#Public Safety and Security Industry

[letsvishu]

Public Safety and Security Market: Growth Drivers & Opportunities

The global Public Safety and Security Market is projected to grow from USD 520.8 billion in 2024 to USD 878.2 billion by 2029 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.0%. Public safety and security markets are effective in protecting people, societies, and the infrastructure that is established within a country from various threats, including crime, terrorism, natural disasters, and pandemics.

[petnews2day]

Purina to help revamp Eden's dog park

New Post has been published on https://petn.ws/9Z5d8

Purina to help revamp Eden's dog park

Jennifer Atkins Brown Staff Writer EDEN — Thanks to a $22,500 donation to the City of Eden from Nestle Purina PetCare, Freedom Park’s dog park will not only have a new name but a host of fun new amenities sure to please dogs and their owners. “This shows that Purina really cares about our community,” […]

See full article at https://petn.ws/9Z5d8 #DogNews #Medicine, #AirForce, #ArmedForces, #Aviation, #ConstructionIndustry, #Education, #Food, #Hydrography, #Industry, #JobMarket, #Politics, #SchoolSystems, #SecurityAndPublicSafety, #Sociology, #Sports, #TheEconomy, #Tourism, #Trade, #University, #Zoology

[reportwire]

Poteau PD Chief shares concerns if SQ 820 passes; special election to approve recreational marijuana slated Tuesday | News - Medical Marijuana Program Connection

Poteau Police Chief Billy Hooper shared with the Poteau Kiwanis Club during the local civic organization’s weekly meeting Feb. 23 at Western Sizzlin his concerns about State Question 820 regarding approving recreational marijuana, which is up for vote in Tuesday’s special election. “As you all have seen, we’ve had legal marijuana here for about four years now,” Hooper said. “We’re still trying…

[astrocafecoffee]

Synastry observation ( part 1) 🎐

✨ For entertainment purposes only, enjoy ✨

Let's go!

🍓 Eros conjunct karma :

intense attraction with karmic undertones, powerful sexual chemistry, higher purpose in terms of fulfilling karmic contracts or agreements made in past live.

🍓 Boda in 10th house overlays:

Partnership/ marriage with this person is somehow in public eye. Your person's connections or involvement in certain industry may open up career opportunities or avenues for professional growth for you.

🍓 Anteros ( 1943) conjunct Boda and briede asteroid:

Anteros is related to unrequited love. This alignment invites both partners to confront any unresolved issues stemming from past experiences of unrequited love, fostering open communication and understanding to heal emotional wounds and strengthen bond between them. Both partners may share a vision of building a life together.

🍓 Boda conjunct saturn :

Long term planning and future goals within the relationship. Strong desire for stability and permanence , especially in the context of partnership/ marriage.

🍓 POF in 10th house overlays:

Again public attention/ growth opportunities in career after you marry/ date that person.

🍓 IC in 1st house overlay:

This person's home and family dynamics play a significant role in shaping your perception of self. You may find that your own identity is intertwined with their family background or domestic environment in some way.

🍓 MC in 7th house overlays :

Same , public recognition in the relationship.

🍓 Amor (1221) conjunct nn :

Profound soul connection between both of you. This relationship may have been destined or fated to occur in this lifetime. Meant to meet. Amor's influence indicates a deep and unconditional love between both of you. Soulmate indicator.

🍓 Union ( 1585) conjunct moon :

Strong emphasis on empathy, compassion and understanding within your relationship. This partnership feels like home to both of you.

🍓 stellium in 6th house:

It's so underrated, 6th house stellium is in important in romantic synastry , as your partner may encourage you to adapt healthy habits in your daily life.

🍓 Juno conjunct Jupiter:

Marriage placement., As in Roman mythology juno is considered as the wife of Jupiter ( the Roman equivalent of Zeus in Greek mythology) .

🍓 Born ( 13954) conjunct nn :

Fated encounter. You are meant to support each other on your respective paths of growth and evolution.

🍓 lisitsa ( 8064) conjunct juno:

Again fated , long-term commitment/ marriage., Karmic bond.

🍓 Bacchus ( 2063)conjunct Bacchus:

Strong mutual attraction between partners, often characterized by a magnetic pull and deep appreciation for each other's physicality.

🍓 Pythia(432) in 7th house synastry :

Intuitive fated connection. They may share common interest in mystical or esoteric subjects and may engage in spiritual practices together to deepen their bond and connection.

🍓 Pythia conjunct Hera ( 103) :

Divinely guided relationship, this conjunction suggests this is a relationship that honours tradition and values long term commitment. Both individuals may feel a strong sense of loyalty and dedication to each other.

🍓 Moon in 4th house synastry:

Deep emotional connection, moon person feels comfortable and secure when with the house person, perhaps tapping into a sense of familiarity and safety reminiscent of their own childhood environment.

🍓 Juno conjunct Chiron :

Both individuals may share similar wounds or vulnerabilities in the realm of partnership. They may understand each other's pain and struggles on a deep level , which can foster empathy and compassion within the relationship ( healing through partnership)

🍓 Groom(5129) square briede(19029) :

Despite the challenges/ disagreements/ conflicting desires this aspect presents an opportunity for growth and understanding within the relationship. By addressing and working through the areas and conflict or tension, the couple can deepen their connection and strengthen their partnership over time.

🍓 Karma (3811) conjunct descendant:

Both the individuals may feel a strong sense of destiny or fate drawing them together in a partnership or relationship. They might believe that their meeting was predestined or that they have important karmic lessons to learn from each other.

🍓 Moon conjunct saturn:

This aspect can indicate a strong sense of responsibility and commitment between the individuals. But there may be a tendency for both individuals to hold back their feelings or to approach emotional matters with caution and reserve.

🍓 Groom in 1st house synastry:

It suggests that your partner may identify strongly with the role of the groom or husband in your relationship.they may see themselves as a partner who takes on traditional husbandly roles or embodies qualities that you associate with the concept of a groom.

🍓 Cupido (763) conjunct nn :

Fated , strong emotional alignment, transformative and potentially life changing love connection/ karmic lessons in love.

🍓 Sappho (80) in 12th house synastry:

Intuitive understanding or unspoken connection between partners, there may be a sense of yearning or longing for an idealised romantic Union that exists beyond the constrains of the physical world.

🍓 Lust(4386) on 1st house synastry:

Passionate and dynamic connection between partners characterized by intense physical attraction ,sexual energy, and a strong focus on the physical aspects of the relationship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

( post based on poll)

End......

Thank you!!

~piko 🌹

[probablyasocialecologist]

There is no obvious path between today’s machine learning models — which mimic human creativity by predicting the next word, sound, or pixel — and an AI that can form a hostile intent or circumvent our every effort to contain it. Regardless, it is fair to ask why Dr. Frankenstein is holding the pitchfork. Why is it that the people building, deploying, and profiting from AI are the ones leading the call to focus public attention on its existential risk? Well, I can see at least two possible reasons. The first is that it requires far less sacrifice on their part to call attention to a hypothetical threat than to address the more immediate harms and costs that AI is already imposing on society. Today’s AI is plagued by error and replete with bias. It makes up facts and reproduces discriminatory heuristics. It empowers both government and consumer surveillance. AI is displacing labor and exacerbating income and wealth inequality. It poses an enormous and escalating threat to the environment, consuming an enormous and growing amount of energy and fueling a race to extract materials from a beleaguered Earth. These societal costs aren’t easily absorbed. Mitigating them requires a significant commitment of personnel and other resources, which doesn’t make shareholders happy — and which is why the market recently rewarded tech companies for laying off many members of their privacy, security, or ethics teams. How much easier would life be for AI companies if the public instead fixated on speculative theories about far-off threats that may or may not actually bear out? What would action to “mitigate the risk of extinction” even look like? I submit that it would consist of vague whitepapers, series of workshops led by speculative philosophers, and donations to computer science labs that are willing to speak the language of longtermism. This would be a pittance, compared with the effort required to reverse what AI is already doing to displace labor, exacerbate inequality, and accelerate environmental degradation. A second reason the AI community might be motivated to cast the technology as posing an existential risk could be, ironically, to reinforce the idea that AI has enormous potential. Convincing the public that AI is so powerful that it could end human existence would be a pretty effective way for AI scientists to make the case that what they are working on is important. Doomsaying is great marketing. The long-term fear may be that AI will threaten humanity, but the near-term fear, for anyone who doesn’t incorporate AI into their business, agency, or classroom, is that they will be left behind. The same goes for national policy: If AI poses existential risks, U.S. policymakers might say, we better not let China beat us to it for lack of investment or overregulation. (It is telling that Sam Altman — the CEO of OpenAI and a signatory of the Center for AI Safety statement — warned the E.U. that his company will pull out of Europe if regulations become too burdensome.)

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Corporate Bullshit

I'm coming to BURNING MAN! On TUESDAY (Aug 27) at 1PM, I'm giving a talk called "DISENSHITTIFY OR DIE!" at PALENQUE NORTE (7&E). On WEDNESDAY (Aug 28) at NOON, I'm doing a "Talking Caterpillar" Q&A at LIMINAL LABS (830&C).

Corporate Bullshit: Exposing the Lies and Half-Truths That Protect Profit, Power, and Wealth in America is Nick Hanauer, Joan Walsh and Donald Cohen's 2023 book on the history of corporate apologetics; it's great:

https://thenewpress.com/books/corporate-bullsht

I found out about this book last fall when David Dayen reviewed it for the The American Prospect; Dayen did a great job of breaking down its thesis, and I picked it up for my newsletter, which prompted Hanauer to send me a copy, which I finally got around to reading yesterday (I have gigantic backlog of reading):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/27/six-sells/#youre-holding-it-wrong

The authors' thesis is that the business world has a well-worn playbook that they roll out whenever anything that might cause industry to behave even slightly less destructively is proposed. What's more, we keep falling for it. Every time we try to have nice things, our bosses – and their well-paid Renfields – dust off their talking points from the last go-round, do a little madlibs-style search and replace, and bust it out again.

It's a four-stage plan:

I. First, insist that there is no problem.

Enslaved people are actually happy. Smoking doesn't cause cancer. Higher CO2 levels are imaginary and they're caused by sunspots and they're good for crop yields. The hole in the ozone layer is only a problem if you foolishly decide to hang around outside (this is real!).

II. OK, there's a problem, but it's your fault.

An epidemic of on-the-job maimings is actually an epidemic of sloppy workers. A gigantic housing crash is really a gigantic cohort of greedy, feckless borrowers. Rampant price gouging is actually a problem of too much "spending power" (that is, "money") in the hands of working people.

III. Any attempt to fix this will make it worse.

Equal wages for equal work will cause bosses to fire women and people of color. Protecting people with disabilities will cause bosses to fire disable people. Minimum wages will cause bosses to buy machines and fire "unskilled" workers. Gun control will only increase underground gun sales. Banning carcinogenic pesticides will end agriculture as we know and we'll all starve to death.

IV. This is socialism.

Income tax is socialism. Estate tax is socialism. Medicare and Medicaid are socialism. Food stamps are socialism. Child labor laws are socialism. Public education is socialism. The National Labor Relations Act is socialism. Unions are socialism. Social security is socialism. The Fair Labor Standards Act is socialism. Obamacare is socialism. The Civil Rights Act is socialism. The Occupational Health and Safety Act is socialism. The Family Medical Leave Act is socialism. FDR is a socialist. JFK is a socialist. Lyndon Johnson is a socialist. Carter is a socialist. Clinton is a socialist. Obama is a socialist. Biden is a socialist (Biden: "I beat the socialist. That's how I got the nomination").

Though this playbook has been in existence since the nation's founding, the authors point out that from the New Deal until the Reagan era, it didn't get much traction. But starting in the Reagan years, the well-funded network of billionaire-backed think-tanks, endowed economics chairs, and latter-day propaganda vehicles like Prageru breathed new life into these tactics.

We can see this playing out right now as the corporate world scrambles for a response to the Harris campaign's proposal to address price-gouging. Reading Matt Stoller's dissection of this response, we can see the whole playbook on display:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-price-gouging-vs

First, corporate apologists insisted that greedflation didn't exist, despite the fact that CEOs kept getting on earnings calls and boasting to their investors about how they were using the excuse of inflation to jack up prices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/11/price-over-volume/#pepsi-pricing-power

Or the oil CEOs who boasted that the Russian invasion of Ukraine gave them cover to just screw us at the pump:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/15/sanctions-financing/#soak-the-rich

There are all these out-in-the-open commercial entities whose sole purpose is to "advise" large corporations about their prices, which is just a barely disguised euphemism for price-fixing, from meat-packing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/04/dont-let-your-meat-loaf/#meaty-beaty-big-and-bouncy

To rents:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/24/gouging-the-all-seeing-eye/#i-spy

That's stage one: "there's no problem." Stage two is "it's your fault." That's Larry Summers and co insisting that a couple of stimulus checks a couple years ago are responsible for inflation, because it gave you too much "buying power," and so the only possible fix is to jack up interest rates and trigger mass layoffs and sharp wage decreases across the economy:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/14/medieval-bloodletters/#its-the-stupid-economy

Stage three is "any attempt to fix this will make it worse." When Isabella Weber pointed out that there was a long history of price-controls being used to fight price-gouging, corporate apologists lost their minds and brigaded her, calling her all kinds of nasty names and insisting that her prescription didn't even warrant serious discussion, because any attempt to control prices would destroy the economy:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/podcasts/lately/article-the-millennial-economist-who-took-on-the-world/

You may recognize this as cousin to the response to rent control proposals, which inevitably trigger a barrage of economists screaming that this will not work and will actually reduce the housing supply and drive up prices, which is true, provided that you ignore all evidence and history:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/16/mortgages-are-rent-control/#housing-is-a-human-right-not-an-asset

And stage four is "this is socialism." Look, I am a literal card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America and I can assure you, Kamala Harris is not a socialist (and more's the pity). But that didn't stop the most eminently guillotineable members of the investor class from hair-on-fire, ALL-CAPS denunciations of the Harris proposal as SOCIALISM and Harris herself as a COMMUNIST:

https://twitter.com/Jason/status/1824580470052725055

The author's thesis is that by naming the playbook and giving examples of it – for example, showing how the "proof" that minimum wage increases will destroy jobs was also offered as "proof" not to abolish slavery, ban child labor, add fireproofing to textile factories, and pay women and Black people the same as white guys – we can vaccinate ourselves against it.

Certainly, we've reached a moment where the public is increasingly skeptical of claims that we can't fix anything because the economists say that this is the best of all possible worlds, and if that means that we're all going to boil to death in our own skin, so be it:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/27/economism/#what-would-i-do-if-i-were-a-horse

In other words, after 40 years of subordinating politics to economics, there's a resurgence of belief in politics – that is, doing stuff – rather than hunkering down and waiting for the technocrats to fix everything:

https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/seeing-like-a-matt

Corporate Bullshit is a brisk and bracing read – I got through it in about an hour in my hammock yesterday – and, in laying out the bullshit playbook's long history of nonsensical predictions and pronouncements, it does make a very good case that we should stop listening to people who quote from it.

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/2024/08/19/apologetics-spotters-guide/#narratives

[sc0moftheanimatiomindustry]

Kyle Carrozza is a prime example of the present day issue of people being too distracted by fictional media and drawings to notice abusers amongst them. Kyle directed ire towards one of his victims' art, Got others to lash out for him, and positioned himself as the victim in it all

naturally the core issue here is abusive workplaces and abusive industry networks. However, it wasn't retained to JUST the industry. Kyle gladly encouraged the public shaming and harassment of said victim, which went on for at least 4 years to RUIN their name and credibility

This online environment allowed Kyle Carrozza to completely decimate his victim's credibility and name. They didn't want them to be able to ever have another job again, every randos go to response was: "Isn't _ a pedophile?" because of art they made.

And that's not even counting the fact that Kyle and others literally made social media accounts with his victim's FULL NAME going “[full name] is a pedophile", reposting their supposed 'pedophilic' 'criminal' artwork for the world to see, and using the victim's favorite type of bird as account icons to mock them

That's not "setting a boundary" like his friends (mainly Jane Amber and Tony Goldmark) liked and like to imply, that was targeted defamation, abuse, and harassment with intent to harm.

Kyle weaponized the current media discourse in film, art and fandom circles which is: "What you draw is what you want in real life, and what you draw can reveal criminal intent" and ran with it. His target was people who warned about his predatory behavior, he couldn't have that

Behind the scenes he'd like tweets from other figures actively harassing and defaming his target, keeping his hands clean of it all while others went out as attack dogs on his behalf. All the while he possessed 600+ instances of CSAM and had a YEARS long history of grooming

Allowing the focus to center on media contents alone gives potential future victims a false sense of security that’s allowing actual groomers free reign. It prioritizes taking a Good vs Evil approach instead of paying attention to what predatory BEHAVIOR actually entails in real life

Instead of people evaluating what each individual person is doing (how they treat them and how they treat others behind closed doors) people take the approach of 'Oh you're on the Good side! You're Safe!' Instead prioritizing room to attack people innocent of any actual crimes

You can't tell who is safe based on what media they consume or put out, just like being a bible thumper doesn't indicate one's morality. You need to pay attention to their actions and TEACH people red flags and warning signs they can apply to ANY person/situation for safety

[rubyclover]

I said I can’t write but if felt nice getting that other idea out of my head. So I wrote this and will post. Technically I started trying to write this like a month ago… Please ignore the constant switching between past and present tense. It’s something I never seem to notice until someone else points out where it is.

Prompt: Professionals hate him but he was right! [Adam] Heaven and Hell come to the realization that The First Man played a larger part in the three realms’ political/social ecosystem than they thought. His absence leaves a vacuum that Lute is unable to fill but she may not need to because Hell is solving the problem themselves… The Morningstar Family can’t run from this.

No ABetaO we expire like Adam~

Imagine that Adam dies, the hotel has never looked better, the residents have healed up and Charlie gets another TV appearance. Lucifer is even more depressed than before but hides it. Adam is gone She’s going to reveal Sir Pentious’ redemption with evidence that is NOT childishly scribbled on key cards. Instead of the interview taking place in the 666News studio it’s held outside the hotel. She will take questions, live, right after the interview. Katie Killjoy wants to give the public a chance to cause chaos for ratings, so she puts Charlie in a vulnerable position.

Things go great… for the first 20 minutes. The interview isn’t even half way done when someone from the crowd interjects after Charlie says ‘The Sinners have a better life now that the Exterminations are permanently canceled.’

That person’s voice is calm but still pissed as Hell. They fire back that no, Sinners don’t have an easier life now that the Exterminations are over. It’s worse! Charlie and the crowd perk up.

The voice moves to the front. They’re short with plain street clothes, hood up. It’s obvious they’re poor and at the bottom of Hell’s pecking order. A couple of Imps are with them equally disheveled and tired looking. The man goes on to point out some rather hard truths.

Thanks to the last Extermination, angelic steel has become a hot commodity. While uncommon right now, there’s a pipeline to obtain an angelic weapon. All you need is enough money. Carmilla Carmine doesn’t care about how her product is used after purchase.

‘Permanent Murder’ is a new trend on HellTube netting ridiculous profits. The main targets are vulnerable Sinners, usually the scared and alone new arrivals, Imps and Hellhounds. All killed by beautifully glowing angelic weapons.

Overlords are more formidable with these weapons so the chance of contractees escaping, like Angeldust, has become damn near impossible even if they destroyed their contract. Some desperate souls were happy with their messed up immortality. It gave them some hope, ‘at least I have a chance to turn things around eventually,’ but that pathetic security is gone.

The Exterminations kept said Overlords in check to a degree. They were more inclined to take care of their underlings because that guaranteed their safety. Now? Just get an angelic gun for all your troubles. Valentino is having a fucking field day.

The ‘permadeath’ toll for one year will be ten times the amount of one Extermination Day considering how much Hell’s citizens like to kill Sinners…

Not to mention, whole industries in Hell, from top to bottom, are starting to crash. Their purpose or sales revolved around the Exterminations. Some workers cannot afford to lose their job and have to sell their soul against their will.

Etcetcetc

As the man speaks Charlie is surprised to see heads nodding in agreement! Someone comments that they hadn’t seen their Sinner friend in a few days and tries not to panic while another face falls in the crowd and wrings their hands together. An Imp with curved horns standing beside a young Hellhound sweats profusely and starts to leave. Tension moves through the public. Not just the ones in front of the stage but also those watching TV.

Despite her best efforts Charlie cannot lift the crowd’s mood. She realizes prematurely revealing Sir Pentious’ redemption is the only way to salvage this growing disaster. Unfortunately the man’s timing is perfect because the second she opens her mouth he turns his anger on the Morningstars.

He calls out how much her family misrepresents themselves as rulers. They don’t do anything for Hell anymore. They spend most of their time fucking around while the Sinners suffer. The other Sins manage their rings and hellborn, not Lucifer or Lilith. All three of the Morningstars can’t truly understand human suffering yet they profess to know how to best handle it. With no idea what it means to be human yet they pass judgement on them.

The crowd becomes agitated and the Imps beside the man move closer to him. They aren’t trying to draw safety from the Sinner but are taking defensive positions. Charlie realizes this isn’t someone speaking up in the heat of the moment. This is a planned speech. He’s highjacking her broadcast!

She sees the Sinner clench his fists and feels herself start to sweat. Why was he saying any of that? Yes, life will be a bit hard at first but now everyone can come together and rebuild! There are so many possibilities available to The Pride Ring. It would improve lives. Change was always good they just had to be careful. Yet the stranger goes on.

He claims that Lucifer is a washed up angel that can’t comprehend mortality because of his maladaptive dreaming and pride, Lilith is apathetic to Sinners and wishes to aggravate Heaven no matter how much Hell will suffer and Charlie is so sheltered that she thinks PTSD can be solved by clapping and saying positive affirmations.

Little is known about the royal family but the stranger’s comments sway the crowd. The hotel’s original commercials got the time of day because of Charlie’s status, not because the facility had managed to accomplish anything. Lucifer barely appears at all even when large fights break out leveling half of Pentagram City. And Lilith? Missing for 7 years after riling up all of Hell multiple times, causing Heaven to start the Exterminations.

The stranger calls the hotel a disgusting joke. Calls out how Charlie is trying to ‘pass the buck’ over to Heaven. The Pride Ring’s actual rulers are Overlords and they make sure Sinners suffer and continue to act depraved whether they like it or not. Her family has the power to take control and lessen the city’s suffering but they don’t. Instead they play with their little pet project .

Why are they focusing on shipping problems elsewhere? There’s a better way to solve the pain and suffering at the source than waiting! Fix Pentagram City! Show Heaven that the current number of Sinners isn’t a threat!

‘For all the crying and sniveling you do Princess Charlotte, you sure don’t actually help where it counts! I’m sure you care about Sinners but only on the same level as someone cares about cute public park ducks.’

Vaggie, who had been standing to the side of the stage leaps forward, places herself in between the stranger and her girlfriend. Everyone’s raised emotions have put her on edge. She ignores the harsh gasps when her angelic spear slides free and into her hands. ‘Back up! Now!’

Charlie’s heart sank at the escalation. She understood her girlfriend was still tense from the extermination but all their hard work was starting to fray around the edges! She just hoped her dad didn’t-

The King of Hell himself appears through a portal shortly after gathering himself together. The opening looked angrier in color, matching his mood. Sickly green lines run throughout the glow, radiating blistering heat. Parts of the stage began to melt and the forgotten camera crew swivel to their ruler. Lucifer’s face is set in stone but his bright flickering eyes give him away.

‘Who the fuck are you?’ He snarls, apple topped cane slamming onto the stage causing some of it to splatter. ‘How dare you speak to my daughter that way.’ Lucifer’s face morphs into a more demonic grimace. Katie Killjoy scrambles from her chair and off the stage at the same time as Charlie vaulting up to place a hand on Lucifer’s shoulder whispering ‘dad no!’ She doesn’t want the hotel’s improved reputation to evaporate. A confrontation with someone on live TV would scare people away!

Lucifer growls in the back of his throat, looking at where he assumes the bastard’s eyes are under his hood. Smoke and embers sizzle out from the corner of his mouth and inbetween teeth. He hated acting this way but he had an image to uphold. ‘Answer your King you wretch. Don’t confuse my inaction with benevolence. You’re testing my patience!’

After a beat or two of staring each other down the stranger has the gall to ‘tsk’ off to the side as if spitting. ‘As you with your majesty. It’s all fine by me.’ A small, scared hand reaches up and whips off the dirty hood exposing his face to all of Hell.

People instantly whip out their phones. His face is shockingly similar to Lucifer’s, in fact a basic carbon copy sans a few attributes.

Cameras catch alabaster skin and soft, blond, curly hair, short, wiry build, vivid green eyes, pale coral cheek markings, pointed ears and four demon wings the same color as his skin.

Leaf green eyes stair directly into Charlie’s while electing to ignore both fallen angels. He stands ramrod straight. Cutting a regal silhouette despite the filth on his body and clothes.

‘My name is Cain Adamson, The Wandering Star.’ He bows in a fashion Charlie hadn’t seen in all her galas. ‘Lucifer Morningstar’s first born and bastard son. It’s nice to finally meet you sister mine… I’ll be taking your family’s crown for my father.’

[So in this AU Cain rescued Adam’s body and resuscitated it. They had a familial bond even when Cain got banished for murdering Able and found out his bio dad was Lucifer. Eve didn’t pay much attention to her first born out of guilt so Adam stepped up. No one shamed her. Adam never felt like Cain was separate from his other kids even though he looked nothing like him. Now Cain wants to provide for his father who’s trapped in hell and in really bad condition by booting the Morningstars out of power in the Pride Ring.] Dunno about pairing but Adamsapple or Guitarhero would be a safe bet. Either way Lucifer will suffer lol

[wtf do I call this? Family Feud AU? Chessboard AU? Secret Brother AU? Idk h e l p ]

[dontforgetukraine]

TIFF: And so it continues...

Update to Russians at War Screenings Effectively immediately, TIFF is forced to pause the upcoming screenings of Russians at War on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday as we have been made aware of significant threats to festival operations and public safety. While we stand firm on our statement shared yesterday, this decision has been made in order to ensure the safety of all festival guests, staff, and volunteers. This is an unprecedented move for TIFF. As a cultural institution, we support civil discourse about and through films, including differences of opinion, and we fully support peaceful assembly. However, we have received reports indicating potential activity in the coming days that pose significant risk; given the severity of these concerns, we cannot proceed as planned. This has been an incredibly difficult decision. When we select films, we’re guided by TIFF’s Mission, our Values, and our programming principles. We believe this film has earned a place in our Festival’s lineup, and we are committed to screening it when it is safe to do so. Effectively immediately, TIFF is forced to pause the upcoming screenings of Russians at War on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday as we have been made aware of significant threats to festival operations and public safety. While we stand firm on our statement shared yesterday, this decision has been made in order to ensure the safety of all festival guests, staff, and volunteers. This is an unprecedented move for TIFF. As a cultural institution, we support civil discourse about and through films, including differences of opinion, and we fully support peaceful assembly. However, we have received reports indicating potential activity in the coming days that pose significant risk; given the severity of these concerns, we cannot proceed as planned. This has been an incredibly difficult decision. When we select films, we’re guided by TIFF’s Mission, our Values, and our programming principles. We believe this film has earned a place in our Festival’s lineup, and we are committed to screening it when it is safe to do so.

While it's great this propaganda film was suspended (not cancelled), TIFF still double downed on their original stance.

What's not great is TIFF's insinuation that the supposed threats they received came from protesters and groups from the Ukrainian-Canadian community.

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Toronto police had this to say:

Toronto police said TIFF's decision to pause the screenings was "made independently by the event organizers and was not based on any recommendation" from police. "We were aware of the potential for protests and had planned to have officers present to ensure public safety," a police spokesperson wrote in an email. (Source)

So, it smells strongly like TIFF lied about the threats. If there were threats, they should have been reported, and when asked about it the police would hopefully be transparent enough to say they gave the recommendation.

Then there's this. My guess is they can't secure the theater from any sort of disruption, and they see protesting as a threat.

Protest outside media screening Large crowds gathered outside a Tuesday screening for media and industry members to take part in a protest organized by Ukrainian community groups and attended by officials, including Ukrainian Consul General Oleh Nikolenko. Demonstrators handed out pamphlets that criticized the film's attempts to "'humanize' the military of the aggressor country."  TIFF staff did not allow attendees to carry those pamphlets inside, though during the screening at least one woman handed them out to audience members in the theatre. Midway through the film, a man forced his way inside, shouting "You're watching a f--king propaganda film" before he was escorted out by security. (Source)

Meanwhile a statement from the producers of "Russian's at War" was released.

TIFF's decision to pause its screenings of "Russians at War" due to extreme security concerns is heartbreaking for us as filmmakers and Canadian Citizens. Our priority as producers, through this production, has been the safety and security of our courageous director, Anastasia Trofimova, despite her steadfast acceptance of these risks to make her documentary. We had assumed those risks would originate within Russia, not Canada. This is not a win for Canadians, including Ukrainian-Canadians. We condemn Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, Ukraine Ambassador to Canada Yuliya Kovaliv, Consul General of Ukraine in Toronto Oleh Nikolenko, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Senators Donna Dasko and Stanley Kutcher, MP Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre) MPP Christine Hogarth (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) and other political and community "leaders." Their irresponsible, dishonest, and inflammatory public statements have incited the violent hate that has led to TIFF's painful decision to pause its presentation of "Russians at War". This temporary suppression is shockingly unCanadian. We call on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to fully investigate this affront, from within a sovereign government, to our democratic values and a free media. We are firmly commited to giving Canada the opportunity to watch and reflect upon "Russians at War". We believe reason and truth will prevail. —The producers of "Russians at War" (Source)

Zero self-reflection, as expected.

I find it disgusting when they say "We had assumed those risks would originate within Russia, not Canada" as if what the FSB would do is equivalent to whatever could happen to them in Canada.... As if they'll be treated like how Russia treats Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars, POWs, journalists, political opponents, etc... :)

"Their irresponsible, dishonest, and inflammatory public statements have incited the violent hate..."

Outrage from a people that have currently and historically been victims of Russian propaganda, aggression, racism, and imperialism is not violent hate. People pointing out the propaganda is not hate. The protests at TIFF are not hate. I don't know where the other producers are from, but they sure do play the Russian victim frame of mind well.

Also, the Ukrainian community leaders are not being dishonest, irresponsible, hateful, or inflammatory.

THE PROPAGANDA IS IN YOUR TRAILER.

The people in the film have been MARINATING in it for their ENTIRE LIVES.

---

Even though the film has been suspended, the planned protest for the first public screening will still go on. Rightly so.

UCC Toronto: On Friday, Sept 13 we will meet in front of Scotiabank Theatre at 1:30pm for a peaceful protest against TIFF's decision to screen "Russians at War". This is the first public screening of the film and the director and some of the team will be present.

But some damage has already been done.

Headline of an article by Marsha Lederman reads: "Russians at War is an exceptional documentary and needs to be seen"

I will make a separate post about this article here. I started reading it and there is a line that made me gasp and almost fall over.

To be continued...

---

Please excuse the transcription of the images. I know they make the post longer, but I'm too aware of images on tumblr not loading. :/ Also, screen readers.

[beardedmrbean]

California became just the third state in the nation to pass a "right to repair" consumer protection law on Tuesday, following Minnesota and New York, when Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 244. The California Right to Repair bill had originally been introduced in 2019. It passed, nearly unanimously, through the state legislature in September.

“This is a victory for consumers and the planet, and it just makes sense,” Jenn Engstrom, state director of CALPIRG, told iFixit(which was also one of SB244's co-sponsors). “Right now, we mine the planet’s precious minerals, use them to make amazing phones and other electronics, ship these products across the world, and then toss them away after just a few years’ use ... We should make stuff that lasts and be able to fix our stuff when it breaks, and now thanks to years of advocacy, Californians will finally be able to, with the Right to Repair.”

Turns out Google isn't offering seven years of replacement parts and software updates to the Pixel 8 out of the goodness of its un-beating corporate heart. The new law directly stipulates that all electronics and appliances costing $50 or more, and sold within the state after July 1, 2021 (yup, two years ago), will be covered under the legislation once it goes into effect next year, on July 1, 2024. For gear and gadgets that cost between $50 and $99, device makers will have to stock replacement parts and tools, and maintain documentation for three years. Anything over $100 in value gets covered for the full seven-year term. Companies that fail to do so will be fined $1,000 per day on the first violation, $2,000 a day for the second and $5,000 per day per violation thereafter.

There are, of course, carve outs and exceptions to the rules. No, your PS5 is not covered. Not even that new skinny one. None of the game consoles are, neither are alarm systems or heavy industrial equipment that "vitally affects the general economy of the state, the public interest, and the public welfare."

“I’m thrilled that the Governor has signed the Right to Repair Act into law," State Senator Susan Talamantes Eggman, one of the bill's co-sponsors, said. "As I’ve said all along, I’m so grateful to the advocates fueling this movement with us for the past six years, and the manufacturers that have come along to support Californians’ Right to Repair. This is a common sense bill that will help small repair shops, give choice to consumers, and protect the environment.”

The bill even received support from Apple, of all companies. The tech giant famous for its "walled garden" product ecosystem had railed against the idea when it was previously proposed in Nebraska, claiming the state would become "a mecca for hackers." However, the company changed its tune when SB 244 was being debated, writing a letter of support reportedly stating, "We support 'SB 244' because it includes requirements that protect individual users' safety and security as well as product manufacturers' intellectual property."

[petnews2day]

St. Louis rescue dog dies searching downtown's condemned Railway Exchange Building

New Post has been published on https://petn.ws/wDuXp

St. Louis rescue dog dies searching downtown's condemned Railway Exchange Building

ST. LOUIS — A fire department search and rescue dog has died searching downtown’s condemned Railway Exchange Building, the department announced Saturday. St. Louis Fire Department search and rescue dog Balko died while searching the Railway Exchange Building on Friday, March 3, 2023. Photo courtesy the St. Louis Fire Department Balko, a Hanoverian hound from […]

See full article at https://petn.ws/wDuXp #DogNews #CityPlanning, #ConstructionIndustry, #SecurityAndPublicSafety, #Trade, #Zoology

[djuvlipen]

A 6yo girl died of electrocution in a Romani camp in Italy last month. this is what racialized poverty looks like; children are always among the first victims. may she rest in peace

04 March 2024

The Saturday before she was due to start school, six-year-old Michelle died by electrocution in the Roma camp in Via Carrafiello di Giugliano in Naples. Despite desperate attempts to resuscitate the girl, who had brushed against exposed electrical cables, she was pronounced dead at about three p.m. on the 13 January 2024. 

Allegedly, distressed family members caused a disturbance at the hospital and were accused of attacking health care personnel and police. This ‘chaos’ quickly became the focus of local media attention, and coverage of the tragic death of a child quickly morphed into an issue of public order and security.   

Deputy Francesco Emilio Borrelli of the Alleanza Verdi Sinistra, weighed in by describing the Giugliano camp “populated by violent people whose lifestyle is many times beyond the law” as one of many “outlaw settlements where children are abandoned to degradation”; and declaring his solidarity with the emergency room doctors and the police. 

After a meeting of the committee for public order and safety, the prefect of Naples, Michele Di Bari, set the objectives for the local administration “Clean the camp from waste in the next few weeks and start the transfer of a Roma family of around 40 people, to an asset confiscated from organized crime.” 

The authorities responded with a blitz on the camp coordinated by local police, and supported by Carabinieri, military personnel and employees of the water company. Waste was removed, electrical cables made safe, vehicles seized, and the water supply was disconnected, leaving about 450 Romani people without access to water by 25 January. Behind the expressions of concern about the safety of children, the official stance is – to borrow a phrase from Matteo Salvini – one of “Legalità, ordine e rispetto prima di tutto!” (Legality, order and respect before all).

The reporter from Avvenire tells a different story, of bereaved families, wrongly accused of affray at the hospital, routinely scapegoated and repeatedly evicted. After the seventh eviction they ended up on this long-abandoned industrial site, amongst the rubble and mud, without water or electricity, except for illegal connections – an ‘informal settlement’ in officialese. In reality, a squalid and precarious site, where 200 Romani children subsist in conditions that do nothing to nurture “an atmosphere of happiness” for the “full and harmonious development of his or her personality”, envisaged in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In a submission to the UN Human Rights Council back in 2014, ERRC research revealed that Romani children raised in camps across Italy were prone to a number of severe and debilitating conditions: they suffered from high levels of anxiety, were more frequently born underweight, and became ill with respiratory disease in greater numbers. They suffered more often from poisoning, burns and accidents at home. There was a greater incidence of “diseases of poverty”, such as tuberculosis, scabies, and lice.

The roots of the crisis can be traced back to official policies in the 1990s which placed Roma in segregated ‘nomad camps’. Things worsened with Berlusconi’s illegal declaration of a State of Emergency to combat the so-called ‘Roma menace’ in 2008. This overtly racist demonisation of Romani people heralded a prolonged period of mass evictions and destruction of camps, harassment, expulsions, mob violence and pogroms against Roma communities. Up to this day, the legacy of this illegal state of exception still afflicts Roma, as successive governments have failed, or simply refused to honour the commitment to ‘get beyond the system of camps.’ 

For its part, the European Commission chose to remain silent in the face of mounting and overwhelming evidence of systemic anti-Roma discrimination, forced evictions and camp segregation. On 6 April 2017, The Financial Times reported that the European Commission had repeatedly blocked publication of a report which recommended sanctions against Italy for mistreatment of its Roma minority, in an attempt to avoid a damaging public row. Seven years later, little has changed in Brussels, and the Commission has consistently kept schtum on this issue.

On 20 May 2019, in response to an emergency case was brought before the court by Associazione 21 luglio and the ERRC, the European Court of Human Rights ordered the Italian Government to provide suitable accommodation for the 73 Romani families who were forcibly evicted from Giugliano the previous week. The court recognised the right to family unity and the need to provide adequate housing to the 450 Roma who had been evicted, and were camped in an area with no shelter, and were forced to sleep inside cars or outdoors, despite the difficult weather conditions, without access to electricity, clean water or toilets. And this is where Michelle and her friends spent the next four years.

Despite the availability of EU funds, the precarious living conditions endured by the Roma remained unresolved. On 12 January 2021, the Campania Regional Council approved the "Abramo" project worth €846,000 for a path of housing, work and social integration of the Roma populations of Giugliano in Campania. As is all too painfully evident, no tangible progress had been made on housing, and as Avvenire noted, in the aftermath of this latest tragedy “now the focus is on the reuse of houses confiscated from the Camorra.” As part of the education path of the Abramo project, “Interventions on school integration have started and yesterday Michelle would have gone to school with the apron and backpack given to her.” Instead, on that first day at school for the cohort of Romani kids, one desk remained empty.

[dcdreamblog]

As someone with WW2 expertise, maybe you can clear something up for me. What was the deal with Baroness Paula von Gunther? I've read differing accounts of her activities during the war and her relationship with Wonder Woman. Can you help me out?

I can give it my best shot! However this comes with a couple of disclaimers. 1. As far as my records indicate because of circumstances at the end of the story, Baroness Von Gunther is probably still ALIVE. Not that I think she has an interest in speaking for posterity just know that should she ever have the inclination her own word could contradict everything I am about to say 2. Certain folks on Tumblr are not gonna like this story because the lesson to take from it is that ANYONE can change and should be given the opportunity which is a philosophical stance the Amazons and Wonder Woman specifically STILL come under fire for. Records on Von Gunther's very early life are scarce but it can be inferred that she was born near the end of WWI in modern day Austria to a family of minor nobility. Noble enough to be stripped of their titles after the collapse of Austria-Hungary but not sitting on enough land to bounce back. She was married young to a slightly higher minor noble named Gottfried Von Gunther. Given later circumstances we can assume their marriage was not exactly a whirlwind romance but it DID create one of the monster important parts of Baroness Von Gunther's life: Her daughter Gerta

(Personal Photo of Paula and Gerta circa 1937~. One thing of note is that this was torn from a larger photograph, which presumably included Gottfried somewhere which speaks to Paula's relationship with the man) It was in 1938, during the Nazi annexation of Austria that the Von Gunther family was target by the Nazi Gestapo. Seeking the family's remaining wealth Gottfried was killed in Nazi captivity and Gerta was taken hostage. Paula connections in the fashion and beauty industries built during her time as a bachelorette in the early 30s were leveraged to allow her position as a spy and saboteur. It was in this position and under the codename "Uberfraulien" (That is under the original meaning of "codename" in that it was used to refer to her in coded Nazi messages, not an intentional moniker) that Baroness Von Gunther would cross paths with Wonder Woman, the newly arrived Hippolyta of Themyscira

(File Photo from Von Gunther's OSS records circa 1942.) In her espionage career Baroness Von Gunther unlocked a previously unknown skill in all things scientific and was the creator of many disquieting devices. Robots, mind control, etc. She was captured, imprisoned and even sentenced to death multiple times but with Gerta's safety back home dependent upon her activity she always escaped. It wasn't until war's end when she formulated a plan to invade Paradise Island itself that she was captured for good. And that Hippolyta in her Wonder Woman guise was able to reunite her with Gerta, rescued from Nazi captivity in occupied Vienna. It was after this rescue and behind closed doors she was made an offer that would be controversial today and was considered treasonous at the time. Serve out her "sentence" on Paradise Island with interest in reform rather than being handed over to the US for execution as an enemy agent. America ERUPTED at the news. Hippolyta was branded a security risk, stripped of most of her earned credentials. Only the All Star Squadron and the Justice Society refused any orders to purge her membership outright by simply not responding to them at all. And that's where the story has stood for the last...79 years and counting? Paula and Gerta Von Gunther were taken in as adopted Amazons and have been there ever since, far from the public eye. The only modern information we have on them is when some fucking asshole college leftist shouted an accusation at Diana after she intervened during unrest at Harvard University. The transcript of said response is better than I could write so this is from the lips of the Amazon herself Student (after being asked to disperse as the protest on campus was creating a risk of violence): "We don't take orders from people who shelter Nazis!" Diana (Pausing and turning to face the student directly): "One of the things of Man's World I might truly never understand is your insistence on punishment. Paula Von Gunther is a sister of mine. She has harmed no one in lifetimes, every moment since spent in contemplation and the care of others. If six decades of reform is not enough to sate your lust for retribution than the crime lies with you, not her."

[covid-safer-hotties]

School’s back and so is a COVID-19 surge: Protecting kids and precarious workers - Published Aug 30, 2024

While the chance of dying has decreased, we should be concerned about the serious long-term complications that can follow an infection.

The 2024 school year is beginning amid one of the biggest COVID-19 waves of the pandemic.

One U.S doctor states, “This is a very significant surge. The levels are very high. They’re the highest we’ve ever seen during a summer wave.” It might be hard to think about, but we’re still in a pandemic and experts are warning against COVID-19 complacency in schools.

Dying with COVID-19 in the acute phase may have decreased, but complications from an infection exist — more than 2 million Canadians have “long COVID” (LC). In this context, societies that see themselves as equitable, inclusive and just need to consider if they’re doing the best job protecting their more vulnerable members, like children and many precarious workers. Research shows governments are not doing the best protecting the rights of children in a crisis, and reports from workers indicate some feel abandoned and left to deal with scary health situations, largely on their own. For school staff, students, their families and communities, this all seems quite cruel. It does not need to be this way.

Organizations are working to make Ontario schools safer. Ontario school safety advocates for cleaner air in schools and research shows schools are safer when things like masking and vaccination are in place. However, these measures are generally not being followed.

Dr. Pantea Javidan writes, “the lack of health and safety in schools resulting from zero-mitigation policies continues to cause great physical and psycho-social harms to children and families.” One study found 14 per cent of adolescents who have gotten COVID-19 developed some LC symptoms. Another study found 45 per cent of infected children with at least one persisting LC symptom. For workers with LC, about 14 per cent have not returned to work within three months since their infection. Many people have been knocked off career paths because of LC. It is a public health crisis for workers and youth.

Allowing uncontrolled spread in communities and schools will likely see the crisis grow, so schools need to be made safe. Not making schools safe violates children’s rights because children’s rights to education include the right to an environment that is safe and not harmful to one’s health.

Kids are major spreaders of COVID-19 and with certain policies, the schools they attend can be safer. HEPA filters should be in every classroom and always on.

Businesses like the Apricot Tree Café in Mississauga are committed to clean air, use HEPA filters and are considered a leader in COVID-19 safe business practices. The owner reports not being sick in four years despite working in a high-risk industry. If a private restaurant can provide clean air, so can the public school system. Not doing so may violate certain human rights.

Dr. Javidan argues “policies threatening the life, health, and education of children are cause for alarm among defenders of human rights.” Importantly, human rights overlap into workers’ rights. In the U.S., workers have been disabled at an unexpectedly high rate since the pandemic began, and researchers are wondering if there’s a COVID-19 connection.

My research looks at precarious occasional teachers (OTs) in Ontario during COVID-19 and ways to make work safer for them, which makes schools safer for students. For example, hiring more secure contract teachers can reduce class sizes making them safer. Higher OT pay, basic income, and paid sick days could help by enabling sick people to stay home. OTs in B.C. make significantly more money per day than Ontario OTs, so higher wages are possible.

Ontario OTs have no paid sick days and can be exposed to multiple schools and hundreds if not thousands of students and staff, which puts them and others at risk. Higher wages and/or a universal basic income allows OTs to have a buffer due to lost income from days absent. A policy of paid sick days can stop sick workers going to work and helps a robust economy.

There are many educational and employment policy options available to reduce COVID-19 levels and protect students and workers during the 2024/25 school year. To uphold the rights of children and workers, these policies should be advocated for by community groups and unions, and adopted by governments and school boards.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How to design a tech regulation

TONIGHT (June 20) I'm live onstage in LOS ANGELES for a recording of the GO FACT YOURSELF podcast. TOMORROW (June 21) I'm doing an ONLINE READING for the LOCUS AWARDS at 16hPT. On SATURDAY (June 22) I'll be in OAKLAND, CA for a panel (13hPT) and a keynote (18hPT) at the LOCUS AWARDS.

It's not your imagination: tech really is underregulated. There are plenty of avoidable harms that tech visits upon the world, and while some of these harms are mere negligence, others are self-serving, creating shareholder value and widespread public destruction.

Making good tech policy is hard, but not because "tech moves too fast for regulation to keep up with," nor because "lawmakers are clueless about tech." There are plenty of fast-moving areas that lawmakers manage to stay abreast of (think of the rapid, global adoption of masking and social distancing rules in mid-2020). Likewise we generally manage to make good policy in areas that require highly specific technical knowledge (that's why it's noteworthy and awful when, say, people sicken from badly treated tapwater, even though water safety, toxicology and microbiology are highly technical areas outside the background of most elected officials).

That doesn't mean that technical rigor is irrelevant to making good policy. Well-run "expert agencies" include skilled practitioners on their payrolls – think here of large technical staff at the FTC, or the UK Competition and Markets Authority's best-in-the-world Digital Markets Unit:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/13/kitbashed/#app-store-tax

The job of government experts isn't just to research the correct answers. Even more important is experts' role in evaluating conflicting claims from interested parties. When administrative agencies make new rules, they have to collect public comments and counter-comments. The best agencies also hold hearings, and the very best go on "listening tours" where they invite the broad public to weigh in (the FTC has done an awful lot of these during Lina Khan's tenure, to its benefit, and it shows):

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2022/04/ftc-justice-department-listening-forum-firsthand-effects-mergers-acquisitions-health-care

But when an industry dwindles to a handful of companies, the resulting cartel finds it easy to converge on a single talking point and to maintain strict message discipline. This means that the evidentiary record is starved for disconfirming evidence that would give the agencies contrasting perspectives and context for making good policy.

Tech industry shills have a favorite tactic: whenever there's any proposal that would erode the industry's profits, self-serving experts shout that the rule is technically impossible and deride the proposer as "clueless."

This tactic works so well because the proposers sometimes are clueless. Take Europe's on-again/off-again "chat control" proposal to mandate spyware on every digital device that will screen everything you upload for child sex abuse material (CSAM, better known as "child pornography"). This proposal is profoundly dangerous, as it will weaken end-to-end encryption, the key to all secure and private digital communication:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/18/encryption-is-deeply-threatening-to-power-meredith-whittaker-of-messaging-app-signal

It's also an impossible-to-administer mess that incorrectly assumes that killing working encryption in the two mobile app stores run by the mobile duopoly will actually prevent bad actors from accessing private tools:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/09/04/oh-for-fucks-sake-not-this-fucking-bullshit-again-cryptography-edition/

When technologists correctly point out the lack of rigor and catastrophic spillover effects from this kind of crackpot proposal, lawmakers stick their fingers in their ears and shout "NERD HARDER!"

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/01/12/nerd-harder-fbi-director-reiterates-faith-based-belief-in-working-crypto-that-he-can-break/

But this is only half the story. The other half is what happens when tech industry shills want to kill good policy proposals, which is the exact same thing that advocates say about bad ones. When lawmakers demand that tech companies respect our privacy rights – for example, by splitting social media or search off from commercial surveillance, the same people shout that this, too, is technologically impossible.

That's a lie, though. Facebook started out as the anti-surveillance alternative to Myspace. We know it's possible to operate Facebook without surveillance, because Facebook used to operate without surveillance:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3247362

Likewise, Brin and Page's original Pagerank paper, which described Google's architecture, insisted that search was incompatible with surveillance advertising, and Google established itself as a non-spying search tool:

http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf

Even weirder is what happens when there's a proposal to limit a tech company's power to invoke the government's powers to shut down competitors. Take Ethan Zuckerman's lawsuit to strip Facebook of the legal power to sue people who automate their browsers to uncheck the millions of boxes that Facebook requires you to click by hand in order to unfollow everyone:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/02/kaiju-v-kaiju/#cda-230-c-2-b

Facebook's apologists have lost their minds over this, insisting that no one can possibly understand the potential harms of taking away Facebook's legal right to decide how your browser works. They take the position that only Facebook can understand when it's safe and proportional to use Facebook in ways the company didn't explicitly design for, and that they should be able to ask the government to fine or even imprison people who fail to defer to Facebook's decisions about how its users configure their computers.

This is an incredibly convenient position, since it arrogates to Facebook the right to order the rest of us to use our computers in the ways that are most beneficial to its shareholders. But Facebook's apologists insist that they are not motivated by parochial concerns over the value of their stock portfolios; rather, they have objective, technical concerns, that no one except them is qualified to understand or comment on.

There's a great name for this: "scalesplaining." As in "well, actually the platforms are doing an amazing job, but you can't possibly understand that because you don't work for them." It's weird enough when scalesplaining is used to condemn sensible regulation of the platforms; it's even weirder when it's weaponized to defend a system of regulatory protection for the platforms against would-be competitors.

Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no libertarians in government-protected monopolies. Somehow, scalesplaining can be used to condemn governments as incapable of making any tech regulations and to insist that regulations that protect tech monopolies are just perfect and shouldn't ever be weakened. Truly, it's impossible to get someone to understand something when the value of their employee stock options depends on them not understanding it.

None of this is to say that every tech regulation is a good one. Governments often propose bad tech regulations (like chat control), or ones that are technologically impossible (like Article 17 of the EU's 2019 Digital Single Markets Directive, which requires tech companies to detect and block copyright infringements in their users' uploads).

But the fact that scalesplainers use the same argument to criticize both good and bad regulations makes the waters very muddy indeed. Policymakers are rightfully suspicious when they hear "that's not technically possible" because they hear that both for technically impossible proposals and for proposals that scalesplainers just don't like.

After decades of regulations aimed at making platforms behave better, we're finally moving into a new era, where we just make the platforms less important. That is, rather than simply ordering Facebook to block harassment and other bad conduct by its users, laws like the EU's Digital Markets Act will order Facebook and other VLOPs (Very Large Online Platforms, my favorite EU-ism ever) to operate gateways so that users can move to rival services and still communicate with the people who stay behind.

Think of this like number portability, but for digital platforms. Just as you can switch phone companies and keep your number and hear from all the people you spoke to on your old plan, the DMA will make it possible for you to change online services but still exchange messages and data with all the people you're already in touch with.

I love this idea, because it finally grapples with the question we should have been asking all along: why do people stay on platforms where they face harassment and bullying? The answer is simple: because the people – customers, family members, communities – we connect with on the platform are so important to us that we'll tolerate almost anything to avoid losing contact with them:

https://locusmag.com/2023/01/commentary-cory-doctorow-social-quitting/

Platforms deliberately rig the game so that we take each other hostage, locking each other into their badly moderated cesspits by using the love we have for one another as a weapon against us. Interoperability – making platforms connect to each other – shatters those locks and frees the hostages:

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

But there's another reason to love interoperability (making moderation less important) over rules that require platforms to stamp out bad behavior (making moderation better). Interop rules are much easier to administer than content moderation rules, and when it comes to regulation, administratability is everything.

The DMA isn't the EU's only new rule. They've also passed the Digital Services Act, which is a decidedly mixed bag. Among its provisions are a suite of rules requiring companies to monitor their users for harmful behavior and to intervene to block it. Whether or not you think platforms should do this, there's a much more important question: how can we enforce this rule?

Enforcing a rule requiring platforms to prevent harassment is very "fact intensive." First, we have to agree on a definition of "harassment." Then we have to figure out whether something one user did to another satisfies that definition. Finally, we have to determine whether the platform took reasonable steps to detect and prevent the harassment.

Each step of this is a huge lift, especially that last one, since to a first approximation, everyone who understands a given VLOP's server infrastructure is a partisan, scalesplaining engineer on the VLOP's payroll. By the time we find out whether the company broke the rule, years will have gone by, and millions more users will be in line to get justice for themselves.

So allowing users to leave is a much more practical step than making it so that they've got no reason to want to leave. Figuring out whether a platform will continue to forward your messages to and from the people you left there is a much simpler technical matter than agreeing on what harassment is, whether something is harassment by that definition, and whether the company was negligent in permitting harassment.

But as much as I like the DMA's interop rule, I think it is badly incomplete. Given that the tech industry is so concentrated, it's going to be very hard for us to define standard interop interfaces that don't end up advantaging the tech companies. Standards bodies are extremely easy for big industry players to capture:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/30/weak-institutions/

If tech giants refuse to offer access to their gateways to certain rivals because they seem "suspicious," it will be hard to tell whether the companies are just engaged in self-serving smears against a credible rival, or legitimately trying to protect their users from a predator trying to plug into their infrastructure. These fact-intensive questions are the enemy of speedy, responsive, effective policy administration.

But there's more than one way to attain interoperability. Interop doesn't have to come from mandates, interfaces designed and overseen by government agencies. There's a whole other form of interop that's far nimbler than mandates: adversarial interoperability:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability

"Adversarial interoperability" is a catch-all term for all the guerrilla warfare tactics deployed in service to unilaterally changing a technology: reverse engineering, bots, scraping and so on. These tactics have a long and honorable history, but they have been slowly choked out of existence with a thicket of IP rights, like the IP rights that allow Facebook to shut down browser automation tools, which Ethan Zuckerman is suing to nullify:

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

Adversarial interop is very flexible. No matter what technological moves a company makes to interfere with interop, there's always a countermove the guerrilla fighter can make – tweak the scraper, decompile the new binary, change the bot's behavior. That's why tech companies use IP rights and courts, not firewall rules, to block adversarial interoperators.

At the same time, adversarial interop is unreliable. The solution that works today can break tomorrow if the company changes its back-end, and it will stay broken until the adversarial interoperator can respond.

But when companies are faced with the prospect of extended asymmetrical war against adversarial interop in the technological trenches, they often surrender. If companies can't sue adversarial interoperators out of existence, they often sue for peace instead. That's because high-tech guerrilla warfare presents unquantifiable risks and resource demands, and, as the scalesplainers never tire of telling us, this can create real operational problems for tech giants.

In other words, if Facebook can't shut down Ethan Zuckerman's browser automation tool in the courts, and if they're sincerely worried that a browser automation tool will uncheck its user interface buttons so quickly that it crashes the server, all it has to do is offer an official "unsubscribe all" button and no one will use Zuckerman's browser automation tool.

We don't have to choose between adversarial interop and interop mandates. The two are better together than they are apart. If companies building and operating DMA-compliant, mandatory gateways know that a failure to make them useful to rivals seeking to help users escape their authority is getting mired in endless hand-to-hand combat with trench-fighting adversarial interoperators, they'll have good reason to cooperate.

And if lawmakers charged with administering the DMA notice that companies are engaging in adversarial interop rather than using the official, reliable gateway they're overseeing, that's a good indicator that the official gateways aren't suitable.

It would be very on-brand for the EU to create the DMA and tell tech companies how they must operate, and for the USA to simply withdraw the state's protection from the Big Tech companies and let smaller companies try their luck at hacking new features into the big companies' servers without the government getting involved.

Indeed, we're seeing some of that today. Oregon just passed the first ever Right to Repair law banning "parts pairing" – basically a way of using IP law to make it illegal to reverse-engineer a device so you can fix it.

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/03/28/oregon-governor-kotek-signs-strong-tech-right-to-repair-bill/

Taken together, the two approaches – mandates and reverse engineering – are stronger than either on their own. Mandates are sturdy and reliable, but slow-moving. Adversarial interop is flexible and nimble, but unreliable. Put 'em together and you get a two-part epoxy, strong and flexible.

Governments can regulate well, with well-funded expert agencies and smart, adminstratable remedies. It's for that reason that the administrative state is under such sustained attack from the GOP and right-wing Dems. The illegitimate Supreme Court is on the verge of gutting expert agencies' power:

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/05/us-supreme-court-may-soon-discard-or-modify-chevron-deference

It's never been more important to craft regulations that go beyond mere good intentions and take account of adminsitratability. The easier we can make our rules to enforce, the less our beleaguered agencies will need to do to protect us from corporate predators.

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/2024/06/20/scalesplaining/#administratability

Image: Noah Wulf (modified) https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thunderbirds_at_Attention_Next_to_Thunderbird_1_-_Aviation_Nation_2019.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[ssnowiejo]

(Dropping a little rant; feel free to scroll if this isn't for you. I should be sleeping but whatever.)

When I first became a fan of Joseph back in 2022, I was genuinely rooting for him. I was thrilled when he was cast in AQPDO and Gladiator II,even if those weren't the types of movies I usually enjoy. I wasn't as enthusiastic about FF, since I always felt he had more potential in indie or independent films. Still, I was ready to support him because I was a true fan. There’s a little story I’ve never shared before (but maybe some of you will relate to it before everything with the DC stuff unfolded).

Like many women, I've had my share of terrifying experiences with men, many of which happened when I was a minor, being chased by older men, catcalled, and even touched inappropriately on public transport. These moments left me with social anxiety that only worsened after high school. I wouldn’t leave the house unless I was sure I’d be accompanied by someone I trusted. The idea of going out alone was terrifying. I canceled plans often and sometimes felt ashamed for being “an adult” who was too anxious to leave her own home.

Then, when I became a fan of Joe, I saw photos and videos of him walking around London. I know this may sound silly, but I thought to myself, “He looks so confident. He doesn’t seem to care about walking alone. I want to be like that.” A few weeks later, I worked up the courage to go outside by myself, no friends, no one, just me. It was incredibly scary, but I did it. I even laughed a little, thinking that I did it just because I wanted to seem as cool and carefree as Joe.

I always thought he’d be the type of person who might understand a struggle like that. But after seeing who he chose to date, I can't help but feel disheartened. It makes me wonder if he would laugh at my struggles alongside Doja. It stings and makes me feel a bit insecure, even though I know deep down I was never going to meet him. Yet, the thought that people like him and Doja exist, and that I could cross paths with people who share their mindset, fills me with dread.

This might sound ridiculous to some, but for many years, being a fan provided a sense of safety. I truly believed it would be the same with Joe, I was happy to be a part of his fandom for the past two years. Now I realise that there isn’t any real “safe place” in celebrity culture. It saddens me deeply that people with money, fame, and status often get away with so much. Selfish people who hurt others continue to thrive, while the rest of us have to endure and “just deal with it” because that’s how the world works.

What makes it worse is knowing that, in the end, he really doesn’t care,his fans don’t care, the industry doesn’t care. As long as he and Doja bring in money, they’ll keep thriving. And even if their moment in the spotlight fades, they’ve already secured enough to live comfortably forever.

If they’re still happily together or just hooking up or whatever I just find it so disappointing and disgusting.

I’m just tired, man.