Connect with us

U.S.

“Naked Philanthropist” Defends Herself After Accusations of Sex Trafficking

Published

on

  • Kaylen Ward, informally known as the “Naked Philanthropist,” tweeted about her idea for aspiring sex workers to live in a house together and be trained on how to succeed in the industry. 
  • Some responded with criticisms, accusing Ward of trying to organize a pimping or human sex trafficking scheme.
  • Ward defended herself in a series of tweets and videos on social media, saying these were not her intentions and that she is only trying to help people in a regulated way.

Naked Philanthropist Slammed

The “Naked Philanthropist,” who first rose to fame when she exchanged her nudes for donations to Australian wildfire relief, has found herself in the midst of a controversy.

Kaylen Ward proposed an idea to the Internet: putting aspiring sex workers together in a house, training them for online success, and filming the process for television and YouTube. However, when some caught wind of the plan, they came back at Ward with accusations of pimping and sex-trafficking. 

Ward originally called for interested contenders in a now-deleted tweet.

 “I am looking for girls with little to NO only fans or sex work experience who are interested in getting started,” Ward wrote. “You will live in a mansion with approx 15-20 other girls and will be trained on how to be successful on only fans or social media.”

OnlyFans is a social media service where influencers and models can make a commission by potentially selling racy content. Ward also linked to an Instagram page and encouraged people to follow if they want to see which girls get selected for the hypothetical house. The account currently has zero posts.  

It didn’t take long for Twitter users to slam Ward for the proposal, calling it dangerous and predatory.

“Unironically hoping the fbi or somebody is keeping tabs on this because this is insanely sketchy/predatory and quite possibly a front for human trafficking,” one person wrote.

Several pointed out that it was suspicious to call for beginners in the industry as these seem like the individuals who would be most vulnerable. 

“I also can’t get over the fact that she’s specifically asking for people new to the industry. it just seems weirdly predatory and puts a bad taste in my mouth because a lot of girls will probably see this as an out for whatever situation [they’re] in,” a Twitter user wrote.

Ward’s Defense

In the wake of the backlash, Ward took down her tweet describing the idea and began posting more messages defending her motives.

The naked philanthropist didn’t stop there. She also released a series of videos on her Twitter page further explaining her idea and defending herself.

“I understand that I didn’t present all the information,” she said. “I’m actually trying to start a legitimate business. I will have [an] HR team, I will have contracts, I will have actual employees, like all the girls will be employees, they will get paid, they will have contracts.”

“Everything is going to be regulated and by the books and I didn’t really know exactly how to express all of that in one tweet,” she added. “I was just trying to start my idea somewhere and get people on board and try to go from there.”

Ward went on to discuss how she was upset about the serious accusations against her and how they are marring her image. 

“I’m not saying that I’m perfectly in the right and I will always want to explain myself,” she said. “But it’s really hard to explain yourself when it feels like everybody is attacking you and you’re being canceled for something that is an assumption.”

Throughout the clips, Ward kept returning to the sentiment that she was only trying to help people get a foot in the door of the sex worker industry. 

“My idea is not to exploit sex workers,” she said. “I mentioned in the tweet that I was looking for some new girls because constantly on my platform girls are messaging me asking me how they can get started with only fans, where do they begin, how do they get promo.”

Ward even compared her idea to other new influencer developments that have taken off recently, like the L.A. “Hype House” for TikTokers. 

“I don’t see why there can’t be the same concept for sex workers, and I don’t see why we can’t all work together to have a common goal and be successful,” she said.

Further Pushback

But despite Ward’s lengthy video explanation, people on the Internet continued to accuse her of promoting unsafe practices. 

“Trying so hard to make a single tear fall,” one person wrote about Ward’s video. “But has no answers for anyone. This is peak gaslighting behaviour.”

Others argued that regardless of Ward’s expressed intentions, this set up could easily operate as a sex trafficking scheme.

According to Stop The Traffik, a campaign coalition aiming to end human trafficking worldwide, the differences between sex trafficking and sex work can be “almost invisible.” Key factors to consider when trying to distinguish between the two are signs of abuse, if the worker gets to keep the money, and the sanitary conditions of the spaces being used.  

See what others are saying: (Daily Dot) (Goat) (Latestly)

Advertisements

U.S.

Trump Signs Order Allowing Former Troops to Be Called Upon for Coronavirus Fight

Published

on

  • President Trump signed an executive order that allows for former troops to be brought back to active duty to help fight the coronavirus pandemic.
  • This is not an immediate order to call former service members back, but it is typically used when the military is in need of specific skill sets, like persons with high demand medical capabilities. 
  • Officials are still reviewing who might be activated.
  • The order comes just days after the Army called upon former service members to voluntarily rejoin and help in the military’s response efforts. Over 14,000 have expressed interest as of Friday. 

Trump Signs Executive Order

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday that allows the Pentagon to bring former U.S. troops and members of the National Gaurd and reserve back to active duty to help those already battling the county’s coronavirus outbreaks.

During his press conference Friday night, Trump said the decision allows the federal government “to mobilize medical, disaster and emergency response personnel to help wage our battle against the virus by activating thousands of experienced service members including retirees.”

“We have a lot of people, retirees, great military people — they’re coming back in,” Trump added.

What This Means

The executive order released by the White House states that anyone recalled can remain on active duty for up to 24 months straight. It provides the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security the authority to order as many as 1 million individuals at one time, however, it is not an order to do so. 

According to Pentagon spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman, the order applies to units and individual members in the National Guard and Reserves and certain Individual Ready Reserve members who are normally in an inactive status.

Hoffman said that decisions about who may be activated are still being reviewed, but he added, “Generally, these members will be persons in Headquarters units and persons with high demand medical capabilities whose call-up would not adversely affect their civilian communities.” 

As of now, the Individual Ready Reserve contains 224,841 members, according to the Department of Defense, and nearly 11,000 of those members “have medical capabilities.”

“This is a dynamic situation, we do not currently have a projected number of expected activations, but the Department is now fully authorized to make activations as needed,” Hoffman said. 

He also stressed that the departments would consult with state officials before using any National Gaurd Reserve Component units under the executive order.

Earlier this week, the Army called upon former service members to voluntarily rejoin and help in the military’s pandemic response efforts. The Army said the initial response has been positive, with at least 14,6000 people expressing interest as of Friday.

See what others are saying: (Politico) (CNN) (Fox News)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

U.S.

FDA Authorizes Portable Test Kit That Can Detect COVID-19 in 5 Minutes

Published

on

  • The FDA has approved the use of a new coronavirus test kit that can give positive results in as little as 5 minutes and negative results in 13, leaps faster than the hours and sometimes days laboratory tests normally take. 
  • The tests are run on a lightweight and small portable device that can be used in emergency rooms, urgent care clinics, and even outside hospital walls.
  • Abbott, the medical device company that makes the kits, plans to send out 50,000 tests a day starting next week.

New Test Approved

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave Emergency Use Authorization to the medical device company Abbott for a new coronavirus test kit that gives results within minutes.

Abbott announced the news in a Friday press release, saying it plans to start delivering 50,000 tests a day beginning next week. The tests run on the company’s ID NOW platform, a portable device about the size of a small toaster than weights only 6.6 pounds.

Its portability means it can be used directly in an emergency room or urgent care clinic and even, “outside the traditional four walls of a hospital in outbreak hotspots.”

The company called it “the fastest available molecular point-of-care test for the detection of novel coronavirus(COVID-19), delivering positive results in as little as five minutes and negative results in 13 minutes.”

Second Rapid Test to Be Approved by FDA 

The approval from federal health officials means that regulators were satisfied with the test’s validation data and are confident that its benefits outweigh any risk, like false positives or negatives. 

The FDA’s approval marks the seconds time it has green-lit a fast working test that could accelerate testing across the country.  Last week, it approved a 45-minute rapid point of care test by the molecular diagnostics company Cepheid. However, that test is primarily intended for emergency rooms and hospitals, not doctors’ officers or urgent care clinics.  

Still, those turnaround times are leaps faster than the hours to days it takes most laboratory tests to bring results. 

Medical Shortages Still Cause Concern 

The approval of the Abbott test comes as cities across the nation battle with numbers of potential patients that surpass available tests and resources. Even with insufficient testing, the United States became the country with the largest number of reported cases of coronavirus on Thursday, exceeding China and Italy. By Friday, the U.S. hit more than 100,000 cases. 

Many fear that shortages of other critical medical equipment, like masks and swabs, could stifle the new rapid test’s impact. That’s because the kit requires a swab sample collected from patients, and many health care facilities are running desperately low on the tools needed to safely collect those samples.

The Center for Disease Control issued guidance Tuesday that allows some patients to collect their own nasal swabs in health care facilities, in an effort to reduce the amount of protective equipment needed for health care workers. 

On the opposite end, however, others note that fast and efficient testing can help medical professionals determine how much protective equipment they actually need to wear when interacting with a patient, as well as what kind of care to provide. Since this test can be done in a doctor’s office, it could even potentially help diagnose patients with mild or asymptomatic cases of the virus and help stop them from unknowingly spreading it. 

Experts also say drastically increasing testing capacity can help get the economy back on track sooner. With increased testing, measures like keeping everyone at home could be replaced with more targeted identification and isolation of those infected. 

See what others are saying: (The Hill) (CNBC) (CNN

Advertisements
Continue Reading

U.S.

EPA Limits Environmental Regulations During Coronavirus Crisis

Published

on

  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday that it is scaling back its enforcement of environmental rules during the coronavirus emergency as businesses face challenges like layoffs and accessibility issues.
  • The temporary policy allows companies to monitor their own compliance with environmental laws, and the EPA said it will not issue penalties for violations of certain reporting requirements.
  • Many critics slammed the move, arguing that it opens doors to excess pollution and does not prioritize the health and safety of people and wildlife.   
  • The EPA defended the policy, saying it has reserved its authorities for situations other than routine monitoring and reporting and will consider the pandemic’s impacts on a “case-to-case basis.”

Temporary Policy 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it will limit the enforcement of certain regulations as the coronavirus pandemic continues, leaving companies in charge of monitoring their own compliance with environmental laws. 

The agency unveiled the temporary policy on Thursday, arguing that businesses are running into obstacles like layoffs and accessibility issues as the virus alters normal life across the nation.

“EPA is committed to protecting human health and the environment, but recognizes challenges resulting from efforts to protect workers and the public from COVID-19 may directly impact the ability of regulated facilities to meet all federal regulatory requirements,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement.  

Under normal circumstances, companies must report when their facilities release a certain amount of pollution into the air or water. Now, that requirement will be put on hold for the time being. 

“In general, the EPA does not expect to seek penalties for violations of routine compliance monitoring, integrity testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, training, and reporting or certification obligations in situations where the EPA agrees that Covid-19 was the cause of the noncompliance and the entity provides supporting documentation to the EPA upon request,” the policy states.

The agency also said it would exercise “discretion” in enforcing other environmental rules. It noted that the policy does not apply to criminal violations or hundreds of the country’s most toxic waste sites that fall under the Superfund act. The EPA also said it expects public water systems to maintain high standards. 

“Public water systems have a heightened responsibility to protect public health because unsafe drinking water can lead to serious illnesses and access to clean water for drinking and handwashing is critical during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the policy says.

The memo said that the changes will apply retroactively beginning on March 13, with no set end date indicated. 

Criticism of New Policy

Some, including people in the oil industry, had been asking for these regulations to be loosened, but others slammed the EPA’s choice, claiming it is too broad and lax. 

Gina McCarthy, who headed the EPA under the Obama administration and is now president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the policy an “open license to pollute.” 

Some called the changes “outrageous” and “evil,” accusing the EPA of prioritizing businesses over the health of individuals and wildlife.

Prominent figures in the climate change fight slammed the move as well.

“The EPA uses this global pandemic to create loopholes for destroying the environment,” teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg tweeted. “This is a schoolbook example for what we need to start looking out for.”

Others pointed out the irony of suspending rules that preserve air quality while a respiratory disease makes its rounds across the country. 

“What part of, ‘air pollution increases our vulnerability to respiratory diseases LIKE CORONAVIRUS,’ is not clear, EPA?” one Twitter user wrote.

Defense of Policy

The EPA stood behind their move and did not agree with its classification as a dismissal of regulations. 

“It is not a nationwide waiver of environmental rules,” Andrea Woods, an E.P.A. spokeswoman, told The New York Times. “For situations outside of routine monitoring and reporting, the agency has reserved its authorities and will take the pandemic into account on a case-by-case basis.”

Susan Parker Bodine, the EPA official who issued the policy, said that it does not excuse organizations from consequences if they do committ environmental violations.

“If you do have violations of your permit, you’re still obligated to meet your permit limits, you’re supposed to do everything possible,” Bodine told ABC. “And after the fact the agency will take that all into consideration but there isn’t a promise of no penalties in those kinds of situations.”

“If you have an acute risk, if you have an imminent threat … the facility has to come in and talk to their regulator, their authorized state or come into the agency,” she added. “And the reason for that is that we want to, we want to put all of our resources into keeping these facilities safe keeping communities safe.”

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

Advertisements
Continue Reading