Reducing antimicrobial resistance: accelerated efforts are needed to meet the EU targets

Marking European Antibiotic Awareness Day on 18 November and the start of World Antimicrobial Resistance Awareness Week, ECDC presents new data on antimicrobial consumption and resistance

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

 

image: 

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has an impact on people lives.

The situation with antimicrobial resistance is getting worse, and new bacterial strains are emerging that are resistant to several antibiotics at the same time (known as multidrug-resistant bacteria). A major antimicrobial resistance problem, especially in hospitals, is the emergence of bacteria that are resistant to last-line antimicrobials, which severely limits treatment options for infected patients. Such bacteria may eventually become resistant to all existing antimicrobials.

AMR is invisible, but the patients are not.

view more 

Credit: ECDC

Between 2019 and 2023, antibiotic consumption in the EU increased by 1%, moving further away from the 2030 target of a 20% reduction recommended by the Council of the European Union.

Although there have been significant reductions in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections during the same period, the situation in other critical areas, such as carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infections, has worsened, with an increase in incidence by almost 60% between 2019 and 2023. This represents a growing threat to patients in hospitals across the EU, particularly since very few therapeutic options remain available to treat patients infected with carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae. 

Reaching the EU targets by 2030 requires a united, urgent response across the EU to prevent AMR from undermining healthcare. This response is key to protecting patients and sustaining the effectiveness of antibiotics for future generations.’  says Dr Pamela Rendi-Wagner, ECDC Director. 

To highlight the serious threat presented by antimicrobial resistance (AMR), ECDC has launched a series of patient stories to give a voice to people who have experienced prolonged hospital stays, uncertain recovery and complex treatments due to AMR. The stories also talk about the impact that these infections have had on the patients’ lives and families. 

While some Member States have made great progress towards their recommended AMR targets, or even in some instances have already reached the recommended targets, the overall picture shows that more specific, intensified interventions are urgently needed across the EU. 

To turn the tide in the fight against AMR, ECDC is calling for accelerated efforts in three main areas: infection prevention and control, prudent use of antimicrobials, and the development of and access to novel antimicrobials.

Healthcare-associated infections account for 70% of the AMR-related health burden in the EU. This is why hospitals must prioritise basic, yet critical measures for infection prevention and control, such as:
•    improving hand hygiene and giving easy access to alcohol-based solutions for hand disinfection, 
•    increasing screening for the carriage of resistant bacteria to curb the growing trend in carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae,
•    increasing the capacity to isolate positive patients by making sure that there are enough single rooms, 
•    increasing the number of dedicated infection prevention and control staff and relevant training.

The community sector accounts for 90% of total antibiotic use in humans. Reducing the use of antibiotics requires more information and public awareness campaigns, complemented by social and behavioural interventions to prevent their unnecessary use.

ECDC continues to promote the development of and access to novel antimicrobials, and alternatives to antimicrobials, that are both effective and safe for humans. Antimicrobials of this type are essential for treating patients with infections that are resistant to last-line antibiotics such as carbapenems. 

In the absence of stronger and swifter public health action, it is unlikely that the EU will reach all its targets by 2030. The consequence will be an increased number of infections with antimicrobial-resistant bacteria that will be more difficult to treat, leading to increasing challenges for patients and larger numbers of AMR-related deaths.

ECDC is committed to supporting Member States in achieving their 2030 AMR targets and has a range of measures to help them address specific gaps and strengthen national capabilities. These include individual AMR country visits and regular Public Health Emergency Preparedness Assessments for all EU/EEA countries, with antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections as key focus areas.

----Ends----

Notes to editors:

In 2023, the estimated total EU incidence of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bloodstream infections was 4.64 per 100 000 population (country range 0−15.5). This was 17.6% lower than in 2019 (baseline year) and 0.15 per 100 000 population lower than the 2030 target of 4.79 per 100 000 population. For the EU overall, a statistically significant decreasing trend was detected between 2019 (baseline year) and 2023.

The estimated total EU incidence of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Escherichia coli bloodstream infections was 10.35 per 100 000 population (country range 0−19.56) in 2023. This was 3.6% lower than in 2019 (baseline year) and 0.68 per 100 000 population higher than the 2030 target of 9.67 per 100 000 population. For the EU overall, there was no statistically significant trend detected between 2019 (baseline year) and 2023.

The estimated total EU incidence of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infections was 3.97 per 100 000 population (country range 0.00−21.44) in 2023. This was 57.5% higher than in 2019 (baseline year) and 1.58 per 100 000 population higher than the 2030 target of 2.39 per 100 000 population. For the EU overall, a statistically significant increasing trend was detected between 2019 (baseline year) and 2023.

In summary, while the EU target for the incidence of MRSA bloodstream infections had already been reached by 2023, the EU incidence of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant E. coli bloodstream infections only showed a small decrease compared to 2019 (baseline year) and the EU incidence of carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae bloodstream infections showed an increase by over 50% compared to 2019 (baseline year), which counteracts the target of a 5% reduction by 2030.

In 2024, all European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) countries reported data for 2023 to the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS-Net).Antimicrobial resistance can be expressed as the estimated total incidence of bloodstream infections with antimicrobial-resistant bacteria (infections per 100 000 population).

Data from EARS-Net show that, as in previous years, AMR levels remained high in the EU/EEA in 2023.

Increases in the estimated EU incidences of bloodstream infections with resistant bacteria were observed not only for two of the above-mentioned AMR-pathogen combinations with an EU target, but also for many other bacteria and antimicrobial groups under surveillance, such as antimicrobial-resistant K. pneumoniae (other than carbapenem-resistant), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium and piperacillin-tazobactam-, ceftazidime-, and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

The AMR situation reported by EU/EEA countries varied widely, depending on the bacterial species, antimicrobial group and geographical region. The highest estimated incidences of antimicrobial-resistant bloodstream infections were generally reported by countries in the south or southeast of Europe.

For each bacterial species, country-specific information on the estimated incidence of antimicrobial-resistant bloodstream infections (including the recommended EU targets on AMR), the percentage of invasive isolates with AMR, data availability and the percentage of intensive care unit patients is available in country summaries. Results by age group and sex are available in the ECDC Surveillance Atlas of Infectious Diseases (https://atlas.ecdc.europa.eu/).

Estimates based on EARS-Net data from 2020 indicate that each year more than 35 000 people die in the EU/EEA as a direct consequence of antimicrobial-resistant infections.

The overall poor progress towards the EU targets on AMR and, more particularly, the continued increase in the incidence of carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae bloodstream infections, highlights the urgent need for intensified public health action against AMR.

The Council Recommendation on stepping up EU actions to combat antimicrobial resistance in a One Health approach (2023/C 220/01) encourages Member States to develop and implement national action plans against AMR, and highlights the need for Member States to allocate appropriate human and financial resources for the effective implementation of these plans.

The plans should include key elements, such as enhanced surveillance and strengthened infection prevention and control programmes in hospitals and other healthcare settings, integrated with antimicrobial stewardship programmes and good diagnostic practices.

In the absence of stronger, swifter public health action, it is unlikely that the EU will reach all its AMR targets by 2030. The consequence will be an increased number of infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria that will be more difficult to treat, leading to increasing challenges for patients and AMR-related deaths.

Read the full report "Antimicrobial resistance in the EU/EEA (EARS-Net)" for 2023, available from https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/antimicrobial-resistance-annual-epidemiological-report-EARS-Net-2023.pdf

Read the report "Antimicrobial consumption in the EU/EEA (ESAC-Net)" available from https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/antimicrobial-consumption-ESAC-Net-annual-epidemiological-report-2023_0.pdf

 

Someone flirts with your spouse. Does that make your partner appear more attractive?

The simplified formula of “more attention equals more desire” doesn’t seem to apply to established relationships

University of Rochester

Picture this: You’re at a bar when someone starts hitting shamelessly on your spouse or significant other, who doesn’t flirt back. As the scene unfolds, your base instincts kick in—annoyance, anger, jealousy—followed by a heightened sexual desire for your partner. You’re ready to reclaim the attention that should be rightfully yours, correct?

Not necessarily, according to a new study in the Journal of Sex Research by researchers at Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, and the US-based University of Rochester. Instead, the researchers discovered a surprising twist: despite the fact that your significant other did not reciprocate the advances, your own attraction to your partner begins to wane, and your desire to continue investing in that relationship diminishes.

At first glance, the reaction seems paradoxical, notes the study’s lead author Gurit Birnbaum, a professor of psychology at Reichman University. A substantial body of prior research has shown that when searching for a partner, we frequently rely on social cues. One such cue, known as mate choice copying, occurs in both humans and animals. Think of it as a shortcut to identifying desirable partners: seeing others interested in a potential mate often makes that person appear more attractive and desirable.

But the simplified formula of “more attention equals more desire” doesn’t seem to apply to established relationships.

”The problem is, once we have established a relationship, we become concerned about something called mate poaching—the idea that a competitor might lure our partner away,” explains coauthor Harry Reis, a professor in Rochester’s Department of Psychology and the University’s Dean’s Professor.

While the bulk of earlier research has largely focused on the initial stage of mate selection and the start of new partnerships, this latest study looks at the effects of unsolicited flirting on an established relationship.

Research has shown that people tend to use a mix of positive and negative approaches to keep their partners close. Giving gifts and spending quality time together are examples of positive tactics, says Birnbaum, while controlling a partner’s time is a negative approach.

“While some might try to make their partner jealous by seeking attention from others, possibly to feel more desired or secure, our research shows this tactic often backfires.”

What happens next is important.

“When a partner’s likelihood of being attracted to someone else is perceived as high, such as when they receive attention from others, people tend to abandon the positive tactics,” says Birnbaum.

Indeed, the fear of losing a partner may trigger a cascade of defensive reactions designed to protect us from hurt, including emotional distancing and withdrawing investment in the relationship, hoping to soften the blow if our fears materialize.

These defensive distancing responses, says Birnbaum, are designed to avoid a “potential blow to one’s self-esteem from rejection rather than risk further attachment to a partner whose commitment could be compromised by rival suitors.”

Three experiments put unsolicited flirting to the test

The team tested Israeli participants’ reactions across three separate experiments, using visualization, virtual reality, and recall techniques.

Participants in all three studies were in monogamous, mixed-sex relationships of at least four months. They were exposed to situations in which their real-life partners received unsolicited flirtatious advances. (All three experiments used control groups in which the participants’ partners encountered a neutral interaction with another person). Then, participants rated their sexual desire for their partner, their interest in deterring potential rivals, and their own relationship-maintaining efforts as expressed, for example, in the kind act of taking over a chore for their partner.

For the first experiment, 244 participants (126 women, 118 men) were asked to imagine a scenario where someone else showed interest in their partner (without the partner’s reciprocation), or interacted neutrally (for the control group). Next, participants were instructed to describe a sexual fantasy about their partner in a narrative format. Independent raters coded these fantasies for expressions of desire for the partner and the degree to which participants prioritized their partner’s pleasure over their own sexual desires. The team considered lower values as signs of defensive distancing and sexual disengagement.

In the second experiment, the researchers used virtual reality to create a realistic, yet controlled environment to study participants’ reactions to unwanted attention towards their romantic partners. To that end, 132 undergraduate students (66 women, 66 men) put on VR headsets and were transported to a bustling bar where they watched their real-life partners interact with a virtual stranger, who either flirted with their partner or remained neutral. Using VR, the team was able to create a safe environment to study the very real emotions of jealousy and possessiveness—without the risk of study participants’ coming to blows or causing a bar brawl.

In the third experiment, 190 participants (101 women and 89 men) were asked to recall and describe a past episode in their relationship where someone had either expressed unreciprocated interest in their partner or had interacted with their partner in a neutral manner.

The team found that study participants reacted to a stranger’s showing interest for their partner by feeling less desire for their partner, a reduced interest in investing in the relationship, and an increased interest in thwarting potential rivals.

Flirt at your own risk

The study’s biggest takeaway for your everyday romantic life? “Don’t flirt with others if you want your partner to be happy with you,” says Reis.

“While some might try to make their partner jealous by seeking attention from others, possibly to feel more desired or secure, our research shows this tactic often backfires,” echoes Birnbaum. “Instead of strengthening the relationship, it can damage the very connection it aims to enhance.”

The study is supported by the Israel Science Foundation, the Binational Science Foundation, and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program.

---

Journal

The Journal of Sex Research

DOI

10.1080/00224499.2024.2391105 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

When Your Partner is Being Flirted With: The Impact of Unsolicited Attention on Perceived Partner Desirability and Mate Retention Efforts

Free Speech Woman

 vs. 

Zuck the Cuck: Round II

Susan Block

 November 7, 2024

Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Photograph Source: Anthony Quintano – CC BY 2.0

Ding!

I, “Free Speech Woman,” am entering the ring for Round II of my epic legal fight with Meta, parent company of Facebook and Instagram, owned by Meta multi-owned by Meta multi-billionaire “Boy-in-the-Bubble” CEO and avid Jiu-Jitsu Blue Belt Mark Zuckerberg.

To recap: I contend that when Meta’s AI “content moderation” bots censored and deactivated my Facebook profile and IG account – unfairly, arbitrarily and without warning – Meta breached its own contracts. READ MY BRIEF/S

Meta contends that I’m nothing more than a wanton whore, unworthy of any protection from harm or even the courtesy of being treated like a human being.

Section 230: The Internet’s Iron Dome

Meanwhile Billionaire Bubble-Boy Zuckerberg is shielded from his own massively destructive mistakes and power-drunk misdeeds by his protective “bubble” – a virtual Iron Dome – enabled by an algorithmic army of bots and fortified by a cavalry of highly paid attorneys, complicit arbitrators, corrupt politicians and an obscure portion of the Communications Decency Act, 47 USC 230, known simply and ominously as “Section 230.”

In the legal world, Silicon Valley-friendly interpretations of Section 230 have given social media moguls like Zuckerberg that Iron Dome-like protection, letting them groom and doom, exploit, censor, ban and deny many of us our right to free speech, our access to the “digital town square,” even our right to communicate with loved ones in times of need.

My own Facebook profile was deactivated shortly before my beloved husband of 32 years, Maximillian R. Lobkowicz di Filangieri, had a major ischemic stroke, shattering our lives. Meta may not have caused Max’s stroke, but it certainly didn’t help that, besides deactivating my Facebook profile, Mark Zuckerberg also vaporized my Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp, making it all the more difficult to get in touch with loved ones during this cataclysmic crisis.

That’s Zuckerberg Family Values for you. Since 2008, Meta had groomed me and my relatives to communicate via Facebook, then doomed me to deactivation and the rest of us to zero communication.

When I asked Meta to restore my wrongfully deactivated accounts, I was greeted with stony silence, followed by a barrage of defamatory lies. On the advice of counsel, I took Meta to arbitration. However, thanks to Section 230’s protective bubble around Boy-Lord Zuckerberg, buoyed by a paid-by-Meta arbitrator’s unsubtle coaching of Meta’s Mayer Brown lawyers, my so-called “case” was unceremoniously and erroneously awarded to Meta without allowing me – the plaintiff – to utter a word.

Such is the sinister way of the megalomaniacal Markie Z’s Meta megalopoly.

Algorithmic Ignorance & Sexual Services

In attempting to defend their indefensible actions and to keep my mouth gagged shut with fabricated scandal, Meta lawyers falsely accused me of being a sex worker (i.e., prostitute) providing “sexual services” via Meta sites. Just to set the record straight: I am not now, nor have I ever been a sex worker, nor did I ever provide “sexual services” through Meta sites or anywhere else. I am a therapist providing sex therapy, as I was prepared to prove if I had been permitted to present my case.

Though I’ve often expressed my political views that consenting adult sex work should be decriminalized, and I have had many wonderful sex workers as guests on my show, I myself have never been one. Nevertheless, Meta’s lawyers and the paid-by-META arbitrator conspired to defame me with the Scarlet Letter of “sex work” – on top of depriving me of my rights – to punish me for blowing the whistle on Meta’s fraudulent “contracts of adhesion” and its destructive, AI (Artificial Ignorance)-based censorship.

Yes indeed, Brothers and Sisters, Lovers and Sinners, wake up and smell the censorship! It stinks of dumb bots droning your posts and maybe your whole, carefully curated account.

Like so many other innocent Meta users posting about sex, politics, health and other debatable topics, I am the victim of an algorithm that identified buzz words on my profiles and incorrectly labeled me as being in violation of platform policies. Rather than bothering to even try to be fair, Facebook and Instagram just adopted the algorithm’s conclusion as gospel. No human beings even looked at my profiles until I requested arbitration, and then it was Meta’s lawyers, who simply sought to ratify the algorithm to avoid a cascade of claims against the two platforms for relying solely on these faulty algorithms to police content from people’s profiles. Because the fact of the matter is, as many studies have shown, these powerful algorithms are notoriously faulty.

Next Legal Move – Motion to Vacate

Bullied but not beaten, I am taking Zuck the Cuck’s “bull” by the horns, filing a Motion to Vacate their deeply flawed Arbitration Award, in pro per.

My motion maintains that not only was the Arbitrator biased, prejudicially squeamish about basic sex education, ignorant of algorithmic error rates and disingenuous about Facebook’s vast and unique social media power, he was also “without legal authority” to rule on my case based on Facebook’s and Instagram’s contracts.

There are so many reasons why this Arbitration Award must be vacated – but will the judge agree? Or will that palm beneath his robes be greased by Meta’s own Silicon?

Free Speech Woman vs. Zuck the META Cuck

One of our most valuable rights as Americans is Freedom of Speech. Most nations don’t grant Free Speech to their citizens, but we Americans (supposedly) do. It’s as close as our secular government gets to sacred. In 1789, We the American People received the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights, rather like Moses receiving the 10 Commandments. Our First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech has been revered by the world, but it has long been under attack from both the Right and the so-called Left – now on a Meta-scale.

Whether you’re talking about sex, politics, equality, health or Palestine, power-drunk social media moguls like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk pervert the very phrase “free speech”  by twisting it into its Orwellian opposite,  literally getting away with digital murder every day.

But enough is enough. This past Halloween, I summoned the spirit of “Free Speech Woman” within me to give me the power to hold – or at least try to hold – Mark ‘Zuck the Jiu-Jitsu Cuck’ Zuckerberg down on the Mat of Truth, holding him accountable for censoring our speech, exploiting our desires, stoking our divisions, flattening our relationships and banning us from our own communities and the Internet’s public square.

Mark the Meta-Megalopolist knows this better than anyone, referring to his Facebook “fiefdom” (so-called by others) as “the digital equivalent of the town square,” and boasting meta-magnanimously that “our platforms are for everyone.”

Really – “for everyone”? More for every paying advertiser and useful government power broker. But what about Meta users? What about ‘We the People’ who make Meta great? What about me? What right does Mark Zuckerberg have to ban me from the ‘digital equivalent of the town square’ – to banish me from my own communities, even from my own family(!) – just because his faulty algorithms ascertain that my politics, religion or sex-positive values might offend a Meta advertiser or the head of the House Energy & Commerce Committee?

Free Speech vs. Empire

While I venerate the creators of the Bill of Rights – including Max’s 18^th century Italian ancestor, Gaetano Filangieri – who was freedom-loving pen pals with Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (though Filangieri didn’t own slaves) – Zuckerberg exalts a different kind of role model (who owned lots of slaves): the first emperor of the Roman Empire, Augustus Caesar, aka Gaius Octavius, known for making the world safe for ruthless dictators.

Now Mark “Silicon Caesar” Zuckerbucks and his army of bots has more unchecked power over our everyday lives than any single human on earth.

The Greek prefix “Meta” means “beyond,” and Zuck’s Meta has gone beyond the pale, metamorphosing into a Meta-menace to democracy.

The Pro-Bonobo Way

“Zuck the Cuck needs to be clocked!” I declare, brandishing my cherry red boxing gloves as Free Speech Woman, fighting to win my Motion to Vacate the Award with a knock-out punch, taking down Zuck-the-Cuck – well, actually it’s just a blow-up doll effigy, but it looks about as human as the real thing, sharply attired in a snappy “Meta Über Alles” white T – to the Mat of Truth.

Tell the truth, Zuck! You’re a censor.

Then, like a bonobo matriarch, I spank Zuck the Cuck’s sorry rubber butt with The Bonobo Way: The Evolution of Peace through Pleasure and a Motion to Vacate, gently but firmly holding him responsible while holding him down on the Mat of Truth between the Bill of Rights and my pointy-toed, high-heeled cowgirl boots, as a couple of bonobo apes make peace through pleasure nearby.

Like the bonobos, I’m a lover not a fighter. I prefer negotiation, but Meta refuses to negotiate, so Free Speech Woman to the rescue! Cage match!

Zuck the Cuck vs. Elon the Chicken

Elon the Chicken won’t fight Zuck the Cuck, but I will.

Elon talks big, thanks to his own almost limitless Free Speech, but I’m willing to fight for love.

Sure, Zuck is a more experienced fighter than me, with his own personal team of high-priced Jiu-Jitsu trainers and Mayer-Brown lawyers, but I have fighter role models too, like Muhammad Ali (whom I met at a 1996 wrap party after one of my HBO specials); the “People’s Champ” could “float like a butterfly, sting like a bee,” and had the courage not to fight in the Vietnam War.

I also picked up some fancy fight moves from actor Dave Bautista, when he was a guest on my showin his WWE Champ “Batista” days, demonstrating the “Batista Bomb.”

Drop Batista Bombs – not real bombs! Let’s make peace like bonobos, not baboons, and put the brakes on this runaway train of corporate censorship running roughshod over Free Speech!

Ironically and most unfortunately, I’m getting some real-life wrestling training by taking care of my darling husband Max (whose stroke occurred in the middle of the “META Arbitration That Wasn’t”), involves practicing the “Caretaking Jiu Jitsu” martial art of gently but firmly wrestling his one good, remarkably strong, sometimes rambunctious left hand away from yanking out his life-saving – but oh-so-yankable – G-Tube.

Even if Meta/Zuck wins this round (justice is not always blind), Free Speech Woman will not give up the fight, and I will continue to press my case, mounting a new lawsuit against META in pro per, chasing Zuck the Über Cuck, like the cartoon villain he is, through the Halls of Justice.

Human Being vs. Machine on Trial

It’s a long shot, but putting my case in front of a jury of human beings could have long-reaching effects on how people and our increasingly powerful machines interact.  One day those machines may well have the equivalent of human emotions and judgment.  But today they do not, and we cannot (or at least should not) permit them, at this time, to rule over our constitutional rights – no matter how many Zuckerbucks AI saves Meta stockholders.

Sure, Meta has the legal right to control content on its platforms, but that control must not be left exclusively to error-riddled AI.  There must be checks and balances.  My day in court is just such a check and offers a reasonable and absolutely necessary balance between human being and machine on this sensitive issue of censorship.  If we do not strike that balance now while we still can, the thought of what future publications might be censored is chilling.

This is not my first round in the Free Speech Ring, nor my first pro-bonobo lawsuit in pro per, punching up (never down) against an overly powerful authority stomping on my First Amendment Rights. I successfully sued the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) back in 2002 when they unjustly raided my studio, for which I won a large enough settlement from the City of Los Angeles for me to create Bonoboville in real life and on the web.

Zuck’s a different kind of fight, of course, but, in a way, he’s already crying uncle…

True Confession: Zucky Feels Guilty

Some will call it a pure coincidence, but shortly after my case against Meta was kicked out of the Kangaroo Court of Arbitration, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg released a letter to the U.S. Congressional Judiciary Committee on the subject of Meta’s overly zealous, government-coerced censorship, aka “content moderation on online platforms.”

“Senior officials from the… White House repeatedly pressured our team for months to censor [content]… I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it…”

Sounds like Zuck the Cuck feels guilty for censoring us!

As well he should. But don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing bad about cuckolding, as long as it’s between consenting adults, and Zuck’s cuck guilt (if he has any) is a private matter between him, Priscilla, their bull and their therapist.

But Zuck the Cuck doesn’t feel guilty for cuckolding. He feels guilty for censoring us! And considering Meta’s beyond-the-pale power, poor little Billionaire Bubble Boy Zuck’s problems wind up hurting us all.

Meta is censoring us per Mark Zuckerberg’s obeisance to certain government officials, advertisers and the power of his own Meta-Bot AI Army. These bots are so powerful, they even subjugate Zuck himself – like Victor Frankenstein conquered by his own Monster – as they stealthily and relentlessly obliterate all of our rights to speaking freely.

Markie Z’s Meta-Megalopoly

“We’re about promoting speech and helping people to connect in a safe and secure way,” Zuck prattles on in his usual robot-programmed-to-sound-human style.

But what about promoting my speech? What about helping me to connect in a safe and secure way? I was not safe or secure when Mark Zuckerberg groomed me for over 15 years of participation, and then doomed me in a nano-second to deactivation– all duly exploited by Markie Z’s Meta-megalopoly.

So, “Free Speech Woman” here, slugging it out in the Meta Ring not only for my rights, but the rights of all users on Meta and “beyond.”

Sure, I’m slugging it out in the Meta Ring in hopes of having my accounts restored, though this isn’t just about my rights, of course, but the rights of all Meta users and “beyond.” It’s also about honoring my beloved Max’s pre-stroke wish that no single corporation, person or amateur Jiu-Jitsu-fighting Augustus-Caesar-wannabe have the unchecked power to banish us – with zero accountability – from the “digital town square”… and beyond.

Susan Block, Ph.D., a.k.a. “Dr. Suzy,” is a world renowned LA sex therapist, author of The Bonobo Way: The Evolution of Peace through Pleasure and horny housewife, occasionally seen on HBO and other channels. For information and speaking engagements, call 626-461-5950. Email her at drsusanblock@gmail.com  

Apple’s Cash Grab From Patreon Harms Journalism, Advocacy, and Art

Lee Hall

 November 6, 2024

Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Photo source: Duophenom, via Pexels/Canva

Subscriber support through Patreon is a lifeline for independent artists, researchers, advocates, and journalists. I’m among the people who rely on monthly subscriptions to produce the kind of writings that don’t get aired through mainstream media, academic gatekeepers, or well-funded nonprofits.

Now comes Apple’s App Store, rolling out 30% fees for new subscriptions. This affects each new Patreon subscription started on Apple’s iOS, from this month on.

Subscribers want to contribute to independent journalism, art and advocacy. They get no tax breaks for supporting independent creators on Patreon. They’re not signing up to fund a billionaire’s company.

As for the creators, we’ve agreed to stomach Patreon’s (much smaller) fee for a presence on the platform. We duly pay income taxes on the funds we receive. But we didn’t expect to have to cover the Apple tax.

Patreon CEO Jack Conte expressed frustration over Apple’s move, and urged creators to hike rates for new subscriptions, given that Apple will take a 30% cut from what we’d have received from new supporters who use Apple’s app system. Some option! When subscriptions cost more because of corporate fees, creators get less of their subscribers’ support.

Most creators earn just a few hundred dollars a month on the platform. Typically, independent artists and writers earn about 40% of their total income from Patreon subscriptions.

In contrast, Apple was first on the stock market to cross the $3 trillion market cap line. For this giant, siphoning money from creators is just another corporate prerogative. At the end of the day, Apple’s new cut will make it harder for independent artists, writers, performers, educators, and advocates to survive, let alone flourish.

Here is how Patreon is trying to make sense of this to us. TL;DR: Never mind the App Store; use Patreon’s own website (even from your phone), or Android, to commit support to creators on Patreon.

Why Acquiesce?

Patreon CEO Jack Conte is a musician, one who has personal experience with Big Tech extracting money from independent artists. Patreon started up as a rebellion to this sort of exploitation. So, can’t Patreon walk away from Apple? It’s complicated, I suppose. Without the little P logo on people’s screens, Patreon would lose something that nudges iPhone owners to check out creators.

Conte says they’re going along with this because iOS is the “most-used platform” for supporter engagement on Patreon. So Apple got its hooks into this platform, and now it’s calling the shots. It’s just as Ben Norton says. “Now that U.S. Big Tech monopolies are deeply embedded into the fabric of the global economy, with no real competitors, they’ll jack up rents.” Apple is a private digital utility that should be publicly owned, Norton declares, with its services provided as public goods.

In Europe, the Digital Markets Act is forcing Apple to let innovators offer apps that Apple doesn’t control—without paying Apple 30%. But the Apple barons vow to introduce new fees and restrictions when people download alternative apps.

The Studio for the Art of Animal Liberation I built on Patreon is about exploring the human identity. It’s about what we can become in relation to other living communities and our Earth. If the high-tech era is more interested in replicating exploitive economics than abiding by fair exchange, how can we expect to nurture supportive cultural values regarding other-than-human beings?

I don’t know how many future supporters will subscribe to my work through the Apple App Store. I don’t know how many will be put off because of the exorbitant rates. I’ll never know how much Apple has got and I have not. Nor will any of the 250,000+ writers and creators who’ve come to Patreon’s platform seeking community and sustenance.

I do know we can’t do art, advocacy, and independent research when trillion-dollar companies regard us as fuel to dig up and feed to their profit machines. We have to take on capitalism, and the Apple-Patreon drama offers 250,000 new reasons why.

Lee Hall holds an LL.M. in environmental law with a focus on climate change, and has taught law as an adjunct at Rutgers–Newark and at Widener–Delaware Law. Lee is an author, public speaker, and creator of the Studio for the Art of Animal Liberation on Patreon.