
hello.




Update/note: Since writing this a few hours ago, I’ve been flooded by e-mails from Facebook users who have also experienced this. Those users include gay rights activists, Jewish activists, activists for a free Palestine, and activists against the Venezuelan regime (among others). Clearly this is happening to many users across the board. I will follow up with more “case studies” soon.
Over the course of the past week, I’ve gotten reports from a number of people whose personal Facebook pages have been removed or deleted from the Facebook platform. At first, it was a male friend in Morocco. Then a female, Moroccan friend in Boston. Then an Indian woman in the UK. And then even more.
Once I investigated a bit further and spoke to each of them, I discovered what each of them have in common: All of them are critical of Islam (some are atheists, others ex-Muslims, still others reformers) and post frequently articles and status updates about the religion.
And then someone told me that a group was created on Facebook (in Arabic) for the sole purpose of reporting, and thus having removed, Facebook profiles of atheist Arabs. The group, which appears to have also been removed, was entitled “Facebook pesticide” and its sole purpose was to “identity Atheists / Agnostic / anti-religion in the Arab world and specifically in Tunisia …” Once identified, the group members would then attempt to report such users.
Of course it’s problematic that there’s a group of people seeking to destroy the online identities of users of a certain group, but that’s not the issue I’m going to address in this blog post. Instead, I will address why Facebook’s strategy toward dealing with situations like this is so problematic:


EMAIL I JUST RECEIVED.
anyone care to respond???
Dear Ann:
Hey there – I’m writing a news column about the upcoming performance at PS1 and the controversy surrounding the “Brooklyn is Burning” event. Basically, a number of people have contacted me with the complaint that the voice of the other artist involved in the dispute, Georgia Sagri, has been completely left out of the coverage. It is actually quite baffling that Claudia La Rocco has written at least twice about the “Brooklyn is Burning” performance, both times interviewing you, but not attempted to interview Sagri.
So, I’m putting together a news piece that involves Georgia’s account, and I wanted to get your response to some of the things that she, and others, say about the debate that has grown out of it:
1) One complaint is that your account has consistently exaggerated and sensationalized the charge of “censorship.” Since the performance was deliberately about created an unpredictable situation, and no one was informed in advance about what was going to occur, it really seems that PS1 simply had no idea what was going on. Doesn’t it cheapen the notion of “censorship” to claim that an un-premeditated freak-out in a potentially volatile situation that literally involved splashing blood and urine is “censorship”?
2) The other complaint, of course, has to do with your treatment of the other artist. Do you feel any responsibility to Georgia Sagri? It really does seem that her voice has been lost in the sensation provoked by your piece, which, after all, is inseparable from publicly insulting and ridiculing her art, in the context of a supposedly safe space. Here are some samples of what people have written to me along these lines:
“Between consenting adults, anything is permissible, but in this particular case it wasn't fair play, Georgia hadn't been warned, she was cornered and made vulnerable in a public situation.”
And
“To insult a fellow artist who's unaware of your intention as a way to levy an attack against an institution is a cowardly strategy and furthermore has nothing to do with institutional critique. It doesn't really directly attack the person or institution in power does it? To then take that attack after the fact and create a body of work out of it is just exploitative.”
Finally, a question about the upcoming Steiner performance. Sagri forwarded me the invitation you had sent her – which she was actually quite mad about in itself. The fact that you are offering that she participate in an event moderated by the “persona” that attacked her seems like a provocation, and also rather insensitive to the damage that the negative press surrounding the “Brooklyn is Burning” event might have to done her career. How can it be taken as anything other than an invitation to be once again ridiculed in public?
Thanks for any thoughts!
Ben Davis
Associate Editor
Artnet Magazine ®


oh my. i feel so bad i have not written in so long that i must write again only 3 min. after my other post. so here it goes. i'm actually just finishing up a mini research tour with gloria today and we're out here on bedford avenue surveying people to see if they have any idea what sexual performative therapy even is. we're having some great luck. here are some photos of some people we've been surveying.
hi. i'm sorry for the long silence but i have been in sweden promoting my "Cinderella" show. do you realize that i, Sherry play cinderella in MY version of cinderella. here i am trying out different costumes. i am totally convinced that cinderella was jewish. in my final (never final) version i did in sweden i opted to make her un jewish i lost the head piece but it will probably return in the premier in jersey city. how have all of ya'll been? good. i'm glad. i've been great. i've been doing a lot of spring cleaning and getting ready for my fundraiser "Sherry tries on Cinderella" at 177 Livingston street in downtown brooklyn june 5 and 6. we are super excited. we are even going to have a merchandise booth where we will be selling cinderella watches. we love you and we have lots of new posts coming up so BEWARE!!!!!!!!! love the sherryxoxoxxokisses











