Apple is sued by women who say AirTag lets stalkers track victims

Story by By Jonathan Stempel • Yesterday 


FILE PHOTO: The Apple Inc. logo is seen hanging at the entrance to the Apple store on 5th Avenue in New York, U.S.© Thomson Reuters

(Reuters) - Apple Inc has been sued by two women who said its AirTag devices have made it easier for their former partners and other stalkers to track down victims.

In a proposed class action filed on Monday in San Francisco federal court, the women said Apple has been unable to protect people from unwanted trafficking through AirTag since launching what it called the "stalker proof" device in April 2021.

Starting at $29, AirTags are 1-1/4 inches (3.2 cm) in diameter, and intended to be slipped into or attached to keys, wallets, backpacks and other items so people can find them when they are lost.

But privacy experts and law enforcement have said some people use Airtags for criminal or malicious purposes.

The plaintiffs called AirTag "the weapon of choice of stalkers and abusers," and said it has been linked to murders this year of women from Akron, Ohio and Indianapolis.


Monday's lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for U.S. owners of iOS or Android-based devices who were tracked by AirTag or are "at risk" of being stalked because of Apple's alleged negligence.


Apple did not immediately respond on Tuesday to requests for comment.

The Cupertino, California-based company has acknowledged that "bad actors" have tried misusing Airtags.

In February, Apple announced planned upgrades to make it easier to find the devices, and warn users faster that unknown AirTags might be "traveling with them."

One plaintiff in Monday's lawsuit, Lauren Hughes, said her former boyfriend learned where she had moved to avoid him after placing an AirTag in her car's wheel well.

She said he later posted a photo online of a taco truck from her new neighborhood, and included a winking emoji with the hashtag "#airt2.0."

The other plaintiff, Jane Doe, said her estranged husband tracked her after putting an AirTag in their child's backpack.

The case is Hughes et al v. Apple Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 22-07668.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

French environmentalists file complaint against Apple for wasteful practices

PARIS (Reuters) -A French environmental campaign group filed a complaint against Apple Inc. over commercial practices restricting the use of spare parts for repairs, it said on Wednesday.


Apple logo at an Apple store in Paris

© Thomson Reuters

"In many of the cases documented in the complaint, malfunctions are found in cases where the device is repaired with a part, even an identical and original part, not authorised by Apple's software," the HOP association said in a statement.

This would compromise the possibilities to repair or refurbish some products, including iPhone smartphones, the group said.

Related video: It'll take years for Apple to diversify its production supply chain, says research firm
Duration 3:25
View on Watch

Apple France was not immediately available to comment.

In a similar case brought before the French consumer watchdog by the group in 2020, Apple agreed to pay 25 million euros ($26.32 million) for failing to inform iPhone users that updates of the operating system could slow down the functioning of the device.

Under French law, it is forbidden to deliberately reduce the lifespan of a product in order to increase its replacement rate.

($1 = 0.9500 euros)

(Reporting by Tassilo Hummel, Editng by Dominique Vidalon, Kirsten Donovan)

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

French watchdog orders Amazon to pay $3.5 million in penalties

PARIS (Reuters) - A French watchdog has ordered U.S. e-commerce giant Amazon.com to pay 3.3 million euros ($3.5 million) in penalties for failing to modify contractual provisions related to third-party sellers by the deadline it set, the watchdog said on Wednesday.


: A logo of Amazon is seen on a company's logistics centre

© Thomson Reuters

France's DGCCRF consumer fraud watchdog said in a statement Amazon had been ordered to make the changes, aimed at correcting imbalances in contractual terms between Amazon's online marketplace and third-party sellers, by March 22.

Amazon had complied with DGCCRF's orders a month later, on April 28, the watchdog said, which led to penalties equivalent to 90,000 euros per day of delay.

The DGCCRF's orders followed an investigation by the agency, placed under the authority of France's finance ministry, and led to the conclusion that Amazon didn't abide by the so called "platform-to-business" rules adopted by the European Union in 2019.

Amazon said it would appeal against DGCCRF's penalties.

"The DGCCRF has acknowledged that the changes we implemented in April are consistent with its injunction," Amazon said in a written statement.

"However, we continue to disagree with the DGCCRF on its findings, decisions and related penalty, and are challenging each of them in court."

($1 = 0.9527 euros)

(Reporting by Mathieu Rosemain; Editing by Elaine Hardcastle)

Washington DC sues Amazon over withheld delivery driver tips

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The District of Columbia attorney general's office on Wednesday sued Amazon.com Inc and its Amazon Logistics subsidiary alleging the biggest online retailer had withheld tips from delivery drivers.

Washington Attorney General Karl Racine said the company "tricked consumers into thinking they were increasing drivers' compensation when Amazon was actually diverting tips to reduce its own labor costs and increase profits" through its Amazon Flex service.

Amazon Flex drivers use their own vehicles to deliver goods and groceries ordered through programs like Prime Now and Amazon Fresh. The FTC alleged the company kept drivers' tips over a 2-1/2 year period and stopped the practice after learning of the FTC investigation in 2019, the FTC said in 2021.

Related video: Meet the Amazon warehouse workers paying the price for fast, free shipping   Duration 10:12   View on Watch

Amazon ordered to stop retaliation against employee organizers

The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, seeks civil penalties for every violation and a court order to bar Amazon from re-engaging in the practice.

Last year under a settlement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Amazon paid $61.7 million to more than 140,000 drivers.

Amazon has "thus far escaped appropriate accountability, including any civil penalties, for consumer harm," Racine said in a statement.

"When a company is caught stealing from its workers, it is not enough for the company to repay the amount stolen. Stealing from workers is theft, and significant penalties are necessary to strongly disincentivize this unlawful conduct."

Amazon did not immediately provide a comment.

In 2021 the company disagreed that the way it reported pay to drivers was unclear. "We added additional clarity in 2019 and are pleased to put this matter behind us," an Amazon spokeswoman said at the time.

(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Richard Chang)

+4 MAKE SCOTUS A COVEN OF THE LEFT

The Frightening Implications of Gorsuch’s Angry Questions About State “Reeducation”

Story by Mark Joseph Stern • Yesterday

During oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis at the Supreme Court on Monday, Justice Neil Gorsuch cornered Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson with an unforeseeable question. After noting that a state “can’t change” someone’s “religious beliefs,” Gorsuch brought up Jack Phillips, a Christian baker who was sanctioned for discriminating against same-sex couples.


Justice Neil Gorsuch Olivier Douliery/Getty Images© Provided by Slate

“Mr. Phillips did go through a reeducation training program pursuant to Colorado law, did he not, Mr. Olson?” Gorsuch asked. Olson began to reply, but the justice cut him off, pressing him again: “It was a reeducation program, right?”

“It was not a reeducation program,” Olson said. Gorsuch asked him what he called it. Olson told him: “It was a process to make sure he was familiar with Colorado law.”

“Someone might be excused for calling that a reeducation program,” Gorsuch retorted. Olson stood his ground, responding: “I strongly disagree.”

In the moment, this exchange came out of nowhere: The justice was harking back to Masterpiece Cakeshop, a 2018 case in which the Supreme Court sided with Phillips (albeit narrowly). And it really wasn’t fair for Gorsuch to ambush Olson with a hostile left-field question about a previous case in which he wasn’t involved. But this grievance is not a new one. The justice has previously signaled his belief that mandatory training for businesses that engage in unlawful discrimination violates the First Amendment. It seems this conviction has only grown stronger. What’s most notable is that today, there may be four or five other justices who agree with him.

To hear Gorsuch tell it, Colorado put Jack Phillips through Soviet-style brainwashing, forcing him to abandon his deeply held beliefs at pain of punishment and embrace the state’s orthodoxy. (He appears to have lifted the “reeducation” language from a brief by Alliance Defending Freedom, the far-right organization representing the discriminatory business in 303 Creative.) The truth is far more banal. For about as long as the law has restricted employment discrimination, it has also provided various tools to ensure compliance with those rules. Among other things, civil rights laws often require employers to inform their workers about what conduct, exactly, crosses the line into illegal discrimination.

Consider, for instance, a department store in which employees rush to help white customers while blatantly ignoring Black customers. A state might order the store to train its employees in the importance of serving all customers equally, regardless of race. Or imagine a hotel whose receptionists falsely claim they have no vacancies when Muslims try to book a room. A state might order the hotel to train receptionists not to turn away customers because of religion. If the discrimination is especially blatant or severe, a state might order employers to provide periodic updates about these corrective measures.

And that’s pretty much what the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did after it found Phillips in violation of the state’s nondiscrimination law. As the Supreme Court itself explained in Masterpiece Cakeshop, the commission told Phillips to “cease and desist from discriminating against” same-sex couples. It ordered “comprehensive staff training” in Colorado’s civil rights law and told Phillips to update company policies “to comply with” its order. The commission also directed Phillips to file “quarterly compliance reports” for two years documenting “the number of patrons denied service,” the reasons why, and the business’ response.

This mandate perturbed Gorsuch so greatly that he brought it up during oral arguments with Olson’s predecessor, Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger. “As I understand it, Colorado ordered Mr. Phillips to provide comprehensive training to his staff—and it didn’t order him to attend a class of the government’s own creation or anything like that, but to provide comprehensive staff training,” Gorsuch said. “Why isn’t that compelled speech and possibly in violation of his free-exercise rights? Because presumably he has to tell his staff, including his family members, that his Christian beliefs are discriminatory.”

When Yarger responded that “a training requirement is a common remedy that is used in many civil rights cases,” the justice was not placated. “But this isn’t attending your training, Mr. Yarger,” he said. “This order was ordering him to provide training and presumably compelling him to speak, therefore, and to speak in ways that maybe offend his religion and certainly compel him to speak.”

Gorsuch’s comment reflected a misunderstanding of how civil rights law actually works. The justice appears to believe that states force discriminatory employers to attend “a class of the government’s own creation.” Perhaps he envisions some kind of community college–type course (How to Interact With Gays for Beginners). In reality, though, states frequently outsource compliance training to private businesses; indeed, many law firms specialize in helping companies develop nondiscrimination training to stave off future lawsuits. Gorsuch seems to believe that when the state orders an employer to conduct this kind of training, it has violated the First Amendment.

The consequences of this theory would be vast and severe. As I wrote in 2018, a hotel supervisor who thinks interracial relationships are sinful could refuse to tell employees to let mixed-race couples book rooms. A restaurant manager with spiritual objections to interfaith marriage could decline to train employees in their duty to serve customers without regard to religion. Gorsuch’s theory would extend beyond public accommodations into the realm of employment. Right now, a supervisor can be held liable when they do not stop employees from discriminating. Under Gorsuch’s theory, supervisors could refuse to educate their workers about illegal discriminatory behaviors by claiming that such instruction would violate their beliefs. Imagine, for example, a manager who says he holds the religious view that women belong in the home. He could claim a First Amendment right not to tell workers they must treat their female colleagues equally, citing his faith-based convictions about women’s inferiority.

In truth, a vast amount of unlawful discrimination involves speech. Workplace harassment is speech. Passing over a qualified Black employee for promotion is speech. Firing a worker for becoming pregnant is speech. Giving a student an F because she’s Muslim is speech. Which is why an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment would destroy broad swathes of modern civil rights law.

It might seem strange that Gorsuch would wish to be the author of this destruction. After all, he wrote the landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County recognizing that federal law bars employment discrimination against LGBTQ people. But the justice has a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde quality: His occasional progressive rulings are countered and undermined by his extremism on issues like religion. And now, unlike in 2018, there is a real chance that a majority of the court shares his belief that nondiscrimination training requirements amount to an unconstitutional “reeducation program.” The court can wreak a lot of havoc with 303 Creative, most obviously by freeing companies to turn away customers on the basis of their identity. As Gorsuch’s angry tangent indicated, however, the conservative bloc has even more options at its disposal—including an assault on the remedies necessary to make civil rights laws more than an empty promise.

B.C. court rules forestry company must pay $343,000 cost of 2016 wildfire suppression

Yesterday


VANCOUVER — A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has upheld more than $343,000 in cost-recovery fines that were handed to a forestry company for starting a wildfire in 2016.


B.C. court rules forestry company must pay $343,000 cost of 2016 wildfire suppression© Provided by The Canadian Press

A decision posted Monday says the wildfire near Nazko, in central B.C., burned about four square kilometres after escaping from a debris pile that a contractor set on fire at a Tolko Industries cut block.

The court heard that four so-called holdover fires were reported by Tolko to the BC Wildfire Service for starting active fires in the spring of 2016.

The fires burned under the snow-covered ground for periods ranging from six weeks to five months after they were thought to have been put out, but the wildfire near Nazko was the only one that escaped the cut block.

Tolko initially won an appeal through the Forest Appeals Commission, which overturned the pay order saying the company was exempt under the Wildfire Regulation because it didn't intend to start the fire and it found the blaze was a result of forestry activity.

However, Supreme Court Justice Michael Brundrett says in his decision that the commission made a mistake when it interpreted "fire" to mean "wildfire," separating the intentional act of starting the burn pile from the wildfire that resulted from it.

"The language does not require the person to intend to start a wildfire that accidentally spreads from a wilfully lit controlled fire," he says in his decision.

"If one were to limit the cost recovery scheme to wilfully caused wildfires only (e.g., cases of arson), and to exclude roadside debris pile fires deliberately lit by industry participants that accidentally result in wildfires, the resulting cost recovery scheme would be so marginal in scope as to have almost no practical application."

The Supreme Court decision says in general, timber harvesting results in a significant amount of debris piled along forest roads for subsequent disposal by burning, usually in winter.

Occasionally, it says "holdover fires" occur when debris piles continue to smoulder underground after a debris pile fire appears to be put out.

Tolko burned about 65,000 debris piles in the 2015-16 harvesting season, the documents say.

Tolko was initially handed a $15,000 administrative penalty plus a cost recovery order that included more than $343,000 in firefighting costs under the Wildfire Act, before challenging the cost recovery portion.

However, Brundrett says the cost recovery scheme does not give a free pass to those engaged in debris pile burning who accidentally start wildfires.

"In fact, the scheme appears designed to ensure the opposite."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 6, 2022.

The Canadian Press

European tech industry loses $400 billion market value, report says

Story by By Martin Coulter and Supantha Mukherjee •

A smartphone displays a Klarna logo on top of banknotes is in this illustration

© Thomson Reuters

LONDON/STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - The European tech industry saw $400 billion in value wiped out this year and an 18% decline in venture capital funding, according to a report from venture capital firm Atomico.

The combined value of public and private tech firms in Europe fell to $2.7 trillion, down from $3.1 trillion in late 2021. High interest rates, the war in Ukraine, and a shrinking talent pool were among the reasons cited for the drop.

Market pressures forced a number of Europe's best-known companies to raise funds at a discount to their once sky-high valuations. For example, Swedish payments firm Klarna Bank AB raised $800 million at a valuation of $6.7 billion, an 85% drop from its 2021 price tag of $46 billion.

Related video: There's 'a lot of upside' for tech, investment firm says

Duration 3:57

View on Watch

"The European tech ecosystem is facing the most challenging macroeconomic environment since the global financial crisis," Tom Wehmeier, partner at Atomico, told Reuters.

Venture capital funding in Europe was down to $85 billion for the year, based on data collected across 41 countries, an 18% decline from the $100 billion raised in 2021.

The number of new "unicorns" - firms valued at $1 billion or more - also fell this year, down from 105 to just 31 in 2022.

Despite these challenges, Atomico found industry insiders remain enthusiastic. In a survey of founders and investors on the continent, 77% said they were either as enthusiastic, or more so, about the future of the European tech industry than in 2021.

"This is a new reality," Wehmier added. "The financial markets have changed, and with that, the expectations of everyone working within the European tech industry need to evolve."

(Reporting by Martin Coulter and Supantha Mukherjee;Editing by Elaine Hardcastle)

Controversial Pakistani Film ‘Joyland’ Officially Under Oscar Consideration After Attempted Government Ban

Story by Brent Furdyk • Yesterday 

"Joyland" could be on its way to winning an Oscar.

On Tuesday, Dec. 6, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences unveiled its list of foreign films under official consideration for Oscar nomination for the 2023 Academy Awards.

Among the many films listed, one that stands out is "Joyland", the acclaimed feature debut from Pakistani filmmaker Saim Sadiq.

What makes the inclusion of "Joyland" so unique is the controversy the film generated in Pakistan, with the government's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting attempting to block the film's release in response to complaints that the film contains “highly objectional material” that doesn't align with the “social values and moral standards of our society.”

While the film was met with scorn from the Pakistani government, “Joyland” had already won acclaim at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival, winning the festival’s Un Certain Regard Jury Prize and the unofficial Queer Palm, while also holding the distinction of becoming the first Pakistani movie ever to screen at Cannes.

At the heart of the controversy is the film's subject matter, surrounding a love story between a cisgender male and a trans woman.


Controversial Pakistani Film ‘Joyland’ Officially Under Oscar Consideration After Attempted Government Ban© Provided by ET Canada

Following international outcry over the government's attempts to ban the film, "Joyland" was subsequently released as scheduled; had it been blocked or delayed, the film would not have been eligible for Oscar consideration, as Academy rules stipulate it needs to run in theatres for a minimum of seven days before Nov. 30 to be in contention for the 2023 Academy Awards.

According to Sadiq, he never intended to make a controversial movie.

“My only interest was cinematic,” he told Deadline. “I wanted to talk about patriarchy and I wanted to talk about sexuality and gender in relation to myself and my family and my surroundings and my city... '[I] never looked at it as ‘Oh it is such a bold or courageous film.’ I made the film that I wanted to make.”

As a first-time filmmaker, Sadiq admitted he's experienced an “eventful journey of learning a lot of things and seeing for the first time, creating something that connects with other people in a way that I of course never experienced not only because I haven’t made a feature film before, but also because I think this film has connected in a way that even in my wildest dreams I didn’t imagine that it would connect with people from various parts of the world.”

The Oscar nominations will be revealed on Jan. 24, 2023.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for JOYLAND 

(EXCLUSIVE)
Embattled Sundance Doc About Tiananmen Square Leaders Finally Lands Distribution Deal 

Story by Addie Morfoot • Today

Embattled Sundance Doc About Tiananmen Square Leaders Finally Lands Distribution Deal (EXCLUSIVE)© Provided by Variety

Sundance grand jury prize documentary winner “The Exiles” is finally getting a release on video on demand. Gravitas Ventures will release the documentary executive produced by Chris Columbus and Steven Soderbergh on Jan. 10, almost a full year after its Sundance debut.

The documentary, directed by Violet Columbus and Ben Klein, centers on three exiled dissidents and survivors of the Tiananmen Square massacre, incorporating decades-old footage from the Chinese protests. The use of that footage, part of Christine Choy’s unfinished “Tiananmen/China Today” project, drew criticism from those involved in it following its Sundance victory, but those credit issues have since been resolved.

In 1989, Choy, recently Oscar-nominated for her work on “Who Killed Vincent Chin?,” began filming the leaders of the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests. She reunites with the three dissidents in “The Exiles,” which interweaves Choy’s footage, shelved for 30 years, with newly shot interview segments

“Violet Columbus and Ben Klein intimately capture the passion and strength of Christine Choy and the activists she followed and display how their actions still reverberate to this day,” says Bill Guentzler, Gravitas Ventures’ senior director of acquisitions.

Columbus and Klein add, “In light of the recent protests across China, which echo the pro-Democracy Movement of 1989, our film feels especially timely, and we look forward to sharing it with audiences in the U.S. and Canada.”

Members of Choy’s original filmmaking team protested the lack of credit for them in “The Exiles” following the film’s Sundance debut. Renee Tajima-Peña, Betty Liu and Ted Kwong each sought and received executive producer credits on the documentary, the feature debut of Columbus, daughter of Chris Columbus, and co-director Klein. Todd Phillips, a former student of Choy’s, also appears in the documentary.

In addition to Sundance, “The Exiles” was invited to screen at various film festivals throughout the world, including Full Frame Documentary, Hot Docs, the Hamptons International Film Festival, and the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA).

Prior to its VOD debut, “The Exiles” will have a limited theatrical run in San Francisco at The Roxie theater beginning Dec. 9.

U$ EH

Gay Lawmaker Receives Chilling Bomb Threat Accusing Him Of 'Grooming' Kids

Story by Josephine Harvey • HuffPost

The California home of state Sen. Scott Wiener (D) was searched by police on Tuesday after he was targeted with a bomb threat parroting false, right-wing “groomer” rhetoric over his fight for LGBTQ rights.

The threat was emailed to the San Francisco Standard and reported to the San Francisco Police Department, which began searching Wiener’s home at around 6 a.m. Police found no explosives at the property.

The subject line read: “Scott Wiener will die today,” according to the Standard. The author, who used the name Zamina Tataro, called Wiener a pedophile and accused him of grooming children.

The name Zamina Tataro was also used in a different bomb threat last month against a school in Ontario over the attire of a trans teacher.

Wiener, who is gay, said it was one of many death threats he had received this year.

“This latest wave of death threats against me relates to my work to end discrimination against LGBTQ people in the criminal justice system and my work to ensure the safety of transgender children and their families,” Wiener tweeted, noting that extremist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and right-wing activist Charlie Kirk had recently tweeted homophobic lies about him.

Greene recently called Wiener a “communist groomer” after he tweeted that her type of rhetoric was inciting violence against LGBTQ people. The exchange took place in the wake of a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Last week, Kirk tweeted that Wiener supported “mutilating children” because he sponsored a bill that provides refuge for trans kids and their families, should they flee a state that criminalizes parents for allowing their child to access gender-affirming care.

Wiener pointed to his case as an example of the real-world impact of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric online and in the media.

“It leads to harassment, stalking, threats and violence against our community. People are dying as a result. Responsible political leaders on the right must call it out and stop tolerating it,” Wiener wrote.

The term groomer, which refers to adults who develop relationships with children in order to abuse them, has been co-opted by conservatives in recent years to attack LGBTQ people and their allies, trading on an old trope. Proponents of the narrative direct rage at people who advocate for gender-affirming care or even those who simply seek to educate children about the existence of the LGBTQ community.

This rhetoric, promoted by Greene, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson and other far-right personalities, has fueled a spike in harassment, threats and violence against the LGBTQ community, and coincides with Republicans’ ongoing push to pass hostile legislation targeting LGBTQ people.


Senator Scott Wiener comes in to talk to the editorial board at the Chronicle on Friday, Jan. 10, 2020, in San Francisco, Calif. 

(Photo By Liz Hafalia/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)

Atwood, King commiserate with debut author after only two people attend her book signing

Story by National Post Staff • 

Almost 40 people RSVP’d to Chelsea Banning’s first official book signing for her debut fantasy novel, and she relayed her excitement with exclamation-filled tweets and memes of a cheering SpongeBob.


Chelsea Banning, who said she was 'embarrassed' by the woeful turnout at her book signing, heard from famous authors who shared their own memories of similar no show events© Provided by National Post

That excitement was soon replaced with disappointment, however, as she explains in a tweet:

“Only 2 people came to my author signing yesterday, so I was pretty bummed about it,” Banning wrote the next day.

“Especially as 37 people responded ‘going’ to the event. Kind of upset, honestly, and a little embarrassed.”

Open Book: How Literature Saved My Life, by David Shields

Margaret Atwood: 'If I'm dead I'm not telling'

She wrote the tweet on a whim and considered deleting it a few hours later, she told NPR . Instead, as Banning looked on, her replies started to fill with kind words from a long line of authors with similar no-show stories. Among them were a number of the world’s most celebrated authors, including Jodi Picoult, Margaret Atwood and Neil Gaiman.

“Join the club,” wrote The Handmaid’s Tale author, Margaret Atwood, in response to Banning. “I did a signing to which Nobody came, except a guy who wanted to buy some Scotch tape and thought I was the help.”

Best-selling horror author Stephen King also replied: “At my first SALEM’S LOT signing, I had one customer. A fat kid who said, ‘Hey bud, do you know where there’s some Nazi books?'”

Korean American author Min Jin Lee, who wrote “Pachinko,” added that she had once attended a book reading where only “my husband’s cousin showed up.”

Neil Gaiman shared a memory of a signing in New York with fellow writer Terry Pratchett, “nobody came to at all. So you are two up on us,” he joked.

“One Day” author David Nicholls added his memories: “Ooh, boy, too many to share. The one where the bookshop staff kindly pretended to be customers so I wouldn’t feel too bad, that stays with me,” he tweeted.

Author of “My Sister’s Keeper,” Jodi Picoult, said she had “sat lonely at a signing table many times only to have someone approach . . . and ask me where the bathroom is.”

“We’ve all been there,” said British author Malorie Blackman, offering comfort. “I once did a talk at a library and five people turned up, including a mum who planted her two infant school children in front of me and then strategically ‘withdrew’ to get some peace for a while.”

Banning told The Washington Post her reaction to the global literary support, was “pure shock,” adding, “I’m still trying to process everything.”

“I love the writing community, it is so supportive,” she added.

Actor Henry Winkler also joined the chorus, writing “That is the beginning … then word gets out and they come!”

Word had gotten out. As of Wednesday morning, Banning’s tweet has close to 75,000 likes. And ‘Of Crowns and Legends,’ which Banning worked on for 15 years, now holds the number one and two spot in Amazon’s Arthurian legends category.

The book is the first of a trilogy, was published in August and follows the fate of King Aurthur’s children. It has some fight scenes and “light gore,” she tweeted.

Banning, who works as a librarian in Ohio, said she’s planning another singing as people snapped up her book: “I am working out details!”

“I am working on book 2 and am hoping for a December 2023 release date! MAYBE sooner,” she told her new online fans, with more magic and new characters promised in her follow-up.

Additional reporting from The Washington Post