‘I Wasn’t Even a Person.’ Salma Hayek Says ‘Monster’ Harvey Weinstein Sexually Harassed Her - Business TIME

‘I Wasn’t Even a Person.’ Salma Hayek Says ‘Monster’ Harvey Weinstein Sexually Harassed Her

Posted: 13 Dec 2017 11:03 AM PST

Salma Hayek is speaking out for the first time about Harvey Weinstein’s alleged sexual misbehavior, saying he repeatedly harassed her as she worked to produce her 2002 movie Frida.
Hayek came forward with her allegations in an essay for the New York Times published on Dec. 13, joining dozens of other women who have accused the Hollywood producer of sexual misconduct. Weinstein has repeatedly denied “any allegations of non-consensual sex,” but acknowledged in an October statement that “the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it.” A spokesperson for Weinstein did not immediately respond to TIME’s request for comment about Hayek’s essay.

In the essay, Hayek said that early in her career, more than 15 years ago, she was determined to produce and star in a film about Mexican artist Frida Kahlo and thought Weinstein’s first production company, Miramax, would be the best place to produce it. But after she made a deal with Weinstein, she writes, he began sexually harassing her. She said that Weinstein asked her to take a shower with him, engage in oral sex and get naked with another woman. When she declined, she said Weinstein would rage at her, telling her on one occasion that he would kill her.
“In his eyes, I was not an artist. I wasn’t even a person,” Hayek said. “I was a thing: not a nobody, but a body.”

Halfway through the shooting process for Frida, Hayek said Weinstein threatened to shut down the film unless she added a fully nude sex scene between Hayek and her co-star Ashley Judd, who later became one of the first women to come forward with allegations against Weinstein. Hayek said she felt she couldn’t say no to Weinstein’s demand, which would entail being naked in front of him. She said she had a nervous breakdown but managed to get through the scene after taking a tranquilizer.
The film was released to critical acclaim and Hayek was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress for her portrayal of Kahlo.
“When I saw him [Weinstein] socially, I’d smile and try to remember the good things about him, telling myself that I went to war and I won,” she wrote. “But why do so many of us, as female artists, have to go to war to tell our stories when we have so much to offer? Why do we have to fight tooth and nail to maintain our dignity?”
Actors including Judd, Gwyneth Paltrow, Lupita Nyong’o and Angelina Jolie have accused Weinstein of sexually harassing or sexually assaulting them. Weinstein was fired from his own company, and the allegations against him have prompted many other women and men to come forward with their own allegations against dozens of other prominent men. Hayek said she decided to share her story after seeing how many others had spoken out.
“When so many women came forward to describe what Harvey had done to them, I had to confront my cowardice and humbly accept that my story, as important as it was to me, was nothing but a drop in an ocean of sorrow and confusion,” she said. “I felt that by now nobody would care about my pain — maybe this was an effect of the many times I was told, especially by Harvey, that I was nobody.”

How to Be a Great Leader, According to 4-Star General and Former CIA Boss David Petraeus - TIME

How to Be a Great Leader, According to 4-Star General and Former CIA Boss David Petraeus Posted: 12 Dec 2017 11:00 AM PST Gen. David Petraeus is a retired four-star general and former director of the CIA. He is currently chairman of the KKR Global Institute. A great boss provides inspiration, encouragement, counsel, direction, example, energy, and all the other elements needed to help you ‘be all that you can be.’ A bad boss does the opposite. I have had many extraordinary bosses, but if I had to choose one, I’d have to select General John (Jack) R. Galvin. He was a true soldier, scholar, and statesmen who provided the elements that make a great boss. He was the kind of leader and individual I aspire to be. I worked for him personally, initially as his aide and then as a special assistant/speech writer in two subsequent assignments, the final one when he served as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. He was very supportive for the rest of his life, providing encouragement, thoughts, and reflections during the toughest days of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and then after I left government. Be Curious In addition to having demonstrated courage on the battlefield and also in the so-called “Battles of the Potomac,” he was a tremendous student of history and a true intellectual, one who always demonstrated boundless curiosity and a tremendous love of learning. I’d like to think I embodied those attributes to a degree even before I first worked for him, but he clearly strengthened my conviction about their importance and taught me how to exhibit them in difficult, complex situations. Engage, Engage, Engage General Galvin truly sought to support those who worked for him well after they departed, working hard to keep up with them, to assist when needed, and to continue to engage in stimulating exchanges. At a certain point, I realized that even when I was not working directly for him that I was still helping and interacting with him in a variety of ways. We ultimately had a lifelong correspondence, sending multiple-page letters to each other at least once a month. Be a Positive Force I learned enormous lessons from him about how to lead and also how to follow. After all, even as Supreme Allied Commander he had bosses. I learned as well about “affirmative – positive – leadership,” provision of energy and enthusiasm, the importance of getting the big ideas right, how to deal with adversity and setbacks, and the joy of reading and writing about subjects in which one has keen interest. Know What Really Matters He also taught me that service to one’s country in important endeavors and the privilege of soldiering with America’s sons and daughters in uniform, as well as intellectual stimulation, are worth far more than the loftiest of salaries. We both agreed strongly with Teddy Roosevelt’s observation that “life’s greatest gift is hard work worth doing.” – Edited from an interview with Chris Kornelis

Bitcoin Futures Are Wall Street’s New Big Thing — And They’re Up 26% - TIME Business

Bitcoin Futures Are Wall Street’s New Big Thing — And They’re Up 26% Posted: 11 Dec 2017 04:04 AM PST Bitcoin has landed on Wall Street with a bang. Futures on the world’s most popular cryptocurrency surged as much as 26 percent from the opening price in their debut session on Cboe Global Markets Inc.’s exchange, triggering two temporary trading halts designed to calm the market. Initial volume exceeded dealers’ expectations, while traffic on Cboe’s website was so heavy that it caused delays and temporary outages. The website’s problems had no impact on trading systems, Cboe said. “It is rare that you see something more volatile than bitcoin, but we found it: bitcoin futures,” said Zennon Kapron, managing director of Shanghai-based consulting firm Kapronasia. The launch of futures on a regulated exchange is a watershed for bitcoin, whose surge this year has captivated everyone from mom-and-pop speculators to Wall Street trading firms. The Cboe contracts, soon to be followed by similar offerings from CME Group Inc. and Nasdaq Inc., should make it easier for mainstream investors to bet on the cryptocurrency’s rise or fall. Bitcoin wagers have until now been mostly limited to venues with little or no oversight, deterring institutional money managers and exposing some users to the risk of hacks and market breakdowns. Bitcoin futures expiring in January climbed to $17,540 as of 11:29 a.m. in London from an opening level of $15,000, on 2,798 contracts traded. The spot price climbed 6.4 percent to $16,647 from the Friday 5 p.m. close in New York, according to the composite price on Bloomberg. The roughly $900 difference reflects not only the novelty of the asset but also the difficulty of using the cash-settled futures to trade against the spot, strategists said. “In a normal, functioning market, good old arbitrage would settle this,” Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank A/S in Hellerup, Denmark, said by email. “If they were deliverable you could arbitrage the life out of it.” Proponents of regulated bitcoin derivatives say the contracts will increase market transparency and boost liquidity, but skeptics abound. JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon has called bitcoin a “fraud,” while China’s government has cracked down on cryptocurrency exchanges this year. The Futures Industry Association — a group of major banks, brokers and traders — said this month that contracts in the U.S. were rushed without enough consideration of the risks. So far though, trading has kicked off without any major hiccups. Dealers said volume was high for a new contract, even though it was tiny relative to more established futures. And the trading halts took effect just as Cboe had outlined in its rules. Transactions stopped for two minutes after a 10 percent gain from the opening price, and for five minutes after a 20 percent jump. Another five-minute halt will take effect if the rally extends to 30 percent, Cboe said in a notice on its website. “It was pretty easy to trade,” Joe Van Hecke, managing partner at Chicago-based Grace Hall Trading LLC, said in a telephone interview from Charlotte, North Carolina. “I think you’ll see a robust market as time plays out.”For now, Cboe futures account for a tiny slice of the world’s bitcoin-related bets. The notional value of contracts traded in the first eight hours totaled about $40 million. Globally, about $1.1 billion of bitcoin traded against the U.S. dollar during the same period, according to Cryptocompare.com. Some people who would like to trade futures are having a hard time accessing the market because not all brokers are supporting it initially, said Garrett See, chief executive officer of DV Chain. Participation may also be limited because of higher capital requirements and tighter risk limits, See said. “We’re in the early stages here, and there’s not enough professional liquidity from the big market makers who can provide depth and hold in the movements,” said Stephen Innes, head of trading for Asia Pacific at Oanda Corp. “It’s going to be a learning curve.” It’s been painful for investors stuck on the sidelines. This year alone, bitcoin is up more than 17-fold. The surge has been driven largely by demand from individuals, with technical obstacles keeping out most big money managers like mutual funds. The new derivatives contracts should thrust bitcoin more squarely into the realm of regulators, banks and institutional investors. Both Cboe and CME on Dec. 1 got permission to offer the contracts after pledging to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission that the products don’t run afoul of the law, in a process called self-certification. Not everyone is happy with the expedited roll out. Exchanges failed to get enough feedback from market participants on margin levels, trading limits, stress tests and clearing, the Futures Industry Association said this month. In November, Thomas Peterffy, the billionaire chairman of Interactive Brokers Group Inc., wrote an open letter to CFTC Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo, arguing that bitcoin’s large price swings mean its futures contracts shouldn’t be allowed on platforms that clear other derivatives. Still, Interactive Brokers is offering its customers access to the futures, with greater restrictions. The firm’s clients won’t be able to go short, and Interactive’s margin requirement, or how much investors have to set aside as collateral, will be at least 50 percent. That’s a stricter threshold than both Cboe’s and CME’s. The start of futures trading is an important milestone for bitcoin’s shift from the fringes of finance toward the mainstream, but it could be some time before the cryptocurrency becomes a key part of investor portfolios — if it ever does. “You never say never,” David Riley, who helps oversee $57 billion as head of credit strategy at BlueBay Asset Management LLP in London, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “But I do think we’re quite some way from making cryptocurrencies even a relatively small part of some of the funds we manage at the moment.”

Facebook Just Published Its Sexual Harassment Policy. Here’s Why - TIME

Facebook Just Published Its Sexual Harassment Policy. Here’s Why Posted: 08 Dec 2017 09:00 AM PST Heidi Swartz, Facebook’s head of employment law, likes to use the example of a senior employee inviting a junior employee up to his hotel room — after he has told her that he will be providing feedback on her job performance. Perhaps he isn’t her direct manager. Perhaps he truly wants to show her the view. That’s the kind of scenario that employees might hear at a training. “Everybody relates to examples,” Swartz says. The power of example is also the reason that Facebook published the company’s policies on sexual harassment and bullying on Friday, along with information about how complaints are investigated when they arise. (And, at a company with 23,165 employees, they do arise, though Facebook isn’t sharing numbers.) “We don’t think our policy is necessarily the best one out there,” Swartz says. “We’re hoping to start a discussion.” Facebook is doing this partly to help smaller companies, which might not be able to afford a bevy of in-house employment lawyers and could use a model for setting up their own policies. In dissections of Silicon Valley’s problems with inclusion — especially regarding women — critics often point to the fact that startups will ignore unsexy things like writing up workplace policies until they’re “hiring an HR person to get out of trouble,” as one exec put it. Founders are strapped for cash, under pressure to grow fast, and end up playing catchup. Women in tech have repeatedly called out cultures that permit inappropriate and sexist behavior in the workplace. The story of former Uber employee Susan Fowler, who detailed how she was sexually propositioned and discriminated against at the company, is a high-profile example of widespread issues. In one informal survey, 60% of women who work in tech reported dealing with unwanted sexual advances. Of those, 65% said those advances had come from a superior. And nearly 40% said they did not report harassment because they feared it would have a negative impact on their careers. Swartz says that Facebook is also sharing this policy with hopes that “peers” will follow suit, so everyone can compare notes and do a better job of avoiding “the kinds of things we’re reading about.” Companies are often guarded about nitty-gritty workplace details, which is why it wasn’t that long ago that the biggest names in tech were fighting to keep the demographics of their workforce a secret. Executives might fear that sharing information will have unforeseen legal implications. Businesses might consider their policies proprietary, Swartz says, or be loathe to publish something that will inevitably require updating. California, for instance, recently approved new employment regulations regarding gender expression, requiring all the businesses in the state to take a fresh look at their guidelines. Facebook, in Silicon Valley fashion, is taking the position that more opportunities for feedback will lead to a better understanding of flaws in the system and, therefore, improvement. “We can all talk about how we can do better,” Swartz says. The same logic helped drive companies to follow Google’s lead after the company first publicly shared data about the diversity of its workforce in 2014. Just a few years later, its become an annual rite for that firm, as well as Facebook and Twitter and other players who have vowed to be more inclusive of women and people of color. In the wake of Fowler’s expose and other workplace problems, Uber also released its first report earlier this year, joining those who have sought edification through transparency. By trying to start a trend, Facebook is sending a message to those inside and outside the company that this issue is taken seriously in Menlo Park (and stands to have its reputation benefit from the optics of that seriousness, too). Swartz says that behavior need not be illegal to run afoul of the company guidelines: While “one or two comments” might not amount to sexual harassment in a courtroom, because laws often require that behavior is pervasive, it could lead to losing a job with them, she says. On Dec. 3, Sheryl Sandberg wrote a post on Facebook that, in hindsight, foreshadowed this release. She recalled times when she had been harassed in her career — including an incident when a man banged on her hotel door until she called security — and she emphasized that this cultural reckoning cannot end with people sharing their stories. “We need systemic, lasting changes that deter bad behavior and protect everyone,” Sandberg wrote. “Too many workplaces lack clear policies about how to handle accusations of sexual harassment.” It’s not a simple thing to do. There are fears of retaliation and fears of stigma. Situations can boil down to one person’s word against another. Swartz says processes must be clear and fair: No one should be considered guilty until proven innocent, nor innocent until proven guilty. There must be a regular process used to gather the facts by impartial people. Individuals must be able to be anonymous at times, yet always accountable. And while some infractions, like groping, clearly cross a line, it can be hard to know when more subtle behavior is worthy of filing a report. (For her part, Swartz says she rather have employees raise the issue, because at the very least someone is going to learn something.) “There’s no question that it is complicated and challenging to get this right. We are by no means perfect, and there will always be bad actors,” Sandberg and Lori Goler, head of HR at Facebook, wrote in a joint post about publishing the policies. “What we can do is be as transparent as possible, share best practices, and learn from one another — recognizing that policies will evolve as we gain experience.”

Donald Trump 'not welcome' in London borough after council passes motion opposing US President's visit - Independent

15/12/2017

Donald Trump 'not welcome' in London borough after council passes motion opposing US President's visit

Formal motion passed by council attacks President's retweets of far-right extremist group Britain First

Lizzie Dearden Home Affairs Correspondent @lizziedearden

A formal motion ‘noted with sadness the President’s bigoted attitude towards women and ethnic minorities’ Reuters

A London council has called on the Government to revoke its state visit invitation to the “bigoted” US President after he shared messages from a far-right group.

A motion passed by the Royal Borough of Greenwich vowed that Donald Trump “would not be welcome” in the area if the engagement goes ahead.

Councillors said they were alarmed by Donald Trump’s decision to retweet Islamophobic posts by Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of Britain First.

Trump attacks Theresa May over criticism of his Britain First tweets

Almost half of Britons want Trump’s state visit scrapped, poll shows

May calls Trump tweets ‘wrong’- but his UK state visit will go ahead

“Council further notes with sadness the President’s bigoted attitude towards women and ethnic minorities which has resulted in examples of division and hatred within the US,” it continued.

“As such, Council calls upon the Government to abandon plans to invite Donald Trump on a state visit to the UK.”

Councillors said the huge security costs of the trip should be paid instead to charities that “promote peace and understanding”, such as the Jo Cox Foundation.

The Labour MP was murdered days before the Brexit referendum last year by a far-right extremist who shouted “Britain first” during his brutal assault.

Donald Trump criticised for Britain First retweets

Her husband, Brendan Cox, was among those condemning Mr Trump’s retweets with the warning: “Spreading hatred has consequences.”

The Twitter storm sparked calls for reprisals from MPs of all parties who took part in an urgent Commons debate, where many called for the state visit to be stopped.

Theresa May’s spokesperson said it was “wrong” for the President to share Ms Fransen’s tweets, sparking a diplomatic spat that saw Mr Trump return to Twitter telling her to concentrate on sorting out “radical Islamic terrorism”.

But the state visit invitation still stands, as does a separate invite from the US ambassador on a “working visit” to the UK for the opening of the new London embassy in early 2018.

Downing Street told The Independent it could not confirm when the state visit would take place, adding: “The invitation has been extended and accepted, and further details will be announced in due course.”

Mass protests and disruption are expected to greet the visit, with the Speaker of the House of Commons vetoing a presidential address following in the footsteps of Barack Obama.

Greenwich council said the President “would not be welcome” in the historic borough, which has been the setting for several recent Hollywood films, adding: “This borough’s commitment to maintaining a strong and vibrant community is incompatible with the ideology and policies espoused by President Trump.”

It also cited his Twitter attack on London mayor Sadiq Khan within hours of the London Bridge terror attack in June among reasons for the refusal.

Chris Kirby, the councillor who presented the motion at a full council meeting on Wednesday, said debate among 270,000 Greenwich residents and across the UK must not be “poisoned” by Mr Trump’s rhetoric.

“President Trump has regularly expressed abhorrent and aggressive views and in doing so has enabled the spread of division and hatred,” he said.

“We have stood up and made our position clear: there is no place for aggressive, bigoted and hateful rhetoric in the Royal Borough of Greenwich.”

Several councillors in the meeting spoke of memories of racist murders and marches by the far-right British National Party in the early 1990s.

Denise Hyland, leader of the council, said Greenwich works with all communities to celebrate difference and be a welcoming place.

“But in the case of President Trump we are willing to make an exception,” she added. “Diversity enriches our lives on a daily basis…we have no time for people who want to build walls, when we have done so much to break them down.”

North Korea 'hacked crypto-currency exchange in South' - BBC News

16/12/2017

North Korea 'hacked crypto-currency exchange in South'

Digital currency trading is big business in South Korea

South Korea's spy agency believes that North Korea is behind hacking attacks on a crypto-currency exchange in the South, sources say.

At least $7m (£5.25m) in digital money was stolen in the hacks - although the money is now said to have ballooned in value to $82.7m.

The thieves also stole the personal information of some 30,000 people.

They were trading the virtual currencies Bitcoin and Ethereum on the Bithumb crypto-currency exchange.

Based on recent trading volumes, Bithumb is South Korea's biggest and one of the five largest in the world.

Analysts say North Korean hackers may have targeted crypto-currencies in order to evade the financial sanctions imposed as punishment for the North's development of nuclear weapons.

This attack is said to date back to February, when a Bithumb employee's home PC was targeted - though it was only discovered in June.

The hackers also demanded a further $5.5m from Bithumb in exchange for deleting traders' personal information, said reports.

The sources in the spy agency, the National Intelligence Service, similarly suspect the North of being behind the hacking of another exchange, Coinis, in September, South Korean news agency Yonhap says.

But a further attempt in October was thwarted, reports said.

Evidence has now been passed to prosecutors.

At present, virtual currencies are not regulated by South Korea's financial authorities but they are now vowing to toughen up regulation.

Three days ago the government imposed fines totalling $55,000 on Bithumb over its failure to protect users' information.

More than half of Americans say Donald Trump should resign over sexual harassment claims - Independent

15/12/2017

More than half of Americans say Donald Trump should resign over sexual harassment claims

Findings come in a week when three of his alleged victims called a congressional inquiry into his behaviour

Jeff Farrell

Samantha Holvey claimed the 71-year-old ogled her and other Miss USA pageant contestants in their dressing room in 2006

US 'becoming world champion of extreme inequality under Donald Trump'

Glowing plants that 'could replace lamps' invented by engineers

Moment commuters save man passed out on subway tracks captured

More than a half of Americans say that Donald Trump should resign from the White House over the almost two dozen counts of sexual harassment claims levelled against him, a new poll has found.

A total of 53 per cent said he should step down compared to just 42 per cent who said he should stay in office despite the sleaze claims made against him.

The Public Policy Polling survey also found that the same number who said he should quit (53 per cent) believed the allegations made against him, while nearly a third (31pc) think his accusers are not telling the truth.

Trump '70% likely to attack North Korea' in case of new nuclear test

'Bigoted' Donald Trump not welcome in London borough on state visit

Donald Trump’s popularity starts to fall among loyal Fox News fans

FBI agents involved in Russia investigation called Trump an 'idiot'

Almost a quarter (22 per cent) of those who identified themselves as Trump supporters said they would approve of the US president sexually harassing women. Nearly a half (45 per cent) did not.

The results came at the end of a week when three women who have accused the US leader of sexual misconduct demanded a congressional inquiry.

Jessica Leeds, Samantha Holvey, and Rachel Crooks accused Mr Trump of groping, fondling, forcibly kissing, humiliating or harassing them.

A former beauty queen, Ms Holvey claimed the 71-year-old ogled her and other Miss USA pageant contestants in their dressing room in 2006. She said his election win had been "heartbreaking".

Ms Leeds alleged that Mr Trump tried to kiss and put his hand up her skirt during a flight in the 1970s, while Rachel Crooks, a former Trump Tower receptionist said the billionaire kissed her on the mouth without consent in 2006

All three called for Congress to “put aside party affiliations and investigate Trump's history of sexual misconduct”.

As is often the case, Mr Trump took to Twitter to dismiss the claims.

@realDonaldTrump

Despite thousands of hours wasted and many millions of dollars spent, the Democrats have been unable to show any collusion with Russia - so now they are moving on to the false accusations and fabricated stories of women who I don’t know and/or have never met. FAKE NEWS!

11:10 PM - Dec 12, 2017

54,043 54,043 Replies 37,705 37,705 Retweets 145,117 145,117 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

“Despite thousands of hours wasted and many millions of dollars spent, the Democrats have been unable to show any collusion with Russia - so now they are moving on to the false accusations and fabricated stories of women who I don’t know and/or have never met. FAKE NEWS!”

A Capitol Hill investigation into Mr Trump's conduct appears unlikely.

The Senate and House Ethics Committees investigate members of Congress, rather than presidents.

The Republican-led committees would also be loath to investigate their own leader on sexual misconduct.

What is net neutrality and why it matters - Al Jazeera

What is net neutrality and why it matters

by Creede Newton

15 Dec 2017

Demonstrators rally in support of net neutrality outside a Verizon store in New York [Mary Altaffer/AP Photo]

Demonstrators rally in support of net neutrality outside a Verizon store in New York

END OF NET NEUTRALITY IN THE US?

What is it?

Who is Ajit Pai?

What happens next?

Who will be most affected?

Portugal: A country without net neutrality?

Will its end in the US affect other countries?

The US Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to end the 2015 Open Internet Order, which protected net neutrality in country.

The 3-2 vote enacts the Restoring Internet Freedom initiative, which is widely seen as giving internet service providers (ISPs) more power to limit internet access while favouring certain data streams.

The move is seen as highly controversial among the public, Democrats and some Republicans.

Protesters gathered outside the FCC meeting on Thursday, some carrying signs that read: "Don't make the internet a private toll road."

Democrats vowed to fight the repeal, calling for legislation that would re-establish the regulations. Civil liberty organisations also vowed to sue the FCC over the move.

So, what is net neutrality and why does it matter? Al Jazeera spoke to experts and net neutrality advocates to answer some commonly asked questions.

What is net neutrality?

Net neutrality is a set of principles and rules that say internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all data fairly without blocking or "throttling" certain data streams.

This means that an ISP such as Comcast cannot slow down a streaming service such as Netflix, nor can it block or slow down Fox News in favour of NBC, which is owned by Comcast.

"Open internet" advocates fear an end to net neutrality will lead to censorship and increased costs for internet connectivity.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plans to vote on ending the 2015 Open Internet Order, which is the current set of regulations protecting net neutrality in the US.

Who is FCC Chairman Ajit Pai?

Pai, 44, has enjoyed a long career working as a lawyer for both the US government and telecommunications giant Verizon.

He was appointed to the FCC Commission, the body that will vote on net neutrality's end, in 2012 by then-President Barack Obama.

The policies advocated by Pai, a Republican, are generally seen as being pro-broadcasters and ISPs.

His detractors say this is due, in part, to his tenure as a lawyer for Verizon, where he worked on regulatory issues from 2001 to 2003.

Pai was appointed chairman of the FCC by Donald Trump in January and was confirmed by the US Senate to serve a five-year term in October.

He says that ending net neutrality will be an end "heavy-handed" government regulation and a "pro-competitive" move.

Kathy Grillo, Verizon's senior vice president and deputy general counsel, agreed in a November statement.

The Open Internet Order "undermined investment and innovation, and posed a significant threat to the internet’s continued ability to grow and evolve to meet consumers’ needs," Grillo said.

What will pro-net neutrality groups do next?

"We will take the FCC to court. They've got about a 50-50 track record in the courts. We think we can beat them here, because they [will have] reversed orders that are barely two and a half years old," Matt Wood of Free Press, a pro-net neutrality organisation that works for media plurality, told Al Jazeera.

The court case could take more than a year, Wood said

During that time, US citizens who want to challenge the effect of losing net neutrality will have to go to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), an independent government agency designed to protect consumers against unfair business practices.

The focus on "unfair practices" and anti-trust, or anti-monopoly enforcement, limits what the FTC can do, Wood explained.

As long as an ISP clearly explains to consumers what service is offered - even if that includes blocking or throttling sites - and a consumer agrees, then would be considered fair practice, Wood said.

If Comcast blocks a website or service that does not threaten one of its own services or sources of revenue, then the FTC will most likely take no issue.

If it blocks Netflix, then the FTC might find that to be an anti-trust issue.

Furthermore, violations must be committed before the FTC acts. "It comes in as a law enforcer, or promise enforcer, after the fact," Wood concluded.

Who will be most affected by net neutrality's end?

Nearly everyone, but possible censorship or throttling will disproportionately affect areas that vote Republican.

FCC data shows that only 8.6 of people in the US have access to more than one ISP. So, if your ISP decides to throttle or censor data, it will affect you immediately and you're "stuck", Pierce Stanley, a technology fellow at Demand Progress, a grassroots civil liberties group, told Al Jazeera.

Stanley has been working with Republican legislators of late, pointing them towards the fact that their congressional districts and states "disproportionately" have one or zero ISP choices.

This is partly because rural areas, typically Republican strongholds, are less connected, Stanley explained.

"Only 30 percent of Republican congressional districts are at the national average or better. It's wildly skewed."

While Pai says the end of net neutrality will be pro-competitive, Stanley cannot see a future where that is true.

The majority of the US has either a monopoly or weak duopoly in terms of ISPs, and there are four companies that dominate - Comcast, Charter, AT&T and Verizon.

Pai has not produced research that shows an end to the FCC's open internet rules will make it easier for newcomers to break these monopolies, Stanley said.

"If Chairman Pai were sincere" in his stated desire to improve internet access, "going after net neutrality isn't the way to get there", Stanley said.

Will US net neutrality's end harm the poor?

"His proposal really is a gift to the ISPs that made no sincere effort to take into account the public interest or engage in democratic discussion."

Is Portugal an example of a country without net neutrality?

Yes and no.

Portugal is part of the European Union, every member of which is required to maintain net neutrality for broadband connections, though this is decided by National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs).

EU-wide net neutrality rules were first adopted in 2015, going into effect on April 30, 2016.

All 28 member states are barred from "blocking or throttling or discrimination of online content, applications and services", according to the European Commission.

NRAs in each country "have the powers and the obligation to assess traffic management, commercial practices [sic] and agreements and to effectively enforce" these rules.

The confusion appears to be the result of a tweet by Ro Khanna, a Democratic Congress member from California, showing a Portuguese mobile phone data plan through a telecommunications company called Meo that offers "zero-rating" services.

Zero-rating means that certain applications, usually messaging apps like WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger, are not subject to data caps. If you use all your plan's allotted data, then these apps continue working.

Mobile data plans are separate from home-use internet plans, and fall under a different set of regulations both in the US and the EU, so the issue of mobile data is generally considered a separate issue.

But for Dwayne Winseck, a professor at Canada's Carleton University and director of the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project, zero-rating is an issue of net neutrality, and it is usually found in countries with poor data plans.

"The appeal of 'free lunch', where you're getting poor service, looks better than no free lunch," Winseck told Al Jazeera.

Internet shutdowns raise free speech concerns in India

According to research by Rewheel, a European mobile data consultancy firm, Portugal ranks low in the EU for mobile data plans.

Paying 30 euros ($35) gets the average Portuguese consumer three gigabytes of mobile data.

In Latvia, 20 euros ($24) buys unlimited data usage.

Zero-rating programmes were tried in the US by telecommunications giants AT&T and Verizon, but were stalled by FCC investigations which concluded in January that this type of service violates net neutrality.

Pai dropped all investigations into zero-rating practices in February.

Winseck explained that the EU leaving net neutrality up to NRAs leaves gaps in the EU's open internet policy.

"Here it appears that the Portuguese regulators are asleep at the switch. That's good for Meo, but that's not good for the Portuguese," Winseck said.

Asked if there could be broadband plans similar to Meo's mobile data plans, Winseck said: "Sure, it's possible."

Will the end of US net neutrality affect other countries?

"I don't think the US stepping away for the time being is going to be a travesty for the rest of the world. I don't think people look to the US anymore as a beacon on the hill" for internet access, Winseck said.

While the US was the global leader throughout the 1980s and 1990s, by the early 2000s, it began to "goof around" with net neutrality and market liberalisation, he said.

Since then, the world has moved away from the US example, with countries in Latin America, Europe and other regions following their own paths.

However, there are some concerns, but mostly for foreign businesses.

If a company from India, Asia or Latin America becomes a media powerhouse and wants to introduce its own streaming service, akin to Netflix, that will require the blessing of ISPs like Comcast - which has its own streaming service and was found to be throttling Netflix in 2014 - or AT&T, which is in the process of buying Time Warner, the parent company of HBO, another firm that offers its own streaming service.

"If you want to promote any other culture in the US, and you start driving lots of [internet] traffic through the US, and you have to go through these ISPs, they can throttle you," Winseck said.