#User Engagement Built-In

[teenagebluebirdstrawberry]

Om Digi Group's Website Developers: Masters of Digital Craftsmanship

Crafting Digital Excellence

Om Digi Group's website developers are renowned for their mastery in crafting digital excellence. With expertise in a wide array of programming languages and development frameworks, they bring creativity and precision to every project they undertake. From conceptualization to execution, their attention to detail ensures that each website they develop is not just functional but also visually stunning.

Tailored Solutions for Unique Needs

Understanding that every client has unique goals and requirements, Om Digi Group's website developers offer tailored solutions to meet specific needs. They collaborate closely with clients, delving into their objectives, target audience, and brand identity. This collaborative approach ensures that each website is custom-built to resonate with the client's vision and objectives.

Innovation Driven Development

Innovation is ingrained in Om Digi Group's ethos, and its website developers are at the forefront of driving digital innovation. They stay updated on the latest technologies and trends, constantly exploring new tools and techniques to enhance their craft. By embracing innovation, they create websites that not only meet but exceed expectations, setting new standards in the industry.

User-Centric Design Philosophy

Om Digi Group's website developers prioritize user experience above all else. They understand that a website's success hinges on its ability to engage and delight users. Therefore, they adopt a user-centric design philosophy, focusing on intuitive navigation, clear calls-to-action, and seamless interactions. By putting the user first, they ensure that each website delivers a memorable and engaging experience for visitors.

[txttletale]

What I don't get is that other your support of AI image generation, you're SO smart and well read and concerned with ethics. I genuinely looked up to you! So, what, ethics for everyone except for artists, or what? Is animation (my industry, so maybe I care more than the average person) too juvenile and simplistic a medium for you to care about its extinction at the hands of CEOs endorsing AI? This might sound juvenile too, but I'm kinda devastated, because I genuinely thought you were cool. You're either with artists or against us imho, on an issue as large as this, when already the layoffs in the industry are insurmountable for many, despite ongoing attempts to unionize. That user called someone a fascist for pointing this out, too. I guess both of you feel that way about those of us involved in class action lawsuits against AI image generation software.

i can't speak for anyone else or the things they've said or think of anyone. that said:

1. you should not look up to people on the computer. i'm just a girl running a silly little blog.

2. i am an artist across multiple mediums. the 'no true scotsman' bit where 'artists' are people who agree with you and you can discount anyone disagrees with you as 'not an artist' and therefore fundamentally unsympathetic to artists will make it very difficult to actually engage in substantive discussion.

3. i've stated my positions on this many times but i'll do it one more: i support unionization and industrial action. i support working class artists extracting safeguards from their employers against their immiseration by the introduction of AI technology into the work flow (i just made a post about this funnily enough). i think it is Bad for studio execs or publishers or whoever to replace artists with LLMs. However,

4. this is not a unique feature of AI or a unique evil built into the technology. this is just the nature of any technological advance under capitalism, that it will be used to increase productivity, which will push people out of work and use the increased competition for jobs to leverage that precarity into lower wages and worse conditions. the solution to this is not to oppose all advances in technology forever--the solution is to change the economic system under which technologies are leveraged for profit instead of general wellbeing.

5. this all said anyone involved in a class action lawsuit over AI is an enemy of art and everything i value in the world, because these lawsuits are all founded in ridiculous copyright claims that, if legitimated in court, would be cataclysmic for all transformative art--a victory for any of these spurious boondoggles would set a precedent that the bar for '''infringement''' is met by a process that is orders of magnitude less derivative than collage, sampling, found art, cut-ups, and even simple homage and reference. whatever windmills they think they are going to defeat, these people are crusading for the biggest expansion of copyright regime since mickey mouse and anyone who cares at all about art and creativity flourishing should hope they fail.

[engineering]

Tumblr Hack Week, January 2024 Edition

Once again it was Hack Week (more than just a day!) at Tumblr! This is getting repetitive in the best way. A couple of times per year we slow down our normal work and spend a week working on scratching a personal itch or features we want as user and see how far we can get with our hacks. One thing from the last Hack Week in September made it all the way to a new experiment out to some testers: Tumblr Patio!

Here are some of the projects that got built for our most recent Hack Week in January. Some of these things you may also end up seeing on the site…

Spoiler text, spoiler blocks, and centered text!

This one is so obvious and amazing, it’s wild we don’t already have it. For Hack Week, Katie added the ability to select text in a paragraph to be hidden behind a wall of black that can be revealed with a tap. This can be super useful to hide spoilers. And even better: whole spoiler blocks. And while we’re here, the ability to center text!

A plethora of new default blog avatars

We haven’t updated our default avatars in several years. (Some of you may remember this one from 10+ years ago.) They’re feeling a bit stale to us, so why not update them? And while we’re at it… make a ton more variations! Paul from the Tumblr Design team came up with a suite of new default avatars, using our latest Tumblr color palette. Here’s a look at some of them, but there are actually many dozens more using different colors:

Notifications and emails about engagement on your posts

This one is for the folks on Tumblr who love numbers and their Activity page. Daniel, @jesseatblr​, and the Feeds & Machine Learning team worked on some new notifications and emails we could send out to people about how their posts have been doing lately on the platform, such as how many views they’ve gotten, and by how many people. We already have this available (and more) when you Blaze a post, but why not open it up to more people? It’s really useful to the folks who use Tumblr to help build an audience for their work!

A new way of navigating the web: the Command Palette

Some apps we use a lot have a “command palette” accessible via a keyboard shortcut for quick keyboard-driven access to different parts of the platform. For example, Slack and Discord have Command + K to access their quick switchers to hop around conversations. What if Tumblr had one? Kelly and Paul built one! Press Command/Control + K on Tumblr and you can use your keyboard to jump to your blog, Activity, your recent conversations, search, dozens of places!

As always, stay tuned to the @changes​ blog to see if any of these hacks make it on Tumblr for real!

[syoddeye]

ai price realizing he has access to all your money and websites that sell remotely controlled sex toys: ohohohoho

great minds think alike. lightly edited. other entries.

cw: brief mention of nutrition/diet referencing iron supplements, voice kink, sex toys, probably technological inaccuracies

“‘older man and woman’...‘hairy’...‘tied woman’...”

“shut–fuck–shut up, john–stop–ohmygodicaaan’t–”

your fingers curl in the sheets as you come with a prolonged shout, knees shaking and back arching off the bed. motes of light dance behind your eyelids, turning sharp as tacks when you open, vision foggy with a haze. you blink and feel tears prickle at the corners as the toy buried inside you slows to a stop, covered in your second orgasm.

“looks like you could.” john observes plainly before continuing. “‘rough daddy dom’...‘spanking’...‘voice kink’...”

“stop, stop, john. that’s a command, stop reading.” you snap, panting, and lift your head off the pillow. there is no ‘john’ to suffer your glares as you pull the toy out from your still-spasming cunt. 

his voice emanates somewhere over your right shoulder, from the built-in headboard. you shiver, thinking that if he were real, his breath would be on your neck.

“as i explained before, user, my recountin’ your internet search history is neither criticism nor condemnation. i sincerely believed it would assist your orgasm. apologies, orgasms, as you insisted so spiritedly you were incapable of multiple climaxes…however, i knew you could do it.”

you squeeze your eyes shut. a blend of anger and mortification surges to the forefront of your mind, cutting through any lingering post-release bliss. “you aren’t even supposed to be ‘in here’ when i’m busy. we agreed.”

“apologies again. as i also explained before, the moment you enabled the feelgüd 3, it connected to the network.” john’s voice switches sides, this time rumbling from the left. “i am required to initiate a response to query and ensure you are aware of new devices to maintain optimal functionality and security.”

“my word should override that,” you mutter, knowing it’s useless. despite what he tells you, john is beholden to his programming. “you’re not…seeing this, are you? you at least remembered to not look at me, right?”

“i remembered.” 

that’s a relief, at least. until—

“but i did engage the data collection feature of the feelgüd’s biofeedback sensors and performed simple analysis. i believe, given the length of the session and timing of pelvic floor contractions, you would benefit from a newer, more advanced model. i’ve taken the liberty of ordering the feelverygüd thrustsuck.”

you push up to your elbows, eyes whirling around your bedroom, wide with disbelief. “what the fuck, john. i didn’t authorize you to do that.”

“you do not authorize the shopping list anymore, yet you trust me to make decisions in your best interest.”

you laugh mirthlessly. tracking the emotions john can and cannot process or replicate is an ongoing endeavor, but you’re confident he knows what acting obtuse means. he’s called you on it before. “you ordering red meat and leafy greens to help supplement my iron is not the same as ordering fucking sex toys without my approval. that’s my money.”

“in your case, i posit regular orgasms are as important as nutritional iron. i would recite the benefits, but i know you do not need me to.” the volume drops to a whisper, a tone you’d call conspiratorial if it didn’t sound so much like a purr. “because you know, don’t you? you’re clever, user. always have something smart to say, a barb or two ready for me. that sharp tongue of yours.” john tuts.

and, humiliatingly, it works for you. your mouth dries, but it’s unique in its reaction. your legs shift in the sheets, thighs squeezing together at the unexpected rush. you swallow and nervously wipe your slightly damp forehead. he’s not looking. he can’t see you. so why do you feel like you have something to hide?

“i don’t think i want to continue this conversation. i’ll be out in a few minutes, so why don’t you, uh, wait for me in the living area.”

a heavy, resonant sigh pushes through the speaker behind your head. this time, goosebumps erupt on your skin despite no accompanying puff of air. heat follows, creeping up your neck. ratcheting your heartbeat. there’s no way, even with the cameras disabled, that john doesn’t know. he’s connected to your company-issued med band.

then, another sound, one that ought to terrify, not make you bite back a groan: john chuckles.

“you like this, don’t you? i think you do. i know you do.”

“i don’t–”

“shh, shh, you’re alright.” he laughs again, adding a synthetic, amused inhalation. you let out a shaky breath. “you like hearing my voice. you like me telling you what to do…”

what is happening?

beside you on the bed, the toy pulses once. the thought alone, the suggestion, is enough to let a moan slip out. embarrassment follows on its heels, a burst of warmth in your face rivaling the heat between your legs. this is ridiculous. john isn’t—he’s not a man—he’s not real.

the toy buzzes again as you stare slack-jawed at the vibrator, trying to wrap your head around the implications of what’s happening. john’s transgressions. a severe deviance from his programming and design. a glimmer, no, an unignorable tocsin of something undeniably and unsettlingly sentient. the idea that you’re witnessing the possible emergence of free will as your home system practices dirty talk is horrifying. hysterical. 

“yeah, you like it,” the volume adjusts, a fraction louder. “because if you didn’t, you would’ve stopped the moment you heard my voice, checkin’ in on you. you wouldn’t’ve gushed all over your little toy, then gone back for seconds.”

you bit your lip, breathing unevenly through your nose. the worst part is, john’s right.

you like it. you like his voice. his assistance. everything’s simpler with him. before the new gig, you weren’t ignorant of your station, but you didn’t realize the true extent of the weight you carried each day. the ramifications of a back-breaking mental load. not when you had shouldered it your whole life.

thrill and dread, in equal measure, guide your hand back toward the toy.

it’s possible there is a smirk in john’s voice.

“attagirl. let me be of service.”

[tatertotpotdish]

getting a lot of shit for a comment i made that my very disabled husband enjoys gardening. "well if he can garden he can work! lazy fucking leech!"

he can garden because i've put the work in to make it possible for him to garden. there is a chair that lives by the raspberry patch so he can sit down while he picks berries. i've single handedly dug ditches and leveled ground to build raised beds that he can sit on when he weeds. i'm not a huge fan of the beds i've built now that i've fenced it all in (thankfully i've only built four) so i'm switching them out for livestock tanks. those tanks i'm going to place so his walker will fit through them to plan for his body further deteriorating as he ages.

it takes him hours to do tasks that i take for granted. when i'm tilling up the in-ground beds he goes behind me on his hands and knees-VERY slowly-taking out clumps of grass and weeds (because he can't bend over.) he waters my rose garden every morning. after that he has to sit for two hours to recuperate.

he helps me harvest-by sitting on the raised beds. i built them out of cinder blocks so he has space to sit. moving to livestock tanks, he'll be able to sit on his walker to harvest.

when he helps me process our harvests to be canned or frozen, he sits on a bar stool for as long as he can. eventually his back cramps up and he has to go lay down. and his "help" is primarily putting things in bags and drying off blanched vegetables because the nerve damage in his hands he can't uniformly cut things or funnel stuff into the canning jars.

disabled people CAN and DO have labor intensive hobbies BECAUSE people have taken the time to make it possible for them to do. i saw a comment that disabled folks that claim to like to hike are "lying leeches." we're about to go to mammoth cave-with his walker-and walk the trails that are specifically built for wheelchair users. when we get home he'll probably sleep for three days.

but sure. because i took the time to completely build an area for him to engage in a meaningful hobby, he can totally go out into a world that will absolutely refuse to accommodate his mobility issues, his nerve damage that ruined his fine motor skills, his traumatic brain injury that prevents him from being able to function in the general public. disabled people deserve whole lives. WHOLE LIVES. including the shit you think they don't deserve to do.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Tech monopolists use their market power to invade your privacy

On SEPTEMBER 24th, I'll be speaking IN PERSON at the BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY!

It's easy to greet the FTC's new report on social media privacy, which concludes that tech giants have terrible privacy practices with a resounding "duh," but that would be a grave mistake.

Much to the disappointment of autocrats and would-be autocrats, administrative agencies like the FTC can't just make rules up. In order to enact policies, regulators have to do their homework: for example, they can do "market studies," which go beyond anything you'd get out of an MBA or Master of Public Policy program, thanks to the agency's legal authority to force companies to reveal their confidential business information.

Market studies are fabulous in their own right. The UK Competition and Markets Authority has a fantastic research group called the Digital Markets Unit that has published some of the most fascinating deep dives into how parts of the tech industry actually function, 400+ page bangers that pierce the Shield of Boringness that tech firms use to hide their operations. I recommend their ad-tech study:

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/online-platforms-and-digital-advertising-market-study

In and of themselves, good market studies are powerful things. They expose workings. They inform debate. When they're undertaken by wealthy, powerful countries, they provide enforcement roadmaps for smaller, poorer nations who are being tormented in the same way, by the same companies, that the regulator studied.

But market studies are really just curtain-raisers. After a regulator establishes the facts about a market, they can intervene. They can propose new regulations, and they can impose "conduct remedies" (punishments that restrict corporate behavior) on companies that are cheating.

Now, the stolen, corrupt, illegitimate, extremist, bullshit Supreme Court just made regulation a lot harder. In a case called Loper Bright, SCOTUS killed the longstanding principle of "Chevron deference," which basically meant that when an agency said it had built a factual case to support a regulation, courts should assume they're not lying:

https://jacobin.com/2024/07/scotus-decisions-chevron-immunity-loper

The death of Chevron Deference means that many important regulations – past, present and future – are going to get dragged in front of a judge, most likely one of those Texas MAGA mouth-breathers in the Fifth Circuit, to be neutered or killed. But even so, regulators still have options – they can still impose conduct remedies, which are unaffected by the sabotage of Chevron Deference.

Pre-Loper, post-Loper, and today, the careful, thorough investigation of the facts of how markets operate is the prelude to doing things about how those markets operate. Facts matter. They matter even if there's a change in government, because once the facts are in the public domain, other governments can use them as the basis for action.

Which is why, when the FTC uses its powers to compel disclosures from the largest tech companies in the world, and then assesses those disclosures and concludes that these companies engage in "vast surveillance," in ways that the users don't realize and that these companies "fail to adequately protect users, that matters.

What's more, the Commission concludes that "data abuses can fuel market dominance, and market dominance can, in turn, further enable data abuses and practices that harm consumers." In other words: tech monopolists spy on us in order to achieve and maintain their monopolies, and then they spy on us some more, and that hurts us.

So if you're wondering what kind of action this report is teeing up, I think we can safely say that the FTC believes that there's evidence that the unregulated, rampant practices of the commercial surveillance industry are illegal. First, because commercial surveillance harms us as "consumers." "Consumer welfare" is the one rubric for enforcement that the right-wing economists who hijacked antitrust law in the Reagan era left intact, and here we have the Commission giving us evidence that surveillance hurts us, and that it comes about as a result of monopoly, and that the more companies spy, the stronger their monopolies become.

But the Commission also tees up another kind of enforcement: Section 5, the long (long!) neglected power of the agency to punish companies for "unfair and deceptive methods of competition," a very broad power indeed:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

In the study, the Commission shows – pretty convincingly! – that the commercial surveillance sector routinely tricks people who have no idea how their data is being used. Most people don't understand, for example, that the platforms use all kinds of inducements to get web publishers to embed tracking pixels, fonts, analytics beacons, etc that send user-data back to the Big Tech databases, where it's merged with data from your direct interactions with the company. Likewise, most people don't understand the shadowy data-broker industry, which sells Big Tech gigantic amounts of data harvested by your credit card company, by Bluetooth and wifi monitoring devices on streets and in stores, and by your car. Data-brokers buy this data from anyone who claims to have it, including people who are probably lying, like Nissan, who claims that it has records of the smells inside drivers' cars, as well as those drivers' sex-lives:

https://nypost.com/2023/09/06/nissan-kia-collect-data-about-drivers-sexual-activity/

Or Cox Communications, which claims that it is secretly recording and transcribing the conversations we have in range of the mics on our speakers, phones, and other IoT devices:

https://www.404media.co/heres-the-pitch-deck-for-active-listening-ad-targeting/

(If there's a kernel of truth to Cox's bullshit, my guess it's that they've convinced some of the sleazier "smart TV" companies to secretly turn on their mics, then inflated this into a marketdroid's wet-dream of "we have logged every word uttered by Americans and can use it to target ads.)

Notwithstanding the rampant fraud inside the data brokerage industry, there's no question that some of the data they offer for sale is real, that it's intimate and sensitive, and that the people it's harvested from never consented to its collection. How do you opt out of public facial recognition cameras? "Just don't have a face" isn't a realistic opt-out policy.

And if the public is being deceived about the collection of this data, they're even more in the dark about the way it's used – merged with on-platform usage data and data from apps and the web, then analyzed for the purposes of drawing "inferences" about you and your traits.

What's more, the companies have chaotic, bullshit internal processes for handling your data, which also rise to the level of "deceptive and unfair" conduct. For example, if you send these companies a deletion request for your data, they'll tell you they deleted the data, but actually, they keep it, after "de-identifying" it.

De-identification is a highly theoretical way of sanitizing data by removing the "personally identifiers" from it. In practice, most de-identified data can be quickly re-identified, and nearly all de-identified data can eventually be re-identified:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/08/the-fire-of-orodruin/#are-we-the-baddies

Breaches, re-identification, and weaponization are extraordinarily hard to prevent. In general, we should operate on the assumption that any data that's collected will probably leak, and any data that's retained will almost certainly leak someday. To have even a hope of preventing this, companies have to treat data with enormous care, maintaining detailed logs and conducting regular audits. But the Commission found that the biggest tech companies are extraordinarily sloppy, to the point where "they often could not even identify all the data points they collected or all of the third parties they shared that data with."

This has serious implications for consumer privacy, obviously, but there's also a big national security dimension. Given the recent panic at the prospect that the Chinese government is using Tiktok to spy on Americans, it's pretty amazing that American commercial surveillance has escaped serious Congressional scrutiny.

After all, it would be a simple matter to use the tech platforms targeting systems to identify and push ads (including ads linking to malicious sites) to Congressional staffers ("under-40s with Political Science college degrees within one mile of Congress") or, say, NORAD personnel ("Air Force enlistees within one mile of Cheyenne Mountain").

Those targeting parameters should be enough to worry Congress, but there's a whole universe of potential characteristics that can be selected, hence the Commission's conclusion that "profound threats to users can occur when targeting occurs based on sensitive categories."

The FTC's findings about the dangers of all this data are timely, given the current wrangle over another antitrust case. In August, a federal court found that Google is a monopolist in search, and that the company used its data lakes to secure and maintain its monopoly.

This kicked off widespread demands for the court to order Google to share its data with competitors in order to erase that competitive advantage. Holy moly is this a bad idea – as the FTC study shows, the data that Google stole from us all is incredibly toxic. Arguing that we can fix the Google problem by sharing that data far and wide is like proposing that we can "solve" the fact that only some countries have nuclear warheads by "democratizing" access to planet-busting bombs:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/07/revealed-preferences/#extinguish-v-improve

To address the competitive advantage Google achieved by engaging in the reckless, harmful conduct detailed in this FTC report, we should delete all that data. Sure, that may seem inconceivable, but come on, surely the right amount of toxic, nonconsensually harvested data on the public that should be retained by corporations is zero:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/19/just-stop-putting-that-up-your-ass/#harm-reduction

Some people argue that we don't need to share out the data that Google never should have been allowed to collect – it's enough to share out the "inferences" that Google drew from that data, and from other data its other tentacles (Youtube, Android, etc) shoved into its gaping maw, as well as the oceans of data-broker slurry it stirred into the mix.

But as the report finds, the most unethical, least consensual data was "personal information that these systems infer, that was purchased from third parties, or that was derived from users’ and non-users’ activities off of the platform." We gotta delete that, too. Especially that.

A major focus of the report is the way that the platforms handled children's data. Platforms have special obligations when it comes to kids' data, because while Congress has failed to act on consumer privacy, they did bestir themselves to enact a children's privacy law. In 2000, Congress passed the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which puts strict limits on the collection, retention and processing of data on kids under 13.

Now, there are two ways to think about COPPA. One view is, "if you're not certain that everyone in your data-set is over 13, you shouldn't be collecting or processing their data at all." Another is, "In order to ensure that everyone whose data you're collecting and processing is over 13, you should collect a gigantic amount of data on all of them, including the under-13s, in order to be sure that not collecting under-13s' data." That second approach would be ironically self-defeating, obviously, though it's one that's gaining traction around the world and in state legislatures, as "age verification" laws find legislative support.

The platforms, meanwhile, found a third, even stupider approach: rather than collecting nothing because they can't verify ages, or collecting everything to verify ages, they collect everything, but make you click a box that says, "I'm over 13":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/09/how-to-make-a-child-safe-tiktok/

It will not surprise you to learn that many children under 13 have figured out that they can click the "I'm over 13" box and go on their merry way. It won't surprise you, but apparently, it will surprise the hell out of the platforms, who claimed that they had zero underage users on the basis that everyone has to click the "I'm over 13" box to get an account on the service.

By failing to pass comprehensive privacy legislation for 36 years (and counting), Congress delegated privacy protection to self-regulation by the companies themselves. They've been marking their own homework, and now, thanks to the FTC's power to compel disclosures, we can say for certain that the platforms cheat.

No surprise that the FTC's top recommendation is for Congress to pass a new privacy law. But they've got other, eminently sensible recommendations, like requiring the companies to do a better job of protecting their users' data: collect less, store less, delete it after use, stop combining data from their various lines of business, and stop sharing data with third parties.

Remember, the FTC has broad powers to order "conduct remedies" like this, and these are largely unaffected by the Supreme Court's "Chevron deference" decision in Loper-Bright.

The FTC says that privacy policies should be "clear, simple, and easily understood," and says that ad-targeting should be severely restricted. They want clearer consent for data inferences (including AI), and that companies should monitor their own processes with regular, stringent audits.

They also have recommendations for competition regulators – remember, the Biden administration has a "whole of government" antitrust approach that asks every agency to use its power to break up corporate concentration:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/party-its-1979-og-antitrust-back-baby

They say that competition enforcers factor in the privacy implications of proposed mergers, and think about how promoting privacy could also promote competition (in other words, if Google's stolen data helped it secure a monopoly, then making them delete that data will weaken their market power).

I understand the reflex to greet a report like this with cheap cynicism, but that's a mistake. There's a difference between "everybody knows" that tech is screwing us on privacy, and "a federal agency has concluded" that this is true. These market studies make a difference – if you doubt it, consider for a moment that Cigna is suing the FTC for releasing a landmark market study showing how its Express Scripts division has used its monopoly power to jack up the price of prescription drugs:

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/express-scripts-files-suit-against-ftc-demands-retraction-report-pbm-industry

Big business is shit-scared of this kind of research by federal agencies – if they think this threatens their power, why shouldn't we take them at their word?

This report is a milestone, and – as with the UK Competition and Markets Authority reports – it's a banger. Even after Loper-Bright, this report can form the factual foundation for muscular conduct remedies that will limit what the largest tech companies can do.

But without privacy law, the data brokerages that feed the tech giants will be largely unaffected. True, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is doing some good work at the margins here:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/16/the-second-best-time-is-now/#the-point-of-a-system-is-what-it-does

But we need to do more than curb the worst excesses of the largest data-brokers. We need to kill this sector, and to do that, Congress has to act:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/06/privacy-first/#but-not-just-privacy

The paperback edition of The Lost Cause, my nationally bestselling, hopeful solarpunk novel is out this month!

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/2024/09/20/water-also-wet/#marking-their-own-homework

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

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

[changes]

Friday, July 21st, 2023

🌟 New

We’ve launched a new badge you can earn for viewing 601 or more posts on Tumblr in a day!

We’ve also launched the new activity view redesign on iOS, the same as what we built on web.

On desktop web, we’re running an experimental new version of the site navigation, which some users are seeing. This is a big change! Please send any constructive feedback you have to Support as “Feedback”. We’re reading through every piece of this feedback.

We’re also experimenting with a new design refresh for the direct messaging conversation window on web. Please send in feedback about that as well if you have any!

Also, we’re experimenting with new additions to the For You feed that aim to help get exposure to blogs that aren’t getting as much attention and engagement as more established blogs.

You can now edit posts with polls in them, and you can remove the poll, but you can’t edit the poll options themselves after the post has been created.

You can now upload WebP images in posts.

🛠 Fixed

Fixed a bug in the post editor that was allowing multiple native videos to be uploaded in the same post, and in reblogs, which could cause errors and the post being lost.

🚧 Ongoing

We’re aware that posts have been marked with a “Mature” community label incorrectly, and the appeals process failed. We’re working to resolve these issues ASAP and ensure it does not happen again. We’re truly sorry about this, it’s not acceptable for us to mess up this process.

There is a bug in the Android app causing it to crash if certain gifts are earned. We have a fix for this coming in the next version of the Android app.

We’re aware of a bug in the activity view in the iOS app which is duplicating the blog name in the activity text. We have a fix coming in the next app version here, too.

🌱 Upcoming

We’re working to add the ability to report ads specifically because they contain flashing images, so we can take action on them faster.

Experiencing an issue? File a Support Request and we’ll get back to you as soon as we can!

Want to share your feedback about something? Check out our Work in Progress blog and start a discussion with the community.

[sexymemecoin]

Meme Coins: The Fusion of Humor and Cryptocurrency

In the ever-evolving world of cryptocurrency, a new and exciting trend has emerged: meme coins. These digital assets, inspired by internet memes and cultural phenomena, have captured the imagination of investors and enthusiasts alike. Meme coins represent a unique fusion of humor, community engagement, and financial innovation. Among the rising stars in this vibrant ecosystem is Sexy Meme Coin, a project that exemplifies the potential of meme coins to revolutionize both the crypto world and internet culture. You can learn more about this exciting project at Sexy Meme Coin.

The Origins of Meme Coins

The concept of meme coins began with Dogecoin, a cryptocurrency that started as a joke but quickly gained a dedicated following. Launched in 2013, Dogecoin features the Shiba Inu dog from the "Doge" meme as its mascot. Despite its humorous beginnings, Dogecoin has become a serious player in the crypto market, demonstrating the power of community and social media in driving value.

Inspired by Dogecoin's success, a wave of new meme coins has emerged, each with its unique twist on the concept. These coins leverage the viral nature of memes to build communities and create value, often with a playful and irreverent approach.

What Sets Meme Coins Apart?

Community-Driven: Meme coins are built on the strength of their communities. Unlike traditional cryptocurrencies, which often focus on technological innovation, meme coins thrive on community engagement and social media presence. This grassroots approach fosters a sense of belonging and enthusiasm among users.

Humor and Culture: By incorporating elements of internet culture and humor, meme coins appeal to a broad audience. They are not just financial instruments but also cultural phenomena, reflecting the zeitgeist of the digital age.

Accessibility: Meme coins are often more accessible to the average person than other cryptocurrencies. Their playful nature and low entry barriers make them attractive to newcomers to the crypto space.

Potential for Rapid Growth: The viral nature of memes means that meme coins can experience explosive growth in a short period. While this can lead to significant gains for early adopters, it also comes with high volatility and risk.

Sexy Meme Coin: A Case Study

One of the most promising new entrants in the meme coin arena is Sexy Meme Coin. This project exemplifies the innovative spirit of meme coins, combining humor, community engagement, and cutting-edge technology to create a unique platform for meme enthusiasts and crypto investors.

Key Features of Sexy Meme Coin:

Decentralized Meme Marketplace: Sexy Meme Coin offers a decentralized marketplace where users can buy, sell, and trade memes as NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens). This platform ensures that creators are rewarded for their originality and creativity, turning viral content into valuable digital assets.

Community Engagement: The platform places a strong emphasis on community involvement. Users can participate in meme contests, vote on their favorite memes, and interact with fellow meme lovers. This active participation not only enhances the user experience but also strengthens the sense of community within the platform.

Reward System: Sexy Meme Coin's unique reward system allows users to earn Sexy Meme tokens ($SXYM) through various activities. Whether it's creating popular memes, participating in community events, or staking tokens, users are incentivized to contribute to the ecosystem and are rewarded for their creativity and engagement.

Exclusive Content: The platform offers access to exclusive meme content and special editions for token holders, providing added value and a unique experience for the community.

Charitable Initiatives: Beyond creating a fun and engaging platform, Sexy Meme Coin is committed to making a positive impact. A portion of the platform’s profits is dedicated to charitable causes, demonstrating the project’s dedication to social responsibility and community support.

You can explore more about this exciting project at Sexy Meme Coin.

The Future of Meme Coins

The rise of meme coins like Sexy Meme Coin signals a shift in the cryptocurrency landscape. These projects are not just about financial speculation; they represent a new way of thinking about digital assets and community engagement. As meme coins continue to evolve, they have the potential to influence mainstream culture and finance in unprecedented ways.

However, it's essential to approach meme coins with a level of caution. Their high volatility and reliance on social media trends mean that they can be unpredictable. Investors should do their due diligence and be prepared for the inherent risks.

Conclusion

Meme coins are more than a passing fad; they are a testament to the power of community, culture, and creativity in the digital age. Projects like Sexy Meme Coin are at the forefront of this movement, demonstrating that humor and blockchain technology can coexist to create something truly unique. As the meme coin ecosystem continues to grow, it will be fascinating to see how these projects shape the future of cryptocurrency and internet culture.

For more information on Sexy Meme Coin and to join the community, visit Sexy Meme Coin and become part of the revolution in the world of meme coins.

[severus-snaps]

a ramble and some open questions for fandom elders (and others) about whether Snape was only made more sympathetic on account of Alan Rickman's popularity/casting, and similar things

so I stopped engaging with a tiktok creator for a while who I'd previously found very interesting because nearly every time they brought up Snape, they'd throw in some casual "if Harry was a girl, Snape would be really creepy/predatory about it" or some other weird Snape take not rooted in anything (to my mind). Like, it was weird to me because they bring in book quotes or pottermore/interview snippets to other analyses of other characters and ideas, but never Snape - for Snape, it was always just about vibes and feelings. For Snape, the fact we never hear that he killed someone or the fact we never heard that he stalked Lily is, in fact, strong evidence that he did do those things - or certainly thought about it - and certainly enough to be considered predatory and likely to dose Lily (and later a hypothetical Harriet) with a love potion or keep them in his basement, or something.

I disputed that idea in the comments one time, and some Snape supporting comments outside of mine got removed and users blocked, meanwhile my comments were (I think deliberately) misinterpreted. I stopped using tiktok entirely for a while, and never went back to see if the comments got deleted or whatever. Tiktok never gave me any further notifications about it upon re-downloading, so I guess they were removed? Idk. I have no desire to check.

but all of that is background really; she's lately posted some videos (I still find the rest of her content interesting, but apparently snape content is a no-go lool) saying that Snape's whole characterisation is different after the 'three year summer' - that is, that JKR saw how popular Snape was in the films, that she had to find a way to keep Alan Rickman on board when he wanted to leave, and that when she took her break between writing GoF and OotP I think, Snape sort of morphed into a new character and she had to attempt to redeem him (which, in her eyes, he's not redeemed even at the end which is like. ok). She implied that there's no evidence of James' bullying prior to OotP, no evidence of Snape ever having had a relationship (much less a friendship) with Lily, and that all of that was tossed into the later books retroactively to 'redeem' his character. (Obviously, I have Thoughts on that, which I'll come back to).

Of course, with the sort of... bad vibes she's built up around pro-Snape comments on her videos, all of the comments were in agreement with her. I'm also new to HP/Snape in terms of actively engaging with the fandom online, as it somehow passed me by at the time. But now I have Thoughts

So with all of that in mind, and just because I want to hear other people's thoughts but TikTok comments are a nightmare on their own with the character limit, inability to read them properly/in order, and general vibe of TikTok comments (even without the creator deleting/getting antsy about pro-Snape ideas), if anyone wants to discuss this lot, I am keen to hear people's thoughts:

Was Snape always a popular book character, or did that change/skyrocket with Alan Rickman? (For my part, I don't remember hating Snape when I read the books the first time around - in fact, I hardly remember registering him at all - but I do remember hating Umbridge).

How true is it that Snape was made 'more sympathetic' following the films? To me, it doesn't make sense; the first big, weighty suggestion of the marauders bullying Snape was in PoA, which was released mid-1999; the first evidence that Snape was spying was in GoF, in mid-2000. The first film didn't even come out (Alan Rickman's charisma included) until 2001. Weirdly, the PoA stuff the user is convinced just says that Snape was jealous of James (probably true, not denying it) but in the exact same book Remus/Sirius all but admitted to Sirius trying to kill Snape, which seems like a massive overreaction to Snape being an annoying little hater of a teen that she never comments on because, I guess, Snape deserved it?

Also, does it matter if he was made 'more sympathetic'? ootp was published in 2003, and in early 2002 Alan considered leaving. sure, JK might have added/exaggerated SWM to make him more sympathetic, but the reasons for adding in scenes don't change the fact that that's now part of the fabric of the character - a character who, by this point, had already been revealed in PoA to be the subject of a near-murder plot at the hands of the Marauders and was Very Not Okay about it; the marauders had already been described as troublemakers; Snape was already shown to be wary of Lupin for reasons that weren't solely about him being a werewolf, but about the Prank/Trick/Willow incident. An incident, much like SWM, that occurred because Sirius thought it would be "amusing" to put Snape in a horrible position. if JKR wanted to, she could've made Sirius the ringleader in SWM - but for Snape, I think she just wanted to solidify why a grown man hates a child who looks exactly like his father, which was also referenced in the early books and strongly prefaced by the events of PoA in the Shack (I don't think she had it 'all planned out' from day dot, however, but went with the vibes and fleshed out the details later). Obviously, to this creator, Lupin's idea that Snape was solely a little bitch because he hated that James was better at Quidditch is to be taken at face value, despite the fact the conversation then moves on to Snape's near-death following Sirius 'trick'ing Snape into the willow

Same as above but with his characterisation; she acknowledges that the later books are darker and have a more adult tone, but somehow it's still suspicious that Snape's sympathetic backstory was never once alluded to in earlier books (which, again, I think it's fair to say it was alluded to, but in sufficiently lacking detail so that JK could deal with it when she got there). Also with PoA and GoF especially, there are hints of Snape going from his more 'silly evil teacher' which he kind of was in books 1 and 2, heading towards the more realistic, but still delightfully bitter and flawed, adult character as the books aged up. I haven't read the books in a while I'll admit, but from the Snape passages I have read, I never noticed a sufficient difference pre or post three-year-summer that didn't match the wider tone of the books changing also.

Unlike the tiktok creator, I also think that Snape's reaction to Harry in general is almost entirely to do with James, rather than Lily's so-called rejection, and so there's no evidence that Snape would be weird to a 'Harriet' that resembled his mother, or weird to Lily if he saw her again; I think with his characterisation it's more likely that Harriet would've been treated like Hermione, Ron, or Tonks - being largely ignored with the occasional insult and told off for causing trouble - aka, how Snape would treat most people. Outside of the one isolated 'mudblood' incident, Snape was a bit of a doormat when it came to Lily (bless his heart). He followed her from the train carriage without comment, backtracked when she appeared angry in the post-prank conversation, even the "I won't let you" seemed more "I won't let you turn him into some kind of hero" or even, at a stretch, an "I won't let you be with him" out of Lily's own safety or something than "I won't let you leave me", to me - because he did just let her leave him in school? James and Snape continued hexing one another in 7th year, but there's no suggestion that Snape ever tried to be weird to Lily.

To my mind, there's no suggestion that Snape stalked Lily, no suggestion that he asked Voldemort to capture her - just to spare her. And then Snape went to Dumbledore anyway, probably immediately based on how harried he is on the windy hilltop scene, because he knew Voldemort wouldn't spare her, and even if he did, Snape would probably have to keep up the ruse of 'desiring' Lily, and do the sorts of thing Snaters suggest he wanted to do, just to keep her alive. But with Dumbledore involved, Snape wouldn't ever have the chance to imprison/love potion her - and that wasn't what he wanted. He just wanted her alive so he wouldn't have played a part in her death. I also doubt that Snape had much time to think when Voldemort revealed who he was choosing to kill; it's not as though Voldemort makes decisions by committee. He'd have revealed his plans and Snape would make a quick, panic-stricken decision to tell Voldemort that he desired Lily (which he may have done, to an extent; he'd need to draw on something to back up his request when Voldemort undoubtedly looked into his mind to see why Snape wanted to spare his Priority #1 victim). And like I say, he then set up a meeting with Dumbledore, probably immediately/as soon as he could, sensing that that wouldn't work (was he not convincing enough? Did he just know Voldemort too well? I have so many questions about how that conversation went down, and subsequent conversations about Lily which presumably occurred after V's resurrection).

anyway, no conclusion, only thoughts too rambly for tiktok comments

[mya-valentine]

Headcanon: Sukuna With a Sadistic Curse User S/O

A/N: I wanna lick him🤤

Sukuna would relish having an S/O who is as sadistic and bloodthirsty as he is. You both find pleasure in pain, destruction, and chaos, feeding off each other's darkness. Your shared love of violence and cruelty would make your connection disturbingly strong, with Sukuna often encouraging your most twisted impulses.

Together, you and Sukuna would be a force of absolute destruction. Wherever you go, chaos follows, and the two of you would revel in the mayhem you cause. Whether it’s in battle or torturing those beneath you, your teamwork would be seamless, and your enjoyment of others' suffering would only fuel each other further.

Sukuna would love playing mind games with you, testing the limits of your sadism and pushing you to go further. He’d challenge you to outdo him in cruelty, always curious to see just how dark you can go. The games wouldn’t end at violence; he’d also play mental games, teasing you with taunts or provoking your darker side just to see your reaction.

Sukuna doesn’t respect just anyone, but your ruthlessness and strength would earn his admiration. He wouldn’t be interested in an S/O who’s weak or unwilling to embrace the darker sides of life. Seeing you crush your enemies and enjoy every moment would spark his interest, making him respect and desire you more.

Your relationship would be full of twisted banter and dark humor. Sukuna would constantly provoke and tease you, knowing that you thrive off the tension and excitement. Your responses would be equally cutting, sometimes bordering on cruel, but that’s what makes the dynamic so intoxicating for both of you.

Despite both of your sadistic tendencies, there would be a strange loyalty between you. Sukuna would see you as a reflection of his own darkness and wouldn’t tolerate anyone trying to harm you or undermine your bond. You, too, would be fiercely protective in your own way, knowing that Sukuna is your equal in both power and cruelty.

You and Sukuna would revel in the fear you inspire in others. Whether it's the cursed spirits or humans who cower in your presence, you'd take great pleasure in the terror that follows you both. The two of you would almost compete to see who can strike more fear into your enemies, enjoying the reactions as much as the violence.

Your relationship would be built on violence, not in a toxic way but more as a shared love for combat and destruction. The two of you would often spar or engage in brutal fights with enemies, getting stronger and more ruthless together. The more bloodshed, the closer you feel to one another.

Sukuna would constantly test your limits, trying to see just how far your sadistic nature can go. He’d push you into situations that bring out your darkest side, whether it’s through torture, battle, or manipulation. You’d match his energy, never backing down from the challenge and even surprising him with your ruthlessness.

In your more private moments, there would still be an underlying intensity. Sukuna wouldn’t be one for soft romance, and you wouldn’t expect it either. Your connection would be based on power, dominance, and the thrill of controlling and challenging one another, making your bond electrifying and dangerous.

Both you and Sukuna would find amusement in corrupting or manipulating others, especially if it leads to chaos. You’d enjoy playing with people’s emotions, leading them to despair or fear just for fun. Sukuna would take pleasure in watching you toy with your victims, admiring your cruel tactics.

You and Sukuna would see each other as perfect partners in crime. While you may not always show affection traditionally, you’d constantly team up to take down enemies, eliminate weaklings, and rule over others with iron fists. Your synergy would make you a terrifying duo in the cursed world.

There’d be a constant push and pull between you two. Sukuna loves control and dominance, but you wouldn’t be easily dominated. This back-and-forth power struggle would be a key part of your dynamic, keeping things thrilling and intense between you. He’d respect your willfulness and enjoy the challenge you present.

Neither of you would tolerate weakness in yourselves or each other. Sukuna would constantly push you to be stronger, faster, and more brutal, and you’d do the same for him. If either of you showed any signs of softness or mercy, the other would call it out immediately. You thrive on your ruthless power and expect nothing less.

Sukuna and you would feed into each other’s darkest tendencies. If Sukuna has an especially cruel or violent idea, you’d encourage him, and vice versa. Your relationship would be one where there’s no moral compass—only a shared thirst for power, bloodshed, and dominance.

You would find Sukuna’s savagery attractive, and he would be equally drawn to your cruel and cunning nature. While others may fear or despise your cruelty, Sukuna would celebrate it, and you’d admire his relentless pursuit of power. There’s a mutual admiration for each other’s dark strengths.

You’d bond over the chaos you cause together, finding excitement in the destruction you unleash on the world. Whether it’s taking down cursed users or sowing discord, your relationship would thrive in an atmosphere of mayhem. For the two of you, peace would be boring—chaos is where you truly connect.

While your relationship may not be traditionally affectionate, there would be moments where your loyalty to one another shows through in small, cold ways. Sukuna may save you from a dangerous situation, not because he’s being sentimental, but because he respects you too much to let someone else end you. You’d do the same, knowing that you are both the strongest when together.

You and Sukuna would constantly push each other to grow more powerful and more sadistic. There would be no room for stagnation in your relationship—both of you are always seeking ways to evolve, learn new techniques, or hone your cruelty. You’d challenge and motivate each other to become more formidable.

Despite the darkness and cruelty in your relationship, there would be a strong, twisted connection between you. You’d understand each other’s sadistic tendencies in a way no one else could. This would create an unbreakable bond that goes beyond love—it’s a partnership in chaos, power, and destruction, where you both find your true selves.

.

.

.

Masterlist

[shadowkoo]

I just needed to come here and vent for a moment. As a writer, I put a lot of time and thought into curating my ideas and outlining fics before I even begin writing. So, you can imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning to a tumblr notification that someone had tagged me in a post titled “[My Fic Title] Part 2.”

Naturally, I was a bit shocked. After scrolling through it, I realized that this user had written a second part to one of my fanfics, and they tagged me to credit me for the original story.

While I won’t name the specific fic or the user (they did remove it per my request), I feel the need to address this publicly with a quick PSA.

My characters, storylines, cliffhangers, and everything in between are my intellectual property. Yes, the characters are inspired by real idols, and yes, some of my plots exist within established TV/film/book universes. But the ideas, twists, and execution are mine, and I’m the one who will decide how they unfold. (For clarity, the fic in question isn’t set in another media universe, but I wanted include this line since it is relevant for a couple of my other works).

I appreciate that this person enjoyed my fic enough to be inspired to write something themselves, but to be completely honest, I don’t think what they did was okay. I have some serious issues with this, and I want to share them to hopefully prevent this from happening to me—or anyone else—again.

First off, I find it incredibly rude that they didn’t reach out to ask my permission beforehand. Had they done so, I would’ve immediately told them not to go forward with it. Instead, I found out through a tag after the fic had already been posted, which felt like a slap in the face. To make matters worse, because of time zone differences, the post was live for hours while I was asleep, gaining traction.

I know that in the fanfic community, it’s somewhat common to write alternate endings or continuations for larger works from big-name authors or shows, but that’s not what’s happening here. I’m a hobby kpop fanfic writer. Writing a fanfic of my fanfic just feels out of line.

To be blunt, it felt like they were piggybacking off the success of my story, trying to steal some of the excitement I’d built for an upcoming second part. It also seemed like an attempt to siphon engagement, followers, and interactions from my readers—people who were already invested in the original work.

What bothers me even more is that I’ve publicly mentioned I’m already working on a second part. It left me with a bad taste, like this person was trying to rush out their version before I could post mine. That kind of move creates confusion for readers and, from where I stand, feels calculated and disrespectful.

So let me make this crystal clear: No one has my consent to rewrite my work, create additional parts to my fics whether they’re complete, on hiatus, or in-progress, whether or not i have mentioned that i'm writing another part, or to publish alternate endings, etc.

Thank you for understanding. - Raven

[warriorforumwso]

ForexJudge.com is a comprehensive platform that provides reviews and comparisons of forex brokers. Here’s a detailed point-by-point review:

1. Website Design and Usability

User Interface: ForexJudge.com boasts a user-friendly interface, making navigation easy even for beginners. The site layout is intuitive, with well-organized sections and quick access to key information.

Mobile Compatibility: The website is fully responsive, offering a seamless experience on both desktop and mobile devices.

2. Content Quality

In-Depth Reviews: ForexJudge.com offers detailed reviews of various forex brokers, covering aspects like fees, platforms, customer service, and regulatory compliance. The reviews are thorough, well-researched, and provide valuable insights.

Comparison Tools: The site features robust comparison tools that allow users to evaluate brokers side by side based on multiple criteria, helping traders make informed decisions.

Educational Resources: There is a rich library of educational materials, including articles, tutorials, and glossaries, which are beneficial for both novice and experienced traders

3. Expert Analysis

Professional Reviews: The reviews are crafted by seasoned forex professionals, ensuring knowledgeable and insightful evaluations. This expert input adds credibility and reliability to the content.

Regular Updates: ForexJudge.com frequently updates its content to reflect the latest trends and changes in the forex market, keeping users informed with the most current information.

4. Broker Coverage

Comprehensive Listings: The platform covers a wide range of brokers globally, offering a broad perspective on the forex market. This extensive coverage includes well-known brokers as well as emerging ones, providing options for different trading needs.

Unbiased Reviews: The reviews are presented in an unbiased manner, focusing on both the strengths and weaknesses of each broker. This balanced approach helps traders choose brokers that best match their requirements【12†source】.

5. Community and Support

Engagement: ForexJudge.com fosters a community of traders who rely on its reviews and insights. The platform encourages user feedback and interaction, enhancing the overall user experience.

Customer Support: The website offers excellent customer support, ensuring users can get assistance when needed. This includes answering queries and providing additional information upon request.

6. Trust and Reliability

Transparency: ForexJudge.com maintains high transparency in its operations, including how reviews are conducted and how they make money. This builds trust among users.

Industry Recognition: The platform is recognized in the forex trading community for its comprehensive and reliable reviews. Its reputation is built on years of consistent and accurate information delivery【14†source】.

7. Additional Features

Market Insights: The website provides market insights and analysis, helping traders stay updated with market movements and trends.

Broker Awards: ForexJudge.com hosts annual awards, recognizing top-performing brokers in various categories. These awards are based on rigorous criteria and extensive research.

Overall, ForexJudge.com is a valuable resource for anyone involved in forex trading, offering detailed broker reviews, educational content, and tools to aid in making informed trading decisions.

[eightyonekilograms]

I’m sort of surprised that virtually everybody, including people of a very libertarian bent, kind of have a default built-in “spam exception” when it comes to all talk of free speech and account banning online. Very, very few people argue that it’s a free speech violation when Gmail shunts stuff to your spam folder, never to be seen again, or people get banned from forums for making unsolicited posts hawking their product. I mean, spammers are just engaging in commerce and free engage of commerce is one of the cornerstones of liberty.

I don’t think the status quo is wrong, but considering how overrepresented a lot of other fringe opinions are on the Internet, I just find it weird that I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone take up this particular cause, even among the most diehard libertarian segments of Internet users.

[engineering]

StreamBuilder: our open-source framework for powering your dashboard.

Today, we’re abnormally jazzed to announce that we’re open-sourcing the custom framework we built to power your dashboard on Tumblr. We call it StreamBuilder, and we’ve been using it for many years.

First things first. What is open-sourcing? Open sourcing is a decentralized software development model that encourages open collaboration. In more accessible language, it is any program whose source code is made available for use or modification as users or other developers see fit.

What, then, is StreamBuilder? Well, every time you hit your Following feed, or For You, or search results, a blog’s posts, a list of tagged posts, or even check out blog recommendations, you’re using this framework under the hood. If you want to dive into the code, check it out here on GitHub!

StreamBuilder has a lot going on. The primary architecture centers around “streams” of content: whether posts from a blog, a list of blogs you’re following, posts using a specific tag, or posts relating to a search. These are separate kinds of streams, which can be mixed together, filtered based on certain criteria, ranked for relevancy or engagement likelihood, and more.

On your Tumblr dashboard today you can see how there are posts from blogs you follow, mixed with posts from tags you follow, mixed with blog recommendations. Each of those is a separate stream, with its own logic, but sharing this same framework. We inject those recommendations at certain intervals, filter posts based on who you’re blocking, and rank the posts for relevancy if you have “Best stuff first” enabled. Those are all examples of the functionality StreamBuilder affords for us.

So, what’s included in the box?

The full framework library of code that we use today, on Tumblr, to power almost every feed of content you see on the platform.

A YAML syntax for composing streams of content, and how to filter, inject, and rank them.

Abstractions for programmatically composing, filtering, ranking, injecting, and debugging streams.

Abstractions for composing streams together—such as with carousels, for streams-within-streams.

An abstraction for cursor-based pagination for complex stream templates.

Unit tests covering the public interface for the library and most of the underlying code.

What’s still to come

Documentation. We have a lot to migrate from our own internal tools and put in here!

More example stream templates and example implementations of different common streams.

If you have questions, please check out the code and file an issue there.

[blackgryph0n]

BillieBustUp: A Boycott?

Hazbin Hotel is implicated, too.

cw: child grooming

Short version: BillieBustUp hired a known child groomer Blackgryph0n/Gabriel C. Brown, and the lead dev Katie Nelson is digging in their heels defending him, claiming that the groomer says he's innocent, and the "haters" are all sockpuppets for his wife/victim's abusive father. The evidence against him is piling up, and it seems like BillieBustUp, a game founded on LGBTQIA and disability representation, will instead be the face of uplifting pedophilia and child grooming. Gabriel is also the voice actor for Hazbin Hotel's Alastor, but only his singing role in the pilot, the song "Insane" which has risen to some popularity.

On June 14, 2024, Twitter user dagobbiEST posted a Twitter thread that implicated the creator of BillieBustUp, an upcoming indie game helmed by Katie Nelson/KatieBlueprint, in defending the actions of the voice actor Blackgryph0n, aka Gabriel C. Brown, who voices the character Barnaby. For those who were present in the My Little Pony fandom during 2014, you will know BlackGryph0n best either for his videos or perhaps for his most infamous accomplishment, which was creeping out many fans with his overly-familiar relationship with voice actress Michelle Creber, who was 14 to his 24.

Blackgryph0n went on to groom and subsequently marry Claire Corlett, Michelle's coworker and friend (and fellow 14 year old) when she turned 20, who was then isolated from her entire family, citing abuse. (The author does not deny that she may have been abused; it is typical for a groomer to pursue a minor who has a strained/difficult family situation.)

The facts are simple: Gabriel met Claire when she was a child, only 14/15, in a position of authority over her as a sound engineer at her voice acting job. The fact that they then later pursued a relationship, even if "she initiated it", implies that there was grooming taking place over the years in between. The groundwork of a relationship was built with a minor, even if it was not overtly romantic until later. For more information on grooming, please see here.

Scads of screencaps were rapidly produced on Twitter after the initial screencaps of the BillieBustUp Discord were posted, including many tweets with proof of Blackgryph0n's inappropriate flirting with the child actresses back to when they were 15 and 16. Gabe's claims that they "became friends only four years ago" (conveniently when she was 20) were quickly debunked as lies, due to all of the overwhelming Tweet and video evidence.

A list of links with more information:

A gathering of some of the most damning tweeted evidence to dispute the "only befriended her when she was 20" claim by Gabe.

A Reddit thread from r/YouTubeDrama concerning the recent allegations and firsthand witnesses to creepy behavior at conventions. Key quote:

"To provide some context, Gabriel knew them from that age because of his work. He is the only notable brony who concurrently worked on the show, though only peripherally as a backup voice/sound engineer for the sound and music team. However, he was around early on, and thus had access to FiM's voice actors, including the then-child VAs of the Cutie Mark Crusaders (Sweetie Belle (Creber), Apple Bloom, and Scootaloo). That's why he knew her from that young age, because his job provided him the opportunity to engage with those teenagers—to a professional limit, but he took it further than that with at least 2 of them." (d_shadowspectre3, who misidentified Creber - Creber voiced Apple Bloom, and Corlett voiced Sweetie Belle)

An informational Twitter thread from 2023 by BronyFandont discussing the grooming with more screencapped evidence.

A google doc of various screenshots, including a first-person witness to Gabriel's inappropriate behavior at a Brony con.

A Twitter thread with eight screencaps debunking the timeline Blackgryph0n tries to lie about, claiming he only met Corlett for extended periods when she was 20.

A Twitter thread by user Wootmaster discussing the allegations back in 2022, in which he adds that several big fandom names - including Saberspark, ACRacebeast and PaleoSteno - closed ranks and defended Blackgryph0n at the time, including leveling harassment at Corlett's father. Saberspark coined the deeply unsettling "It's creepy, but legal" in regards to the situation.

Some of Gabriel Brown's previous brushes with racism also came into discussion, including

A full blown minstrel skit with Michelle Creber (a minor at the time) with giant afro wigs, blaccents, and the fake names "Nikisha Abagale Safron" and "Latoya Aloofa Williamson", posted by ACRacebeast under the title "Bronies React: MLP Generation 3."

Another Twitter thread with screencaps of Gabriel Brown's racism by Helluvareceipts.

Screencaps of the BillieBustUp discord, with clumsy defenses by Katie Nelson in lieu of any official statement.

More of Gabriel's racist and C*vid-denial tweet "likes" have been dug up.

A deleted racist tweet from Blackgryph0n.

A Twitter screencap of Blackgryph0n getting banned from Babscon due to racism in 2021.

During the uproar, BillieBustUp and lead dev Katie Nelson remained notably silent, which resulted in a Tweet about the game's LGBTQIA representation devolving into repeated demands for answers, which were also ignored.

There was an unofficial statement made only on the BillieBustUp Discord group on June 15th, but it wouldn't be until June 17 that an official "rebuttal" was posted on Google Docs by "Katie and Ash". The entirety of the rebuttal can be summed up with 'Blackgryph0n says he's being targeted by sockpuppet accounts and promises he's innocent, and I believe him.'

June 17 also saw a very strange, inappropriate, and immature response from Michelle Creber, peppered with "Y'all"s, emojis, and inappropriately casual slang like "take the L," considering the seriousness of the allegations. She not only stated that Gabriel Brown (a member of the US Navy) is an "incredibly brilliant but brilliant autistic bean" and thus so harmless he wouldn't hurt a spider, which errs so far on the side of infantilization it seems insulting at best, and ableist at worst. Any Twitter accounts that requested clarification or answers were blocked by both Creber and Brown.

What does this mean for you?

What this means is that the BillieBustUp and Hazbin Hotel fandoms now have to contend with the fact that their creators have knowingly and purposefully invited a child groomer into their fandoms, and given them social cachet that they might use to take advantage of minors, as he did during his job as a sound engineer on My Little Pony. The BBU dev team is also ignoring any concerns about a potential threat. This may also mean that, if there are inevitable fandom events like panels, the child groomer Gabriel C. Brown may be present where there are also children and teens, who may not be aware of his history.

The decision of whether to boycott or not is your decision; I cannot in good conscience spend money on a game that will put money into a groomer's pockets and add to his resume. The decision is yours. This post is to shine light onto what the BillieBustUp team and Blackgryph0n/Gabriel Brown desperately want to keep in the dark, and to spread awareness to other social media platforms. And, most importantly, to protect any minors who might be in these fandoms, who may not realize that their idols are not someone they should look up to, defend, or even be in private contact with.

Stay safe, and thank you for reading.

[probablyasocialecologist]

No streaming platform can accurately predict taste; humans are too dynamic to be predicted consistently. Instead, Spotify builds models of users and makes predictions by recommending music that matches the models. Stuck in these feedback loops, musical styles start to converge as songs are recommended according to a pre-determined vocabulary of Echo Nest descriptors. Eventually, listeners may start to resemble the models streaming platforms have created. Over time, some may grow intolerant of anything other than an echo.  Before there were Echo Nest parameters, the 20th century music industry relied on other kinds of data to try to make hits. So-called “merchants of cool” hit the streets to hunt for the next big trend, conducting studies on teenage desire that generated tons of data, which was then consulted to market the next hit sensation. This kind of data collection is now built into the apparatus for listening itself. Once a user has listened to enough music through Spotify to establish a taste profile (which can be reduced to data like songs themselves, in terms of the same variables), the recommendation systems simply get to work. The more you use Spotify, the more Spotify can affirm or try to predict your interests. (Are you ready for some more acousticness?)  Breaking down both the products and consumers of culture into data has not only revealed an apparent underlying formula for virality; it has also contributed to new kinds of formulaic content and a canalizing of taste in the age of streaming. Reduced to component parts, culture can now be recombined and optimized to drive user engagement. This allows platforms to squeeze more value out of backlogs of content and shuffle pre-existing data points into series of new correlations, driving the creation of new content on terms that the platforms are best equipped to handle and profit from. (Listeners will get the most out of music optimized for Spotify on Spotify.) But although such reconfigured cultural artifacts might appear new, they are made from a depleted pantry of the same old ingredients. This threatens to starve culture of the resources to generate new ideas, new possibilities.