#Business Leadership in Digital Age | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mostlysignssomeportents · 6 months ago

Text

The disenshittified internet starts with loyal "user agents"

I'm in TARTU, ESTONIA! Overcoming the Enshittocene (TOMORROW, May 8, 6PM, Prima Vista Literary Festival keynote, University of Tartu Library, Struwe 1). AI, copyright and creative workers' labor rights (May 10, 8AM: Science Fiction Research Association talk, Institute of Foreign Languages and Cultures building, Lossi 3, lobby). A talk for hackers on seizing the means of computation (May 10, 3PM, University of Tartu Delta Centre, Narva 18, room 1037).

There's one overwhelmingly common mistake that people make about enshittification: assuming that the contagion is the result of the Great Forces of History, or that it is the inevitable end-point of any kind of for-profit online world.

In other words, they class enshittification as an ideological phenomenon, rather than as a material phenomenon. Corporate leaders have always felt the impulse to enshittify their offerings, shifting value from end users, business customers and their own workers to their shareholders. The decades of largely enshittification-free online services were not the product of corporate leaders with better ideas or purer hearts. Those years were the result of constraints on the mediocre sociopaths who would trade our wellbeing and happiness for their own, constraints that forced them to act better than they do today, even if the were not any better:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/naming-names/#prabhakar-raghavan

Corporate leaders' moments of good leadership didn't come from morals, they came from fear. Fear that a competitor would take away a disgruntled customer or worker. Fear that a regulator would punish the company so severely that all gains from cheating would be wiped out. Fear that a rival technology – alternative clients, tracker blockers, third-party mods and plugins – would emerge that permanently severed the company's relationship with their customers. Fears that key workers in their impossible-to-replace workforce would leave for a job somewhere else rather than participate in the enshittification of the services they worked so hard to build:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/22/kargo-kult-kaptialism/#dont-buy-it

When those constraints melted away – thanks to decades of official tolerance for monopolies, which led to regulatory capture and victory over the tech workforce – the same mediocre sociopaths found themselves able to pursue their most enshittificatory impulses without fear.

The effects of this are all around us. In This Is Your Phone On Feminism, the great Maria Farrell describes how audiences at her lectures profess both love for their smartphones and mistrust for them. Farrell says, "We love our phones, but we do not trust them. And love without trust is the definition of an abusive relationship":

https://conversationalist.org/2019/09/13/feminism-explains-our-toxic-relationships-with-our-smartphones/

I (re)discovered this Farrell quote in a paper by Robin Berjon, who recently co-authored a magnificent paper with Farrell entitled "We Need to Rewild the Internet":

https://www.noemamag.com/we-need-to-rewild-the-internet/

The new Berjon paper is narrower in scope, but still packed with material examples of the way the internet goes wrong and how it can be put right. It's called "The Fiduciary Duties of User Agents":

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3827421

In "Fiduciary Duties," Berjon focuses on the technical term "user agent," which is how web browsers are described in formal standards documents. This notion of a "user agent" is a holdover from a more civilized age, when technologists tried to figure out how to build a new digital space where technology served users.

A web browser that's a "user agent" is a comforting thought. An agent's job is to serve you and your interests. When you tell it to fetch a web-page, your agent should figure out how to get that page, make sense of the code that's embedded in, and render the page in a way that represents its best guess of how you'd like the page seen.

For example, the user agent might judge that you'd like it to block ads. More than half of all web users have installed ad-blockers, constituting the largest consumer boycott in human history:

https://doc.searls.com/2023/11/11/how-is-the-worlds-biggest-boycott-doing/

Your user agent might judge that the colors on the page are outside your visual range. Maybe you're colorblind, in which case, the user agent could shift the gamut of the colors away from the colors chosen by the page's creator and into a set that suits you better:

https://dankaminsky.com/dankam/

Or maybe you (like me) have a low-vision disability that makes low-contrast type difficult to impossible to read, and maybe the page's creator is a thoughtless dolt who's chosen light grey-on-white type, or maybe they've fallen prey to the absurd urban legend that not-quite-black type is somehow more legible than actual black type:

https://uxplanet.org/basicdesign-never-use-pure-black-in-typography-36138a3327a6

The user agent is loyal to you. Even when you want something the page's creator didn't consider – even when you want something the page's creator violently objects to – your user agent acts on your behalf and delivers your desires, as best as it can.

Now – as Berjon points out – you might not know exactly what you want. Like, you know that you want the privacy guarantees of TLS (the difference between "http" and "https") but not really understand the internal cryptographic mysteries involved. Your user agent might detect evidence of shenanigans indicating that your session isn't secure, and choose not to show you the web-page you requested.

This is only superficially paradoxical. Yes, you asked your browser for a web-page. Yes, the browser defied your request and declined to show you that page. But you also asked your browser to protect you from security defects, and your browser made a judgment call and decided that security trumped delivery of the page. No paradox needed.

But of course, the person who designed your user agent/browser can't anticipate all the ways this contradiction might arise. Like, maybe you're trying to access your own website, and you know that the security problem the browser has detected is the result of your own forgetful failure to renew your site's cryptographic certificate. At that point, you can tell your browser, "Thanks for having my back, pal, but actually this time it's fine. Stand down and show me that webpage."

That's your user agent serving you, too.

User agents can be well-designed or they can be poorly made. The fact that a user agent is designed to act in accord with your desires doesn't mean that it always will. A software agent, like a human agent, is not infallible.

However – and this is the key – if a user agent thwarts your desire due to a fault, that is fundamentally different from a user agent that thwarts your desires because it is designed to serve the interests of someone else, even when that is detrimental to your own interests.

A "faithless" user agent is utterly different from a "clumsy" user agent, and faithless user agents have become the norm. Indeed, as crude early internet clients progressed in sophistication, they grew increasingly treacherous. Most non-browser tools are designed for treachery.

A smart speaker or voice assistant routes all your requests through its manufacturer's servers and uses this to build a nonconsensual surveillance dossier on you. Smart speakers and voice assistants even secretly record your speech and route it to the manufacturer's subcontractors, whether or not you're explicitly interacting with them:

https://www.sciencealert.com/creepy-new-amazon-patent-would-mean-alexa-records-everything-you-say-from-now-on

By design, apps and in-app browsers seek to thwart your preferences regarding surveillance and tracking. An app will even try to figure out if you're using a VPN to obscure your location from its maker, and snitch you out with its guess about your true location.

Mobile phones assign persistent tracking IDs to their owners and transmit them without permission (to its credit, Apple recently switch to an opt-in system for transmitting these IDs) (but to its detriment, Apple offers no opt-out from its own tracking, and actively lies about the very existence of this tracking):

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

An Android device running Chrome and sitting inert, with no user interaction, transmits location data to Google every five minutes. This is the "resting heartbeat" of surveillance for an Android device. Ask that device to do any work for you and its pulse quickens, until it is emitting a nearly continuous stream of information about your activities to Google:

https://digitalcontentnext.org/blog/2018/08/21/google-data-collection-research/

These faithless user agents both reflect and enable enshittification. The locked-down nature of the hardware and operating systems for Android and Ios devices means that manufacturers – and their business partners – have an arsenal of legal weapons they can use to block anyone who gives you a tool to modify the device's behavior. These weapons are generically referred to as "IP rights" which are, broadly speaking, the right to control the conduct of a company's critics, customers and competitors:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

A canny tech company can design their products so that any modification that puts the user's interests above its shareholders is illegal, a violation of its copyright, patent, trademark, trade secrets, contracts, terms of service, nondisclosure, noncompete, most favored nation, or anticircumvention rights. Wrap your product in the right mix of IP, and its faithless betrayals acquire the force of law.

This is – in Jay Freeman's memorable phrase – "felony contempt of business model." While more than half of all web users have installed an ad-blocker, thus overriding the manufacturer's defaults to make their browser a more loyal agent, no app users have modified their apps with ad-blockers.

The first step of making such a blocker, reverse-engineering the app, creates criminal liability under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $500,000 fine. An app is just a web-page skinned in sufficient IP to make it a felony to add an ad-blocker to it (no wonder every company wants to coerce you into using its app, rather than its website).

If you know that increasing the invasiveness of the ads on your web-page could trigger mass installations of ad-blockers by your users, it becomes irrational and self-defeating to ramp up your ads' invasiveness. The possibility of interoperability acts as a constraint on tech bosses' impulse to enshittify their products.

The shift to platforms dominated by treacherous user agents – apps, mobile ecosystems, walled gardens – weakens or removes that constraint. As your ability to discipline your agent so that it serves you wanes, the temptation to turn your user agent against you grows, and enshittification follows.

This has been tacitly understood by technologists since the web's earliest days and has been reaffirmed even as enshittification increased. Berjon quotes extensively from "The Internet Is For End-Users," AKA Internet Architecture Board RFC 8890:

Defining the user agent role in standards also creates a virtuous cycle; it allows multiple implementations, allowing end users to switch between them with relatively low costs (…). This creates an incentive for implementers to consider the users' needs carefully, which are often reflected into the defining standards. The resulting ecosystem has many remaining problems, but a distinguished user agent role provides an opportunity to improve it.

And the W3C's Technical Architecture Group echoes these sentiments in "Web Platform Design Principles," which articulates a "Priority of Constituencies" that is supposed to be central to the W3C's mission:

User needs come before the needs of web page authors, which come before the needs of user agent implementors, which come before the needs of specification writers, which come before theoretical purity.

https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/

But the W3C's commitment to faithful agents is contingent on its own members' commitment to these principles. In 2017, the W3C finalized "EME," a standard for blocking mods that interact with streaming videos. Nominally aimed at preventing copyright infringement, EME also prevents users from choosing to add accessibility add-ons that beyond the ones the streaming service permits. These services may support closed captioning and additional narration of visual elements, but they block tools that adapt video for color-blind users or prevent strobe effects that trigger seizures in users with photosensitive epilepsy.

The fight over EME was the most contentious struggle in the W3C's history, in which the organization's leadership had to decide whether to honor the "priority of constituencies" and make a standard that allowed users to override manufacturers, or whether to facilitate the creation of faithless agents specifically designed to thwart users' desires on behalf of manufacturers:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/open-letter-w3c-director-ceo-team-and-membership

This fight was settled in favor of a handful of extremely large and powerful companies, over the objections of a broad collection of smaller firms, nonprofits representing users, academics and other parties agitating for a web built on faithful agents. This coincided with the W3C's operating budget becoming entirely dependent on the very large sums its largest corporate members paid.

W3C membership is on a sliding scale, based on a member's size. Nominally, the W3C is a one-member, one-vote organization, but when a highly concentrated collection of very high-value members flex their muscles, W3C leadership seemingly perceived an existential risk to the organization, and opted to sacrifice the faithfulness of user agents in service to the anti-user priorities of its largest members.

For W3C's largest corporate members, the fight was absolutely worth it. The W3C's EME standard transformed the web, making it impossible to ship a fully featured web-browser without securing permission – and a paid license – from one of the cartel of companies that dominate the internet. In effect, Big Tech used the W3C to secure the right to decide who would compete with them in future, and how:

https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/the-end-of-indie-web-browsers/

Enshittification arises when the everyday mediocre sociopaths who run tech companies are freed from the constraints that act against them. When the web – and its browsers – were a big, contented, diverse, competitive space, it was harder for tech companies to collude to capture standards bodies like the W3C to secure even more dominance. As the web turned into Tom Eastman's "five giant websites filled with screenshots of text from the other four," that kind of collusion became much easier:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/18/cursed-are-the-sausagemakers/#how-the-parties-get-to-yes

In arguing for faithful agents, Berjon associates himself with the group of scholars, regulators and activists who call for user agents to serve as "information fiduciaries." Mostly, information fiduciaries come up in the context of user privacy, with the idea that entities that hold a user's data would have the obligation to put the user's interests ahead of their own. Think of a lawyer's fiduciary duty in respect of their clients, to give advice that reflects the client's best interests, even when that conflicts with the lawyer's own self-interest. For example, a lawyer who believes that settling a case is the best course of action for a client is required to tell them so, even if keeping the case going would generate more billings for the lawyer and their firm.

For a user agent to be faithful, it must be your fiduciary. It must put your interests ahead of the interests of the entity that made it or operates it. Browsers, email clients, and other internet software that served as a fiduciary would do things like automatically blocking tracking (which most email clients don't do, especially webmail clients made by companies like Google, who also sell advertising and tracking).

Berjon contemplates a legally mandated fiduciary duty, citing Lindsey Barrett's "Confiding in Con Men":

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3354129

He describes a fiduciary duty as a remedy for the enforcement failures of EU's GDPR, a solidly written, and dismally enforced, privacy law. A legally backstopped duty for agents to be fiduciaries would also help us distinguish good and bad forms of "innovation" – innovation in ways of thwarting a user's will are always bad.

Now, the tech giants insist that they are already fiduciaries, and that when they thwart a user's request, that's more like blocking access to a page where the encryption has been compromised than like HAL9000's "I can't let you do that, Dave." For example, when Louis Barclay created "Unfollow Everything," he (and his enthusiastic users) found that automating the process of unfollowing every account on Facebook made their use of the service significantly better:

https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-everything-cease-desist.html

When Facebook shut the service down with blood-curdling legal threats, they insisted that they were simply protecting users from themselves. Sure, this browser automation tool – which just automatically clicked links on Facebook's own settings pages – seemed to do what the users wanted. But what if the user interface changed? What if so many users added this feature to Facebook without Facebook's permission that they overwhelmed Facebook's (presumably tiny and fragile) servers and crashed the system?

These arguments have lately resurfaced with Ethan Zuckerman and Knight First Amendment Institute's lawsuit to clarify that "Unfollow Everything 2.0" is legal and doesn't violate any of those "felony contempt of business model" laws:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/02/kaiju-v-kaiju/

Sure, Zuckerman seems like a good guy, but what if he makes a mistake and his automation tool does something you don't want? You, the Facebook user, are also a nice guy, but let's face it, you're also a naive dolt and you can't be trusted to make decisions for yourself. Those decisions can only be made by Facebook, whom we can rely upon to exercise its authority wisely.

Other versions of this argument surfaced in the debate over the EU's decision to mandate interoperability for end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) messaging through the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which would let you switch from, say, Whatsapp to Signal and still send messages to your Whatsapp contacts.

There are some good arguments that this could go horribly awry. If it is rushed, or internally sabotaged by the EU's state security services who loathe the privacy that comes from encrypted messaging, it could expose billions of people to serious risks.

But that's not the only argument that DMA opponents made: they also argued that even if interoperable messaging worked perfectly and had no security breaches, it would still be bad for users, because this would make it impossible for tech giants like Meta, Google and Apple to spy on message traffic (if not its content) and identify likely coordinated harassment campaigns. This is literally the identical argument the NSA made in support of its "metadata" mass-surveillance program: "Reading your messages might violate your privacy, but watching your messages doesn't."

This is obvious nonsense, so its proponents need an equally obviously intellectually dishonest way to defend it. When called on the absurdity of "protecting" users by spying on them against their will, they simply shake their heads and say, "You just can't understand the burdens of running a service with hundreds of millions or billions of users, and if I even tried to explain these issues to you, I would divulge secrets that I'm legally and ethically bound to keep. And even if I could tell you, you wouldn't understand, because anyone who doesn't work for a Big Tech company is a naive dolt who can't be trusted to understand how the world works (much like our users)."

Not coincidentally, this is also literally the same argument the NSA makes in support of mass surveillance, and there's a very useful name for it: scalesplaining.

Now, it's totally true that every one of us is capable of lapses in judgment that put us, and the people connected to us, at risk (my own parents gave their genome to the pseudoscience genetic surveillance company 23andme, which means they have my genome, too). A true information fiduciary shouldn't automatically deliver everything the user asks for. When the agent perceives that the user is about to put themselves in harm's way, it should throw up a roadblock and explain the risks to the user.

But the system should also let the user override it.

This is a contentious statement in information security circles. Users can be "socially engineered" (tricked), and even the most sophisticated users are vulnerable to this:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/05/cyber-dunning-kruger/#swiss-cheese-security

The only way to be certain a user won't be tricked into taking a course of action is to forbid that course of action under any circumstances. If there is any means by which a user can flip the "are you very sure?" circuit-breaker back on, then the user can be tricked into using that means.

This is absolutely true. As you read these words, all over the world, vulnerable people are being tricked into speaking the very specific set of directives that cause a suspicious bank-teller to authorize a transfer or cash withdrawal that will result in their life's savings being stolen by a scammer:

https://www.thecut.com/article/amazon-scam-call-ftc-arrest-warrants.html

We keep making it harder for bank customers to make large transfers, but so long as it is possible to make such a transfer, the scammers have the means, motive and opportunity to discover how the process works, and they will go on to trick their victims into invoking that process.

Beyond a certain point, making it harder for bank depositors to harm themselves creates a world in which people who aren't being scammed find it nearly impossible to draw out a lot of cash for an emergency and where scam artists know exactly how to manage the trick. After all, non-scammers only rarely experience emergencies and thus have no opportunity to become practiced in navigating all the anti-fraud checks, while the fraudster gets to run through them several times per day, until they know them even better than the bank staff do.

This is broadly true of any system intended to control users at scale – beyond a certain point, additional security measures are trivially surmounted hurdles for dedicated bad actors and as nearly insurmountable hurdles for their victims:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/07/como-is-infosec/

At this point, we've had a couple of decades' worth of experience with technological "walled gardens" in which corporate executives get to override their users' decisions about how the system should work, even when that means reaching into the users' own computer and compelling it to thwart the user's desire. The record is inarguable: while companies often use those walls to lock bad guys out of the system, they also use the walls to lock their users in, so that they'll be easy pickings for the tech company that owns the system:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/05/battery-vampire/#drained

This is neatly predicted by enshittification's theory of constraints: when a company can override your choices, it will be irresistibly tempted to do so for its own benefit, and to your detriment.

What's more, the mere possibility that you can override the way the system works acts as a disciplining force on corporate executives, forcing them to reckon with your priorities even when these are counter to their shareholders' interests. If Facebook is genuinely worried that an "Unfollow Everything" script will break its servers, it can solve that by giving users an unfollow everything button of its own design. But so long as Facebook can sue anyone who makes an "Unfollow Everything" tool, they have no reason to give their users such a button, because it would give them more control over their Facebook experience, including the controls needed to use Facebook less.

It's been more than 20 years since Seth Schoen and I got a demo of Microsoft's first "trusted computing" system, with its "remote attestations," which would let remote servers demand and receive accurate information about what kind of computer you were using and what software was running on it.

This could be beneficial to the user – you could send a "remote attestation" to a third party you trusted and ask, "Hey, do you think my computer is infected with malicious software?" Since the trusted computing system produced its report on your computer using a sealed, separate processor that the user couldn't directly interact with, any malicious code you were infected with would not be able to forge this attestation.

But this remote attestation feature could also be used to allow Microsoft to block you from opening a Word document with Libreoffice, Apple Pages, or Google Docs, or it could be used to allow a website to refuse to send you pages if you were running an ad-blocker. In other words, it could transform your information fiduciary into a faithless agent.

Seth proposed an answer to this: "owner override," a hardware switch that would allow you to force your computer to lie on your behalf, when that was beneficial to you, for example, by insisting that you were using Microsoft Word to open a document when you were really using Apple Pages:

https://web.archive.org/web/20021004125515/http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/2002-07-05.html

Seth wasn't naive. He knew that such a system could be exploited by scammers and used to harm users. But Seth calculated – correctly! – that the risks of having a key to let yourself out of the walled garden were less than being stuck in a walled garden where some corporate executive got to decide whether and when you could leave.

Tech executives never stopped questing after a way to turn your user agent from a fiduciary into a traitor. Last year, Google toyed with the idea of adding remote attestation to web browsers, which would let services refuse to interact with you if they thought you were using an ad blocker:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/02/self-incrimination/#wei-bai-bai

The reasoning for this was incredible: by adding remote attestation to browsers, they'd be creating "feature parity" with apps – that is, they'd be making it as practical for your browser to betray you as it is for your apps to do so (note that this is the same justification that the W3C gave for creating EME, the treacherous user agent in your browser – "streaming services won't allow you to access movies with your browser unless your browser is as enshittifiable and authoritarian as an app").

Technologists who work for giant tech companies can come up with endless scalesplaining explanations for why their bosses, and not you, should decide how your computer works. They're wrong. Your computer should do what you tell it to do:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/your-computer-should-say-what-you-tell-it-say-1

These people can kid themselves that they're only taking away your power and handing it to their boss because they have your best interests at heart. As Upton Sinclair told us, it's impossible to get someone to understand something when their paycheck depends on them not understanding it.

The only way to get a tech boss to consistently treat you well is to ensure that if they stop, you can quit. Anything less is a one-way ticket to enshittification.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/07/treacherous-computing/#rewilding-the-internet

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

345 notes · View notes

constantlymisspelled · 1 year ago

Text

The SUPERCOMMANDO CODEX - DRAFT

CONTENTS

Mandalorian Code Interpretation [link is found here]

Strength is Life

Honor is Life

Loyalty is Life

Death is Life

2. Honourable Conduct [link is found here]

Honour in self

Honour in the Community

Honour in the Galaxy

Honour Amongst Clan

Honour in Partnership

Honour in Leadership

Honour in Combat

3. Adoption Law [link is found here]

The Legal Definition of Foundling

Foundling Procedure

Disownment of Parent

Community Adoption

Adoption regarding criminal activities

Adoption regarding marital conditions

Adoption Consent

4. Marriage and Divorce [link is found here]

Spouse Definition

Spousal Privileges

Conditions for Legal Engagement

Consent and Age Restrictions

Conditions for Legal Marriage

Conditions for Legal Divorce

Children, Clan and House Considerations

5. Resolnare [link is found here]

The Six Tennent’s Broader accepted conditions

Way Followers Interpretation

Naasaade Interpretation and Redemption of Vows

Noncombatant Interpretations

The Mandalorian Healer’s Code

The Mandalorian Armourer's Code

Codes recognised in Conjunction

6. Clan and House [link is found here]

Definition of House

Responsibilities of House

Definition of Clan

Responsibilities of Clan

Requirements needed to be declared Alor of Clan

Requirements needed to be declared Alor of House

Requirements needed to be declared a Major House

7. Language Protectorate [link is found here]

Mando’a in Practice

Rights to change, add or remove words

Script usage and recognition in Mandalorian Space

8. The Position of Manda’lor [link is found here]

Requirements needed to be a candidate for Manda’lor

Responsibilities

Oversight

Commanding body

Restrictions, Compliance and Declarations of Misconduct

9. Education and Cultural development [link is found here]

The Education Responsibilities of Clans

The Education responsibilities of Schools and facilities

Freed Re-education programs and foundations

Religious and cultural rights within education systems

Parental rights throughout education

10. Electoral Process [link is found here]

The Court of Houses

The Sector Governors

The System Governors

The Astro Body Governors

District Electoral Members

Electoral Voters

Voting conditions

Overseers of the Ballot

Postal Elections

Voting Eligibility

Right and Responsibility

Conditions for Referendum, Re-election and Hung Parliamentary Votes

11. Court of Law

Family Court

Criminal Justice Court

Court of Appeal

Military Court

Financial and Business Court

Public Courts

12. Responsibility and due process

Parental Responsibility

Personal Responsibility

Political Responsibility

Financial Responsibility

Military Responsibility

Adoption Due Process

Engagement and Marriage Due Process

Divorce and Separation Due Process

Election Eligibility Due Process

Firearms Licensing Due Process

Verdgoten and Adult Graduation Due Process

Election Results Due Process

Parental Disownment Due Process

Clan and House Formation Due Process

13. Foreign interaction and policy

Foreign Ambassador acceptance

Externa; Ambassadors abroad

Foreign Currency and Exchange

Border Security

Digital Security and Programming Policy

Citizenship and Visa Acceptance

14. Employment within and outside of the sector

Legal age and parameters of employment

Contract and procedure for levels of employment

Foreign policy for Mando'ade working abroad

Foreign policy for outsiders working in Mandalore

15. Property and payment

Land ownership and tenancy

Forms of payment accepted in legal contract

Ownership and registration of vehicles

Ownership and registration of Firearms

Ownership and registration of Non-sentient Animals

16. Beskar

Donations to Foundlings

Ownership

Sacred right to wear beskar as armour

Conditions for percentage declared

Rights to mine and export

Religious significance

17. Recognised Mandalorian Sects and Coverts

Traditionalists

Haat Mando’ade

Naasaade

Way Followers

Creed Bound

Silver Children

18. Armour and Weapon Classifications

Military Issue

Military Grade

Civilian Use

Hunter and Mercenary Equipment

Trade and Specialist Equipment

Journeyman, Protectorate

19. Criminal sentencing

Theft

Grievous bodily harm

Assault

Rape

Murder

Manslaughter

Negligence

Criminal Negligence

Medical Malpractice

War Crimes

Demagolkase - War Crimes against children

Sentient Trafficking and experimentation

Financial Misconduct and Tax Evasion

20. Military and Law Enforcement

Military

Mandalorian Protectors

Journeyman Protectors

Home Guard

Manda'yaim Reserve

21. Land Rights and Conservation

Land Ownership

Sale and Redistribution of land

Declaration of Sacred Places

Sector Council Lands, Protectorate Lands, Crown Lands and Stock Routes

Protected Areas

Water Ways

Tenancy, Lodging, and Temporary Accommodations

Public Areas

Squatters' Rights

Sanctioned and unsanctioned terraforming

22. Commerce, Business and Integrity

Currency and Zones

Business Licenses and Legal Procedure

External business practice

Monopoly businesses and Mega Businesses

Banking within the Sector

23. Discrimination [link is found here]

Species

Sex

Religious Interpretation

Language

Ability

24. Closing Statements

Manda'lor Jaster Mereel [link is found here]

The Translator

25. References

Regarding headcanons for Houses; [link is found here]

26. Contacts and Relevant Supervising Personnel of Note

[This post will be altered as I go, and as amendments are made]

#star wars #supercommando codex #true mandalorians #mandalorian codex #mandalorian culture #fandom #jaster mereel #ghost wrote this over my shoulder and screamed at my referencing #Jaster's 70k long legal document that changed the galaxy #autism my beloved #mandalorian language #mandalorian code #mandalorians #mandalore #haat mando’ade #haat'mando'ade #mandalorian canons of honour

401 notes · View notes

odinsblog · 7 months ago

Text

Musk reactivated the accounts of Brazilian far-right politicians Carla Zambelli, Gustavo Gayer, and Nikolas Ferreira. Ferreira, a Bolsonaro supporter, openly questioned the security of Brazil’s electronic voting machines, even though he won his local legislative race.

“All of these names have been problematic for years on social media,” says Flora Rebello Arduini, campaign director at the nonprofit advocacy organization Ekō. “They've been pushing for the far-right and election misinformation for ages.”

When Musk purchased Twitter in 2022, later renaming it X, many activists in Brazil worried that he would abuse the platform to push his own agenda, Arduini says. “He has unprecedented broadcasting abilities. He is bullying a supreme court justice of a democratic country, and he is showing he will use all the resources he has available to push for whatever favors his personal opinions or his professional ambitions.”

Under Musk, X has become a haven for the far right and disinformation. After taking over, Musk offered amnesty to users who had been banned from the platform, including right-wing influencer Andrew Tate, who, along with his brother, was indicted in Romania on several charges including with rape and human trafficking in June 2023 (he has denied the allegations). Last month, one of Tate's representatives told the BBC that "they categorically reject all charges."

A 2023 study found that hate speech has increased on the platform under Musk’s leadership. The situation in Brazil is just the latest instance of Musk aligning himself with and platforming dangerous, far-right movements around the world, experts tell WIRED. "It's not about Twitter or Brazil. It's about a strategy from the global far right to overcome democracies and democratic institutions around the world," says Nina Santos, a digital democracy researcher at the Brazilian National Institute of Science & Technology who researches the Brazilian far right. “An opinion from an American billionaire should not count more than a democratic institution.”

This also comes as Brazil has continued working to understand and investigate the lead-up to January 8, 2023, when election-denying insurrectionists who refused to accept right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro’s defeat stormed Brazil’s legislature. The TSE, the country’s election court, is a special judicial body that investigates electoral crimes and is part of the mechanism for overseeing the country’s electoral processes overall. The court has been investigating the dissemination of fake news and disinformation that cast doubt on the country’s elections in the months and years leading up to the storming of the legislature on January 8, 2023. Both Arduini and Santos believe that the accounts Musk is refusing to remove are likely connected to the court’s inquiry.

“A life-and-death struggle recently took place in Brazil for the democratic rule of law and against a coup d'état, which is under investigation by this court in compliance with due legal process,” Luís Roberto Barroso, the president of the federal supreme court, said in a statement about Musk’s comments. “Nonconformity against the prevalence of democracy continues to manifest itself in the criminal exploitation of social networks.”

Santos also worries that Musk is setting a precedent that the far right will be protected and promoted on his platform, regardless of local laws or public opinion. “They are trying to use Brazil as a laboratory on how to interfere in local politics and local businesses,” she says. “They are making the case that their decision is more important than the national decision from a state democratic institution.”

Though Musk has claimed to be a free-speech advocate, and X’s public statement on the takedowns asserts that Brazilians are entitled to free speech, the platform’s application of these principles has been uneven at best. In February, on order of the Indian government, X blocked the accounts Hindutva Watch and the India Hate Lab in India, two US-based nonprofits that track incidents of religiously motivated violence perpetrated by supporters of the country’s right-wing government. A 2023 study from the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard found that X complied with more government takedown requests under Musk’s leadership than it had previously.

In March, X blocked the accounts of several prominent researchers and journalists after they identified a well-known neo-Nazi cartoonist, later changing its own terms of service to justify the decision.

—Elon Musk Is Platforming Far-Right Activists in Brazil

#politics #brazil #elon musk #disinformation #twitter #nikolas ferreira #misinformation #libertarians #fascists #fascism #elon musk is an enemy of democracy #democracy #eugenics musk #apartheid clyde #crypro grifters #techno grifters #crypto bros #election interference #electioneering

75 notes · View notes

fat-oc-battle · 4 months ago

Text

MATCH FIVE, ROUND ONE

dr. raquel herrera knightly (she, forty-seven digits of pi) character & art by @47digitsofbi

Raquel is a brilliant scientist, known by her colleagues for her creativity, leadership skills, and dedication to improving the world around her. She's happy to roll up her sleeves and bend the rules a little, especially in the name of what's right - it has always been her belief that a good officer follows orders, and a great officer knows when not to. She's bisexual (whoa, I didn't know that) and rocks a leather jacket when not in her work uniform. She was born in the year 2314, the youngest of three siblings, and from a young age, she dreamed of venturing to the stars in pursuit of knowledge. She earned her PhD in organic chemistry at age 25. During her studies, she befriended engineering student Jay Knightly and eventually fell in love. They maintained a long-distance relationship for several years while she chased her dreams across the galaxy, with Jay eventually coordinating to take a position at her side. In her free time, she is an amateur food scientist, applying her chemistry knowledge to experiments in the kitchen. She is also a captivating storyteller, menacing board game opponent, and passable hair stylist, as her son Felix would attest. Her kindness, charisma, and mischievous sense of humor make her a beloved presence in many circles.

VS.

serrowaun andres (she) character & art by @rodoboo

The Andres family has owned a unicorn ranch for generations, pouring everything into raising and selling the most magic-dense livestock Southern Raldara has to offer. Waunna grew up spending her days in the muck and mud to keep the farm running, and her nights playing dress-up with high-society investors to keep it afloat. Despite the years of loving labor poured into the ranch, it's hard to earn an honest living in an industry whose standards always seem to be just a smidge higher than what the Andres family has to offer. Having inherited both her father's personability and her mother's cutthroat business sense, Serrowaun understands that to keep her family going, certain elbows need rubbing and more than a few throats need slashing. After years of the most intense trial and error one could stand to make, she's established herself as the youngest up-and-comer in the shady world of illicit magic contraband.

#oc bracket #oc tournament #forty-seven digits of pi

22 notes · View notes

waystarresourceco · 1 year ago

Text

Kendall’s office with a breakdown of identifiable degrees and awards. A list of books are under the cut. (x)

Degrees:

B.A. in Economics (summa or magna cum laude) – Harvard University

E.M.B.A. (Executive Master of Business Administration) – INSEAD

INSEAD has locations in Europe (France), Asia (Singapore), the Middle East (Abu Dhabi) and North America (San Francisco); unclear which location Kendall attended

Awards:

Liz Rogers Award for Leadership in Business and Entertainment Media

Books (Left to Right):

The New Digital Age by Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen

Masters of Innovation: Building the Perpetually Innovative Company by Kai Engle, Violetka Dirlea, and Stephen Dyer (credit to @poeland and @kenzie-ann27 for the ID!)

Responsibility at Work by Howard Gardner

Beijing Welcomes You by Tom Scocca

Confessions of a Radical Industrialist by Ray C. Anderson

Known and Unknown by Donald Rumsfeld

Collision Low Crossers by Nicholas Dawidoff

The Credible Company by Roger D'Aprix (thanks again to @poeland and @kenzie-ann27 for this one as well!)

The Moment of Clarity by Christian Madsbjerg and Mikkel B. Rasmussen

Emperors and Idiots by Mike Vaccaro

Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done by Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan

The Hedge Fund Mirage by Simon Lark

The Mobile Mind Shift by Ted Schadler, Josh Bernoff, and Julie Ask

Denial and Deception by Melissa Boyle Mahle

The Good Jobs Strategy by Zeynep Ton

Trauma Red by Peter Rhee

Good for the Money: My Fight to Pay Back America by Bob Benmosche (huge thanks to @poeland for identifying!)

[Unidentified]

In an Uncertain World: Tough Choices from Wall Street to Washington by Robert Rubin (huge thanks to @flippy-floppy for identifying!)

Feel free to message if anyone can identify any of the other items/books/details!

#Kendall getting his EMBA from INSEAD is super interesting #also Kendall having latin honors is on brand #kendall roy #hbo succession #succession sets #succession props

102 notes · View notes

ubsvillasblog · 1 month ago

Text

Ratan Tata: A True Legend and Inspiration to Us

Rest in Peace, Ratan Tata: “A true legend who built more than an empire”

Ratan Tata is a name that echoes success, integrity, and philanthropy in India’s business world. Born in 1937, Tata’s journey is a testament to visionary leadership and humility. He took over the Tata Group, a 150-year-old conglomerate, in 1991 and transformed it into a global brand that now operates in over 100 countries. His leadership didn’t only focus on business growth but also emphasized ethics, innovation, and social welfare.

Under his tenure, Tata Group’s revenue grew exponentially, and acquisitions of global companies like Jaguar Land Rover and Corus Steel marked India’s presence on the world map. Tata’s contributions didn’t end with the boardroom. His philanthropic initiatives, especially through the Tata Trusts, have impacted education, healthcare, and rural development. His guiding principle was that “business must have a purpose beyond profit,” a vision UBS Villas aligns with as we create homes that support communities and enrich lives.

One of Tata’s standout qualities is his ability to adapt to change while maintaining values. As businesses evolve in the digital age, Ratan Tata has invested in numerous startups like Paytm and Ola, proving that staying ahead of innovation is key to long-term success. At UBS Villas, we are inspired by this ethos — combining modernity with traditional values to craft homes that are future-ready.

Tata’s leadership extended beyond business to the realms of social impact. During his tenure, the Tata Group contributed billions of rupees to community initiatives. His philanthropic work focuses on improving the quality of life for millions of Indians, particularly in rural areas. Much like Tata’s commitment to societal upliftment, UBS Villas strives to contribute to the communities we serve, offering not just homes but opportunities for better living.

Another noteworthy aspect of Tata’s legacy is his emphasis on environmental sustainability. From supporting renewable energy initiatives to reducing the carbon footprint of his companies, Tata always had one eye on the future. UBS Villas shares this commitment by integrating sustainable practices into our projects, ensuring that our developments not only meet the needs of today but also contribute to a greener future.

In 2008, Tata Motors introduced the Tata Nano, the world’s most affordable car. It was a project driven by Tata’s desire to make safe, reliable transportation accessible to the masses. This sense of responsibility towards providing affordable yet high-quality products resonates deeply with UBS Villas. We aim to provide budget-friendly homes without compromising on quality, because we believe everyone deserves a home that reflects their aspirations.

Even after stepping down as chairman of the Tata Group in 2012, Ratan Tata’s influence remains pervasive in the business world. He continues to mentor young entrepreneurs and invest in promising startups. His wisdom and foresight continue to inspire new generations of leaders, just as we at UBS Villas strive to guide our clients in making life-changing investments in their future homes.

In summary, Ratan Tata is not just a business magnate; he’s a role model whose principles align with UBS Villas’ core values. His relentless pursuit of excellence, ethical business practices, and dedication to social welfare have inspired us to build homes that stand the test of time. As we move forward with our mission to create exceptional living spaces, we draw inspiration from Tata’s journey of perseverance, adaptability, and unwavering commitment to making the world a better place.

At UBS Villas, we believe that much like Ratan Tata, who left an indelible mark on the world, we too can shape the future by creating homes that resonate with quality, sustainability, and community welfare. Join us as we build the homes of tomorrow, inspired by the legendary Ratan Tata.

2 notes · View notes

paulrobertskubient · 1 month ago

Text

Paul Roberts Kubient: A Visionary Leader in Technology Digital Marketing

In the fast-paced world of technology and digital marketing, Paul Roberts Kubient stands out as a dynamic leader with a knack for innovation and strategic foresight. With over 20 years of experience, Paul Roberts has built a remarkable career, founding and scaling multiple companies at the intersection of advertising technology (adtech) and artificial intelligence (AI). His work continues to shape the future of digital marketing, making him a key figure in the industry.

A Track Record of Success

Paul Roberts’ career is defined by his ability to create solutions that anticipate the evolving needs of the digital landscape. Known for his forward-thinking approach, he has founded and scaled numerous tech companies that address critical challenges in advertising and marketing.

One of his most notable ventures is Kubient, a disruptive digital advertising platform that leverages AI to optimize programmatic advertising. By using advanced technology to enhance the efficiency of online ad campaigns, Kubient has positioned itself as a leader in the adtech space, reducing fraud and delivering better results for advertisers and publishers. Roberts' leadership at Kubient exemplifies his vision of combining AI with marketing to create smarter, more efficient, and ethical ad networks.

Innovation in AI and Adtech

Paul Roberts Kubient is a pioneer in integrating AI into advertising strategies, understanding that AI can dramatically improve how businesses target, engage, and convert audiences. His focus on AI-driven solutions has enabled the companies he leads to offer more personalized and data-driven marketing strategies.

By leveraging AI and machine learning, Paul Roberts has pushed the boundaries of what digital advertising can achieve, making it possible to analyze vast amounts of consumer data in real-time and deliver targeted content with greater accuracy. This has proven especially critical as consumer behavior becomes more fragmented across different digital channels.

His work has helped brands optimize their campaigns, ensuring that marketing dollars are spent efficiently while delivering maximum impact. With AI, Roberts has empowered brands to not only keep up with but also lead in the rapidly evolving digital marketing environment.

A Vision for the Future of Digital Marketing

Looking ahead, Paul Roberts Kubient is focused on shaping the future of digital marketing through innovation and sustainability. His leadership reflects a deep understanding of the critical role technology plays in the industry’s future, especially in areas like AI, data privacy, and programmatic advertising.

Paul Roberts is also passionate about creating more ethical, transparent digital advertising ecosystems. He believes in harnessing AI’s potential to combat issues like ad fraud while enhancing consumer trust by respecting data privacy regulations. As the digital marketing landscape faces increased scrutiny over privacy concerns, his commitment to responsible innovation positions him as a forward-thinking leader.

Conclusion

Paul Roberts’ expertise in technology and digital marketing, coupled with his visionary leadership, has helped him build a legacy of success and innovation. His work at Kubient and other ventures demonstrates his ability to stay ahead of industry trends and address the challenges of a rapidly changing digital ecosystem. Through his relentless pursuit of combining AI and adtech, Roberts continues to drive the future of marketing, setting new standards for how businesses engage with audiences in the digital age.

With his sights set firmly on the future, Paul Roberts remains a visionary leader, pushing the boundaries of what's possible in technology and digital marketing, ensuring that the industry remains dynamic, innovative, and impactful for years to come.

#Paul Roberts Kubient #Visionary Leader #Digital Marketing #AdTech #Tech Leadership #Marketing Strategy

2 notes · View notes

broadpreedglobalnews · 3 months ago

Text

Nr. M. J. K. Molai: 🌍 Revolutionizing the Global Literary Landscape with Fiftanray Publication 📚

Fiftanray Publication, founded by Nr. M. J. K. Molai, is making a profound impact on the global literary community. This Indian publishing agency, headquartered in Kota, Rajasthan, has quickly become a leader in both fiction and non-fiction, driven by a mission to empower aspiring authors ✍️ and elevate diverse voices 🗣️.

Molai's vision extends far beyond traditional publishing. Fiftanray Publication is dedicated to providing opportunities for new writers worldwide, particularly those who face challenges in getting published. The agency's reach spans various fields, including medicine, business, and engineering, making it an invaluable resource for educational institutions and readers alike.

In the digital age, Fiftanray has embraced technology 💻, offering e-books and audiobooks 🎧 that cater to modern readers. Its comprehensive distribution network ensures that its publications are accessible through bookstores, online platforms, and book fairs across the globe 🌐.

Beyond publishing, Fiftanray actively contributes to the literary community through online seminars, writing workshops, and mentorship programs. These initiatives reflect Molai's unwavering commitment to nurturing the next generation of literary talent and fostering a global culture of reading and intellectual exploration.

Under Nr. M. J. K. Molai's leadership, Fiftanray Publication has become synonymous with literary excellence 🏆, enriching the global literary landscape and supporting new voices in the world of writing. . . . #india#broadpreedglobalnews#media#sneakernews#breakingnews#trendingnews#celebritynews#celebrity#mumbai#food#iran#write#author#public

3 notes · View notes

apacnewsnetwork0 · 1 year ago

Text

New Delhi: One is known as one of the main brains behind digital transformative programs such as Aadhaar & Cowin. And the other is known for his tech acumen to bring startup revolution in India’s defence sector. Yes, you guessed it right. We are talking about Dr R S Sharma and Dr Ajay Kumar, two former bureaucrats, who have played pivotal role in India’s digital governance journey. And IIT Kanpur ropes in both to drive its e-Masters program for Business Leadership in Digital Age, first course of such types in India.

#APACExclusive #Business Leadership in Digital Age #IIT Kanpur ropes in Dr R Sharma #Cyber Security #Digital Age #Digital Transformation #Dr Ajay Kumar #Dr Ajay Kumar to drive e-Masters Program #Dr RS Sharma #Economicse #Masters #Emerging Technology #Global Policy #IIT Kanpur #IIT Kanpur ropes #India #Public Policy

0 notes

australianwomensnews · 5 months ago

Text

When it comes to Australia’s national regulators, women rule.

Women now dominate the leadership of federal regulatory and oversight agencies that enforce rules for business and the economy, with 33 women holding chief executive or chair roles. This signals a profound shift for the nation’s top watchdogs, once almost solely the domain of male enforcers.

Rapid digitisation and rising globalisation are making traditional black letter enforcement approaches less effective, leading to women with so-called solid soft skills, such as influence, collaboration and communication, winning top-tier regulatory roles.

Women are now at the front line of the battles against scams, identity and data theft, cyber ransomware attacks, electronic espionage, digital surveillance, misinformation, social media abuse and dark web criminality.

“It’s very different to the skills base you needed a decade or two ago where it was just about telling people what to do, and they would toe the line,” says Ann Sherry, a former head of the Office of Status of Women in the Hawke and Keating governments.

“Those jobs were filled by a particular sort of person cast as a regulator. So, in a way, it was almost an enforcement role, whereas the jobs have changed.”

The leadership of the federal public service reached gender equilibrium last year.

Sherry, who is now QUT chancellor and chairs Queensland Airports, digital marketing firm Enero and UNICEF Australia, says that the public sector has been better at promoting women through the ranks but that many women have also built relevant skills in the private sector.

“Many women have had to broaden their careers and build a broad set of skills to be successful. There is now a body of capability to draw up. The talent pool has changed, and the jobs require broader skills. It is a confluence of events,” she says.

The surge in women leading federal regulators compares with 19 women (10 per cent) chairing ASX200 companies and 26 women (9 per cent) who are CEOs across the ASX300, as at the end of 2023.

Competition chief Gina Cass-Gottlieb and Reserve Bank of Australia governor Michele Bullock (who also chairs the Payments System Board) are the first women to lead their institutions. Others, such as media watchdog Nerida O’Loughlin and energy regulator Clare Savage, have won second appointments.

A push to bring in new blood from outside the Australian public service helped veteran NSW regulator Elizabeth Tydd win an appointment as head of the Australian Information Commission. Carly Kind was tapped from a London think tank to be the new privacy commissioner.

They join a swag of women now overseeing vast swaths of the economy, including infrastructure (Gabrielle Trainor), aviation (Pip Spence), food (Sandra Cuthbert), petroleum (Sue McCarrey) and fisheries (Helen Kroger).

Others such as Rachel Noble (espionage), Julie Inman Grant (e-safety), Jayde Richmond (anti-scams centre) and Michelle McGuinness (cyber co-ordinator) are focused on rapidly emerging harms, including national security threats, identity and data theft, consumer abuse, online scams and fraud.

Workplace and safety regulators are now dominated by women too, including Anna Booth (Fair Work Ombudsman), Joanne Farrell (Safe Work Australia), Jeanine Drummond (maritime safety), Natalie Pelham (rail safety) and Janet Anderson (aged care).

The dominant role female regulators play has been part of a profound shift in the number of women in leadership roles in the Australian government. This has risen from a quarter of executive roles being held by women 20 years ago to over 50 per cent last year.

Battle ready

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb, who rose through the ranks as a competition lawyer at law firm Gilbert and Tobin, says her generation of leaders had battled their way through male-dominated workplaces.

“In those workplaces, to get ahead, we needed to target the areas we thought were most important to make an intervention and where we could most effectively make an impact.

“We actually had to build skills to succeed, which are beneficial skills in these roles.”

Ms Cass-Gottlieb says women have also had to differentiate themselves. “You needed to point to other ways of working, including creative and different solutions that drew from experience in various areas rather than a pure step-by-step standard career path.”

Australian Information Commissioner Tydd points to Columbia University research that measured creativity by analysing songs, finding that women created more songs than men.

“Digital government requires a creative use of proactive tools to identify and mitigate future harm. It’s the unforeseen or latent harms that are the most refractory and so we’ve got to look at diagnosis and predictive tools, and that’s where you start to get a bit creative.”

Tydd says she was attracted to regulatory work because of the value of promoting open government, transparency and accountability.

“I think that seeking service and purpose orientation are factors that drive people into this work and I do think seeking service is a very comfortable and well-established motivation within women.”

Demand for new approaches

According to ANU Crawford School of Public Policy director Professor Janine O’Flynn, the data on the importance of public motivation for women is mixed. However, she suggests that women’s more attuned risk and relationship skills help them to be more effective regulators.

“We certainly know that the most effective models of regulation are around how you can think about risk and how you build relationships with the parties that have been regulated.

“I don’t mean that in a sort of dodgy way. The higher the trust relationships you can get between regulators and those who are regulated, the more likely you are to get the outcomes that you’re looking for.”

Read the full article in the link above!

#auspol #feminism #australia #good news #women in politics #women in leadership

5 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 1 year ago

Text

The moral injury of having your work enshittified

This Monday (November 27), I'm appearing at the Toronto Metro Reference Library with Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.

On November 29, I'm at NYC's Strand Books with my novel The Lost Cause, a solarpunk tale of hope and danger that Rebecca Solnit called "completely delightful."

This week, I wrote about how the Great Enshittening – in which all the digital services we rely on become unusable, extractive piles of shit – did not result from the decay of the morals of tech company leadership, but rather, from the collapse of the forces that discipline corporate wrongdoing:

https://locusmag.com/2023/11/commentary-by-cory-doctorow-dont-be-evil/

The failure to enforce competition law allowed a few companies to buy out their rivals, or sell goods below cost until their rivals collapsed, or bribe key parts of their supply chain not to allow rivals to participate:

https://www.engadget.com/google-reportedly-pays-apple-36-percent-of-ad-search-revenues-from-safari-191730783.html

The resulting concentration of the tech sector meant that the surviving firms were stupendously wealthy, and cozy enough that they could agree on a common legislative agenda. That regulatory capture has allowed tech companies to violate labor, privacy and consumer protection laws by arguing that the law doesn't apply when you use an app to violate it:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/12/algorithmic-wage-discrimination/#fishers-of-men

But the regulatory capture isn't just about preventing regulation: it's also about creating regulation – laws that make it illegal to reverse-engineer, scrape, and otherwise mod, hack or reconfigure existing services to claw back value that has been taken away from users and business customers. This gives rise to Jay Freeman's perfectly named doctrine of "felony contempt of business-model," in which it is illegal to use your own property in ways that anger the shareholders of the company that sold it to you:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/09/lead-me-not-into-temptation/#chamberlain

Undisciplined by the threat of competition, regulation, or unilateral modification by users, companies are free to enshittify their products. But what does that actually look like? I say that enshittification is always precipitated by a lost argument.

It starts when someone around a board-room table proposes doing something that's bad for users but good for the company. If the company faces the discipline of competition, regulation or self-help measures, then the workers who are disgusted by this course of action can say, "I think doing this would be gross, and what's more, it's going to make the company poorer," and so they win the argument.

But when you take away that discipline, the argument gets reduced to, "Don't do this because it would make me ashamed to work here, even though it will make the company richer." Money talks, bullshit walks. Let the enshittification begin!

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/22/who-wins-the-argument/#corporations-are-people-my-friend

But why do workers care at all? That's where phrases like "don't be evil" come into the picture. Until very recently, tech workers participated in one of history's tightest labor markets, in which multiple companies with gigantic war-chests bid on their labor. Even low-level employees routinely fielded calls from recruiters who dangled offers of higher salaries and larger stock grants if they would jump ship for a company's rival.

Employers built "campuses" filled with lavish perks: massages, sports facilities, daycare, gourmet cafeterias. They offered workers generous benefit packages, including exotic health benefits like having your eggs frozen so you could delay fertility while offsetting the risks normally associated with conceiving at a later age.

But all of this was a transparent ruse: the business-case for free meals, gyms, dry-cleaning, catering and massages was to keep workers at their laptops for 10, 12, or even 16 hours per day. That egg-freezing perk wasn't about helping workers plan their families: it was about thumbing the scales in favor of working through your entire twenties and thirties without taking any parental leave.

In other words, tech employers valued their employees as a means to an end: they wanted to get the best geeks on the payroll and then work them like government mules. The perks and pay weren't the result of comradeship between management and labor: they were the result of the discipline of competition for labor.

This wasn't really a secret, of course. Big Tech workers are split into two camps: blue badges (salaried employees) and green badges (contractors). Whenever there is a slack labor market for a specific job or skill, it is converted from a blue badge job to a green badge job. Green badges don't get the food or the massages or the kombucha. They don't get stock or daycare. They don't get to freeze their eggs. They also work long hours, but they are incentivized by the fear of poverty.

Tech giants went to great lengths to shield blue badges from green badges – at some Google campuses, these workforces actually used different entrances and worked in different facilities or on different floors. Sometimes, green badge working hours would be staggered so that the armies of ragged clickworkers would not be lined up to badge in when their social betters swanned off the luxury bus and into their airy adult kindergartens.

But Big Tech worked hard to convince those blue badges that they were truly valued. Companies hosted regular town halls where employees could ask impertinent questions of their CEOs. They maintained freewheeling internal social media sites where techies could rail against corporate foolishness and make Dilbert references.

And they came up with mottoes.

Apple told its employees it was a sound environmental steward that cared about privacy. Apple also deliberately turned old devices into e-waste by shredding them to ensure that they wouldn't be repaired and compete with new devices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/22/vin-locking/#thought-differently

And even as they were blocking Facebook's surveillance tools, they quietly built their own nonconsensual mass surveillance program and lied to customers about it:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

Facebook told employees they were on a "mission to connect every person in the world," but instead deliberately sowed discontent among its users and trapped them in silos that meant that anyone who left Facebook lost all their friends:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/facebooks-secret-war-switching-costs

And Google promised its employees that they would not "be evil" if they worked at Google. For many googlers, that mattered. They wanted to do something good with their lives, and they had a choice about who they would work for. What's more, they did make things that were good. At their high points, Google Maps, Google Mail, and of course, Google Search were incredible.

My own life was totally transformed by Maps: I have very poor spatial sense, need to actually stop and think to tell my right from my left, and I spent more of my life at least a little lost and often very lost. Google Maps is the cognitive prosthesis I needed to become someone who can go anywhere. I'm profoundly grateful to the people who built that service.

There's a name for phenomenon in which you care so much about your job that you endure poor conditions and abuse: it's called "vocational awe," as coined by Fobazi Ettarh:

https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2018/vocational-awe/

Ettarh uses the term to apply to traditionally low-waged workers like librarians, teachers and nurses. In our book Chokepoint Capitalism, Rebecca Giblin and I talked about how it applies to artists and other creative workers, too:

https://chokepointcapitalism.com/

But vocational awe is also omnipresent in tech. The grandiose claims to be on a mission to make the world a better place are not just puffery – they're a vital means of motivating workers who can easily quit their jobs and find a new one to put in 16-hour days. The massages and kombucha and egg-freezing are not framed as perks, but as logistical supports, provided so that techies on an important mission can pursue a shared social goal without being distracted by their balky, inconvenient meatsuits.

Steve Jobs was a master of instilling vocational awe. He was full of aphorisms like "we're here to make a dent in the universe, otherwise why even be here?" Or his infamous line to John Sculley, whom he lured away from Pepsi: "Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life or come with me and change the world?"

Vocational awe cuts both ways. If your workforce actually believes in all that high-minded stuff, if they actually sacrifice their health, family lives and self-care to further the mission, they will defend it. That brings me back to enshittification, and the argument: "If we do this bad thing to the product I work on, it will make me hate myself."

The decline in market discipline for large tech companies has been accompanied by a decline in labor discipline, as the market for technical work grew less and less competitive. Since the dotcom collapse, the ability of tech giants to starve new entrants of market oxygen has shrunk techies' dreams.

Tech workers once dreamed of working for a big, unwieldy firm for a few years before setting out on their own to topple it with a startup. Then, the dream shrank: work for that big, clumsy firm for a few years, then do a fake startup that makes a fake product that is acquihired by your old employer, as an incredibly inefficient and roundabout way to get a raise and a bonus.

Then the dream shrank again: work for a big, ugly firm for life, but get those perks, the massages and the kombucha and the stock options and the gourmet cafeteria and the egg-freezing. Then it shrank again: work for Google for a while, but then get laid off along with 12,000 co-workers, just months after the company does a stock buyback that would cover all those salaries for the next 27 years:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/10/the-proletarianization-of-tech-workers/

Tech workers' power was fundamentally individual. In a tight labor market, tech workers could personally stand up to their bosses. They got "workplace democracy" by mouthing off at town hall meetings. They didn't have a union, and they thought they didn't need one. Of course, they did need one, because there were limits to individual power, even for the most in-demand workers, especially when it came to ghastly, long-running sexual abuse from high-ranking executives:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html

Today, atomized tech workers who are ordered to enshittify the products they take pride in are losing the argument. Workers who put in long hours, missed funerals and school plays and little league games and anniversaries and family vacations are being ordered to flush that sacrifice down the toilet to grind out a few basis points towards a KPI.

It's a form of moral injury, and it's palpable in the first-person accounts of former workers who've exited these large firms or the entire field. The viral "Reflecting on 18 years at Google," written by Ian Hixie, vibrates with it:

https://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1700627373

Hixie describes the sense of mission he brought to his job, the workplace democracy he experienced as employees' views were both solicited and heeded. He describes the positive contributions he was able to make to a commons of technical standards that rippled out beyond Google – and then, he says, "Google's culture eroded":

Decisions went from being made for the benefit of users, to the benefit of Google, to the benefit of whoever was making the decision.

In other words, techies started losing the argument. Layoffs weakened worker power – not just to defend their own interest, but to defend the users interests. Worker power is always about more than workers – think of how the 2019 LA teachers' strike won greenspace for every school, a ban on immigration sweeps of students' parents at the school gates and other community benefits:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/23/a-collective-bargain/

Hixie attributes the changes to a change in leadership, but I respectfully disagree. Hixie points to the original shareholder letter from the Google founders, in which they informed investors contemplating their IPO that they were retaining a controlling interest in the company's governance so that they could ignore their shareholders' priorities in favor of a vision of Google as a positive force in the world:

https://abc.xyz/investor/founders-letters/ipo-letter/

Hixie says that the leadership that succeeded the founders lost sight of this vision – but the whole point of that letter is that the founders never fully ceded control to subsequent executive teams. Yes, those executive teams were accountable to the shareholders, but the largest block of voting shares were retained by the founders.

I don't think the enshittification of Google was due to a change in leadership – I think it was due to a change in discipline, the discipline imposed by competition, regulation and the threat of self-help measures. Take ads: when Google had to contend with one-click adblocker installation, it had to constantly balance the risk of making users so fed up that they googled "how do I block ads?" and then never saw another ad ever again.

But once Google seized the majority of the mobile market, it was able to funnel users into apps, and reverse-engineering an app is a felony (felony contempt of business-model) under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. An app is just a web-page wrapped in enough IP to make it a crime to install an ad-blocker.

And as Google acquired control over the browser market, it was likewise able to reduce the self-help measures available to browser users who found ads sufficiently obnoxious to trigger googling "how do I block ads?" The apotheosis of this is the yearslong campaign to block adblockers in Chrome, which the company has sworn it will finally do this coming June:

https://www.tumblr.com/tevruden/734352367416410112/you-have-until-june-to-dump-chrome

My contention here is not that Google's enshittification was precipitated by a change in personnel via the promotion of managers who have shitty ideas. Google's enshittification was precipitated by a change in discipline, as the negative consequences of heeding those shitty ideas were abolished thanks to monopoly.

This is bad news for people like me, who rely on services like Google Maps as cognitive prostheses. Elizabeth Laraki, one of the original Google Maps designers, has published a scorching critique of the latest GMaps design:

https://twitter.com/elizlaraki/status/1727351922254852182

Laraki calls out numerous enshittificatory design-choices that have left Maps screens covered in "crud" – multiple revenue-maximizing elements that come at the expense of usability, shifting value from users to Google.

What Laraki doesn't say is that these UI elements are auctioned off to merchants, which means that the business that gives Google the most money gets the greatest prominence in Maps, even if it's not the best merchant. That's a recurring motif in enshittified tech platforms, most notoriously Amazon, which makes $31b/year auctioning off top search placement to companies whose products aren't relevant enough to your query to command that position on their own:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/25/greedflation/#commissar-bezos

Enshittification begets enshittification. To succeed on Amazon, you must divert funds from product quality to auction placement, which means that the top results are the worst products:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/06/attention-rents/#consumer-welfare-queens

The exception is searches for Apple products: Apple and Amazon have a cozy arrangement that means that searches for Apple products are a timewarp back to the pre-enshittification Amazon, when the company worried enough about losing your business to heed the employees who objected to sacrificing search quality as part of a merchant extortion racket:

https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-gives-apple-special-treatment-while-others-suffer-junk-ads-2023-11

Not every tech worker is a tech bro, in other words. Many workers care deeply about making your life better. But the microeconomics of the boardroom in a monopolized tech sector rewards the worst people and continuously promotes them. Forget the Peter Principle: tech is ruled by the Sam Principle.

As OpenAI went through four CEOs in a single week, lots of commentators remarked on Sam Altman's rise and fall and rise, but I only found one commentator who really had Altman's number. Writing in Today in Tabs, Rusty Foster nailed Altman to the wall:

https://www.todayintabs.com/p/defective-accelerationism

Altman's history goes like this: first, he founded a useless startup that raised $30m, only to be acquired and shuttered. Then Altman got a job running Y Combinator, where he somehow failed at taking huge tranches of equity from "every Stanford dropout with an idea for software to replace something Mommy used to do." After that, he founded OpenAI, a company that he claims to believe presents an existential risk to the entire human risk – which he structured so incompetently that he was then forced out of it.

His reward for this string of farcical, mounting failures? He was put back in charge of the company he mis-structured despite his claimed belief that it will destroy the human race if not properly managed.

Altman's been around for a long time. He founded his startup in 2005. There've always been Sams – of both the Bankman-Fried varietal and the Altman genus – in tech. But they didn't get to run amok. They were disciplined by their competitors, regulators, users and workers. The collapse of competition led to an across-the-board collapse in all of those forms of discipline, revealing the executives for the mediocre sociopaths they always were, and exposing tech workers' vocational awe for the shabby trick it was from the start.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/25/moral-injury/#enshittification

#pluralistic #moral injury #enshittification #worker power #google #dont be evil #monopoly #sam altman #openai #vocational awe #making a dent in the universe

560 notes · View notes

askthingone · 7 months ago

Text

meet madison, auditioning with what was i made for by billie eilish.

“when did it end? all the enjoyment. i'm sad again, don't tell my boyfriend. it's not what he's made for. what was i made for? cause i don't know how to feel, but i wanna try. i don't know how to feel, but someday i might. someday i might.”

wait, is that MADISON MCCARTHY? they kinda look a lot like KATHRYN NEWTON, don’t they? i heard the NINETEEN year old is known as the THING ONE around mckinley. it seems like they auditioned to be in THE TROUBLETONES which is so lame? people at campus have said they’re OPTIMISTIC, but don’t be fooled since they’re also CONTROLLING. rumor has it, you can find them at CHEERIOS, GAY/STRAIGHT ALLIANCE, DIGITAL MEDIA CLUB when they aren’t belting show tunes. their entire vibe revolves around PERFECTLY POINTED TOES DURING A HERKIE, A COLOR COATED DAY PLANNER WITH THE NEXT FOUR WEEKS SCHEDULED, A CRISP RED AND WHITE UNIFORM IRONED JUST THAT MORNING but no one pays attention to that here in ohio

BASICS

full name: madison danielle mccarthy

pronouns: she/her

hometown: austin, texas

birthday & sign: august 1st, leo

age: nineteen

relationship status: single

sexuality: pansexual

occupation: freshman at mckinley arts college

clubs: cheerios, gay-straight alliance, digital media club

glee club: the troubletones

major: communications

HEADCANONS

since her parents started out as part of a traveling performance group, they were able to see the talent within their children at a young age. dance, singing and gymnastics classes since she had functioning motor skills means madison has been competitively cheering since she could remember. and it seems, cheering was the ticket into college. it was an athletic scholarship and sue sylvester's leadership that had madison choosing mckinley out of all the cheer colleges in the country. but, now that she’s in college and realizing that the likes of becoming a professional cheerleader once she graduates is unlikely, she is having a minor midlife crises. she is currently unsure of what she wants to do with her life, and chose communications as her major as it seemed the least commitment of them all.

madison is very much a TYPE A person. she plans her life down to the smallest detail and often doesn’t stray from those plans. she believes there is a need for order and control and often blames it on her busy schedule. but, some small subconscious part of her wonders if that is just an excuse to cover her fear of change and spontaneity.

speaking of fears? madison is terrified of rejection. perhaps its the mommy issues, but it's partially why she holds on to mason tightly with both hands. she is aware her personality can be a lot. overbearing and intense and plenty of other words people have used throughout the years to describe her. so on top of all of that, she tries desperately to be upbeat and bubbly in hopes that those around her find her fun enough that her negative traits are forgotten.

dating, however, is the one place she's not able to mask those bad habits. madison has never had a real relationship, often scaring away any potential partners once she began to be a bit too much. romantic love is almost a foreign concept to madison, and almost any relationship she has had with someone has resulted in that of physical affection, not emotional. it's gotten to the point that, for madison, love, affection and attention has become synonymous with sex. she is aware people want it and is willing to give it if that means, for an hour of their time, she is all they are thinking about.

when the glee clubs were announced, madison had dreams that she and mason would become co-captains of the new directions and the school would finally see their talent shine outside of the cheerios. but then madison met rachel berry, and that idea was thrown out the window. she doesn't have a problem sharing the spotlight, but she has a problem with the fact that rachel DOES. so madison made the decision to join the troubletones, if only just to take care of her own mental health. never has she competed against her brother before, and its definitely an uncomfortable feeling. she is still hopeful that perhaps when rachel graduates, or ultimately quits because she has to share the stage with other people, madison could make the change to the new directions and be on the same team with her brother again. but, and to her surprise, she is finding she actually likes being on the all girl team.

madison and mason were not raised in lima, ohio, but austin, texas. in fact they are at mckinley on a cheerio's scholarship. cheer is supposed to be the main focus, but madison prides herself on being a great multitasker and knows she can easily balance cheerios, glee club and school.

WANTED CONNECTIONS

truly open to anything!

best friend

friends

enemies

past hook up

competitors

TAKEN CONNECTIONS

dottie kazatori: madison and dottie were paired up as roommates last year, and when dottie mentioned at the start of this school year she had an open room in the house her parents paid for (?), madison took up the offer. although, she would rather be rooming with her brother and she does make that know.

kitty wilde: madison and kitty have a very cordial relationship and madison is working hard to get on kitty's good side.

rachel berry: madison can't stand rachel and her i'm the best mentality. sure, madison can be confident too, but that doesn't mean she isn't okay with sharing the spotlight. she was so turned off by rachel's need to be the star, that she joined the troubletones over the new directions.

sam evans: madison and sam definitely hooked up once after a party when they were both drunk, and they have yet to discuss what that means for them. in fact, they seem to just be ignoring the fact that it ever happened, but that doesn't mean they don't still act like people that have seen each other naked.

mason mccarthy: mason is feeling smothered by madison's overbearing nature and she is none the wiser.

ryder lynn: madison and ryder met their freshman year after a football game and very quickly fell into a wingman/wingwoman dynamic. they go to parties and talk each other up to whoever they have their eye on that night.

#intro #wmacintro

3 notes · View notes