A Facebook live stream of a gunman attacking a Christchurch mosque, killing 49 people, has been widely seen on social media, with some news websites also posting clips of the violence.
The incident once again highlights how platforms deal with such content.
While Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and YouTube raced to remove it, they failed to stop it being shared.
It raises questions about who is sharing it and why but, perhaps more importantly, how these platforms are dealing with the threat of far-right extremism.
49 dead in mosque attacks
What is known about the suspects?
Many members of the public have taken to Twitter to express shock and anger at the fact that the video is still in circulation on lots of platforms, with others pleading for people to stop sharing it.
One pointed out: “That is what the terrorist wanted.”
What was shared?
The video, which shows a first-person view of the killings, has been widely circulated.
About 10 to 20 minutes before the attack in New Zealand, someone posted on the /pol/section of 8chan, an anarchist alt-right message board. The post included links to the suspect’s Facebook page, where he stated he would be live-streaming and published a rambling and hate-filled document
Before opening fire, the suspect urged viewers to subscribe to PewDiePie’s YouTube channel. PewDiePie later said on Twitter he was “absolutely sickened having my name uttered by this person”
The attacks were live-streamed on Facebook and shared widely on other social media platforms, such as YouTube and Twitter
People continue to report seeing the video, despite the firms acting pretty swiftly to remove the original and copies, and copies are still being uploaded to YouTube, faster than it can remove them.
Several Australian media outlets broadcast some of the footage, as did other newspapers around the world
Ryan Mac, a BuzzFeed technology reporter, has created a timeline of where he has seen the video, including it being shared from a verified Twitter account with 694,000 followers. He claims it has been up for two hours
What is the response of the social media companies?
All of the social media firms have sent heartfelt sympathy to the victims of the mass shootings, reiterating that they act quickly to remove inappropriate content.
Facebook said: “New Zealand Police alerted us to a video on Facebook shortly after the live-stream commenced and we removed both the shooter’s Facebook account and the video.
“We’re also removing any praise or support for the crime and the shooter or shooters as soon as we’re aware. We will continue working directly with New Zealand Police as their response and investigation continues.”
And in a tweet, YouTube said “our hearts are broken”, adding it was “working vigilantly” to remove any violent footage.
In terms of what they have done historically to combat the threat of far-right extremists, their approach has been more chequered.
Twitter acted to remove alt-right accounts in December 2017. Previously it has removed and then reinstated the account of Richard Spencer, an American white nationalist who popularised the term “alternative right”.
Facebook, which suspended Mr Spencer’s account in April 2018, admitted at the time that it was difficult to distinguish between hate speech and legitimate political speech.
49 dead in New Zealand mosque attacks
Agonising wait for victims’ families
UK mosque security to be discussed
This month, YouTube was accused of being either incompetent or irresponsible for its handling of a video promoting the banned Neo-Nazi group, National Action.
British MP Yvette Cooper said the video-streaming platform had repeatedly promised to block it, only for it to reappear on the service.
What needs to happen next?
Dr Ciaran Gillespie, a political scientist from Surrey University, thinks the problem goes far deeper than a video, shocking as that content has been.
“It is not just a question about broadcasting a massacre live. The social media platforms raced to close that down and there is not much they can do about it being shared because of the nature of the platform, but the bigger question is the stuff that goes before it,” he said.
As a political researcher, he uses YouTube “a lot” and says that he is often recommended far-right content.
“There is oceans of this content on YouTube and there is no way of estimating how much. YouTube has dealt well with the threat posed by Islamic radicalisation, because this is seen as clearly not legitimate, but the same pressure does not exist to remove far-right content, even though it poses a similar threat.
“There will be more calls for YouTube to stop promoting racist and far-right channels and content.”
His views are echoed by Dr Bharath Ganesh, a researcher at the Oxford Internet Institute.
“Taking down the video is obviously the right thing to do, but social media sites have allowed far-right organisations a place for discussion and there has been no consistent or integrated approach to dealing with it.
“There has been a tendency to err on the side of freedom of speech, even when it is obvious that some people are spreading toxic and violent ideologies.”
Now social media companies need to “take the threat posed by these ideologies much more seriously”, he added.
“It may mean creating a special category for right-wing extremism, recognising that it has global reach and global networks.”
Neither under-estimate the enormity of the task, especially as many of the exponents of far-right views are adept at, what Dr Gillespie calls, “legitimate controversy”.
“People will discuss the threat posed by Islam and acknowledge it is contentious but point out that it is legitimate to discuss,” he said.
These grey areas are going to be extremely difficult for the social media firms to tackle, they say, but after the tragedy unfolding in New Zealand, many believe they must try harder.
Google Duo, a new video chat app that works exclusively on phones, is getting released today. I’ve been using it for about a week and I can tell you that it’s fast, easy to use, and devoid of complicated bells and whistles. You tap on the face of the person you want to call, they answer, and you have a one-on-one video chat going. Nobody who uses this app can say that Google didn’t achieve its goal of creating a video chat app that’s relentlessly, explicitly designed solely for phones.
That effort is so single-minded I can’t decide if it’s timid or bold.
First, a bit about how Duo works. It’s available on both Android phones and iPhones. When you sign up, the app checks your phone number from your SIM and then sends you a confirmation text. That’s the whole setup process — there are no accounts to create nor friend lists to maintain. It’s tied directly to your contacts list and your phone number.
That’s great for simplicity, but bad if you want to use Duo on anything other than your phone. It’s also unable to make conference calls, put Hangouts-style funny pirate hats on your head during a call, or offer just about any other fancy feature you might expect from a video conference app.
Duo’s radical simplicity is by design, says vice president of Google’s communications division, Nick Fox. “By being laser-focused on mobile,” he says, “it enables us to just make sure that we were doing a great, wonderful job on that case. … For us, we thought ‘amazing on mobile, nothing on desktop’ was the better approach.”
There is one feature in Duo that feels genuinely new: it’s called “Knock Knock.” When you receive a call on Android (it doesn’t work on the iPhone), your entire screen starts showing the live video from your caller before you even answer. It lets you see who’s calling — and lets the caller make funny faces to try to entice you to answer. Google’s promo video for Duo emphasizes it heavily:
In my testing, Knock Knock worked very well — and it has the added benefit of making the call start immediately. The video call is already running the nanosecond you swipe up to answer it. “Instead of the call starting with frustration and confusion,” Fox says, “you start with a smile because you know it already works.” I don’t know about the smile, but I do know that Duo calls started without all the “Hello, are you there?” that I typically experience with most other video and audio calls.
For those worried about people hijacking their screen with a video feed while they’re at dinner or a meeting, a few notes to ease your mind. First, Knock Knock only works with people you already have saved in your contacts — so random people won’t show up. Second, you can block a caller if you like — but take note that since Duo doesn’t have its own independent friends list, blocking a caller on Duo blocks them everywhere. Last, you can turn the feature off entirely if you don’t like it.
Google also has done a lot of work on the back end to make things feel immediate. It’s based on WebRTC, with some added technical underpinnings to make the call automatically ratchet the quality up or down depending on your connection quality. It’s even able to maintain the call when you switch from Wi-Fi to cellular. After a very brief hiccup, the call just keeps on going.
I mostly tested Duo on a Nexus 5X (running the latest Android Nougat Beta), where call quality was mostly good — better on Wi-Fi, but never so bad that it dropped completely. On the iPhone 6S, call quality was equally good. However, because Google doesn’t have the same ability to integrate on iOS as it does on Android, there are a few hassles: no Knock Knock, and you have to unlock the phone before you answer the call.
Duo is the second of the two apps Google announced at its developer conference this past May. The other is the AI-enhanced text messaging app Allo, for which Google hasn’t yet announced a release date. That’s odd enough, but perhaps not as confusing as Google’s overall strategy with communication apps: instead of fixing its unified solution, Hangouts, Google has opted to release two different (but slightly related) messaging apps: one for video and one for text.
Neither app is designed to replace Google’s other video and messaging app, Hangouts. Instead, Hangouts will continue to exist with a more tightly focused mission: serving enterprise users, where Fox says we can expect “it will increasingly be more integrated with Google Apps suite.” It will still be available for consumers, of course, but those users won’t be the focus of future product development.
And Fox is also not especially concerned that Google is offering a multiplicity of communication apps. He sees Google’s products as split broadly into three bands: Allo and Duo for consumers; Hangouts for the enterprise; and services that are more carrier focused — like SMS, RCS, and even the Phone app. Fox believes that consumers simply aren’t confused by a multiplicity of messaging apps — whether they’re made by Google or not — “People use the apps that their friends are using,” he says. And he’s excited to see Duo (and, later, Allo) compete with all of them head-to-head.
How Duo will actually compete was (and is) one of my biggest questions. Why use Duo when Facebook Messenger, Snapchat, FaceTime, Hangouts, and any number of other options exist? Is Google going to leverage the massive power of the Android install base somehow? Will Duo be part of the standard suite of Google Play apps preinstalled on the vast majority of Android phones (outside of China)? “We haven’t made decisions on that yet,” says Fox. “We want to get it out there, see how it does, and then I see distribution as the next step rather than the first step.”
When I said up top that I couldn’t decide whether Google’s strategy with Duo was bold or timid, this is what I was referring to. It’s not going to be the automatic default for all Android phones, replacing phone calls in the way that iMessage replaces SMS. Google isn’t ready to go there just yet, which feels timid.
But it’s also bold. In this incredibly crowded marketplace, Google is forcing Duo to compete on its own merits. You can invite somebody to use it by sending them a text from inside the app, but otherwise the plan seems to just be to see how it is received in the marketplace. I asked some variant of “how are you going to get users for this thing” no fewer than four times in my hour with Fox, and every time the answer boiled down to this: “We’re focused on building great apps that people love and distribution will follow that.”
I have no idea if that plan will work: sometimes boldness is just naiveté. But I can’t help but respect the clarity of purpose behind the creation of Duo. It’s aggressively, obsessively focused on making the best possible mobile experience for video chat, at the expense of all else. He said no to desktop, no to conference calling, no even to allowing the same account to work on multiple devices. For the Duo team, getting “mobile first” right meant demanding it be “mobile only.”
Duo does one-on-one video chat very well, which is what Google set out to make it do. The question now is whether or not that’s enough.
The central London summit has been convened following evidence to suggest that social networking sites and messaging services were used to co-ordinate criminality during the riots earlier this month.
The meeting will focus on ways of improving the technological and legal capabilities of the police in the future.
Commenting on today’s meeting, a spokesperson from the Home Office explained: “These discussions will help us determine how law enforcement and the networks can work better together.”
The spokesperson continued: “Among the issues to be discussed is whether and how we should be able to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”
The Home Office statement also says: “Social networking is not a cause of the recent disturbances, but a means of enabling criminals to communicate. We are working with the police to see what action can be taken to prevent access to those services by customers identified as perpetrators of disorder or other criminal action.”
The Home Secretary explained her intention to meet with social media representatives during a speech in Parliament on 11 August.
At that time, Theresa May told MPs: “Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter and messaging services like BlackBerry Messenger have been used to co-ordinate criminality, and stay one step ahead of the police.”
“I will convene a meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers, police and representatives from the social media industry to work out how we can improve the technological and related legal capabilities of the police.”
Representatives of the three major social networks used during the London and wider England riots earlier this month – Facebook, Twitter and Research in Motion’s BlackBerry Messenger service – have all been called to the Home Office.
Facebook has confirmed its attendance, while Research In Motion (RIM) – developer of the excellent BlackBerry smartphones – said it “welcomes the opportunity for consultation together with other companies in the technology and telecommunications industry”.
A statement from Facebook says: “We look forward to meeting with the Home Secretary to explain the measures we have been taking to ensure that Facebook is a safe and positive platform for people in the UK at this challenging time”.
Pleasingly, many responsible Facebook users ‘self-policed’ the site and duly reported any content they felt may be deliberately inciting violence or disorder.
Two men have been given jail terms for trying to incite the riots on Facebook. 20-year-old Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, were both sentenced to four years, although neither of the events the men attempted to organise actually took place.
The sentences were passed by the Crown Court in Chester.
The Crown Prosecution Service stated that both men pleaded guilty to ‘intentionally encouraging another to assist the commission of an indictable offence’ under Sections 44 and 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007.
The presiding judge said that, even though the men’s call for violence and rioting was not ‘actioned’ by anyone, the sentences were meant to act as a ‘deterrent’ in the wake of the riots.
Civil rights and penal reform groups have subsequently criticised some of the sentences handed down as ‘disproportionate.’
Today’s meeting comes in the wake of David Cameron’s speech in Parliament when he suggested that Government should be able to ‘disconnect’ social and phone networks to prevent civil disorder.
“Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media,” said the Prime Minister. “Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill.”
Speaking at the specially convened Parliamentary session, Cameron continued: “When people are using social media for violence we need to stop them, so we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”
Any move to ‘disconnect’ potential rioters would certainly mark a fundamental shift in Britain’s stated Internet policy, with free speech advocates likely to accuse the Government of attempting to usher in a new wave of online censorship.
Cameron also said: “There were an awful lot of hoaxes and false trails made on Twitter and BlackBerry Messenger. We require a major piece of work to make sure that the police have all the technological capabilities they need to hunt down and beat the criminals.”
Certainly, Research in Motion is under some degree of pressure to explain its actions during the riots after BlackBerry users apparently employed the secure BlackBerry Messenger application to disseminate targets for rioting and looting.
Twitter’s officials famously said during the riots that “the tweets must flow”, but that hasn’t been seen as a responsible stance by all law enforcement agencies.
Meantime, it’s reported that MI5 and electronics interception agency GCHQ have been brought in by the Government in an attempt to ‘crack’ the BlackBerry encryption so as to help prevent further disorder.
Google is announcing a new messaging app today. It’s called Allo and its main feature is a Google assistant that’s built right in. Google says it’ll be available later this summer — for free — on both iOS and Android.
Allo (pronounced like “Aloe” and not like “‘allo, guv’nor!”) is a mobile-only app that you might think is meant to replace Google’s other messaging app, Hangouts. But you’d be wrong. Allo is explicitly meant to be a fresh start for Google’s new communication’s division (which also runs Hangouts and Project Fi).
“It’s really liberating to start from scratch sometimes,” says Erik Kay, director of engineering, communications products. And Allo does feel like a fresh new start. Its interface is clean and easy to understand, with some clever little innovations on what you’ve seen in other chat apps like WhatsApp or Messenger.
Let’s start with the basics. You sign up with your phone number and you can connect your Google account to it, though there’s no need to. You can see the usual chat app stuff: there are sent and received indicators, emoji, and a big set of custom stickers. Amit Fulay, group product manager on Google’s communications products team, says that Google commissioned stickers from artists with an eye toward ensuring there was a wide diversity of options — stuff that would work in India, as well as in America.
When you send a photo, it shows up full-bleed in the screen and you can even doodle on it if you want. Another neat trick: before you hit send, you can drag your finger up or down on the button to enlarge or shrink the text. Google calls it “WhisperShout.”
If that were all there were to Allo, it wouldn’t really have a reason to exist. It certainly wouldn’t give you a good reason to switch away from whatever chat app (or, more likely, chat apps) you’re currently using. But Google thinks the secret weapon it has in the battle for your thumbs is… Google.
More specifically, it’s the Google assistant, the new conversational interface you can use to get information from Google. You can set up a conversation with @google and ask it all sorts of questions. It’ll respond with the stuff you’ve come to expect from typing into a Google search box — but it’ll also engage in a bit of a conversation with you. It’ll suggest further searches, and give you ways to do things that Google can do — like book a table with OpenTable.
And Google’s chatbot is smarter than other chatbots. It has the power of Google’s Knowledge Graph, which understands many thousands of “entities” and how they relate to each other. So you can ask more complicated questions that couldn’t be resolved just by crawling the web. And if you get bored, you can ask @google to start a game like “guess the movie based on a string of emoji.”
But where @google gets more interesting is inside your conversation with your friends. When they send you a message, Allo puts some suggested replies at the bottom. They’re called “suggestion chips” and they’re powered by a massive and massively smart machine learning engine.
In the example Google showed us, a graduation photo came through. The suggested replies were along the lines of “Congratulations!” and “You look great!” Think for a moment about what it takes to do that. Google recognized it was a graduation photo and then went a step beyond just guessing what it was, it guessed at appropriate responses. And even beyond that, the responses are grouped into little meaning clusters — so you get a range of possible reactions instead of just variations on the same theme.
Google builds up these suggestion chips based on the machine learning it can apply to the way that you actually type. Kay told us that his suggestions were the text-version of smileys because he prefers to use those over actual emoji.
When you “invoke” @google in a chat either by hitting one of those suggestion chips or just typing @google, both you and everybody you’re chatting with can see and respond to the answers. So picking a restaurant becomes a group activity where everybody is looking at what you’re looking for and helping pick the right one. And debates about who starred in that movie you saw can be resolved immediately and definitively.
At this point, you’re probably a little creeped out, so let me tell you what the privacy rules are with Allo. First, all conversations are encrypted “on the wire,” which means that nobody on the internet can read them as you send your message. They are read by Google’s servers, but Kay assures me that the data is stored “transiently,” which is to say that Google doesn’t keep your chat logs around to be subpoenaed. And Fulay adds that Google doesn’t assign identity to the chat logs on those servers even then.
If that’s not strong enough for you, there’s also an Incognito Mode — similar to Incognito Mode on Chrome. When you enable it, your conversation is encrypted end-to-end and Google can’t read it at all. And notifications from Incognito chats don’t reveal their contents on your lock screen, either. It means you won’t get the power of the Google assistant, but it also ensures a higher level of privacy. Both Kay and Fulay tell me that Google plans on adding other features to Incognito in the future, such as expiring messages.
ALLO IS FAST AND GOOGLE IS POWERFUL, BUT IS THAT ENOUGH?
At several points during the demo, I couldn’t help but think that nothing that I was seeing the Google assistant do was strictly new. But Google, it turns out, is really good at this sort of thing and has been for a long time — so even though the only new functionality here is the conversational interface itself, it still felt pretty powerful.
But there are limits to Allo, and the biggest one is that the only chatbot you’ll be talking to is Google. The company isn’t diving into the deep end with chatbots in the way that virtually every other tech giant on the planet (save Apple) seems to be doing. Kay says that Google wants “to be thoughtful about bringing multiple things in until we get the interaction right.”
That’s probably a fine decision for now, especially given the lackluster experience many have had with bots on Facebook Messenger so far. But this is a space that’s heating up quickly, so Google may find that it needs to move quickly to keep up.
Speaking of keeping up: Google flat-out hasn’t in the messaging space. Hangouts was supposed to be a grand reset and Google’s big entry into the field — the company told us as much three years ago. Instead, Hangouts has become something of a rueful, inside joke among Android users. The iOS version is more advanced, but it too could stand to be cleaned up a bit. On the desktop, it still feels like it was designed for a previous age.
And so the big question that any messaging app — especially one from Google — has to face is really simple: how are you going to get people to use your app? Whatsapp and Messenger are nearing or passing a billion monthly active users, and there’s an army of chat apps vying for users installs too: WeChat, QQ, Line. And of course, there’s iMessage.
IT’S VERY HARD TO COMPETE WITH CHAT APPS THAT HAVE A BILLION USERS
Kay says that the diversity of Android hardware precludes Google from creating an iMessage-like system that co-opts SMS — not to mention that Allo also needs to work on iOS. Instead, the plan for acquiring users for Allo seems a little, well, unformed. Rather than talk about jump-starting user growth, Fulay emphasized that Google is just focused on making a good app: “The first order of business is just nail the product… make sure we have a product people love.” Kay says that “if you don’t have a great product that users love and are willing to recommend to their friends, then there’s no sense in worrying about distribution.”
I’ll admit that I think Allo looks like a great product (though I wish that it wasn’t strictly phone number-based and mobile-only and therefore tied to to a single phone). But as we’ve watched other messaging platforms achieve billion-user scale, I also think that convincing them to switch is going to be very hard. Talking to Google in a chat app looks pretty great, but who you really want to talk to are your friends. Right now, they’re using something else.
Google can’t undo the mistakes it made with Hangouts over the past three years, it can only move forward with a new (and better) app. Allo is definitely both of those things, but it will need to be even more than that to really challenge Facebook and Apple.
Leonardo DiCaprio wins first Oscar as Hollywood faces issue of race 3:24
Five-time Oscar nominee Leonardo DiCaprio finally took home a gold statuette as “Mad Max: Fury Road” and diversity dominated Hollywood’s biggest night of the year.
The 88th Academy Awards have been steeped in controversy over their overwhelmingly white nominees — triggering #OscarsSoWhite and calls for a boycott.
Host Chris Rock signaled early on that he’d address the elephant in the room — joking about the upcoming “White BET Awards” in a promo for the event last month.
Dozens of protesters converged near the Oscars venue on Sunday holding signs with slogans such as “Hollywood Must Do Better” as stars walked the industry’s most celebrated red carpet.
If there were any doubts he’d tackle the issue head-on at the main event, Rock put those to rest in the opening moments of Sunday night’s showwhich he immediately dubbed the “white people’s choice awards.”
“You realize, if they nominated hosts, I wouldn’t even have this job,” he cracked.
Rock went on to deliver a scorching monologue, noted how Oscars diversity was an issue this year but not in the 1950s or 60s when blacks had “real things to protest.”
“We were too busy being raped and lynched to care about who won best cinematographer,” he said. “You know, when your grandmother’s swinging from a tree, it’s really hard to care about Best Documentary Foreign Short.”
While Rock delivered a stream of snappy punchlines, he also took time to send a straight message to the crowd by wrapping up with the simple statement: “We want opportunity.”
With that the stream of gold statuettes were rolled out — earning several rising stars and some veteran actors the coveted award in an evening which repeatedly touched on the theme of diversity and social justice.
“Spotlight,” which chronicled the Boston Globe’s explosive investigation into child sex abuse by Catholic priests, won best picture.
“We would not be here today without the heroic efforts of our reporters,” producer Blye Pagon Faust said while accepting the night’s top honor. “Not only do they effect global change, but they absolutely show us the necessity for investigative journalism.”
The film also won best original screenplay.
“The Revenant” — which went into the Academy Awards with a leading 12 nominations — earned Alexjandro Gonzalez-Inarritu a second Best Director Oscar. The Mexican director had nabbed the same prize in 2015 for “Birdman” and on Sunday became the first filmmaker in over 60 years to win back-to-back Academy Awards.
Leonardo DiCaprio, Alejandro Inarritu Revel in ‘The Revenant’4:07
“What a great opportunity for our generation to really liberate ourselves from all prejudice and this tribal thinking and to make sure for once and forever that the color of our skin becomes as irrelevant as the length of our hair,” Inarritu said.
And then, there was DiCaprio, who drew a standing ovation from the star-packed audience.
DiCaprio’s portrayal of a fur trapper in “The Revenant” beat out “Trumbo”‘s Bryan Cranston, “The Martian”‘s Matt Damon, “The Danish Girl”‘s Eddie Redmayne and “Steve Jobs”‘ Michael Fassbender.
The environmental activist took a moment to thank family, friends and colleagues — but used his acceptance speech to send a message about climate change, too.
“Let us not take this planet for granted,” DiCaprio said. “I do not take tonight for granted. Thank you so very much.”
While “The Revenant” may have led the number of nominations, “Mad Max: Fury Road” was the biggest winner of the night.
It took home six Oscars — largely in technical categories like costumes and make-up — prompting such raucous backstage celebrations that the film’s sound editors didn’t hear their colleagues’ name announced for another win for sound mixing.
Rock made sure diversity remained front and center. He jokingly introduced actress Stacey Dash — who recently drew fire for suggesting there should be no Black History Month — as director of the Oscar’s minority outreach program.
While that joke fell flat, the comedian came through with a plethora of other punchlines throughout the evening. One sketch where Oscar-nominated films starred additional black actors was a particular highlight.
Rock also at one point told the audience that Hollywood might not be “burning cross racist” but “a difference kind of racist.”
“Hollywood is sorority racist. It’s like: We like you Rhonda, but you’re not a Kappa,” he said.
Adam McKay, who won for best adapted screenplay, was among many praising Rock’s “great” approach.
“It was jabbing at Hollywood yet at the same time evenhanded and kind of dealing with like a new era of sort of how we discuss diversity,” he said. “I thought it was very evenhanded, and really impressive and really funny.”
Rock wasn’t just offering up laughs and entertainment — he also helped stars satisfy their sweet tooths. The comedian’s daughter and her Girl Scout troop were in the Dolby Theater armed with Girl Scout Cookies, hawking their wares to hungry celebrities like Steven Spielberg and Christian Bale.
The best actress prize went to rising star Brie Larson for her portrayal of a mother held captive in the indie hit “Room,” while Alicia Vikander won best supporting actress for “The Danish Girl.”
Brie Larson: A Long Process of Trying to Find Myself 4:12
Both she and first-time nominee Mark Rylance — who won best support actor for his role in “Bridge of Spies” — fell victim to the dreaded orchestra playing stars offstage during their acceptance speeches.
The Academy Awards producers had warned attendees they’d have no more than 45 seconds to say their pieces onstage.
“Amy,” about the late singer Amy Winehouse, took home the prize for best documentary feature film while “A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness” won the best documentary short Oscar.
The evening also featured a moving performance of Lady Gaga’s Oscar-nominated “Til It Happens to You” — with survivors joining the singer onstage for the song about sexual assault following an introduction by Vice President Joe Biden.
The prize for best song ultimately though went to British singer Sam Smith. He dedicated his win for the theme song in James Bond film “Spectre” to the gay community, telling the A-list crowd that “‘I stand here tonight as a proud gay man and I hope that we can all stand together as equals one day.”
Italian composer Ennio Morricone, 87, also took home his first Oscar for his work on on an individual film. Morricone — who was awarded an honorary Academy Award in 2007 — bagged a statuette Sunday for best original score for his work on “The Hateful Eight.”
The best foreign language film Oscar went to “Son of Saul,” which tells the story of a Jewish man forced to work at a Nazi death camp and earned Hungary its second prize in the category.
Meanwhile, Pixar’s “Inside Out” won the best animated feature film Academy Award.
With diversity the main theme of the night, there was at least one fresh example of how far Hollywood still has to go.
The website Total Beauty tweeted a picture of Whoopi Goldberg arriving at the Oscars — but mistakenly confused her with Oprah Winfrey.
The error drew swift condemnation — and an apology from Total Beauty, which said it would be donating $10,000 to Goldberg and Winfrey’s charity of choice.
The president of the Academy Awards, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, touched on the issues still facing the industry in remarks Sunday at the ceremony.
“It’s not enough to just listen and agree: We must take action,” she said. “While change is often difficult, it is necessary. Dr. Martin Luther King once said, ‘The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands in times of challenge and controversy.’ I am confident that, together, we can shape a future of which all of us can be proud.”
Every year, you enter awards season with the best of intentions. You’re determined to see every Oscar nominee (even the shorts!), or at least every major nominee (sorry, French Foreign Film hopeful Mustang), or at the very, very least every film that got a Best Picture nod.
And then, inevitably, life happens.
The beginning of the year is a busy time, entertainment-wise. It’s tough to muster up the energy to spend two and a half hours watching Leonardo DiCaprio grunt and crawl his way across the Canadian wilderness. Hell, even Hugh Jackman didn’t see The Reader the year he hosted the show.
Lucky for the Oscar slackers among us, though, there’s still time to take in the night’s most celebrated films — in several cases, from the comfort of your own home. Here’s how.
The Big Short
Remember how you can stream, rent or buy some of the Best Picture nominees? Yeah, The Big Short isn’t one of them. You’ll have to catch this one in movie theaters for now; it’ll be out on DVD/Blu-ray/etc. on March 15.
Whip up some baked potatoes and watch Matt Damon problem-solve via YouTube, iTunes,Amazon, Vudu and Google Play — all of which offer the options of renting or buying The Martian. The less space-age among us can also find the movie on DVD and Blu-ray.
Sorry, bear enthusiasts: You currently have no option but to watch this one in a movie theater. (To be fair, this is one film that really benefits from a big screen.)
The journalism thriller of the year — seriously! — can still be found in select theaters. You can also help fight the good fight by buying the movie on YouTube, iTunes, Amazon, Vudu or Google Play. (You can’t rent it yet; that’d be like using your mom’s login to read the New York Times.)
Want to see every single nominee on the very same day, you madman/woman you? You’re in luck: Select AMC theaters are showing a massive Best Picture nominees marathon that begins Saturday, Feb. 27 at 10:30 a.m. and ends Oscar Sunday in the wee small hours of the morning.See here for details. (On Saturday the 27th, a much larger number of theaters will be showingfour of this year’s nominees in a row: Brooklyn, Spotlight, The Martian and The Revenant. Bridge of Spies, Room, Mad Max and The Big Short all played last Saturday.)
Wait, what’s on Netflix?
Disappointed that your Netflix subscription won’t do you any good when it comes to Best Picture nominees? Don’t be: Three of 2016’s Best Documentary Feature nominees (Cartel Land, Winter on Fire: Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom, and What Happened, Miss Simone?) are all streaming there.
The other two best docs — Amy and The Look of Silence — can be purchased or rented from the usual suspects (iTunes, Amazon, YouTube, etc.) as well.