum signatures they needed.

“We’re skeptical that a sufficient number of legitimate employee signatures has been secured to warrant an election,” Amazon’s spokesperson, Kelly Nantel, said in a statement.

“If there is an election, we want the voice of our employees to be heard and look forward to it. Our focus remains on listening directly to our employees and continuously improving on their behalf,” Nantel said.

While a vote is not yet certain, organizers hailed the formal filing of their petition as an important step to forming a union.

“This was the easy part,” Smalls said of the signature gathering. “Convincing at least 50% of the workers to vote yes is the hard part.”

Smalls says he was fired last year after organizing a walkout to protest working conditions, although Amazon said he repeatedly violated company policies.

NLRB staff members started counting the cards soon after they were delivered, and union organizers were confident that they had met the minimum necessary. They had planned a rally outside the Staten Island distribution center Monday evening.

Following the count, the NLRB ordered Amazon to provide a roster of employees who would be covered by the proposed union and set November 15 as the start of hearings on the union-organizing petition.

If an election is held, the NLRB said it will conduct voting by secret ballot. Smalls proposed that the election be held on March 30, the day he was fired.

If organizers in New York succeed, it could launch other union drives across the company’s vast empire, which includes more than 100 fulfillment centers and nearly 1 million employees across the United States.

Amazon employees have complained about long work hours, insufficient breaks and safety, with Smalls and others likening working conditions to modern-day sweatshops. The employee turnover rate has also been a cause of concern.

The union efforts on Staten Island come as Amazon is on a hiring binge. It announced in September it wants to hire 125,000 delivery and warehouse workers and is paying new recruits an average of $18 an hour in a tight job market. That’s in addition to the 150,000 seasonal workers it plans to bring on for the holidays.

The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union had led the effort to form a union at the Alabama facility that was defeated in April.

A hearing officer for the NLRB found in August that Amazon potentially interfered with the Alabama election. And the RWDSU is now waiting for a decision from an NLRB regional director to see whether the hearing officer’s guidance will be sanctioned. But even with a second election, labor experts say a union victory there is a long shot.

The New York City organizing drive is taking place without the support of a national union.

VAPING IS A BETTER WAY TO SMOKE POT

Study: More than 1 in 7 teens, adolescents in U.S., Canada have vaped pot


Marijuana vaping is becoming increasingly common among adolescents and teens in the United States and Canada, according to a new analysis. 

Photo by 1503849/Pixabay

Oct. 25 (UPI) -- More than one in seven adolescents and teens in the United States and Canada has vaped marijuana in their lifetimes, an analysis published Monday by JAMA Pediatrics.

Pooled results for nearly 200,000 people ages 11 to 18 from 17 studies indicates that 14% used e-cigarettes to smoke the drug, also known as cannabis, at some point as of 2019-20, the data showed.

This is up from 6% between 2013 and 2016, the researchers said.

In 2019-2020, an estimated 13% of people in this age group vaped marijuana during the previous 12 months, up from 7% in 2017-18, according to the researchers.

RELATED Study: Marijuana vaping more common among Hispanic, Black youths

And just over 8% had used the devices to consume the drug over the previous 30 days in 2019-20 compared to fewer than 2% between 2013-2016.

"Adolescent cannabis vaping is becoming more common in the United States and Canada," study co-author Carmen Lim told UPI in an email.

"Not only is it linked to poorer cognitive development in adolescents, [but] it could increase risk of dependence, other substance use and many other health, social and behavioral problems later in life," said Lim, a doctoral candidate at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia.

Previous studies indicated that as many as one in five adolescents and teens in the United States regularly use e-cigarettes, or vaping devices, to smoke marijuana, and that the habit is more common among people in this age group who are Hispanic than those who are White or Black.

This is despite links between the use of illegal marijuana vaping devices and serious lung injury.

For this analysis, Lim and her colleagues analyzed data from 17 studies that collectively tracked the marijuana vaping habits of 198,845 adolescents and teens in the United States and Canada.

RELATED Vaping-linked lung injury less common in states with legalized marijuana

In addition to identifying the increased use of these devices for marijuana within the age group, the findings also suggest that cannabis oil, as opposed to dried leaves, now may be the preferred option, particularly in the United States, the researchers said.

"Cannabis vaping is a new phenomenon, [but] we can draw examples from global tobacco and alcohol policy, both of which have achieved successes in reducing prevalence and minimizing harms," Lim said.

"For example, cannabis marketing and advertising of THC products through targeted ads on the internet should be strictly regulated. Policy makers can also consider imposing a potency- and weight-based tax defined by THC levels," she said.

BY VAPING POT YOU INHALE 99.9% VAPORIZED SMOKE WITH NO PARTICULATE MATTER UNLIKLE OTHER FORMS OF SMOKING

GOOD NEWS SMOKERS
Study: 87% of excess lung cancer risk eliminated if smokers quit before age 45

By Amy Norton, HealthDay News


If people who smoke cigarettes quit by age 45, they could eliminate 87% of the increased cancer risk they face as smokers, according to a new study. 

File Photo by Pexels/Pixabay

Smokers who kick the habit before age 45 can nearly eliminate their excess risk of dying from lung or other cancers, a new study estimates.

It's well-established that after smokers quit, their risk of tobacco-related cancers drops substantially over time.

Researchers said the new findings underscore the power of quitting as early as possible. Among more than 400,000 Americans they followed, smokers died of cancer at three times the rate of nonsmokers. However, smokers who managed to quit by age 45 lowered that excess risk by 87%.

And if they overcame the habit by age 35, their excess risk of cancer death was erased, said Blake Thomson, a researcher at the American Cancer Society who led the study.

He stressed that it's never too late to quit. Smokers who quit in their 50s to early 60s also substantially lowered their excess risk of cancer death.

But the findings do underscore the power of kicking the habit as early as possible.

"If you're a smoker in your 30s, hopefully these findings will speak to you," Thomson said.

The study was published this month in the journal JAMA Oncology. It looked at data on more than 410,000 Americans who entered an ongoing federal health survey between 1997 and 2014.

Around 10,000 participants died of cancer during the study period. And on average, smokers were three times more likely to die of cancer -- most often lung cancer -- compared with people who'd never smoked.

Much, however, depended on age -- the age at which smokers both started and quit.

The younger people started smoking, the greater their risk of eventually dying from cancer. Among those who started before age 18, the risk of dying from cancer was increased at least three-fold.

When people started smoking before age 10, their risk of cancer death was quadrupled versus lifelong nonsmokers.

It may sound surprising, Thomson noted, but there are smokers who get hooked that early in life.

For people who pick up the habit at a tender age, "it's imperative that they quit as soon as possible," Thomson said.

That's because overall, his team estimates, smokers who quit before age 35 wiped out their excess risk of dying from cancer. Meanwhile, those who quit before age 45 slashed their excess risk by 87%.

The outlook was also good for smokers who quit later. If they managed to do so between the ages of 45 and 54, their excess risk was cut by 78%, and by 56% if they quit between the ages of 55 and 64.

"The take-home message is that it is never too early and never too late to quit," said Dr. David Tom Cooke, a volunteer spokesperson for the American Lung Association.

He said doctors should help patients kick the habit as early as possible, but also "never give up" trying to quit.

"Sometimes an individual has to quit multiple times to stay off tobacco products permanently," said Cooke, who is also a professor of general thoracic surgery at the University of California, Davis Health.

In general, he said, smokers fare better when they get some help in the effort, whether from their doctor or through free government "quitlines," which operate in every state. In a recent study, Cooke and his colleagues found that participating in California's free quitline boosted quit rates among smokers seen at their clinic.

That kind of support, Thomson said, can help people sort out their smoking-cessation options. These include two prescription medications and over-the-counter nicotine replacement products, like gums and patches.

Smoking raises the risk of numerous cancers, Thomson noted -- including colon, kidney, bladder, stomach and pancreatic cancer. But lung cancer is the top cancer killer among smokers.

Some former smokers who've quit within the past 15 years still qualify for annual CT scans to screen for lung cancer -- depending on their age and how heavily they smoked in the past.

"I would encourage any current or former smoker to talk to their primary care provider and find out if they are eligible for lung cancer screening," Cooke said.More information

The American Lung Association has resources to help smokers quit.

Copyright © 2021 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

FBI: Hate crimes against Asian Americans higher in 2020 than first reported


The FBI said in an update that more than 60% of hate crimes nationwide last year were motivated by race.

 UPI Photo

Oct. 25 (UPI) -- Hate crimes against Americans of Asian descent increased in 2020 even more than federal authorities first reported, the FBI said in an update on Monday.

The FBI said the figures it reported in August were incomplete due to an error in statistics from the state of Ohio. At the time, the bureau said crimes against Asian Americans increased 70% last year. Monday's update pushed that figure to 76%.

The FBI said it corrected the error in the Ohio reporting.

Jay Greenberg, deputy assistant director of the FBI's criminal division, said that the increase occurred mostly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

"Because a hate crime is defined as a violent or property crime with a bias motivation, that crime could be categorized a number of different ways," Greenberg told ABC News.

"We would like the public to reach out to us if they believe that they are a victim of a hate crime. It's not for the public to make that determination; we will work with our state and local partners and help determine how best to investigate that."

The FBI update said more than 60% of hate crimes nationwide were motivated by race.

The bureau noted that one-fifth of hate crimes in 2020 were motivated by sexual orientation and 13% were attributed to religious bias.

SPACE RACE 2.5 CAPITALI$M IN SPACE
Blue Origin, partners announce plans for private space station


Blue Origin's founder Jeff Bezos (R) greets "Star Trek" actor William Shatner as he emerges his space trip on October 13. 

Photo by Blue Origin/EPA-EFE



Oct. 25 (UPI) -- Jeff Bezos announced plans on Monday for Blue Origin to run the world's first private space station called the Orbital Reef, which would serve as a space business park and a regular destination for space tourists.

Blue Origin will partner with a Sierra Nevada Corp. subsidiary called Sierra Space, along with Boeing, Redwire Space and Genesis Engineer to make the space station happen.

While not giving a date for when the Orbital Reef would be operational, participants said it will create business and research opportunities and should be attractive to industrial, international and commercial customers.

"For over 60 years, NASA and other space agencies have developed orbital space flight and space habitation, setting us up for commercial business to take off in this decade," Brent Sherwood, Blue Origin's senior vice president of advanced development programs, said in a statement.

RELATED  New far-out NASA 'travel' video: kayaking on Titan, skydiving on exoplanet

"We will expand access, lower the cost and provide all the services and amenities needed to normalize space flight. A vibrant business ecosystem will grow in low Earth orbit, generating new discoveries, new products, new entertainments and global awareness."

The Orbital Reef business model will provide an avenue for countries without a space program to participate in space research, along with investors, travel companies, entrepreneurs and investors.

Janet Kavandi, Sierra Space president and a former NASA astronaut, said her company is supplying its Dream Chaser spaceplane, the space module and additional space technologies for the space station.

"As a former NASA astronaut, I've been waiting for the moment where working and living in space is accessible to more people worldwide, and that moment has arrived," Kavandi said in a statement.

Blue Origin would provide core modules and the launching system, while Boeing would add a science module and provide station operations, maintenance engineering and its Starliner crew spacecraft.

Partner Redwire Space would provide microgravity research, development, manufacturing and payload operations, while Genesis Engineering Solutions would offer a new single-person spacecraft for routine operations and tourist excursions.

Arizona State University is to lead a global consortium of universities that provide research advisory services and public outreach.

"The single-person spacecraft will transform spacewalking," said Brand Griffin, program manager for Genesis Engineering Solutions. "Space workers and tourists alike will have safe, comfortable and quick access outside Orbital Reef."

Blue Origin, Boeing chart course for 'business park' in space


(Reuters) - Billionaire Jeff Bezos-owned Blue Origin on Monday unveiled plans to develop a commercial space station called "Orbital Reef" with Boeing, aiming to launch the spacecraft in the second half of this decade

.

© Reuters/Isaiah Downing FILE PHOTO: Amazon and Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos addresses the media about the New Shepard rocket booster and Crew Capsule mockup at the 33rd Space Symposium in Colorado Springs

The venture will be built in partnership with Sierra Space, the spaceflight wing of defense contractor Sierra Nevada Corp, and will be backed by Redwire Space, Genesis Engineering Solutions and Arizona State University.

Orbital Reef will be operated as a "mixed use business park", and plans to provide the infrastructure needed to scale economic activity and open new markets in space, Blue Origin and Sierra Space said.

"Seasoned space agencies, high-tech consortia, sovereign nations without space programs, media and travel companies, funded entrepreneurs and sponsored inventors, and future-minded investors all have a place on Orbital Reef," the companies said in a statement.

Sierra in April announced plans to offer the first free-flying commercial space station. (https://bit.ly/2ZlJ8g3)

In July, Blue Origin had a successful debut space tourism flight, with Bezos and three others aboard. Earlier this month, 90-year-old U.S. actor William Shatner - Captain James Kirk of "Star Trek" fame - became the oldest person in space aboard a rocketship flown by Blue Origin.

(Reporting by Tiyashi Datta in Bengaluru; Editing by Devika Syamnath)

#ABOLISHCBP

Report: Border Patrol agents who made bigoted posts received reduced discipline

By UPI Staff

U.S. Customs and Border Protection in 2018. File Photo by Mani Albrecht/ U.S. Customs and Border Protection/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 25 (UPI) -- A U.S. House of Representatives agency found that over 130 Border Patrol agents who made bigoted posts against migrants in secret social media groups received reduced disciplinary measures.

An internal investigation launched in 2019 by the Committee on Oversight and Reform shows that a secret group called "I'm 10-15" had more than 9,500 members in July 2019 who took to the group to express job dissatisfaction among other things.

The committee said that the Trump administration blocked access to the group's records and that Customs and Border Protection began producing documents in February 2021.

"Documents obtained by the Committee show that although CBP was aware of misconduct on 'I'm 10-15' since August 2016, the agency took minimal action to strengthen social media training or guidance after the media began reporting on agents' misconduct and the Committee launched its investigation in 2019," the report stated.

RELATED CBP nominee Chris Magnus: No single solution for 'perfect border security'

Of the 135 employees the committee looked into, 60 agents were subjected to discipline. Of those, two were fired, 43 were suspended, 12 were given letters of reprimand, and three were issued other disciplinary action.

Some misconduct included a sexually explicit doctored image and derogatory comments about a member of Congress. The employee was given a suspension and given back pay. Another Border Patrol supervisor who posted a video of a migrant falling off a cliff to their death faced a 30-day suspension.

The committee said that the CBP had weaknesses in its disciplinary process to hold its employees accountable and that there is a lack of social media guidance and training given to agents.
RELATEDDHS says it will restart Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' policy next month

The report also stated that CBP employees have low morale, causing them to post their frustrations on the Facebook group. Federal surveys have shown that employees view the agency as having a "poor organizational climate."

The committee recommended CBP leadership to demonstrate social media accountability, to provide social media training, screen applicants with records of discrimination, make disciplinary records available, and address issues of poor morale.

Tsitsi Dangarembga: 'There is no freedom of expression' in Zimbabwe

The Zimbabwean author and filmmaker Tsitsi Dangarembga has received the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade. She tells DW about the issues affecting literature in her home country



Novelist Tsitsi Dangarembga was already a guest at the Frankfurt Book Fair in 2018


Tsitsi Dangarembga, born in 1959 in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), studied psychology in her home country and later at the German Film and Television Academy in Berlin.

Today she is one of the most important filmmakers in Zimbabwe. In her films, she has dealt with socially relevant topics such as AIDS and violence against women.

She also actively supports young women filmmakers in her country and founded her film production company, Nyerai Films, in 1990.

Nervous Conditions was listed as one of the BBC's top 100 books that changed the world

As a writer, she gained international recognition with her trilogy of novels, Nervous Conditions (1988), The Book of Not (2006) and This Mournable Body (2018), which were written over three decades and follow a young woman's struggle for independence.

Dangarembga is also involved in the discussion surrounding looted colonial art in Berlin's museums.

In Zimbabwe, she actively campaigns against corruption and was briefly arrested in July 2020 for protesting against the government. Proceedings are currently still pending against her.

On October 24, Tsitsi Dangarembga will be honored with the 2021 Peace Prize of the German Book Trade at the Frankfurt Book Fair.

DW spoke to her ahead of the award ceremony.

DW: You are the first woman from sub-Saharan Africa to be awarded the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade. How does that make you and other female writers from the African continent feel?

Tsitsi Dangarembga: I am thrilled and I am delighted. For me, it has been quite a long road to this level of recognition and appreciation, and so I'm doubly grateful.

I think that seeing somebody that one can identify with, doing their thing and doing it well and succeeding and having the good achievement recognized, is always encouraging to other people.

After the fall of Former Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe dies and the accession to power of his deputy, Emmerson Mnangagwa, in 2017, your home country, Zimbabwe, remains mired in a deep crisis. The population suffers from the socioeconomic situation and massive human rights violations. How difficult is the situation for freedom of expression?

I think of freedom of expression in two ways. I think of it in the way that it is normally thought about, which is: When somebody has said something, what are the consequences of that expression? So, indeed, we have repression with respect to freedom of expression.

We have a joke in Zimbabwe: There is freedom of expression, but there is no freedom after expression.

So people are aware that, if you say certain things, there might be repercussions from the state. Or if the state gets to know about it, which they often do, because it seems that there are people who are willing to inform the state about what people do and say.

Riot police in Zimbabwe violently clamping down on opposition supporters in 2019

For me there is another kind of freedom of expression: One can only express oneself if one has the means to do it, and this is increasingly difficult. People can often not go on social media to express their views simply because data is so expensive.

Literature requires a lot of time for writing. And, because of the crisis in Zimbabwe and the fact that every day is such a grind to find just the basics for survival, people do not have the time and the leisure to sit down and reflect in peace to write what they might want to write.

To film is even more difficult because it takes a lot of financial resources now. Financial resources in Zimbabwe are regulated by the state. In one way or another, all businesses have to register with the state. So, those bigger companies who might wish to maybe support creative narrative have to be careful about which narratives they support, because, if there are narratives that do not support the state, then they could also get into trouble.

So there is a level at which there is no freedom of expression because people, the resources, are withheld from certain groups of people.

CONTEMPORARY AFRICAN FILMMAKERS: NAMES TO REMEMBER

Tsitsi Dangarembga

Dangarembga is not only a filmmaker but also successfully writes novels and screenplays, including for the film 1993 "Neria" that went on to become the most-watched film in Zimbabwe. In 2020, Dangarembga was arrested in Harare at a protest against government corruption and still faces trial a year later.

12345678

Does that situation influence your work?

Yes, the situation does influence my work. This is why, in fact, I have not produced a film of my own for many, many years. And, in terms of writing, that is why it takes so long.

There is just so much else to do to manage to survive, to make sure that there's food on the table, that I don't have the space to sit down and write in the peace and quiet that I need.

Dangarembga's latest novel was nominated for the Booker Prize

After independence in 1980, there were many very good and independent publishers and bookstores in Zimbabwe. Maybe the best book fair in Africa was held in Harare. All that came to an end. How hard is it to simply gain access to books at the moment?

Access to books in Zimbabwe is very difficult. Books are now taxed when they come into the country. They are exceedingly expensive, and very few people have the credit cards that are necessary to buy books. And so, in fact, people are reading less and less.

People are still interested in producing narrative, but the publishing industry has collapsed alongside the other industries in the country and certainly the creative industries.

There are very few industries in Zimbabwe that are still functioning, and so it is very difficult for any young person in Zimbabwe to think about a career in writing. We find that the writers are tending to move to other countries, where there are industries in books and literature that they can participate in, and so, really, the idea of literature and writing is not receiving support from the government or from any of the sectors that are actually still thriving.

From time to time you will find that NGOs will publish a book. It might be fiction, it might be nonfiction but it is always within the context of the development narrative that casts Africa as a problem: "Africa is undeveloped." Therefore, it has this problem, which we have to tackle in this story. It therefore makes the problem the protagonist, and it collapses the space between the individual in the story and the problem.

So it is actually a kind of narrative that has the effect of making African people identify with themselves as problematic, and so while I believe such narratives are produced in good faith, they do not in fact have a positive impact on the communities and societies that they are intended for. So, it is very difficult at the moment for people to participate in the literary creation or to access books.

Dangarembga was arrested in July 2020 for attending a small anti-corruption march

You stood up for more freedom, for more democracy in your country, and you were arrested. You appeared before court in September, and you need to get back in December. How dangerous is the situation for you?

My situation in Zimbabwe is not particularly serious. Yes, I was arrested last year on the 31st of July after demonstrating peacefully with two posters and a friend.

I have been to court several times, over 10 times now, and in September, the state was not ready to prosecute. That simply means that they had not done the work necessary to be able to say yes, this case is now going to trial, and so I will have another hearing on the 15th of December to find out what happens from there.

The award ceremony for the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade will take place on Sunday, October 24, 2021, in Frankfurt.

Exposed: How big farm lobbies undermine EU's green agriculture plan

Farmers and lobby groups are split on an EU agricultural reform that may increase farmers' incomes and consumers' prices. A DW joint report reveals a rift between farmers and the groups purporting to represent them.



An EU proposal has called for a more sustainable agriculture policy, but who will benefit from it most?

It is a long way from the farms and fields of Sezze in central Italy to the halls of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. But the decisions made at the European assembly this week can directly impact the lives of farmers like Valentina Pallavicino. Her farm southeast of Rome is the kind that is often cited by policymakers and lobbyists when seeking support for changes to Europe's complex, subsidy-heavy agricultural system.

Pallavicino, like most Europeans, does not follow every twist and turn of farming reform debated by politicians in Brussels and Strasbourg, but she does discern two central aspects of the agricultural landscape with clarity: cheap food has been a boon for big, industrial farms and many farmers support sustainable farming.

"What they ask for we already do," she says when presented with some of the key elements of a new "green" strategy for the future of European farming, known as "Farm to Fork," which aims to slash pesticide and antimicrobial use, set a threshold on food waste, and rely on renewable energy to create a sustainable food system. "We don't use antibiotics, preservatives, or chemicals," she added.


Pallavicino says she is also wary of the organized lobby organizations claiming to speak in her name. It seems obvious, she says, that the big players do not like this kind of policy because it will increase costs and "they win if prices are lower."

Although they have never met, Polish dairy farmer Alina Lis has reached the same conclusions at her 30-hectare (74-acre) farm in western Poland, where she rears 40 cows.

"I believe agriculture in Europe should be sustainable for the sake of nature and food security," Lis says.

Lis has seen the margins on her milk fall as she competes with intensive farms that rely on heavy use of chemical fertilizers and antibiotics.
Who represents EU farmers?

The battle over who represents the true voice and interests of farmers like Pallavicino and Lis, and the millions of Europeans they feed, reaches a climax this week as the European Parliament prepares for a vote on a radical new direction for farming in the EU. Any changes the legislative body introduces require approval from EU member states before taking effect.

Farmers will receive support from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget, the EU's huge farming subsidy program that has paid out more than €50 billion ($58 billion) every year since 2005. Of the funding, 80% goes to 20% of the biggest farms in the EU.

Proponents of the Farm to Fork strategy, including green groups, say it will reduce farming's share of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions while keeping food affordable. An assessment by the Commission's in-house scientists found the strategy could support farmers and cut agriculture-related emissions by 20% across the EU.

Yet, it has come under fire from the powerful agribusiness lobby that says the proposal is not scientifically viable, will push up prices for consumers and goes against the interests of EU farmers.

Documents reviewed by DW showed these groups want to get rid of specific targets for reducing the use of pesticides and fertilizers, references to health risks associated with intensive farming, requirements to increase transparency by labeling products, and the ability of member states to impose higher taxes on unsustainable products.

But the same interest groups have also been accused of abusing science, skewing media coverage and failing the farmers they claim to represent.
Big lobbies, small farmers

In a monthslong joint investigation, investigative newsroom Lighthouse Reports, DW, Follow the Money, Mediapart and Domani spoke to nearly 30 farmers, politicians, scientists, lobby groups and experts and scanned confidential communications to reveal lobbying organizations' scope and influence.

What emerges is a portrait of wealthy industrial pressure groups — from petrochemical companies and multinational meat-packing giants to pharmaceutical businesses — that have a stubborn hold over EU policy as well as critical differences with the family farmers whose welfare they say they aim to defend.

A rift has emerged within the farming community, between those who want to continue expanding an industrial farming model, which experts say is damaging the environment, and others who prefer a smaller-scale, more ecologically friendly form of agriculture.

How is EU agricultural money spent?

Most independent farmers say they welcome the price increases that would result from focusing on the environmental costs of agriculture and fair trade practices. Many also say the big lobby groups do not speak for them.

"I do not feel represented by farmer lobby groups... small farms in Poland are collapsing," said Lis.

Marcin Wojcik, who owns a 270-hectare farm in the Low Beskid mountains in Poland, agreed.

"For two years, I was vice-president of Narodowy Fundusz Promocji Mięsa Wołowego, but I resigned because I didn't relate to those people and what they do," he says. "It was more of politics. It was unclear where the money was going."

Farm to Fork a 'win-win for total society'

Farming lobby groups including Copa-Cogeca, Liaison Centre for the Meat Processing Industry in the European Union (Clitravi), European Livestock Voice, European Dairy Association and CropLife Europe have commissioned studies that attack the Farm to Fork strategy.

A study financed by the Grain Club, an alliance of German grain companies, and carried out by the University of Kiel, shows implementing the Farm to Fork plan would cause Europe's agricultural production to decrease, prices to rise and the EU to become more dependent on imports.

Copa-Cogeca has used the study to criticize the Farm to Fork strategy without mentioning that the report also shows the income and welfare of farmers, especially livestock farmers, could be significantly improved.

The study's author, scientist Christian Henning, pointed this out in an interview with DW: "The green deal is potentially a win-win situation for total society as the benefits more than compensate for losses from reduced conventional farm production."

The green deal Henning refers to is a set of proposals adopted by the European Commission on July 14 to ensure the EU's climate, energy, transport and taxation policies reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. Farm to Fork is "at the heart" of the Green Deal, the Commission has said, adding that farming is responsible for 10% of the EU's greenhouse gas emissions.

Watch video04:51 Farming in Italy is at a crossroads

Another publication commissioned by CropLife, which lobbies on behalf of pesticide manufacturers and other players in the agri-food industry, and used by Copa-Cogeca, comes from the Netherlands' Wageningen University. It concludes that if Farm to Fork is implemented, prices will rise and meat production will fall by 10% to 15% and crop production by 10% to 20%.

Jean-Baptiste Boucher, Copa-Cogeca's communications director, told DW such studies showed "many blind spots" of Farm to Fork and accused NGOs of "a deliberate attempt to trigger a media backlash" for speaking out against the strategy.

However, the research did not address "the positive impact of the Farm to Fork strategy on climate change," the proposal's main objective, admitted Johan Bremmer, an author of the Wageningen report.
Paid for Farm to Fork disinformation?

In the span of two days, the Wageningen report was presented at a conference on the media platform Euractiv, which produced sponsored content articles critical of the Farm to Fork initiative, and at a special event organized by pro-meat group European Livestock Voice.

CropLife paid for the Euractiv event. A scan of the platform's website showed that of the seven events organized by Euractiv with "Farm to Fork" in the title over the past two years, six were sponsored by the agri-food industry.

Chris Powers, communications director of Euractiv, says that while the organization was paid to host the events, Euractiv values impartial, inclusive and constructive debates.

Watch video42:36 Farming policies for sale?

Small-scale farmers left in the dark

The sustained campaign against Farm to Fork has confused small-scale farmers who were already struggling to stay profitable and are unsure whether to welcome all the proposed measures.

Dutch dairy farmer Peter Gille says low margins have made it difficult for many farmers like himself to secure their future. He has set up side businesses, including a nursery, a camping site and a restaurant, to supplement his income.

Susan Malhieu, a 29-year-old dairy farmer in Ypres, Belgium, said while some of the strategy's policies will work, environmentally friendly farming will cost money.

"I am a bit concerned this has not been addressed very well in Farm to Fork," she said. "I am fine with having environmental targets ... but to meet the targets, will the monetary help be delivered?"

Italian farmer Emanuele Pullano thinks raising awareness amongst consumers is crucial.

"We need to make people understand that they might be spending those extra two euros but buying a product that is healthy for themselves and for the environment. In this way, the price increase can be digested."

Celine VanKerschaver, 29, international representative for Grone King, the organization for young farmers in Belgium, said Farm to Fork could help the EU achieve more coherence within the food chain and improve the social and environmental aspects of farming. But politicians should listen to farmers, not just lobbies, she says.

"We want more recognition for young farmers because they are the next generation," she says. "There is a lot of talking about farmers but not with farmers."