Connect with us

Business

Model Protests Against Gucci’s Use of Straitjackets During Runway Show

Published

on

  • A model protested against Gucci’s straitjacket designs during Milan Fashion Week by sharing a message on their palms that read: “MENTAL HEALTH IS NOT FASHION.”
  • Gucci said the clothes were only for the show, not for sale, and defended its designs as a message about conformity in today’s society. 
  • This is now one of several instances where the brand has made headlines for what many have called “insensitive” designs.

Runway Protest 

A model protested against Gucci’s use of straitjackets on Sunday at a show during Milan Fashion Week, slamming the brand for “alluding to mental patients.”

Ayesha Tan-Jones, a 26-year old nonbinary model, artist, and musician, held up their hands on the conveyor belt runway to display a message that read: “MENTAL HEALTH IS NOT FASHION.”

Tan-Jones later explained their protest in more detail on Instagram saying, “As an artist and model who has experienced my own struggles with mental health, as well as family members and loved ones who have been affected by depression, anxiety, bipolar and schizophrenia, it is hurtful and insensitive for a major fashion house such as Gucci to use this imagery as a concept for a fleeting fashion moment.”

The model went on to talk about the stigmas surrounding mental health issues and said straitjackets “are a symbol of a cruel time in medicine when mental illness was not understood and people’s rights and liberties were taken away from them, while they were abused and tortured in the institution.”

Tan-Jones added, “It is in bad taste for Gucci to use the imagery of straight jackets and outfits alluding to mental patients while being rolled out on a conveyor belt as if a piece of factory meat.”

Gucci’s’ Response 

In an Instagram post shared Sunday, Gucci said the outfits were “a statement for the fashion show and will not be sold.” The brand also said the clothing was meant to represent “the most extreme version of a uniform dictated by society and those who control it.”

View this post on Instagram

Uniforms, utilitarian clothes, normative dress, including straitjackets, were included in the #GucciSS20 fashion show as the most extreme version of a uniform dictated by society and those who control it. These clothes were a statement for the fashion show and will not be sold. @alessandro_michele designed these blank-styled clothes to represent how through fashion, power is exercised over life, to eliminate self-expression. This power prescribes social norms, classifying and curbing identity. The Creative Director’s antidote is seen in the Gucci Spring Summer 2020 lineup of 89 looks, he has designed a collection that conveys fashion as a way to allow people to walk through fields of possibilities, cultivate beauty, make diversity sacrosanct and celebrate the self in expression and identity. #AlessandroMichele

A post shared by Gucci (@gucci) on

The designer, Alessandro Michele, later told The New York Times that he wanted to show “how society today can have the ability to confine individuality and that Gucci can be the antidote. For me, the show was the journey from conformity to freedom and creativity.”

The paper also noted that Gucci felt the model should be free to protest based on the show’s theme of freedom. 

Though many were praising the model’s statement, not all were as outraged by the clothes. Actress Hari Nef wrote on Instagram that she saw the designs as “more a provocative reminder of submission than a glamorization of insanity.”

View this post on Instagram

one does not usually leave a fashion show dwelling on power submission capitalism exploitation and their intersections with luxury—or, maybe, one does (i often do). as @vanni74’s show notes to today’s @gucci show read, ‘our present…is shaped by a “microphysics of powers”’ which “[prevents] the free circulation of discourses and [ends] up creating a disciplinary society…that controls, confines, and regulates life.” he goes on to ask: “can [fashion] offer itself as an instrument of resistance? can it suggest experimental freedom, ability to transgress and disobey, emancipation and self-determination? or fashion itself risks to become a refined device of neo-liberal government that ends up imposing a new normativity, turning freedom into a commodity and emancipation into a broken promise?” the clinical whites that opened the show were upsetting—willfully: more a provocative reminder of submission than a glamorization of insanity. but then, the glamour: lallo’s tightest, sleekest collection yet—with more than a few kinky s&m flourishes. poison gives way to seduction (i like it that way). clothes, perhaps, aren’t there to free anyone. fashion certainly isn’t, nor is it ever free. today, thankfully, it felt dangerous

A post shared by hari nef (@harinef) on

Michele, an Italian designer who was made Gucci’s creative director in 2015, has faced staunch criticism in recent months for other designs many called insensitive or offensive.

In February, the brand apologized for an $890 wool balaclava jumper that critics accused of resembling blackface. 

Gucci also recently faced backlash for putting white models in $790 turbans, which prompted accusations of cultural appropriation.

After the incidents, the company established a diversity and inclusion council. 

Supporting Mental Health Charities 

According to Tan-Jones, they decided to protest the night before the show after another model walked off the job because he was also uncomfortable with the show’s underlying message. Tan-Jones told Jezebel, “I thought he was so bold and I had so much so much respect for him.”

In a separate Instagram post after the show, the model explained that other models also felt uneasy about the show. “Many of the other Gucci models who were in the show felt just as strongly as I did about this depiction of straitjackets, and without their support I would not have had the courage to walk out and peacefully protest.”

View this post on Instagram

Hello ✨ I just want to say Thank You for all the support so many of you have given me since I lifted my hands in peaceful protest on the Gucci Runway show yesterday 💖 I feel very blessed to be surrounded by supportive comrades, and to know that there are so many people sharing support online for this action ✊🏽 I want to use this opportunity to remind people that this sort of bravery, is only a simple gesture compared to the bravery that people with mental health issues show everyday. To have the bravery to get out of bed, to greet the day, and to live their lives is an act of strength, and I want to thank you for being here and being YOU ! ☀️ The support people have shown to my act is more than I could imagine, so I only trust that we will share this same support to our friends, siblings, loved ones, acquaintances, internet friends or even strangers, who might be going through tough times with their Mental Health. Showing up for them may come in many forms, check in via text or DM, listen to them with patience and without judgement, offer a helping hand with household tasks like food shop, cooking or cleaning, regularly remind them how amazing and strong they are, but also that is okay feel the feels too, Lets show up for people with mental health and help end the stigma together !🌻 Many of the other Gucci models who were in the show felt just as strongly as I did about this depiction of straightjackets, and without their support I would not have had the courage to walk out and peacefully protest. Some have chosen to donate a portion their fee, and I 100% of mine, to mental health charities, who are doing amazing work for people today! Below are tags to some amazing charities that I encourage, if you have the resources and capacity to, please donate in any way you can, and in my linktree ( in bio ) is a google doc to websites for more charities ! <3 Also, please comment any other Mental Health organisations globally you would like to support and share, as my resources are UK/US based currently 💫 blessings, love & rage – Ayesha / YaYa 🌈 ✨ ✨ ✨ @mindcharity @mermaidsgender @qtpocmentalhealth @stonewalluk @switchboardlgbt @lgbtswitchboard @papyrus_uk

A post shared by YaYa Bones (@ayeshatanjones) on

In addition to their protest, Tan- Jones said, “Some have chosen to donate a portion of their fee, and I 100% of mine, to mental health charities.” They closed their post by encouraging others to do the same and share names of other mental health organizations to support.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) ) (The Huffington Post) (Jezebel)

Business

Thousands of Amazon Workers Demand Paid Time Off To Vote

Published

on

  • Around 4,000 Amazon tech workers signed a petition Tuesday that calls for eight hours of paid time off to be made available for employees to use up until Election Day for voting-related activities, including voting, registering, and volunteering.
  • Amazon, which is the second-largest employer in the U.S., does not currently have a companywide policy that offers its over 1.3 million workers paid time off to vote.
  • By contrast, companies like Walmart, Facebook, Apple, Uber, Starbucks, and dozens of others offer some sort of paid allotted time for voting.
  • Amazon says employees can request time off to vote, but the number of hours and pay it will provide depends on local laws.
  • Critics note that while some states require employees to be excused and paid for a few hours if voting conflicts with work schedules, several battleground states, including Florida and Pennsylvania, do not.

Employees Back Petition

Thousands of Amazon tech workers backed a petition Tuesday urging the company to offer employees paid time off to vote on or before Election Day.

Amazon is the second-largest employer in the country, with over 1.3 million U.S. workers, including Whole Foods employees. However, it does not have a companywide policy in place that offers paid time off to participate in federal elections.

For comparison, Walmart, which is the nation’s largest employer, offers up to three paid hours for its employees to vote. Other companies like Facebook, Apple, Uber, Twitter, and Starbucks also provide allotted time for voting. Some companies, like Patagonia, are even closing their doors completely on Election Day, while stores like Best Buy are reducing hours.

Supporters of such policies point out that for many Americans, voting, especially during a pandemic, can mean hours-long lines and other unexpected delays.

Because of this, on Tuesday, more than 4,000 Amazon tech workers added their support to a petition that was created internally that morning by Amazon Employees for Climate Justice.

That group formed in 2018 to put pressure on the company to commit to reducing fossil fuel emissions, but has expanded its focus to speak out against poor working conditions and other issues.

The petition calls for eight hours of paid time off to be made available for employees to use up until Election Day for voting-related activities, including registering to vote and volunteering.

Amazon Responds

However, on the other side of the issue, Amazon spokeswoman Jaci Anderson said that the company has given employees information on how to register to vote and request time off.

“In all 47 states with in-person voting, employees that lack adequate time before or after their scheduled workday to vote, can request and be provided excused time off,” she explained. “The number of hours and pay provided to employees varies by state in line with local laws.”

It appears that for now, Amazon doesn’t want to make paid time off for voting a company-wide policy and instead will only comply with local laws.

That’s a big deal because, although many states require employees to be excused and paid for a few hours if voting conflicts with work schedules, several battleground states, including Florida and Pennsylvania, do not.

See what others are saying: (NBC News) (CNN) (The New York Times)

Continue Reading

Business

Facebook Bans Holocaust Denial, Reversing Previous Policy

Published

on

  • Facebook announced Monday that it was expanding its hate speech policy to ban content that denies or distorts the Holocaust, a significant reversal from Mark Zuckerberg, who previously said he would leave the content up because it was not “intentional.”
  • In a blog post, the company cited the rise of antisemitism and lack of knowledge about the Holocaust among young people as the reasoning behind their decision.
  • While many applauded the move, they also argued that Facebook could have done this years ago and that the company was only taking action now because of pressure campaigns like Stop Hate for Profit.
  • Others also noted that the company made similar changes this week like banning QAnon and anti-vax ads, and argued Facebook was only reversing these policies to get good press ahead of the election.

Facebook Reverses Holocaust Denial Policy

Facebook will now ban all content that denies or distorts the Holocaust, the company announced Monday, reversing a years-long policy promoted by CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg has long argued that his platform should not be an “arbiter of truth” and intervene in questions of free speech. In 2018, he told Recode that while he found Holocaust denial “deeply offensive,” as a Jewish person himself, he did not think Facebook should regulate it.

“At the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong,” he said. “I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.” 

Now, Zuckerberg seems to have backtracked entirely, and in a Facebook post on Monday, he said the company would be expanding its hate speech policy to include Holocaust denial.

“We’ve long taken down posts that praise hate crimes or mass murder, including the Holocaust,” he wrote. “But with rising anti-Semitism, we’re expanding our policy to prohibit any content that denies or distorts the Holocaust as well.”

“I’ve struggled with the tension between standing for free expression and the harm caused by minimizing or denying the horror of the Holocaust,” Zuckerberg continued.

“My own thinking has evolved as I’ve seen data showing an increase in anti-Semitic violence, as have our wider policies on hate speech.” 

Rise in Antisemitic Violence and Holocaust Ignorance

The claim that antisemitism and anti-Semitic violence is rising is one that has been backed up by numerous recent reports. In May, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported that 2019 saw the highest level of antisemitic incidents since the organization first started tracking in 1979.

This general trend has been supported by other organizations, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which reported that in 2018 that the number of anti-Jewish hate crimes had increased by nearly 40% from 2014.

However, that rise also goes beyond the U.S., which is something Facebook noted in the official blogpost announcing the policy change. In addition to “the well-documented rise in anti-Semitism globally,” the platform also said its decision was supported by “the alarming level of ignorance about the Holocaust, especially among young people.”

The company specifically noted a recent study that found that almost one in four U.S. adults aged 18-39 “said they believed the Holocaust was a myth, that it had been exaggerated or they weren’t sure.”

The study, which went viral last month following its publication, also found generally shocking levels of ignorance that Gen Z and Millenial Americans had about the Holocaust.

Among other things, that study reported that nationally, 63% of respondents did not know 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust, and one in every eight said they had not even heard about it before.

Perhaps most relevant to Facebook’s new policy, the study also found that nearly half of people said had seen Holocaust denial or distortion in posts on social media or elsewhere online. 

Facebook Accused of Fostering Antisemitism

As is the case with other forms of hate speech and conspiracies, Facebook has long been accused of letting antisemitism flourish by allowing Holocaust denial on the platform.

In July, the ADL published an extensive report on the issue titled “Facebook Has a Holocaust Denial Problem.” Among other things, that report found that both public and private Holocaust denial groups that the platform shared anti-Semitic content that violated Facebook’s existing and long-held community guidelines.

The same month that report was published, the ADL also launched the Stop Hate for Profit campaign, which involved an ad boycott of Facebook from over 1,000 major companies as well as a separate campaign where celebrities froze their Instagram and/or Facebook accounts for one day. 

While some said those efforts fell short, a number of people applauded Facebook’s Monday announcement and called the move a win for the campaign.

“Good news—another win for #StopHateForProfit: Facebook should have banned Holocaust denial long ago, but better late than never,” actor Sacha Baron Cohen, who has been a vocal critic of Facebook, tweeted.

Many others also hit on the point that this decision from Facebook was a good step, but it should have been done long ago. In a statement, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt commended the move, but noted that the ADL had been encouraging the platform to take this step for almost 10 years.

Greenblatt also implied that despite how Facebook may have presented the decision in their remarks, the company was not taking the action out of goodwill for the Jewish community, but rather because of external pressure from Stop Hate for Profit and other campaigns.

“As Facebook finally decides to take a stance against Holocaust denial and distortion, they claim it is because of their work with the Jewish community over the past year,” he said. “We question this claim because if they had wanted to support the Jewish community, this change could have been implemented at any point in the last nine years.”

Questions Over Timing

Other’s also had similar questions about the timing of the decision, noting that in the last two weeks alone, Facebook has made some major reversals, including saying it will temporarily stop all political ads after the election and announcing it will ban QAnon. On Tuesday morning, the company also announced it will start banning anti-vax ads.

As a result, many argued that, despite years of pressure, Facebook is only choosing to crack down on these issues now to get good press and appear as though they are addressing deep-rooted issues ahead of Election Day.

While plenty of people have still said these new changes are better late than never, others claim they were too little too late, pointing out that Facebook had four years to address these issues, but waited until the election was already well underway.

Facebook has been criticized both for its oversized role in allowing the spread of misinformation on the platform in the lead-up to the 2016 election and for not doing enough to address those issues in preparation for the 2020 election.

Also on Monday, a new study published by the German Marshall Fund Digital reported that engagement with misleading websites on Facebook has more than tripled since the 2016 election, despite all the so-called achievements Facebook has touted in this area, and all the millions of dollars it poured into these efforts.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (TIME) (The Guardian)

Continue Reading

Business

Microsoft Takes a Shot at Apple, Says App Stores Should Be More Competitive

Published

on

  • Microsoft released a set of 10 app store principles designed to ensure fairness and healthy competition in Windows 10 and the Microsoft Store.
  • While these principles won’t require much change for the company, they are significant because they are aimed at sending a message to Apple, which has been repeatedly criticized for anti-competitive and unfair practices in its app store.
  • This makes Microsoft the largest company to go after the Apple app store, as it joins the likes of Spotify and Epic Games, which are already members of the Coalition For App Fairness. Microsoft’s 10 principles are very similar to principles that the coalition has laid out. 
  • Apple has defended itself, claiming that its app store is fair and competitive, and adding that it created an open marketplace for app developers. 

Microsoft’s New Principles

In an apparent shot at Apple, Microsoft released a set of principles for its app store on Thursday, calling for app stores everywhere to be more competitive and fair. 

“For software developers, app stores have become a critical gateway to some of the world’s most popular digital platforms,” Rima Alaily, Microsoft’s Vice President and Deputy General Counsel wrote in a blog post. “We and others have raised questions and, at times, expressed concerns about app stores on other digital platforms. However, we recognize that we should practice what we preach.”

The post went on to list 10 principles aimed to promote choice, fairness, and innovation on Windows 10 and in the Microsoft store. Those principles include Microsoft not blocking competing app stores on Windows, not blocking an app based on a developer’s business model or how it delivers content, not blocking apps based on the payment system a developer uses for in-app purchases, and giving developers access to information about the interoperability interfaces used on Windows.

These first four principles are designed to preserve freedom of choice and keep competition alive on Windows 10 in third party app stores. Alaily wrote that this offers different pricing options and distribution choices to developers as they distribute their apps across the internet. 

The remaining principles are meant to ensure that developers are all subject to the same standards and prevent Microsoft from favoring itself.  This includes holding developers equally accountable for safety and privacy, not forcing developers to sell anything on their app they do not want to, allowing developers to communicate with their users on business terms, and making sure Microsoft does not use private data to compete with developers. 

These rules will not apply to the Xbox Store. According to Alaily, game consoles are specialised and run on a different ecosystem and business model than PCs or phones. Therefore, these principles would not be practical for Xbox. 

Apple’s Anti-competitive Behavior

These principles will not require massive changes at Microsoft because Windows 10 is already an open platform, but constant references in the blog post to “other app stores” show that these rules are a clear nudge to Apple, which has been repeatedly criticized for anti-competitive behavior on its app store. 

Earlier this week, a House subcommittee released a report accusing Apple and other major tech companies, notably not Microsoft, of abusing monopoly powers and engaging in anti-competitive tactics. When it came to Apple, the report’s findings largely had to do with its app store. The report said that while Apple’s ecosystem has significant benefits for both app developers and customers, the company still functions on an extreme and controlling bias. 

The subcommittee wrote that this control over the app store creates barriers for competition and allows Apple to discriminate against rivals so they can instead promote their own apps.

“Apple also uses its power to exploit app developers through misappropriation of competitively sensitive information and to charge app developers supra-competitive prices within the App Store,” the report said. “Apple has maintained its dominance due to the presence of network effects, high barriers to entry, and high switching costs in the mobile operating system market.”

The report also noted that Apple, along with Google, charges developers a 30% commission on paid apps. While Apple claims this is an industry-standard, according to the report, this standard was actually established by Apple back in 2009.

Coalition For App Fairness

Microsoft is far from the first tech company to go after Apple’s app store practices, but it is the largest. The principles the company laid out borrow from policies laid out by The Coalition for App Fairness, whose members include Spotify, Epic Games, and Match Group. On its website, the coalition says that the tech giant is ruled by anti-competitive practices. 

“Apple uses its control of the iOS operating system to favor itself by controlling the products and features that are available to consumers,” the group says. “Apple requires equipment manufacturers to limit options, forces developers to sell through its App Store, and even steals ideas from competitors.”

The coalition also says that the 30% app tax forces developers to drive up their prices, making it impossible to compete with similar apps made by Apple that can get away with charging much less. Because of this, the group believes Apple is cutting into consumer purchasing power and freedom.

Tensions between tech groups in this coalition and Apple are nothing new. Over the summer, Epic Games slapped Apple with a lawsuit over its app store policies. Epic Games CEO thanked Microsoft for joining efforts to limit their powers. 

“It’s wonderful to see Microsoft formally codify its long-held principles in Windows as an open platform and a fair market for all developers and consumers,” he wrote.

He was not the only one to praise Microsoft. Spotify spokesman Adam Grossberg released a statement in support of the company’s move. 

“By embracing these principles, Microsoft will help create a level playing field for developers both large and small, provide consumers with greater choice, and hopefully encourage other platforms to do the same,” he said.

For its part, Apple has defended its practices within the app store. After the House released their report, the company put out a statement condemning its findings. 

“We have always said that scrutiny is reasonable and appropriate but we vehemently disagree with the conclusions reached in this staff report with respect to Apple,” the statement said. “Our company does not have a dominant market share in any category where we do business.”

“We’ve built the App Store to be a safe and trusted place for users to discover and download apps and a supportive way for developers to create and sell apps globally.”

See what others are saying: (Axios) (The Verge) (The New York Times)

Continue Reading