The reason I’m kinda having a mega nervous panic react to Net neutrality stuff is this:

Imagine the issue of the YouTube algorithm. Funny enough,  Google right hand video man is a perfect, slightly Ironic case study.

See, YouTube was scared that, because Netflix has longer programs, they would have to struggle to compete. One Netflix show could be worth hundreds of shorter videos. Think about “Stranger Things.” That thing is a gold mine and millions of people tuned into Benge the season. Now there are two of them. That’s a lot of time folks are on Netflix and that’s not time they are spending on YouTube.  

And Netflix isn’t the only streaming competetion on town AND people are still pirating. Time spent away from YouTube. This means advertisers losses insentive to run ads on YouTube.  Or even less of your YouTube searches to sell to advertisers. 

So what is its solution? Making an algorithm that promotes longer form content. 

Now that makes sense, right? But part of the reason I enjoy YouTube IS bite sized content pieces. How many times, just like episodes on Netflix,  you say you are going to watch one video specifically? How often does that lead you down a chain of videos and you forget how much time has passed? I know I’m not the only one. 

And short content videos have a place in terms of value. Though vine went under, it was once a super popular app and vine compilations still exist on YouTube.  Many vines moved from vine to YouTube and gained massive followings during the change. Because there was a demand for the content. Regardless if you liked the content, the demand was still there.

But YouTube changed the algorithm anyway. The first thing that happened was people getting seemingly random suggestions in their recommendations. This caused confusion because part of what makes YouTube great is you search for the content you want. Sometimes it’s nice to be popped out your bubble for something new, but it wasn’t about broad ing perspectives. It was about a cynical approach that thought it couldn’t keep its users with the creators that established themselves on the site. 
Now, doesn’t that sound like a big slap in the face of YouTubers?  Like “yeah sorry guys we know you draw in millions of views a day, that even the smallest of you draws in a few and if you times that by how many you are, that’s STILL millions of views.  Never mind the mid sized or bigger names.  But, we can’t trust that emperor al evidence to say we have something good here, so here are random trends to replace you solely to stay afloat.”

Now that is a bit trickier and may have more variables. But the next thing this algorithm did was not. Lots of sketches, info bites, cat videos and other content built their success of of short for education and entertainment. So many of those will have to make longer videos, which can be harder for those starting or don’t have companies and “teams” behind them (Fine Brothers/ Game theorists to name a couple). It also incentivisies long compilations of stolen content. Like the vines I mentioned earlier to streaming whole series and shows that YouTube tries to Crack down on. Which is kinda funny considering both illegal and legal streaming sites were their competition in the first place. 

But this doesn’t even get into Animations. YouTube and online animations have been a integral part of Internet culture, but they can be highly intensive. 

Animation is done by professional studios at 24 frames per second. That’s so 10 mins of video at 60 seconds per min is 600 seconds. That’s 14, 400 frames for a video that would be picked up by the algorithm. Even if you HALF that that’s STILL a lot for often  one person to do, even with a program to help. 

Though a few animation channels have been lucky, that might be in part because they had followings BEFORE the change. That’s speculation, but not unfounded because of it can be difficult to start to build a following if you haven’t already. Cause a LOT of hours of content are uploaded to YouTube.  But even then it can be hard for even people who have BUILT these followings to keep up if they aren’t making longer videos. If the weird recommendations was maybe a slap in the face to YouTubers,  this sure is.

Again, this isn’t even getting into the politics, tastes, or quality of videos and their consumers. The issue about hate speech and the Internet is a long and complex rant for another day. But this is about a company, trying to bolster it’s profits by increasing traffic, that ultimately makes things less accessible. Which means, less traffic.

And THAT’S the TL;DR: of it.  

TL; DR: YouTube limited access to content, intentionally or not, to increase traffic and projects by making it less open and stacking the cards against certain people who depend on YouTube as a career. 

That’s what ending net neutrality does by making a two tier system in which American cable providers decides what information gets to you, and limits your ability to decide for yourself. 

An even shorter version? These companies wound they very markets and people they earn money from in an ironic effort to make more money. They shoot themselves in the foot and somehow set us all on fire? 

If I was going to get partisan for a secomd: I’ve seen people scream about “Orwell- Ian” futures because people can’t be racist or what ever. 

But this is a kick to a nuts to free speech that could only ever dream of being.

This is literally removing voices of the little guy and feeding content to you. Like?

And I mentioned the “selling your searches.” 

“Won’t paying for YouTube get rid the need for them selling mined data from profit?”

You aren’t paying YouTube or Facebook.  You are paying Comcast and verizion for YouTube and Facebook.  If anything they might need to lease for adds more or cheapen the prices of data so they can Pay these other companies to get you their sites at affordible rates. 

Some of this is speculation. But the problem is that some of the most dire affects of this might be to long term that when we notice what bad stuff is happening it will be too late. 

We can’t wait. We need to make noise that this isn’t okay. 

That this will curb growth, not inspire it. 

#savenetneutrailty 

Watch “Hank vs. Hank: The Net Neutrality Debate in 3 Minutes” on YouTube

Watch “Net Neutrality: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)” on YouTube

Watch “Why Net Neutrality Matters (And What You Can Do To Help)” on YouTube

The Red Flood.

Think I finally have a good way to articulate my views on the “Punch Nazis thing.”

 

Tw: Nazis, trans/homophobia, racism, violence, and death.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

The Red Flood. 

“Shed no tear for a Nazi that still calls for Blood. When they still scream: “burn the queer, No non whites, and bury their ashes in the mud.”

“Don’t let them hold ground, or make a sound. Bodies will make a thud.
Ghosts impaled, banshees wail, if we learn nothing, from the red flood.”

Dead Red Sky, and a Life line.

dead_red_sky__and_a_life_line__by_stoodmuffin-dbuyk3v

Forgot to put this link up: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressi…,

Just to show you what I mean when I talk about how what my teacher wanted and expected what my future work to be like?

Now, whatever your personal opinions are of this picture is, I have to say that this one is important to me.

Not because it’s better or worse than the other’s, but it is basically one of the most important pieces in the Experimenting process I have done as of late.

Context.

I through out 99% of my art from Art 10/20/30 (High school art classes). I wanted to try and recreate one of those pieces. From memory. From over a decade ago. No references/no direct related references.

Now, context for THAT context, for those interested:

My art teacher loved me as much as she wanted to smack me over the head.

She saw me as this brilliant expressionist painter. She saw me and my art in her’s and her own.

She’d talk about how we were both messy, and approach things from the inside out rather what most folks do. Especially in Art. Or how she would put it “Teaching people to let go and be messy is harder than teaching people to refine.” Or rather, teaching someone to colour in the lines is harder than teaching someone to colour in the lines.

Basically, people climb up a latter to get from the bottom to top, I was trying to figure out how to climb down the ladder.

Enough metaphors for you?

Well, okay.

So, if it wasn’t obvious enough I wanted to do art for cartoons and comics, even back then. Or even before. Though I can’t say that I wanted that consistently through out my childhood, I CAN say I wanted to draw what ever I thought was cool at the time. So a lot of my inspiration from art was and is IPs verses VIP classical painters and movements. I drew more from things like Power Rangers and Pokemon than I did Picasso or Leonardo.

And that frustrated her. She didn’t get why I would want to do hyper-labour repetitive drawing than big, expressive, emotional pieces.

And to further our frustration with each other, I didn’t necessary understand her teaching methods? Like, Disney life draws loins for YEARS before they do a cartoon Lion. But, I, we, were different, right? If I was a bigger, messier, looser drawer… wouldn’t it make sense for me to draw Scar (which would have less detail) and work my way UP to a real lion? If I was learning backwards, wouldn’t it make sense for me to practice, say, rubber hose styles to get approximation of figure and THEN start life drawing?

That is it’s own topic of discussion, and I think the answer is more complex than I, her, or other Art teachers/Students want to accept.

But needless to say, there was tension, even though we had a mostly good relationship.

That’s why My expressionist piece and my Cubist piece we so important. I could really show her that I figured out how to take those refinements and make my big expressive things more precise. I could finally flex my art muscles AND give her what she wanted. This was an easy A.

Except, it wasn’t. I started out super strong in both concept and design. Expressionist, dark, emotional, not two surreal but surreal enough. Off putting, but compositionally strong.

Problem. The green Sky and read worked really well, probably better in the original. The Mermaid was off center, so it wasn’t a “center focus” composition. Something I had been dinged for on other’s pieces that year.

I can’t remember what specific colour choices killed the tension of the piece, but as soon as I put that Mermaid up… I accidentally lost all of the energy that came from the red and green sky.

That was a common theme in that art class. I was close. Some ways, closer than I had ever been to make something that stood out. That met both my teacher’s and my creativity needs. That wasn’t me blowing off instructions and demonstrating I actually LEARNED stuff.

But I would either mess up one thing or not stop adding stuff to the point… that it wasn’t like, not good. It was just. Good. Not great or excellent. But, more than alright. In fact I think she still liked it.

But I could tell she was disappointed.

It got so frustrating that she was keep pressuring me to show my portfolio to the local art school, and I just couldn’t.

I couldn’t handle being so close and yet still missing one key ingredient. I couldn’t handle that it was my own vision or love of what I did that was holding me back. It made me mad. So frustrated.

Policy was that if we didn’t pick up our art, it was tossed. Pretty sure I never did, or tossed it even if I had.

Never bothered to apply to art school because I just thought I couldn’t make it. And Knowing I probably wasn’t going to be an anime/manga creator (I wasn’t as big of weeb as I was in middle school, but I still was in highschool) I had set my sites on teaching in Japan. That’s what my degree was going to be for (that didn’t turn out as planned, either).

But, even if I am still working out the kinks or learning, or that I created it through infrequent doodles, my current style has technically be been formed after many years. Ever since that day I still doodled, learned, re-learned, forgot, and re made again. That Even though I still don’t full understand the basics she tried to teach me, or that I often start and stopped, I never REALLY gave up on Art.

You can see in things like the Landscape photo, or other things that I have drawn, that I have tried to re tap into the skill sets I had when I was younger. I NEED to play with them if I want my cartooning skills to improve.

For example, things like this make me focus on the basics in ways I often forget to do when I am just doodling

– Line
– Shape
– Colour
– rendering (Shading)
– composition

Like I will actually remember to thing in terms of fore/middle/and back ground, actually fitting stuff on a page rather than just drawing 180 medium shots.

It makes me blatantly more aware of my flaws: like missing details/ over adding, not being aware of where the light is hitting an object/ 2D vs 3D, shaky lines and yadda yadda.

And just like how certain studies with marker in real life helped me try to draw things right the first time to not over correct, this study makes me try and force me to think in the terms of art. Not just doodling or shit posting, but actual art.

TL;DR: This pick being “good” or “bad” means less to me. Not completely irrelevant, but second to that I m recreating old works from almost a decade ago straight from my brain. In access to re access and channel the things I was good at before, with my cartooning style, and trying to capture and master the basics that I struggle with.

It ain’t perfect. But it’s an important step and I’m PROUD OF IT DARN IT. lol

So, here you go. An updated piece that you can’t compare to the original.

Hope you like?

24135367_545879519109604_2011129085_n

On my phone this one looks a little better cause filter

 

Net neutrality coverage:

“Hey, keep in mind big businesses own lot of our favorite sites, if they aren’t big companies on their own.

You might not be seeing “Net Neutrality” stuff because of that.

Keep that in mind, yeah?”

Some muffins.

I was half way done the animation and I ended up having to almost kinda go from scratch. Oooh boy.

Anyway here is some stuff in the mean time as I contemplate life.

 

Scared_Muffin (1)Scared_MuffinFluffyMuffin 1.pngFluffyMuffinStale_Muffin (1)Stale_MuffinHalf_and_Half (1)The_Muffins.png

An open letter to the FCC

An open letter to the FCC

Hey, @FCC, You do realize that ending Net neutrality literally destroys tens of thousands of entrepreneurial businesses,  kills markets, and make it harder for folks to pay/ freely advertise for products, right?

Youtuber sketches and reviews? All online art? Finding music and bands organically. People buying and shipping stuff on Amazon. By making it two faster for rich folks you literally shut down all the avenues that people came up themselves.

It affects international and domestic trade, cause it will be harder for us to by and sell products (some of which might be life saving) and stuff from other States, Counties, Countries, and Continents.

If you throw all that away so big cable companies can make a few bucks, your limiting resources so more people can pay for your goofy bundle packages in the first place. That doesn’t cause economic growth, it totals it. It doesn’t create Jobs, it kills them.

So can you give up this charade? Put two greedy hearts aside for a minute and actually listen to the people? The ones who told you no before? That would be great, thanks. #NetNuetrality

Hit by “Trans-Friendly” Fire

Trans kids matter, folks.

gendermom

When they interviewed me and my young trans daughter, both reporters seemed sympathetic to us and claimed to be trans-friendly.  So why did they turn around and write such transphobic articles?  

bring-it
I let a reporter from The Economist magazine interview this sassy 9-year-old trans little girl. The resulting article never mentioned her.

Over the course of the summer, I was contacted by two young journalists. One wrote for an alternative American weekly newspaper, the other for a venerable British magazine. Both wanted to interview me about my experience as the mother of a young transgender child. They were respectful and sympathetic. One of them even Skyped at length with my 9-year-old daughter. (“How do you want your body to look when you grow up?” “I want really long hair!”)

When their respective articles appeared, the first one in June and the second earlier this fall, I felt sick…

View original post 3,222 more words