Tuesday, July 21, 2020

Binge Food Eating: A Modern competitive sport in the USA

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Syed Ahmed Uzair

Article Title

Binge Food Eating: A Modern competitive sport in the USA

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

July 21, 2020

URL

Nathan’s 4th of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest

Nathan’s 4th of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest | Source: Jeff via Flickr

Eating food as a professional sport may seem odd to a lot of people, but many such competitions exist today in the USA. While competitive food eating contests have been around for years, it was only in the late nineties that it got the status of a sport. There is even an organisation named “Major League Eating” headquartered in New York which governs all eating competitions worldwide since its foundation in 1997.

It's not just about the participants. The sport has got its fair share of the audience too, particularly in the US.  Some of the most popular contests include Nathan’s 4th of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest, the Zombie Fest at Long Beach, California, The World Slugburger Eating Championship, in Corinth, Mississippi, The World Famous St. Elmo Shrimp Cocktail Eating Championship, Indianapolis, and many more.

And the insane records that people make at these competitions might just blow your mind away. For instance, Joey Chestnut holds the record for eating 70 hotdogs and buns in 10 mins in 2016 at the Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest. Matt Stonie holds the record for devouring 43 slug burgers in 10 minutes at The World Slugburger Eating Competition in 2014!  Looks insane? Well, it's just one of those things that make America so great! Or does it?

While competitive eating has truly become a huge affair in the United States, many people are particularly skeptical of the same. Many animal rights groups question the morality of such competitions wherein so many animals are consumed in such a short time. Others have the issue of the sport being offensive to people who cannot afford to have enough food in a day. However, the biggest argument against these eating competitions is how they have become a symbol of freedom. The critics say that freedom from unnecessary regulations makes sense in the context of a free democratic and liberal society, it does not mean that we indulge in a gross display of excessive consumption.

The dangers associated with the sport are not limited to morality and freedom. People who participate in the contests have to go through potentially injurious training to stretch their stomach for the sport. These training regimens include consuming more than a gallon of water, eating 200 chicken wings, and the list goes on.

Despite all the dangers associated, the sport continues to grow and thrive. The raging rivalries between participants like Joey Chestnut and Matt Stonie make then Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo of the competitive food eating. With the audience base steadily growing over the years, Competitive Eating has truly become a phenomenon in the United States. Riding on the increasing popularity of this sport, Nathan’s saw a monumental increase in their hot dogs’ sales from 250 million to a billion between 2003 and 2014,when the competition was broadcasted on ESPN .

It all boils down to the numbers of the loyal fan following which a sport or sports-person commands. As long as there are people who enjoy watching food being stuffed in insane amounts as a sport, there will always be people ready to make money by contesting and organizing these festivals. After all, that is the beauty of corporate America- whatever sells, will stick around!

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 28, 2021 11:13 AM

Parler Shutdown, Big Tech, and Liberal Politics

Controversial social media site Parler, has been facing some problems regarding spreading of misinformation and the influence of several far-right groups. The platform became the most-downloaded free app in the Apple App Store on the weekend of November 8 - the day major media outlets called the election for Joe Biden. It was deplatfomized by Silicon Valley giants Apple, Google and Amazon after the storming of Capitol Hill. This article explains what is parler, how it influences people and what is the controversy about it.

What is Parler?

Parler is a social media website founded by Rebekah Mercer, John Matze and Jared Thomson. The platform refers to itself as an “unbiased social media” where people can “speak freely and express yourself openly without fear of being 'deplatformed' for your views," according to its website and App Store description.

The app mainly attracts conservative users—some of the Parler’s active users among public figures include Fox News host Sean Hannity, far-right activist Laura Loomer, radio personality Mark Levin, Senator Ted Cruz, and Congressman Devin Nunes. Eric Trump and Donald Trump's presidential campaign also have accounts on the platform.

With big tech companies like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram taking strict actions against the ex-President Donald Trump, and flagging misinformation, Parler became the free for all space for the conservatives.

Problems and influences

According to some reports, members of the Proud Boys, adherents of conspiracy theory QAnon, anti-government extremists, and white supremacists all openly promote their views on Parler. Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, racism and other forms of bigotry can also be found among their ideas.

The co-founder of the website, Rebekah Mercer and her family came into national politics in 2016 elections when they donated more than $23 million to groups backing conservative candidates.

Rebekah Mercer is widely reported to have persuaded then-candidate Trump to reshuffle his campaign organization and hire Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway to help run his presidential bid in the final stretch of the 2016 election.

The shutdown: opinions on Parler and the monopoly of tech giants

The social networking site went dark when Amazon stopped providing it cloud hosting services after it was revealed the platform was used to help organize the Capitol Hill attack on January 6—which left five people dead. Amazon's actions were followed by Apple and Google that banned the Parler mobile app from their respective stores.

After the app went offline, it made a comeback after several days, registered with Epik as its provider. But Epik denies in an official statement that the company had any “contact or discussions with Parler in any form regarding our becoming their registrar or hosting provider.”

A Reuters report, citing an infrastructure expert, pointed to a Russian tech firm as supporting Parler's return online. It said that the IP address Epik used is owned by DDos-Guard, which is “controlled by two Russian men and provides services including protection from distributed denial of service attacks.”

The united Silicon Valley attack began on January 8, when Apple emailed Parler and gave them 24 hours to prove they had changed their moderation practices or else face removal from their App Store. The letter claimed: “We have received numerous complaints regarding objectionable content in your Parler service, accusations that the Parler app was used to plan, coordinate, and facilitate the illegal activities in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021 that led (among other things) to loss of life, numerous injuries, and the destruction of property.”

It ended with this warning: “To ensure there is no interruption of the availability of your app on the App Store, please submit an update and the requested moderation improvement plan within 24 hours of the date of this message. If we do not receive an update compliant with the App Store Review Guidelines and the requested moderation improvement plan in writing within 24 hours, your app will be removed from the App Store.” The next day, Apple removed it from its App Store.

This was a kind of monopoly and alleged misuse of power by the tech giants to ban the website, but, in October, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law issued a 425-page report concluding that Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google all possess monopoly power and are using that power anti-competitively. According to the report, iOS and Android hold an effective duopoly in mobile operating systems. However, the report concludes, Apple does have a monopolistic hold over what you can do with an iPhone. You can only put apps on your phone through the Apple App Store, and Apple has total gatekeeper control over that App Store.

Not only did leading left-wing politicians not object but some of them were the ones who pleaded with Silicon Valley to use their power this way. After the internet-policing site Sleeping Giants flagged several Parler posts that called for violence, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked: “What are @Apple and @GooglePlay doing about this?” Once Apple responded by removing Parler from its App Store — a move that House Democrats just three months earlier warned was dangerous antitrust behaviour — she praised Apple and then demanded to know: “Good to see this development from @Apple. @GooglePlay what are you going to do about apps being used to organize violence on your platform?” The same steps were taken by Google later.

These actions showed the amount of power the Silicon Valley giants have, which can actually control the other company’s fate. The powers which were revealed by the steps taken by these companies were dangerous but at the same time helpful when done for the good. The liberal New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg called herself “disturbed by just how awesome [tech giants’] power is” and added that “it’s dangerous to have a handful of callow young tech titans in charge of who has a megaphone and who does not.” She nonetheless praised these “young tech titans” for using their “dangerous” power to ban Trump and destroy Parler. Her opinion shows that liberals are happy until Silicon Valley censorship is used to silence their adversaries, not on themselves.

As put by Glenn Greenwald “Liberals like Goldberg are concerned only that Silicon Valley censorship powers might one day be used against people like them, but are perfectly happy as long as it is their adversaries being deplatformed and silenced (Facebook and other platforms have for years banned marginalized people like Palestinians at Israel’s behest, but that is of no concern to U.S. liberals).”

Clearly, the way Parler was misused for spreading propaganda had to be stopped as it led to one of the worst days in American history – the storm of the Capitol Hill – but the way they were censored and banned from the internet by the virtual unity of Silicon Valley giants Apple, Google and Amazon, has brought forth another dangerous fact to the world regarding how much power these companies hold. And if misused, they can prove to be more dangerous than Parler itself. But as long as they are using the power and censorship to maintain peace and lawfulness, even the liberals don’t have any problems with it, at least for now.

Read More