#Review: Spider-Man: Brand New Day – A #Hero for the #Surveillance State?

source: themoviedb.org/movie/969681-sp…

At first, #Spider-Man: Brand New Day looks like another emotional #superhero #story. Peter Parker has lost everything. No one remembers him, not even MJ. He searches for his #identity while trying to protect #NewYork. The #film spends much of its time on #trauma, #loneliness, and #mental #health.

But behind this personal story lies a political #message. The film presents mass surveillance as something necessary and even heroic. This is where the #movie becomes much more interesting—and much more troubling.

Spider-Man uses powerful surveillance #technology to watch the city. He collects video from many security cameras. He scans every face to find criminals. Even the #police admit that this is probably #illegal. Still, the film treats these actions as acceptable because Spider-Man is one of the "good guys."

Jean Grey—now portrayed by Sadie Sink (She kept her role a huge secret beforehand for marketing reasons.) in the Marvel Universe—falls into the facial recognition trap set by Spider-Man's surveillance program. If, by the end, you feel sorry for Jean Grey because the script wants you to and you’ve let yourself be swept up in the drama, then please remember that at the beginning of the movie, Jean possessed an old man and sent him running into the street so he would be brutally run over. She’s a mass murderer who’ll stop at nothing to achieve her goal. She could easily achieve this goal with her incredible superpower, but she makes it unnecessarily complicated by first freeing the Scorpion, which is what draws Spider-Man's attention to her in the first place.

This idea has a long #history in popular culture. The strongest comparison is George Orwell's 1984. #Orwell imagined a #society where every citizen is watched. Surveillance is presented as a tool for #security, but it destroys #freedom. In Brand New Day, the situation is different because Spider-Man is a hero, not a dictator. Yet the basic question remains the same: Who watches the watchers? If one person can see everyone, who controls that person?

The film never really asks this #question. Instead, it assumes that surveillance is good as long as the right people #control it. This is one of its biggest #weaknesses.

Another interesting comparison is The Dark Knight. In Christopher Nolan's film, #Batman creates a machine that can monitor every mobile phone in Gotham. Lucius Fox calls it too dangerous because it gives one person unlimited power. Batman agrees. He uses the system only once to catch the #Joker and then destroys it immediately.

Brand New Day takes a very different approach. Spider-Man's surveillance technology is not treated as a #moral #problem. Instead, it becomes a normal #tool of #crime fighting. The ethical debate that makes The Dark Knight so powerful is almost completely missing.

The transcript also compares Spider-Man's work with modern surveillance technology. Peter Parker works closely with the Department of Damage Control and helps collect huge amounts of personal data. The review argues that this creates a positive image of a close relationship between #government institutions and powerful technology companies.

This makes the film feel surprisingly modern. Today, governments and private companies collect enormous amounts of digital information. Cameras, facial recognition, smartphones and artificial #intelligence make surveillance easier than ever before. The movie reflects this reality but rarely questions it.

One of the most interesting contradictions is #PeterParker himself. He wants #privacy for his own life. He hides his identity and wants to escape public attention. At the same time, he watches everyone else and scans thousands of faces. The film never fully explores this contradiction.

This creates an uncomfortable message. Privacy seems important for the hero but less important for ordinary citizens.

The citizens themselves hardly have a voice. They mostly watch, cheer and accept Spider-Man's actions without #discussion. They never decide whether they want to live in such a #society. They simply #trust the hero.

As #entertainment, Spider-Man: Brand New Day offers impressive visuals and emotional performances. However, its political ideas deserve much more attention. The film normalizes mass surveillance while presenting it as an act of kindness and #responsibility. It replaces difficult ethical questions with emotional storytelling.

Unlike 1984, it does not warn us about surveillance. Unlike The #DarkKnight, it does not seriously question its use. Instead, it asks the #audience to trust the hero completely.

That may be the film's most surprising message. The greatest danger is not an #evil government forcing surveillance on its people. The greater danger is that we willingly accept surveillance because it is carried out by someone we like.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day succeeds as an emotional superhero #drama. As a political film, however, it raises fascinating questions without giving convincing answers.

#cinema #criticism #fail #ethics #future #cybersecurity #ice #palantir #homelandsecurity #america #nyc #ny #humanity #humanrights #marvel #news #politics #policestate #police #bigbrother #propaganda #lawandorder #justice

All about the safety of the kids¹ they said,
All about the safety of users² they said,
All about the safety of the citizens³ they said,
All about the money, control & power⁴ they left unsaid.

¹ mastodon.social/@madeindex/116…
² arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/0…
³ mastodon.social/@madeindex/113…
⁴ gadgetreview.com/reddit-user-u…
mastodon.social/@madeindex/116…

#Privacy #HumanRIghts #Freedom #Surveillance #Authoritarianism #Control #Government #Data #Masssurveillance #id #verification #rights #corps #evil #ageverification #corruption

Reddit User Uncovers Who Is Behind Meta’s $2B Lobbying for Invasive Age Verification Tech - Gadget Review

Meta funneled $2B through nonprofit shells to push age verification laws targeting Apple and Google while exempting its own platforms from surveillance requirements.

^{C. da Costa (Gadget Review)}

MadeInDex 📰🌎

2026-07-21 19:01:46

However you look at it, #ageverification is a major change to the internet and our freedoms.

We've seen all kinds of legislation pushed through in the past, often even against major resistance.

What makes me suspicious this time is the speed at which some of the slowest bureaucracies in the world are adopting it and how it's happening in 20+ countries in parallel.

It's like they're all in a group chat, fast-tracking this before resistance can even form.

france24.com/en/france/2026072…

#Privacy #EU

'Major step forward': French lawmakers approve social media ban for children under 15

France's parliament on Tuesday approved a social media ban for children under 15. President Emmanuel Macron immediately hailed the "major step forward", saying in a video posted on social media that "France is leading the way in Europe when it comes …

^{FRANCE 24}

Imagine a group of human beings being trapped in a confined place, unable to escape or return to a normal life, while violence is inflicted upon them day after day for two and a half years.

Imagine death becoming part of their daily lives. Imagine losing loved ones before their eyes, children waking to fear instead of safety, homes becoming memories, schools becoming postponed dreams, and hospitals becoming places where there are simply not enough resources to save everyone.

Then add hunger.

Imagine a mother searching for a piece of food to quiet her children’s hunger, but finding none. Imagine water becoming a wish, medicine becoming a luxury, and bread becoming something counted piece by piece. Imagine living every day without knowing whether what you have today will last until tomorrow.

And the cruelest part of all?

For two and a half years, these people keep raising their voices.

They say: We are suffering.
We are hungry.
Our children are afraid.
Our sick need medicine.
Please, stop this suffering.
Please, help us.

And the world hears them.

It sees their photographs.
It reads their words.
It watches their tears.
It knows they are trapped, hungry, frightened, and that they did not choose this life.

And yet… the days pass.

Then the months.

Then one year… then two… and another year draws closer to its end.

And one question remains suspended in the air:

What happens to a human being when violence and hunger do not only destroy their body, but slowly consume their heart as they cry out for help and find no one reaching back?

There is a kind of pain that wounds cannot describe, a kind of hunger that numbers cannot measure, and a kind of loss that words can never repair.

And there is something even more devastating than suffering alone:

Suffering in full view of the world, knowing the world sees your pain, and then watching the world become accustomed to your cries.

After two and a half years, we are not asking to be seen as numbers, nor for our suffering to become another passing headline.

We only ask the world to remember that behind every number is a human being who once had a home, a face they loved, a child with dreams, a mother waiting for their return, and a life they deserved to live in safety.

We do not need the world to become accustomed to our suffering… we need the suffering to end. 💔🕊️ chuffed.org/project/177144
#Gaza #StandWithGaza #Humanity #Compassion #MutualAid #Palestine #Hope #Donate #Gazza
#Gaza #HumanRights #StandWithGaza #JusticeForPalestine #EndTheOccupation
#Gaza1000Days #FutureDoctor #StolenDreams #GazaVoices #EndTheGenocide #JusticeForGaza
#Humanity #Justice #HelpNeeded #Emergency
#Gaza #HumanRights #Crowdfunding #MutualAidRequest #DirectAid #Fundraiser #Assistance #EmergencyAid #HelpEachOther #Empathy #Solidarity #WomensHealth #MedicalAid @personalescrito @mistergibson @grb090423 @vreer @crimson_clouds23 @brume @Heidentweet @Lazarou @MusiqueNow #palestine
@palestine@a.gup.pe⁣⁣
@palestine@lemmy.ml
@nizarus
@MajDen
@davidculley
@SheWasSpeaking
@apenkop
@madgeface
@Shibanarchiste
@Sasha @delsaulnier @DailyGaza
@palestine@lemmy.ml @simon_brooke
@nizarus @DrALJONES @kathimmel @Strandjunker @c_ssk @hakona @felipe @RFancio @Drippy_Spudd @bythehandofbob @RobertoArchimboldi @tansy @sol @jd @hart @socialmedia @nemo @burnitdown @majorlinux @mutualaid @1kmadleenfr @gazanotice @GazaFFlotilla @freepalestine @nemo @eldadoinquieto @AliceMarshall @QasimRashid @NormanDunbar @MarciaW @Geoffberner @uspolitics @socialmedia @ZackPolanski @Christo_459 @Lazarou @foufoutos @noiseician @divya @brume @Mau_or_ @villebooks @MajDen
@aral @nemo @essjayjay @wlaatje @ridicol @epso @jack_mendo @Literbook @nemo @Strandjunker @AliceMarshall @Sine_Nomine @QasimRashid @rpardee
@uspolitics
@Solomon_G @BKoepka @ManUtd @1kmadleenfr @Malmai @fedipourgaza @fabio @HeatherMJ @algorithm
@EUCommission
@PossumPartyGlider @ridicol @freepalestine @CableSt @KimSJ @Phiznlil

BBC ‘bias’ in Gaza conflict

[strong]Report reveals in detail how the BBC has misreported the conflict [/strong]

July 2026

The BBC is widely trusted. It promotes itself as an independent media organisation dedicated to giving fair balanced news and comments about what is happening in the world. A report by the Centre for Media Monitoring analysed the BBC’s output on the Gaza conflict and found it to be anything but balanced. Indeed it concluded that the ‘BBC is systematically biased against Palestinians in Gaza war coverage‘. They echo conclusions by Peter Oborne in his bookComplicit [OR Books, 2025] who was extremely critical of their reporting of the conflict.

Not that these conclusions are new. Tom Mills in his book The BBC: Myth of a Public Service [Verso, 2016] concluded that it has ‘always sided with the elite‘. Despite the constant accusations by right-wing media interests for its left-wing bias, in fact he argues ‘its journalism has overwhelmingly reflected the ideas and interests of elite groups‘.

Gaza coverage

CfMM analysed thousands of BBC pieces as part of its research and came up with 4 main conclusions:

• Palestinian deaths are treated as less newsworthy. Despite there being 34 times more deaths among Palestinians, the BBC gave Israel deaths 33 times more coverage.
• BBC used emotive terms 4 times more for Israeli victims, applied ‘massacre’ 18 times more to Israeli casualties, and used ‘murder’ 220 times for Israelis in contrast to once for Palestinians. We have noted that the word ‘hostage’ was applied (correctly) for those seized by Hamas after the October 7th massacre, but the word ‘prisoner’ is used for those seized by Israel and held without trial and tortured. Prisoner implies some kind of due process has taken place which it hasn’t.
• BBC presenters shut down genocide claims in over 100 documented instances whilst making zero mention of Israeli leaders’ genocidal statements, including Netanyahu’s biblical Amalek reference. The moment an interviewee mentions the G word, a BBC person will immediately interrupt and say that there has been no conclusion to the claims despite the massive evidence to the contrary and blatant statements by Israeli politicians to that effect.
• The BBC interviewed significantly fewer Palestinians than Israelis (1,085 v 2,350) on TV and radio, while BBC presenters shared the Israeli perspective 11 times more frequently than the Palestinian perspective (2,340 v 217). The interviews themselves are often weak and unchallenging.

The full report is available here.

Reasons

We can only speculate on the reasons for the bias. One is the myth of BBC independence. This much touted merit is not always true. The Board is appointed by Government ministers and the organisation is under constant funding threats. The Charter is up for renewal soon in 2028.

A second aspect is the charge of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is of course to be condemned but it has become a cover for any and all criticism of Israel. When Amnesty and Human Rights Watch published their reports on Israel’s Apartheid policy for example, the immediate and knee-jerk response was the charge of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel. It has led the BBC we would argue to an approach of extreme caution and nervousness.

The policy of balance is also a factor. Balance does not always mean equal. This arose with debates about climate change. A scientist would be interviewed with facts and data followed by a denialist such as Lord Lawson. They received equal coverage even though Lawson was not a scientist and seldom had any evidence to support his views. Viewers were left confused. Scientists gradually refused to be interviewed. The BBC has now stopped doing this (after many protests) although it should be stressed scientists are not always right and should be challenged: but challenged by someone competent.

The tragedy is that there are many Jewish people in the UK who are concerned about the extreme violence and genocide taking place in Gaza and the increasing tide of violence against Palestinians living on the West Bank. On a recent Any Answers programme, two Jewish men phoned in with their views. They did not fit the narrative as expected and the presenter was audibly disconcerted and tried vainly to counter their views. The grim future of Israel is discussed in the Jewish academic Omar Bartov’s book Israel: What Went Wrong? [Fern Press, 2026].

Does it matter?

It matters because the BBC is a trusted source much needed in these days of mis- and disinformation and torrid material being produced by X and other online outlets. Generally, they perform well despite attempts at coercion and control. One has only to spend 10 minutes watching GBNews to witness what low standards mean.

It matters because they have a role in shaping public opinion. People were rightly angry at the seizing of hostages by Hamas and the frequent bulletins about the negotiations to secure their release increased that anger. The almost complete absence of reporting by the BBC of the seizure by Israel of medical staff and their incarceration, torture and sometimes death in an underground prison weakens their claims to be impartial.

It matters because this public opinion shapes political opinion and policies. The almost total failure by the BBC to report the hundreds of RAF overflights for example means a large chunk of British society is unaware of this help and other more covert help by our government for the regime. It means the government can continue selling arms with impunity thus playing a part in increasing the destruction of Gaza. It means the incarceration of those who support the Palestinian cause is made that bit easier because they have been labelled the ‘bad guys’. It means politicians like David Lammy can make provably misleading statements about reducing arms sales without being challenged. [David Lammy left government as this post was being written].

It matters because the distortion of language: for example selective use of words like ‘massacre’ and ‘hostage’ as we have noted above, means trust in the BBC is eroded.

The BBC fails to mention when interviewing various members of parliament, whether they are members of one or other of the Friends of Israel groups nor asks how much they have received for visits to the country. It does not ask them leaving the viewer or listener left in the dark. [To be fair, neither does the BBC nor other broadcasters ask interviewees if they are a member of one or other of the think tanks with their undeclared funding].

The organisation needs to shake off its fear of being called anti-Semitic and provide proper and balanced reports.

• BBC ‘bias’ in Gaza conflict
• The vigils continue
• Britain’s support for the arms trade
• British woman tried on an American base
• Death penalty in Florida

#HumanRights #BBC #CfMM #media #notForProfit #Palestine #Salisbury