#committee management platform

[civilmentor1]

Current Affairs - 12 September 2024

1. Polar Ice Melt Impact on Monsoon Patterns and Economy GeographySource: TH Context: A recent study highlights the influence of decreasing Arctic sea ice on Indian monsoon patterns. How does Arctic sea ice impact Indian monsoon patterns?The decrease in Arctic sea ice affects Indian monsoon patterns by altering atmospheric circulation: Central Arctic Ice Loss: The reduction of sea ice allows…

[transformativeworks]

Seeing all posts about so and so merging with AO3 or this fandom archive moving over ...how does the process work? Like how do you avoid story duplicates or even authors? What happens when one author posts the same story under different names on AO3 and whatever old archive you're merging with? Can you filter that out? Easy of course if stories are only posted on the smaller archive and being moved to AO3 but authors post on different platforms all the time so I'm curious how the process actually works on your end.

This is such a great question! I didn't know so I went and asked the people who are in charge of moving archives onto AO3.

Eskici here! I’m one of the chairs of the Open Doors committee, which is responsible for all of the imports of offline and at-risk archives to AO3. Before each import is announced, we compile a spreadsheet with a row for every fanwork from that archive. (If the archive is backed by a database, we can often export this spreadsheet manually, but for hand-coded archives, we often do this manually.) Creators frequently email us shortly after we announce an upcoming import to let us know that their works from the archive are already on AO3 (or if they don’t want their works imported for any other reason), and we track those requests in the spreadsheet as they come in so that we don’t import duplicates. Then, as close to right before the import as we can, we manually search AO3 for every fanwork from the archive whose creator hasn’t already contacted us. Usually, we start by entering just the title of the work and a keyword or two from the name of its fandom. We try to cast as wide a net as possible so that we don’t accidentally filter out results from anyone who didn’t tag their work with the canonical fandom tag, with tags for characters/relationships in the work, etc. If we don’t turn up any results, we mark the work not found, but if we do find a matching work, we check to make sure the content is the same and then mark on our spreadsheet not to import it and instead invite that work to the AO3 collection that the imported archive will feed into. On the other hand, if we find too many matches to check all of them, we add keywords to the search to try to make it more manageable for our searchers. As you can imagine, this is a lot of manual work for us to do on top of the imports themselves, which are sometimes manual as well. Open Doors recruited for import assistants earlier this year to help with tasks exactly like these ones, and we hope to do so regularly in the coming years! If you ever have an offline or at-risk archive you’d like us to look into importing (with moderator permission), you can always reach us at opendoors@transformativeworks.org. And if you’re interested in volunteering for the project, keep an eye out for recruitment. We usually recruit for our different roles at least once or twice a year. Thanks for your interest in fanwork preservation!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

John Knefel at MMFA:

Russ Vought, a frequent guest on right-wing media shows and key figure in Project 2025, a broad effort to staff a future Republican administration, will have a top role in drafting the platform for the GOP's convention this July, virtually ensuring the document will be a wishlist of MAGA priorities. The Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign made the joint announcement on May 15, highlighting Vought’s new role “as the committee's policy director” for the RNC’s 2024 Committee on the Platform and noting his previous tenure as director of the Office of Management and Budget under former President Donald Trump. In that position, Vought oversaw the administration’s attempts to remove supposed “critical race theory trainings” from federal programs and sought to coordinate the White House’s directives across the executive branch more broadly. 

[...]

After Trump’s loss in 2020, Vought founded the Center for Renewing America, where he has consistently pushed a Christian nationalist agenda. He has called for an “army” of right-wing activists with “biblical worldview” to serve in the next Republican administration, and wrote an op-ed for Newsweek in 2021 with the headline: “Is There Anything Actually Wrong With 'Christian Nationalism?' As Politico reported, “One ​​document drafted by CRA staff and fellows includes a list of top priorities for CRA in a second Trump term. ‘Christian nationalism’ is one of the bullet points.” 

The Center for Renewing America has emerged as a key player in the MAGA-aligned think tank world. It’s one of the more than 100 conservative groups that make up Project 2025, an effort organized by The Heritage Foundation to provide staffing and policy proposals to a future GOP presidency. Vought plays a central role in the effort, including as the author of a chapter in Project 2025’s guiding document, Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, in which he argued that the “enormous power” of the executive branch should be exclusively the purview of the president rather than dispersed within agencies and departments.

Though that argument may sound anodyne, Vought’s vision has radical implications. First and foremost, Vought advocates for implementing a policy known as “Schedule F,” which would reclassify tens of thousands of federal employees as political appointees — thus stripping them of union protections. If Trump is reelected in November and chooses to go forward with Schedule F, he could fire career civil servants from agencies and departments en masse and replace them hardcore MAGA foot soldiers, potentially decimating the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and other frequent right-wing targets. “What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” Vought has said, according to The New York Times.

Center For Renewing America founder and key Project 2025 influencer Russ Vought was appointed to the RNC's Platform Committee for the upcoming convention in Milwaukee this July. #RNC2024

[politicalfeed]

What’s Next After Joe Biden Steps Down from the 2024 Elections?

The political landscape in the United States has shifted dramatically with President Joe Biden’s decision to step down from the 2024 presidential race. As the Democratic Party grapples with this unexpected development, several key questions and potential scenarios emerge about the future of the party and the upcoming election.

Immediate Reactions and Interim Leadership

Following Biden’s announcement, Vice President Kamala Harris has become the most likely interim leader of the Democratic Party. Her role as vice president positions her as a natural successor, and she has already garnered significant attention and support from various factions within the party. However, her potential candidacy will need to be officially endorsed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Potential Candidates and Primaries

The race for the Democratic nomination is now wide open, with several high-profile politicians likely to throw their hats into the ring. Potential candidates include:

Kamala Harris: As the current vice president, she has a strong platform but will need to consolidate support from various party factions.

Gavin Newsom: The Governor of California has been seen as a rising star in the party, known for his progressive policies and strong leadership.

Pete Buttigieg: The Secretary of Transportation and former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has maintained a significant national profile since his 2020 presidential run.

Elizabeth Warren: The Senator from Massachusetts remains a powerful voice within the progressive wing of the party.

Amy Klobuchar: The Senator from Minnesota offers a more centrist approach that could appeal to moderate voters.

The DNC will need to organize a series of debates and primaries to allow these candidates to present their platforms and vie for the nomination.

Impact on the General Election

Biden’s decision to step aside has significant implications for the general election. The Democratic Party must quickly rally around a new candidate who can unite the party and appeal to a broad base of voters. This includes addressing concerns about Biden’s health and ensuring that the new candidate can effectively challenge the Republican nominee, presumably former President Donald Trump.

Strategic Shifts and Campaign Focus

With a new candidate, the Democratic Party may need to adjust its campaign strategies. Key issues that will likely be emphasized include:

Healthcare and Pandemic Response: Continuing Biden’s efforts in managing the COVID-19 pandemic and improving healthcare access.

Economic Recovery: Building on the current administration’s efforts to strengthen the economy and address income inequality.

Climate Change: Promoting aggressive policies to combat climate change, a central issue for many Democratic voters.

Social Justice: Ensuring that issues of racial and social justice remain at the forefront of the campaign.

Republican Response

The Republican Party will closely monitor the Democratic transition, adjusting their strategies accordingly. Trump’s campaign is likely to capitalize on the perceived instability within the Democratic Party, using it as a point of criticism. However, the Republicans will also need to address their internal challenges and unify their base.

Voter Mobilization and Engagement

The uncertainty surrounding Biden’s departure places a premium on voter mobilization and engagement. Both parties will intensify efforts to reach out to key demographics, including young voters, minorities, and independents. The importance of voter turnout cannot be overstated, especially in swing states that will determine the election’s outcome.

Conclusion

Joe Biden’s decision to step down from the 2024 election marks a significant turning point in American politics. The Democratic Party faces the urgent task of selecting a new candidate who can inspire and unite voters. Meanwhile, the Republicans will seek to exploit this transition to their advantage. As both parties navigate this evolving landscape, the 2024 election promises to be one of the most consequential in recent history, shaping the direction of the United States for years to come.

[invisibleraven]

"Sign me up."

Alex and Flynn bc I am curious about the dynamic!

Alex stood before the bulletin board, contemplative. It was littered with sign up sheets for various clubs, groups, and committees. His parents had expressed to him the importance of extracurriculars for his college application-so he had to sign up for at least one thing.

Sports were out-he was actually pretty good at track, asthma aside, but they met on the weekends, and he needed those fre for band stuff. Academics wasn't his bag; his grades were good but the mathletes were more Reggie's thing than his.

He wished there was a GSA, but he knew that would never fly with his parents. He was planning on coming out-when he was 18 and could legally leave on his own terms if they tried to kick him out. It sucked being in the closet, especially when he wanted to bring his boyfriend home, meet his family, but he knew that was never going to go well.

"Whatcha doing Blondie?"

Alex turned to see Flynn smiling at him. They'd become pretty good friends since she took over managing the band. Plus they'd gone on enough double dates with their respective partners to make their friendship even deeper.

"Trying to find a club to join," he admitted.

"Glee club?" Flynn snarked.

"Ew no," Alex snarked back. "Maybe yearbook or something?"

"I was going to run for student government," Flynn admitted. "Make sure there's a GSA, have a kickin' prom, that kind of thing."

"Oh," Alex whispered. He had never really been interested in politics, but he was interested in being a good influence-in creating change so that the world was better for kids like him. Maybe student council could be a start. "Sign me up too."

"Yeah?" Flynn grinned. "Wanna run together? Joint platform to make sure the geeks and freaks get a space on the ballot?"

"I'd like that," Alex said quietly. "We should get Reggie to make us posters though, my art skills suck."

Flynn laughed. "They really do."

Then she handed him a pen-the glittery turquoise one she favoured for writing notes in class to whatever friends she shared it with. "You first?"

He grinned, taking the pen, signing their names to the sheet. It felt scary and exciting, and...right.

"Anything else you wanna sign up for?"

Flynn hummed, and shyly pointed to the Drama club poster. "They're doing Much Ado and you know I'd make a kickin' Beatrice."

"That's all you, but I'll be first in line to buy tickets."

Flynn nodded, signing her name, then waggled the pen in his face, nodding to the poster for the dance troupe. "You know you wanna. Plus your parents will see it as you trying to find a suitable girl who can move."

Alex grinned, snatching the pen. "I love your devious little mind." Signing his name with a flourish, tossing her back the pen, then offering her his arm. "You wanna go plan our campaign Madame President?"

Flynn nodded, taking his offered limb. "Do you think we can campaign for better snack machines too?"

Alex laughed in response. "We can definitely try."

[housewarningparty]

Bandcamp United, the union elected in May to represent Bandcamp employees, has filed a claim with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against Songtradr and Epic Games, claiming the two companies violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 by engaging in unfair labor practices. Songtradr finalized their acquisition of Bandcamp from Epic Games in September, triggering mass layoffs at the music distribution platform earlier this month.

The October 16 layoffs put 58 Bandcamp employees out of work (roughly half of the company’s staff), including three of the six non-management staffers at its in-house publication, Bandcamp Daily — as well as eight elected members of the union’s collective bargaining committed and 40 of 67 members of its collective bargaining unit, per a press release announcing the claim. According to the release, the layoffs occurred four days after the committee met with Songtradr CEO Paul Wiltshire to “discuss the future of Bandcamp United at Songtradr.”

The union’s demands are as follows: “employment offers for all workers; clear, consistent, and equitable voluntary severance offers; and recognition of their union at Songtradr with a speedy continuation to bargaining, while maintaining all the progress that has been made at the table.” The press release notes that the collective bargaining committee “will return to the table with Epic Games management on November 9th to bargain over details of severance for those who have been laid off.”

[covid-safer-hotties]

Column: With a conference on the pandemic, Stanford gives purveyors of misinformation and disinformation a platform - Published Aug 29, 2024

We’re living in an upside-down world, aren’t we?

It’s a world in which scientists whose research findings that COVID probably originated as a spillover from wildlife have been validated by dozens of scientific studies, but got them hauled before a Republican-dominated House committee to be brayed at by the likes of Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and accused of academic fraud.

Meanwhile, the purveyors of claims that COVID’s danger was overstated and could be met by exposing the maximum number of people to the deadly virus in quest of “herd immunity” have been offered a platform to air their widely debunked and refuted views at a forum sponsored by Stanford University.

This is awful, a full on anti-science agenda (and revisionist history), tone deaf to how this kind of rhetoric contributed to the deaths of thousands of Americans during the pandemic by convincing them to shun vaccines or minimize Covid. — Vaccine expert and pseudoscience debunker Peter Hotez

The event is a symposium on the topic “Pandemic Policy: Planning the Future, Assessing the Past,” scheduled to take place on campus Oct. 4.

No one can doubt that a sober examination of the policies of the recent past with an eye toward doing better in the next pandemic is warranted. This symposium is nothing like that.

Most of its participants have been associated with discredited approaches to the COVID pandemic, including minimizing its severity and calling for widespread infection to achieve herd immunity. Some have been sources of rank misinformation or disinformation. Advocates of scientifically validated policies are all but absent.

The event is shaping up as a major embarrassment for an institution that prides itself on its academic standards. It comes with Stanford’s official imprimatur; the opening remarks will be delivered by its freshly appointed president, Jonathan Levin, an economist who took office Aug. 1.

The problem with the symposium starts with its main organizer. He’s Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor of health policy. Bhattacharya is one of the original signers of the “Great Barrington Declaration,” a manifesto for herd immunity published in October 2020. The university didn’t respond to my question about Bhattacharya’s role. He didn’t respond to my request for comment.

The core of the declaration is what its drafters call “focused protection,” which means allowing “those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk” — chiefly seniors, who would be quarantined.

Focused protection, the promoters wrote, would allow society to achieve herd immunity and return to normalcy in three to six months.

The quest for herd immunity from COVID has several problems. One is that infection with one variant of this ever-evolving virus doesn’t necessarily confer immunity from other variants. Another problem is that COVID can be a devastating disease for victims of any age. Allowing anyone of any age to become infected can expose them to serious health problems.

Bhattacharya’s name doesn’t appear in the event announcement, but he has identified himself on X as its “main organizer.” Among the announced speakers is epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, another of the declaration’s original signers.

Several other speakers advocated fewer restrictions on schools and businesses while predicting that COVID would be manageably mild, like the flu — predictions that were consistently and catastrophically wrong.

The date of the symposium, by the way, is the anniversary of the signing of the Great Barrington Declaration. It’s also Rosh Hashana, one of the High Holy Days of the Jewish calendar. Stanford says the “overlap” with the holiday is regrettable, but it hasn’t offered to reschedule.

Stanford responded to my request for comment about the event by simply reproducing language from the event announcement.

“The conference was organized to highlight some of the many important topics that public health officials and policymakers will need to address in preparing for future pandemics,” the university said. “The speakers, including those already listed and others who will be added over the next several weeks, represent a wide range of views on this issue. We look forward to a civil, informed, and robust debate.”

That won’t do. Stanford’s argument that it’s merely providing a platform for ��robust debate” among speakers with a “wide range of views” is belied by the roster of speakers, in which members of a discredited fringe of pandemic policy advocates are heavily overrepresented.

The event announcement has elicited skepticism and dismay among scientists seriously concerned about pandemic policy.

“Knowing who the speakers and panelists are,” wrote the veteran pseudoscience debunker David Gorski, “I know that ‘assessing the past’ will likely consist of highly revisionist history ... claiming that public health interventions didn’t work.”

The description of some of the daylong symposium’s sessions should give one pause. The precis of a panel titled “Misinformation, Censorship, and Academic Freedom” states as fact that “governments censored information contrary to public health pronouncements in social media settings.” It asks rhetorically, “Does the suspension of free speech rights during a pandemic help keep the population better informed or does it permit the perpetuation of false ideas by governments?”

Yet who among these speakers lost their “free speech rights”? On the contrary, several, including Bhattacharya, rode their discredited claims to regular appearances on Fox News, op-eds in the Wall Street Journal and appointments to blue-ribbon government committees in red states.

A look at the speakers list should tell you where this event is heading. On a panel on “Evidence-Based Decision Making During a Pandemic” is Anders Tegnell, the architect of Sweden’s pandemic policy. Sweden has been held up by critics of school closings and lockdowns and advocates of herd immunity as a success story, the theme being that by keeping schools and restaurants open, the country beat the pandemic.

The truth is just the opposite. As I’ve reported, the Tegnell record is disastrous. Sweden’s laissez-faire approach sacrificed its seniors to the pandemic and used its schoolchildren as guinea pigs. Swedish researchers concluded in retrospect that its policies were “morally, ethically, and scientifically questionable.” The death toll rose so high that the government was eventually forced to tighten up the rules.

Sweden’s death rate from COVID was much worse than that of its Nordic neighbors Denmark, Norway and Finland, which all took a tougher approach. If Sweden’s death rate had only matched Norway’s, it would have suffered only about 4,400 COVID deaths, rather than its toll of 18,500.

Then there’s Scott Atlas, a radiologist and former professor at Stanford medical school, who is currently a fellow at the Hoover Institution, the right-wing think tank housed on the Stanford campus. Atlas was recruited to join the Trump White House as a COVID advisor in July 2020 after having volunteered to Medicare Administrator Seema Verma that the government’s pandemic policies were “a massive overreaction” that was “inciting irrational fear” in Americans.

Atlas estimated that the coronavirus “would cause about 10,000 deaths,” which “would be unnoticed” in a normal flu season. By the end of 2020, as it happens, COVID deaths in the U.S. exceeded 350,000. As of today, the toll is more than 1.2 million.

At the White House, Atlas promoted scientifically dubious prescriptions for the pandemic. He pushed for reduced testing for COVID and dismissed masking as a countermeasure. Most damaging, he called for a herd immunity policy.

Atlas’ prescriptions disturbed his Stanford colleagues, about 110 of whom wrote an open letter in September 2020 alerting the public to “the falsehoods and misrepresentations of science” that Atlas was preaching.

“Encouraging herd immunity through unchecked community transmission is not a safe public health strategy,” they wrote. “In fact, this approach would do the opposite, causing a significant increase in preventable cases, suffering and deaths, especially among vulnerable populations, such as older individuals and essential workers.”

The Stanford administration also formally disavowed Atlas’ statements and prescriptions. “Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic,” the university said. “We support using masks, social distancing, and conducting surveillance and diagnostic testing.”

Yet now Atlas appears to be back in the university’s good graces, judging from his presence on the roster. Stanford didn’t respond to my questions about Atlas’ role, and he didn’t reply to my request for comment.

Allowing this symposium to proceed along the lines laid out in the announcement will be a black mark for Stanford in the scientific community.

“What’s happening at Stanford?” asked vaccine expert and disinformation debunker Peter Hotez on X. “This is awful, a full on anti-science agenda (and revisionist history), tone deaf to how this kind of rhetoric contributed to the deaths of thousands of Americans during the pandemic by convincing them to shun vaccines or minimize Covid.”

Stanford’s claim to be a neutral host of a scientific symposium falls short as a fair description of its duties as an academic institution.

No university claims to be open to the expression of any or all views, no matter how unorthodox or counterfactual; they make judgments about the propriety of viewpoints all the time; the level of discernment they practice is one way we judge them as serious educational establishments.

By that standard, Stanford deserves an “F.” On the evidence, neither the university nor its medical school, which is a sponsor of the symposium, exercised any judgment at all before greenlighting an embarrassing gala for the pandemic fringe.

[mariacallous]

Top officials from Google, Apple, and Meta testified Wednesday before the United States Senate Intelligence Committee about each of their company’s ongoing efforts to identify and disrupt foreign influence campaigns ahead of the country’s November elections.

The hearing, chaired by Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, served largely to impress upon the companies the need for more extensive safeguards against the disinformation campaigns being funded by foreign entities with an eye on influencing US politics.

“This is really our effort to try to urge you guys to do more. To alert the public that this has not gone away,” Warner said.

Warner, a proponent of expanding cooperation between the government and Silicon Valley to root out campaigns by Russia, Iran, and China, among other legally designated rivals, described the recent efforts by Russia as both “effective and cheap.”

The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control placed sanctions this month on 10 Russian citizens, several of them employees of the state-funded news outlet RT, formerly Russia Today. US secretary of state Antony Blinken on Friday accused the Russian outlet of working hand-in-hand with the country’s intelligence services, conducting influence and cyber operations meant to covertly spread Kremlin propaganda on more than three continents. And earlier this month, US authorities accused RT employees of bankrolling right-wing influencer network Tenet Media.

Warner noted—almost as an aside—that Elon Musk’s X had refused to send a representative to testify Wednesday. A spokesperson for Warner told WIRED that X’s former chief of global affairs, Nick Pickles, had previously agreed to appear before the committee; however, he resigned from the company roughly two weeks later. X then declined to provide a replacement. (Pickles could not be immediately reached for comment.)

Warner received the companies that did appear amicably, praising the “positive role” they’ve played during the government’s recent actions: Meta’s recent decision, for example, to ban RT and its subsidiary Sputnik from its platforms. Warner also highlighted recent decisions at Google and Microsoft to publicly reveal information about foreign election threats, keeping the public and government better informed.

In addition to the Tenet Media indictment, the Department of Justice revealed this month in an FBI affidavit that it had seized 32 internet domains allegedly tied to the Kremlin and related entities. The websites, with names like fox-news.top, were created to imitate popular media and news brands, including CNN, spreading content favorable to Russia. One fake Fox News story, for instance, declared that Ukraine has “no particular value to the US” and that squaring off with Russia is “too great” a risk.

The operation, dubbed “Doppelganger,” allegedly relied on influencers and paid social media advertisements, as well as fake accounts that mimicked US citizens—in some cases with the help of artificial intelligence. In private documents obtained by the FBI, the operation’s principal director—a little-known Russian political strategist named Ilya Gambashidzer—is alleged to have stated plainly: “They are expecting fake news from us every day.”

Marco Rubio, the committee's Republican vice chair, argued on the behalf of Americans whom, he said, should not be punished for holding views that align with the Kremlin’s. “The question becomes, is that disinformation or is that misinformation, is that an influence operation, because that preexisting view is being amplified?” Decisions by companies to remove the amplified information is "problematic and complicated," he said, adding that he believes it risks "stigmatiz[ing]” Americans holding those views.

Andy Carvin, the managing editor and research director of the Digital Forensic Research Lab, tells WIRED that his organization, which conducts a vast amount of research into disinformation and other online harms, has been tracking Doppelganger for more than two years. The scope of the operation should surprise few, he says, given the fake news sites follow an obvious template and that populating them with AI-generated text is simple.

“Russian operations like Doppelganger are like throwing spaghetti at a wall,” he says. “They toss out as much as they can and see what sticks.”

Meta, in a written statement on Tuesday, said it had banned RT’s parent company, Rossiya Segodnya, and “other related entities” globally across Instagram, Facebook, and Threads for engaging in what it called “foreign interference activity.” (“Meta is discrediting itself,” the Kremlin replied Tuesday, claiming the ban has endangered the company’s “prospects” for “normalizing” relations with Russia.)

Testifying on Wednesday, Nick Clegg, Meta’s president of global affairs, stressed the industry-wide nature of the problem facing voters online. “People trying to interfere with elections rarely target a single platform,” he said, adding that Meta is, nevertheless, “confident” in its ability to protect the integrity of “not only this year’s elections in the United States but elections everywhere.”

Warner appeared less than fully convinced, noting the use of paid advertisements in recent malign influence campaigns. “I would have thought,” he said, “eight years later, we would be better at at least screening the advertisers.”

He added that, seven months ago, over two dozen tech companies had signed the AI Elections Accord in Munich—an agreement to invest in research and the development of countermeasures against harmful AI. While some of the firms have been responsive, he said, others have ignored repeated inquiries by US lawmakers, many eager to hear how those investments played out.

While talking up Google’s efforts to “identify problematic accounts, particularly around election ads,” Alphabet’s chief legal officer, Kent Walker, was halted mid-sentence. Citing conversations with the Treasury Department, Warner interrupted to say that he’d confirmed as recently as February that both Google and Meta have “repeatedly allowed Russian influence actors, including sanctioned entities, to use your ad tools.”

The senator from Virginia stressed that Congress needed to know specifically “how much content” relevant bad actors had paid to promote to US audiences this year. “And we’re going to need that [information] extraordinarily fast,” he added, referring as well to details of how many Americans specifically had seen the content. Walker replied to say that Google had taken down “something like 11,000 efforts by Russian-associated entities to post content on YouTube and the like.”

Warner additionally urged the officials against viewing Election Day as if it were an end zone. Of equal and great importance is the integrity of the news that reaches voters, he stressed, in the days and weeks that follow.

[dailyanarchistposts]

J.3.3 What is the “Platform”?

The Platform is a current within anarcho-communism which has specific suggestions on the nature and form which an anarchist federation should take. Its roots lie in the Russian anarchist movement, a section of which, in 1926, published

“The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists” when in exile from the Bolshevik dictatorship. The authors of the work included Nestor Makhno, Peter Arshinov and Ida Mett. At the time it provoked intense debate (and still does in many anarchist circles) between supporters of the Platform (usually called “Platformists”) and those who oppose it (which includes other communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and supporters of the “synthesis”). We will discuss why many anarchists oppose the Platform in the next section. Here we discuss what the Platform argued for.

Like the “synthesis” federation (see last section), the Platform was created in response to the experiences of the Russian Revolution. The authors of the Platform (like Voline and other supporters of the “synthesis”) had participated in that Revolution and saw all their work, hopes and dreams fail as the Bolshevik state triumphed and destroyed any chances of socialism by undermining soviet democracy, workers’ self-management of production, trade union democracy as well as fundamental individual freedoms and rights (see the section H.6 for details). Moreover, the authors of the Platform had been leading activists in the Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine which had successfully resisted both White and Red armies in the name of working class self-determination and anarchism (see the appendix “Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism? “). Facing the same problems of the Bolshevik government, the Makhnovists had actively encouraged popular self-management and organisation, freedom of speech and of association, and so on, whereas the Bolsheviks had not. Thus they were aware that anarchist ideas not only worked in practice, but that the claims of Leninists who maintained that Bolshevism (and the policies it introduced at the time) was the only “practical” response to the problems facing a revolution were false.

They wrote the pamphlet in order to examine why the anarchist movement had failed to build on its successes in gaining influence within the working class. As can be seen from libertarian participation in the factory committee movement, where workers organised self-management in their workplaces and anarchist ideas had proven to be both popular and practical. While repression by the Bolsheviks did play a part in this failure, it did not explain everything. Also important, in the eyes of the Platform authors, was the lack of anarchist organisation before the revolution:

“It is very significant that, in spite of the strength and incontestably positive character of libertarian ideas, and in spite of the facing up to the social revolution, and finally the heroism and innumerable sacrifices borne by the anarchists in the struggle for anarchist communism, the anarchist movement remains weak despite everything, and has appeared, very often, in the history of working class struggles as a small event, an episode, and not an important factor.” [Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, p. 11]

This weakness in the movement derived, they argued, from a number of causes, the main one being “the absence of organisational principles and practices” within the anarchist movement. This resulted in an anarchist movement “represented by several local organisations advocating contradictory theories and practices, having no perspectives for the future, nor of a continuity in militant work, and habitually disappearing, hardly leaving the slightest trace behind them.” This explained the “contradiction between the positive and incontestable substance of libertarian ideas, and the miserable state in which the anarchist movement vegetates.” [Op. Cit., p. 11] For anyone familiar with the anarchist movement in many countries, these words will still strike home. Thus the Platform still appears to many anarchists a relevant and important document, even if they are not Platformists.

The author’s of the Platform proposed a solution to this problem, namely the creation of a new type of anarchist organisation. This organisation would be based upon communist-anarchist ideas exclusively, while recognising syndicalism as a principal method of struggle. Like most anarchists, the Platform placed class and class struggle as the centre of their analysis, recognising that the “social and political regime of all states is above all the product of class struggle … The slightest change in the course of the battle of classes, in the relative locations of the forces of the class struggle, produces continuous modifications in the fabric and structure of society.” Again, like most anarchists, the Platform aimed to “transform the present bourgeois capitalist society into a society which assures the workers the products of the labours, their liberty, independence, and social and political equality”, one based on a “workers organisations of production and consumption, united federatively and self-administering.” The “birth, the blossoming, and the realisation of anarchist ideas have their roots in the life and the struggle of the working masses and are inseparable bound to their fate.” [Op. Cit., p. 14, p. 15, p. 19 and p. 15] Again, most anarchists (particularly social anarchists) would agree — anarchist ideas will (and have) wither when isolated from working class life since only working class people, the vast majority, can create a free society and anarchist ideas are expressions of working class experience (remove the experience and the ideas do not develop as they should).

In order to create such a free society it is necessary, argue the Platformists, “to work in two directions: on the one hand towards the selection and grouping of revolutionary worker and peasant forces on a libertarian communist theoretical basis (a specifically libertarian communist organisation); on the other hand, towards regrouping revolutionary workers and peasants on an economic base of production and consumption (revolutionary workers and peasants organised around production [i.e. syndicalism]; workers and free peasants co-operatives).” Again, most anarchists would agree with this along with the argument that “anarchism should become the leading concept of revolution … The leading position of anarchist ideas in the revolution suggests an orientation of events after anarchist theory. However, this theoretical driving force should not be confused with the political leadership of the statist parties which leads finally to State Power.” [Op. Cit., p. 20 and p. 21]

This “leadership of ideas” (as it has come to be known) would aim at developing and co-ordinating libertarian feelings already existing within social struggle. “Although the masses,” explained the Platform, “express themselves profoundly in social movements in terms of anarchist tendencies and tenets, these … do however remain dispersed, being uncoordinated, and consequently do not lead to the .. . preserving [of] the anarchist orientation of the social revolution.” [Op. Cit., p. 21] The Platform argued that a specific anarchist organisation was required to ensure that the libertarian tendencies initially expressed in any social revolution or movement (for example, free federation, self-management in mass assemblies, mandating of delegates, decentralisation, etc.) do not get undermined by statists and authoritarians who have their own agendas. This would be done by actively working in mass organisation and winning people to libertarian ideas and practices by argument (see section J.3.6).

However, these principles do not, in themselves, determine a Platformist organisation. After all, most anarcho-syndicalists and non-Platformist communist-anarchists would agree with these positions. The main point which distinguishes the Platform is its position on how an anarchist organisation should be structured and work. This is sketched in the “Organisational Section,” the shortest and most contentious part of the whole work. They called this the General Union of Anarchists and where they introduced the concepts of

“Theoretical and Tactical Unity” and “Collective Responsibility,” concepts which are unique to the Platform. Even today within the anarchist movement these are contentious ideas so it is worth exploring them in a little more detail.

By “Theoretical Unity” the Platform meant any anarchist organisation must come to an agreement on the theory upon which it is based. In other words, that members of the organisation must agree on a certain number of basic points, such as class struggle, social revolution and libertarian communism, and so on. An organisation in which half the members thought that union struggles were important and the other half that they were a waste of time would not be effective as the membership would spend all their time arguing with themselves. While most Platformists admit that everyone will not agree on everything, they think it is important to reach as much agreement as possible, and to translate this into action. Once a theoretical position is reached, the members have to argue it in public (even if they initially opposed it within the organisation but they do have the right to get the decision of the organisation changed by internal discussion). Which brings us to “Tactical Unity” by which the Platform meant that the members of an organisation should struggle together as an organised force rather than as individuals. Once a strategy has been agreed by the Union, all members would work towards ensuring its success (even if they initially opposed it). In this way resources and time are concentrated in a common direction, towards an agreed objective.

Thus “Theoretical and Tactical Unity” means an anarchist organisation that agrees specific ideas and the means of applying them. The Platform’s basic assumption is that there is a link between coherency and efficiency. By increasing the coherency of the organisation by making collective decisions and applying them, the Platform argues that this will increase the influence of anarchist ideas. Without this, they argue, more organised groups (such as Leninist ones) would be in a better position to have their arguments heard and listened to than anarchists would. Anarchists cannot be complacent, and rely on the hope that the obvious strength and rightness of our ideas will shine through and win the day. As history shows, this rarely happens and when it does, the authoritarians are usually in positions of power to crush the emerging anarchist influence (this was the case in Russia, for example). Platformists argue that the world we live in is the product of struggles between competing ideas of how society should be organised and if the anarchist voice is weak, quiet and disorganised it will not be heard and other arguments, other perspectives, will win the day.

Which brings us to “Collective Responsibility,” which the Platform defines as “the entire Union will be responsible for the political and revolutionary activity of each member; in the same way, each member will be responsible for the political and revolutionary activity of the Union.” In short, that each member should support the decisions made by the organisation and that each member should take part in the process of collective decision making process. Without this, argue Platformists, any decisions made will be paper ones as individuals and groups would ignore the agreements made by the federation (the Platform calls this “the tactic of irresponsible individualism”). [Op. Cit., p. 32] With “Collective Responsibility,” the strength of all the individuals that make up the group is magnified and collectively applied.

The last principle in the “Organisational Section” of the Platform is “Federalism,” which it defined as “the free agreement of individuals and organisations to work collectively towards a common objective” and which “reconciles the independence and initiative of individuals and the organisation with service to the common cause.” However, the Platform argued that this principle has been “deformed” within the movement to mean the “right” to “manifest one’s ‘ego,’ without obligation to account for duties as regards the organisation” one is a member of. In order to overcome this problem, they stress that “the federalist type of anarchist organisation, while recognising each member’s rights to independence, free opinion, individual liberty and initiative, requires each member to undertake fixed organisation duties, and demands execution of communal decisions.” [Op. Cit., p. 33 and pp. 33–4]

As part of their solution to the problem of anarchist organisation, the Platform suggested that each group would have “its secretariat, executing and guiding theoretically the political and technical work of the organisation.” Moreover, the Platform urged the creation of an ”executive committee of the Union” which would “be in charge” of “the execution of decisions taken by the Union with which it is entrusted; the theoretical and organisational orientation of the activity of isolated organisations consistent with the theoretical positions and the general tactical lines of the Union; the monitoring of the general state of the movement; the maintenance of working and organisational links between all the organisations in the Union; and with other organisation.” The rights, responsibilities and practical tasks of the executive committee are fixed by the congress of the Union. [Op. Cit., p. 34]

This suggestion, unsurprisingly, meet with strong disapproval by most anarchists, as we will see in the next section, who argued that this would turn the anarchist movement into a centralised, hierarchical party similar to the Bolsheviks. Needless to say, supporters of the Platform reject this argument and point out that the Platform itself is not written in stone and needs to be discussed fully and modified as required. In fact, few, if any, Platformist groups, do have this “secretariat” structure (it could, in fact, be argued that there are no actual “Platformist” groups, rather groups influenced by the Platform, namely on the issues of “Theoretical and Tactical Unity” and “Collective Responsibility”).

Similarly, most modern day Platformists reject the idea of gathering all anarchists into one organisation. The original Platform seemed to imply that the General Union would be an umbrella organisation, made up of different groups and individuals. Most Platformists would argue that not only will there never be one organisation which encompasses everyone, they do not think it necessary. Instead they envisage the existence of a number of organisations, each internally unified, each co-operating with each other where possible, a much more amorphous and fluid entity than a General Union of Anarchists.

As well as the original Platform, most Platformists place the Manifesto of Libertarian Communism by Georges Fontenis and Towards a Fresh Revolution by the “Friends of Durruti” as landmark texts in the Platformist tradition. A few anarcho-syndicalists question this last claim, arguing that the “Friends of Durruti” manifesto has strong similarities with the CNT’s pre-1936 position on revolution and thus is an anarcho-syndicalist document, going back to the position the CNT ignored after July 19th, 1936. Alexandre Skirda’s book Facing the Enemy contains the key documents on the original Platformists (including the original draft Platform, supplementary documents clarifying issues and polemics against critiques). There are numerous Platformist and Platformist influenced organisations in the world today, such as the Irish Workers Solidarity Movement and Italian Federation of Anarchist Communists.

In the next section we discuss the objections that most anarchists have towards the Platform.

[fresh-new-yoik-watah]

Of Duty and Desire

Chapter One

a/n: I haven’t written in so long I’m so sorry guys! I’m in a descendants phase again so naturally had to whip out a story

pairing: Harry Hook x OC (Willow Pan)

important: Harry and OC are 18, but it really does not affect the story

warnings: none!

word count: 1.9k

—————————————

Willow Pan walked as fast as her platform mary janes could take her without rolling her ankles, determined to get to her meeting with Fairy Godmother on time. She was supposed to be presenting the wedding budget for King Ben and Mal’s wedding with Jane, and she had lost track of time going over banner colors with Audrey, who had been picked as the official wedding planner. Audrey was starting to grow on Willow, once getting past her kingdom takeover phase last year, but everyone has their flaws, and she seemed to be maturing finally, which was a big concern Willow had at first at the idea of having to work with her. 

Willow spotted Jane pacing outside her mother’s office with a yellow folder labeled “WEDDING” clutched under her arm. 

Jane let out a sigh of relief once seeing Willow. “Thank goodness you’re here, I was worried!” She exclaimed. 

“I’m so sorry I got caught up,” Willow said. “I’m not late though? I swear I made it on time.”

Jane shook her head, “No we’re good, and it’s mom, she’d just give a lecture about punctuality.”

The two girls shared a quick giggle before composing themselves. Jane lightly tapped on the wooden door, waiting for her mother’s verbal cue before entering. 

Fairy Godmother’s office was much grander than the door would lead one to believe, and if Willow hadn’t spent as much of her childhood in these very rooms, she might’ve been intimidated by it. The tall walls were covered in royal blue velvet with gold crests patterned all over, with dark wood panels covering the lower third, meeting the matching wood floor. Fairy Godmother’s desk sat towards the back of the main room, right in front of the large window that faced directly towards the front courtyard. 

Fairy Godmother beamed at the two girls, eyes crinkled from smiling, and scurried over like a little mouse, engulfing them in a quick hug. “Hello my darlings!” She greeted, voice endearing.

She led them back towards her desk, moving the plush lavender cushions aside from the sofa that sat in front to allow the girls space to sit. 

Jane spoke first, “We have all the proposed arrangements and budgets, we just need King Ben’s approval.” She handed the folder to her mother who opened it and flipped through the pages. “There’s also sketches and pictures to look at,” she added. 

Fairy Godmother nodded to herself as she skimmed through the folder, eventually setting it down and bringing her hands together like she always did when she was about to say something serious. “Now are you girls sure you can take this on? There is no shame in backing out,” she said, making sure to look each of them in the eyes. 

Willow shook her head, “I’d much rather take this on than prom.” 

Fairy Godmother gave a small chuckle, “Well, prom committee will miss you.”

Willow forced a smile, mentally cringing at the memory of a heartbroken Aziz last year being her other reason to avoid prom committee. 

“Though, I know you’re part of the Initiation Program as well, so if at any point this becomes much on your shoulders…,” Fairy Godmother continued, trailing off. 

Willow had been one of the first few to volunteer for the new VK initiation program, overseen by the original four “villain kids”. It was an improved version of a way to integrate children from the isle into Auradon Prep, with things that aren’t as on the nose as Remedial Goodness 101. Each volunteer would be assigned a student to guide and meet with, and in attempts to limit any precursing bias, students were paired off randomly and wouldn’t find out their partner until meeting in person.

“I appreciate that, but I’ll be okay. Having Jane and Audrey with me makes this much more manageable,” Willow replied, keeping her stance. 

Fairy Godmother nodded, knowing she wouldn’t be able to sway the girl’s mind. “I will look these over and get these to the king then,” she said, gesturing to the folder on her desk. “In the meantime, have you gotten to meet your student yet? I might be able to offer some tips and tricks!”

Jane and Willow shared a knowing look, remembering a wailing Fairy Godmother running  away from fireworks set off by Zevon in the gym just a month ago. 

“I haven’t met them yet, but I will come to you should I need any help,” Willow replied, knowing she would not be seeking Fairy Godmother’s assistance. 

She was sure that whoever she got, she could handle it. And maybe she should’ve learned by now not to be too confident, as she was beginning to regret her decision to be a part of the program when she saw which leather clad boy was waiting in the library for her after meeting with Fairy Godmother. Willow knew she was taking a gamble with her chances for which VK she’d be assigned, but she’d naively thought Harry Hook was part of the first semester’s Program. But unfortunately, that was him, sitting in a chair, back turned to her, spinning his silver hook on a table like a top. He looked out of place in the room, too many smooth edges and corners for how rugged he dressed and how disheveled his hair was. His red and black clothes were an eyesore against the school’s gold and blue accents. 

Willow inhaled a deep breath, and as quietly as she could, disappeared into one of the many aisles of towering bookshelves. She gripped her program binder flush against her chest and paced back and forth, occasionally glancing through the books, hoping it was just a mistake and that another VK was going to walk through the library doors at any moment, that Harry was simply there for his own separate purpose, but no matter how many times she looked, the doors did not open and he was still sitting there. 

“I know you’re in here,” Harry suddenly spoke, still facing away.

She froze, her stomach sinking at being caught. Her eyes frantically scanned the shelves looking for something to use as an excuse to why she was hiding in the shelves, and not that it was because she was avoiding him. She landed on a purple book with instruments painted on its spine. She grabbed it and peaked from around the shelf, eventually emerging and approached Harry. 

“Sorry,” Willow apologized, pulling a chair out across from him and taking a seat. She set her binder and book down with a thud, making sure the book laid on top so he would see. “I was just looking for some extracurriculars to go over with you.”

Harry raised his eyebrow once spotting the purple cover. “You think I should do music?” He asked, accent heavy and a smirk on his lips. 

Flustered, she moved the book aside. “Simply an option,” she muttered. 

He grinned, finding amusement in her discomfort. 

The blonde girl continued, speaking more clearly and straightening her posture, “I’m Willow, I’m—“

“Harry Hook,” he interrupted, his icey blue eyes locked onto her as he watched for a reaction.

There were two things Willow knew to be true about Harry; one, his father was Captain James Hook, sworn enemy to her own father; two, he always tried to push people’s buttons, and she was determined not to give him that satisfaction, at least not today and not that easily. 

“Nice to meet you Harry,” she said sickenly sweet. She rummaged through the binder and slid some packets across the table to him, explaining his schedule for the next semester, and how many times they’d be meeting a week. 

“What if I need to see you more?” He asked, the corners of his lips barely curling up. 

Willow kept her composure with ease, having already been used to the many antics of the Lost Boys’ childrens. “Then you may ask to see me more,” she answered, mimicking his own innocent tone. 

Harry’s nose flared just slightly as he inhaled. A flame ignited in him then, something that would never be extinguished but only grow. He felt like he had just taken his first breath, that he had not known how it felt to breathe until now. Beneath the soft pastel blues she represented herself through, she had a bite, and he wanted to know deep she could sink her teeth. 

“Only if I need to,” he repeated, using his handheld hook to point at her. 

Willow wanted to roll her eyes, wishing she could take his ridiculous hook and toss it into the ocean. She grabbed one of the packets and flipped to the third page, pointing at a list that filled the piece of paper from top to bottom. “These are all the extracurriculars you are eligible to take. You’re required to take at least one a semester,” she said. 

“What one are you taking?” Harry asked.

She watched him, trying to read if he was looking for a sort of leverage or just out of curiosity. “I take a few,” she replied hesitantly. 

“Like what?” He pushed more. 

“I’m part of student council, decor committee—“

“I’ll pick decor committee,” Harry interrupted her again.

She knew what he was doing, that he only chose it to get under her skin, and she’d be lying if she said it wasn’t working. “I suggest you pick one that aligns with your own interests,” Willow said monotone.

“A pirate can’t have a passion for decorating?” He laughed, grinning at her across the table as she stared back without a traceable emotion. 

“It’s not as easy as it may seem,” she continued to try and dissuade him, but he was firm. 

“Then I’ll be the judge of that,” he replied. 

She decided two could play this game and pulled out her phone, the sound of her fingers tapping away as Harry’s own phone dinged in his pocket. He jumped at the noise, patting his pockets down as he looked for the source of the noise. 

“What is this?” He asked after taking some time to figure out how to find the notification, then opening a five page attachment from her. 

“Homework,” she said smugly, satisfied at the way Harry’s face dropped. “I expect it to be read through and completed by Wednesday, which is our next committee meeting.” 

He groaned, running his hand through his dark hair. “Doesn’t the leader or something have a say in this? Seems unprincess-like to go behind their back.”

Unprincess? Did he assume she was a descendant of a princess? Did that mean he didn’t know who she was? That made his motive of trying to annoy her confusing, Willow assumed he was carrying a generational grudge, which she wouldn’t have blamed him entirely for, knowing she’d feel some type of way if someone’s parent had cut her own parent’s hand off. 

She ignored the princess comment, taking advantage of Harry’s seemingly lack of knowledge. “I’m leader of decor committee,” she replied. 

He didn’t say anything right away, maybe trying to tell if she was lying or not. He was good at hiding his thoughts, his face unreadable as he processed the new information. “Ah,” he sighed, and as if a switch turned in him, he was grinning again, “I’ll be seeing you a lot then.” 

Despite her efforts, Harry had won this round, and as much as she wanted to be entirely annoyed at it, Willow was excited to make him committee errand boy. 

[pretordh]

The Russians completely destroyed the Tavrian Chersonesus in Sevastopol, a UNESCO World Heritage Site

This is reported by "UP. Life" with reference to Evelina Kravchenko, a senior researcher at the Institute of Archeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.

The researcher told about this at the III International Forum of the expert network of the Crimean Platform . She emphasized that the Russians are destroying original architectural monuments and erecting new buildings in their place.

"Now negative processes are taking place with the only monument of world importance, which we managed to nominate and include in the list of monuments in Crimea - Chersonesus Tavriysky ," said Evelina Kravchenko.

It is noted that in 2015-2016, the developers fenced off the archaeological remains located on the surface: towers, walls and columns with viewing platforms. Later, an amphitheater was built on the site of the ancient citadel, and it carries a load of about a ton on the original structure.

In addition, a significant part of the found artifacts was taken to Russia: frescoes, dishes, household items and icons. After that, the construction of the archaeological park "New Chersonese" began on the site of the remains of the necropolis.

"The Russians did not know anything about the geological situation at this place, so they began to remove the soil on the territory with ordinary excavators. Somehow they dug up an ancient spring there, so everything flooded ," shared Evelina Kravchenko.

Now, in fact, a new city has been built on the site of the archaeological remains. The archaeological park covers old finds, and a number of excavated objects were gradually moved and rebuilt elsewhere.

What's more, the Russians built St. Volodymyr's Cathedral where the settlement used to be. It is consecrated by the Moscow Patriarchate and subordinate to it.

What is known about the Tavrian Chersonesus

The ancient city of Chersonesus Tavri (translated from ancient Greek - "the city of the Sun God Horus") is located on the territory of the Heraklion peninsula of Crimea. This is the largest monument of Byzantium in the world.

Chersonesus existed 900 years before the creation of the Eastern Roman Empire. It was built in the 6th century. to n. is.

This historic city was one of the local centers of the Hellenic civilization, which originated in the Northern Black Sea region and later spread to Asia Minor and the Mediterranean.

The first archaeological park in Ukraine was created on the basis of Chersonesus Tavriyskyi. It is an object of cultural heritage of Ukraine.

On June 23, 2013, at the 37th session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee held in Cambodia, Chersonesus Tavri and its choir (agricultural district) were included in the UNESCO World Heritage List.

After the occupation of Crimea by Russia, it became impossible to preserve the integrity of Chersonesus Tavriyskyi. In 2015, the Russian army poured concrete over the site of an ancient manor on Cape Chersonese. Until now, the occupation authorities are constantly destroying the historical monument and looting it.

[end-otw-racism]

Questions for the OTW Board of Directors

There's a Board meeting scheduled for July 2 at 20:00 UTC, and as part of our second call to action, we're asking fans to attend and ask questions about what the Board is doing to fulfill the promises it's made to combat racist harassment on its platforms and make the organization and its projects more welcoming to fans of color.

When asking questions, please be courteous. During the meeting, the Board takes relevant questions about the business at hand and then there's an open question period at the end. Because meetings are only scheduled for an hour, the time for questions is often limited, but if you get yours in before the end of the hour, it should be answered.

There's no size limit to the questions you can ask, but keep in mind that if you ask a multi-part question, you may only get an answer to the easiest part of it, so you might want to keep additional questions in reserve and only ask them once the first one's been answered. If you're afraid of sounding pushy, team up with a buddy and have them ask the follow-up!

Below are some questions that we'd like the Board to answer. Some are topical and some are long-standing issues, but all of them are focused on racism within the OTW and the projects it manages. Feel free to take one to the next meeting copy & paste style, or simply use them as a starting point for your own questions. 

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Why doesn't the OTW have a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee? Are there plans to create one?

When was the last time you met with the diversity consultant research officer? What did you discuss and what kind of obstacles have they encountered?

What goals do you have for a diversity consultant? What do you hope the diversity consultant will be able to provide?

At the last meeting you said the diversity consultant research officer will be speaking to people within the OTW "so she can get a clearer picture of what OTW leadership and volunteers expect from a consultant, what concerns they have, and what they see as priorities for this work." Are there any plans for the DCRO to speak with fans of color who use the org's platforms, to hear their concerns and get a sense of their priorities for this work?

How has the OTW reached out to fans of color to determine their priorities in making OTW's platforms more welcoming places?

Given the long delay in hiring a diversity consultant, why has the OTW taken little other action on policy changes that don't require a consultant to implement? 

How have internal conflicts hampered the OTW's ability to meet the goals set out in the 2022-2025 Vision Statement to prioritize diversity and increase inclusion within the organization?

Why did it take the OTW almost a month to acknowledge the #EndOTWRacism protest? 

What can fans outside the org do to help speed along the work of making the OTW a more anti-racist space?

Chinese-speaking Fandom

Why did the OTW shut down the AO3 Weibo account? How was this decision made? Are there plans to reinstate it?

There are allegations that the OTW put mainland Chinese volunteers at risk by deciding to include politically sensitive languages on the Archive, and that a sitting Board member was dismissive of that risk and made inappropriate comments about Chinese-speaking volunteers and fans. What happened and what has the Board done to make this right?

After the sinophobia and racism faced by one of the candidates for the OTW Board in the last election, what does the OTW intend to do to protect future candidates and prevent the spread of racist misinformation about candidates?

Policy & Abuse

How does the Board plan to empower the Policy & Abuse Committee to handle cases of racial harassment?

The May 2023 newsletter reports that the review of AO3's Terms of Service for revisions that would allow Policy & Abuse to address different types of harassment not covered under the current TOS is still in progress, but also that "Policy & Abuse and Legal teams have agreed on some changes about harassment in general, and about works created with the clear intent of making AO3 unwelcoming." What are these changes? When can we expect them to be put into effect?

These are really just a few of the many questions we have for the Board. If you have your own questions, please show up and ask them! But if you can't make the meeting, or don't feel comfortable attending, you can always write to the OTW Board (third option on the drop-down menu) and pose your questions – or any of these! – in a letter. 

And if you'd like to be informed of future Board meetings and any actions we plan around them, you can join our mailing list! Just check the "OTW Board Meeting" box.

—The Fandom Against Racism Team

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Amee Vanderpool at SHERO:

Donald Trump is now trying to claim that he knows nothing about the controversial conservative agenda that is meant to go into place on “Day One” of another Trump presidency. The extensive plan, which was developed by the prominent Trump supporting Heritage Foundation, lays out a blueprint for a complete overhaul of the federal government, detailing a strategy for immediately firing thousands of civil servants, expanding the executive powers of the president, halting all sales of the abortion pill, and much, much more. Although Trump has recently attempted to distance himself publicly from his own custom-made agenda, he has continued for months at his rallies to make dog whistle promises that include the main tenants of this conservative policy. [...]

Contrary to recent protests, Donald Trump also knows exactly who is behind Project 2025, because it was created by many of his most trusted allies and former advisors, who ultimately wrote the plan for him. The plan sets out four main policy aims to install an extreme, far-right agenda that includes: restoring the family as the center piece of American life; dismantling the administrative state; defending the nation's sovereignty and borders; and securing God-given individual rights to live freely. Look for Trump to manipulate the language of these basic tenants in his ongoing speeches, which are ultimately a signal to his support of the 2025 agenda. In January of 2018, just a year into his first term, the Heritage Foundation bragged that the Trump administration had “embraced nearly two-thirds of the policy recommendations from the “Mandate for Leadership,” which ultimately became “Project 2025.” But the team that created the project is chock full of former Trump advisers, including director Paul Dans, who was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management while Trump was president. Russell Vought, who was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump from July 2020 to January 2021, wrote a key chapter on future executive branch staffing for Project 2025, and also serves as the Republican National Committee’s 2024 platform policy director. The Heritage Foundation touts that “more than 350 leading conservatives” contributed to the plan, including many that would be hugely influential in Washington if Republicans take back the White House.

[...] In the last few weeks, the Biden Campaign has made a point to direct the public to the goals of the conservative plan — which is backed by more than 100 far right groups — to warn of the potential danger involved with a second Trump presidency. The increased concern over the far right agenda, which appeared to rise in tandem with Trump’s slight edge in the polls following the presidential debate, has now gone viral and is getting a lot of backlash. This has made it a little more difficult for the Republican Party to outwardly adopt Project 2025 as planned at the RNC this week. Most party platforms tend to average between 50- to 75-pages, according to historians. The Republican Party has issued a formal platform that is 16 pages long, and it makes extensive use of capital letters to somehow mirror Donald Trump’s own speaking and social media posting tone. Many of the concepts and directives seem intentionally vague, as if to be filled in by a more substantial, 900 page companion agenda that fleshes out the real intentions of the Republican Party under Trump’s continued leadership.

While it may have been the intention of RNC Director Russell Vought and other key Heritage Foundation members for the GOP to formally adopt Project 2025 at the convention this week, they might just keep the connection between the two agendas implied and forgo drawing more attention to the unpopular far right plan. Using the Project 2025 agenda as an Appendix to the Republican Platform put forth this year is the only thing that explains why anyone would put forth such a slapdash and incomprehensible official agenda like the one presented by the RNC this week. Despite Donald Trump’s attempts to distance himself from the substantial conservative opus generated by the Heritage Foundation that he has publicly praised and acknowledged in the past, nothing happens on a large scale within the GOP without Trump’s express consent. Moving forward we can expect the rhetoric to change slightly and become even more obfuscated, as Trump and JD Vance continue to sell Project 2025 under a more generic premise that they think distances them from the conservative manifesto.

DJT can claim to disavow Project 2025 all he wants, but a large part of it was influenced by Trump staffers.

See Also:

Public Notice: Project 2025 is the GOP platform

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

'It poses economic, ecological and welfare losses,' says expert about privatizing beaches in Brazil

Defended by Senator Flávio Bolsonaro, the measure was targeted by protesters in the Senate during a debate on the issue

Targeted by environmentalists and campaigners on social media platforms, the proposed constitutional amendment (PEC, in Portuguese) that modifies the ownership of lands owned by the Brazilian Navy and opens the way for broader privatization of the Brazilian coast was criticized by experts on Monday (27) in the Senate.

During debates in the Senate’s Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ, in Portuguese), biologist and PhD in Marine Sciences Marinez Eymael Garcia Scherer, current general coordinator of the Department of Ocean and Coastal Management of the Ministry of the Environment, said that the eventual approval of the measure would increase the ecological risks imposed on the Brazilian coastline, especially in terms of erosion due to predatory human action.

She mentioned cases such as the states of Ceará and Santa Catarina, which are already considered alarming due to having strips in an advanced state of erosion in the coastal zone, costing the latter losses of over BRL1 billion in 2022 (about US$ 193,6). The data was consolidated by the Integrated Disaster Information System (S2iD, in Portuguese), a platform of the National Civil Protection and Defense System, and includes material, environmental and economic costs, among others.

“Ecosystems have functions that provide us with ecosystem services, which, in turn, provide us with benefits that give us ecological, cultural and economic values and human well-being. If we lose these structures, we lose human well-being, the economy, and value, which is important for everyone. Also, it generates costs that end up affecting the entire Brazilian population. We don't even need to talk about how much is being made available [in resources] for Rio Grande do Sul [which is facing destruction due to floods], often because of areas that have been occupied and shouldn't be occupied for being permanent preservation areas,” he said.

Continue reading.

[transboysokka]

Taiwan FAQ Part 2: The Bluebird Movement and Taiwan's History of Political Movements Explained

[Image Source: Time / Bloomberg]

[Image ID: A screenshot from the telecast of a session in Taiwan's Legislative Yuan. A large group of Taiwan's 113 legislators stands in the chamber, which looks similar to other countries' government chambers such as the US House of Representatives. A large portrait of Sun Yat-Sen looms in the background above the speaker's podium. Many DPP legislators stand in the foreground on the chambers floor holding a variety of signs in Chinese protesting the KMT and TPP's method of pushing through recent legislative reforms with little transparency or discussion. The DPP group of legislators seems to be chanting something. Some have their right fists raised. Many KMT and TPP-affiliated legislators stand watching in the background, half of them stood on the speaker's platform, occupying it so the DPP cannot. Some of the KMT and TPP legislators seem to hold signs as well. /. End ID.]

How new is democracy in Taiwan?

Taiwan was under martial law from 1949 to 1987, the longest period of martial law in the world at that time. This period saw the White Terror, a period of political repression which included mass murder and the unjust imprisonment of over 140,000 people. The first direct presidential election only occurred in 1996, and the KMT's role as ruling party only ended for the first time in 2000.

The point here is that while Taiwan is currently one of the world's strongest democracies, many people still alive remember a time before democracy.

What was the Wild Lily Movement?

The Wild Lily Student Movement was a several-day demonstration in Taiwan in 1990 that advocated for direct presidential and legislative elections. This was ultimately successful, as the first direct presidential election occurred six years later.

What was the Sunflower Movement?

The Sunflower Student Movement was a student-led protest movement in 2014 in opposition to the Legislature passing a trade pact with China without proper review. Protestors thought this pact would leave Taiwan vulnerable to political pressure from China and criticized the KMT's "black box" method of passing the bill without proper transparency. As part of the movement, some students managed to occupy the Legislative Yuan and eventually get the bill thrown out.

What is the Bluebird Movement? / What is going on right now?

It is important to note that this movement is new and ongoing, so "Bluebird" is far from an official name yet and is subject to change.

This month (May 2024) a new legislative reform bill was introduced, supported by the KMT and TPP. While details were not initially released to the public, the bill would grant legislators many new powers. These would include the ability to summon any group, business, or individual for questioning before the legislature, and the ability to punish those who do not cooperate. Some fear that these powers would allow a party to obtain trade/national security secrets, or even allow them to summon and punish their enemies without cause. While some of these powers would threaten individual rights, the manner in which the KMT and TPP have been trying to pass these reforms is very reminiscent of what happened around the Sunflower Movement, using more Black Box tactics.

For example, the DPP claims the bill was not discussed in committee before being brought to the floor. When asked what was meant in the bill that people being questioned by the legislature would be fined for "questioning back" to legislators, a KMT legislator said that would be "explained later." Han Kuo-Yu, the president of the Legislative Yuan (a role similar to the Speaker of the US House of Representatives,) has been limiting DPP speakers to three minutes of talking time and only allowing one speaker at a time before moving onto show-of-hands votes to approve each section during a reading.

Several fights have broken out in the legislature recently, which is not an unprecedented occurrence but does show the level of tension surrounding this bill right now.

When the bill was discussed on Tuesday (21 May), 30,000 people assembled outside of the legislature to oppose the bill and the KMT and TPP's actions. During further discussion on Friday (24 May), 100,000 people were in attendance outside the legislature, many coming from other parts of the country. Protestors gathered in Taiwan's other major cities as well. The bill is next scheduled to be discussed on Tuesday 28 May, and we will have to see what happens then.

Many of the organizers in this movement also participated in the Sunflower Movement.

Why does the Bluebird Movement matter so much?

One of the main slogans so far of the actions outside of the legislature has translated to "No Discussion, No Democracy," with many protestors of the opinion that legislative discussion and transparency are what separate Taiwan from China and Hong Kong. While there is not a widespread sense of worry among Taiwanese people of war with China, some fear that they would try to gain influence in Taiwan's government, effectively rotting democracy from the inside, as was done in Hong Kong. This movement is about protecting Taiwan's democracy and protecting Taiwan from foreign influence.

What is the Legislative Yuan?

Sometimes abbreviated to the LY, this is Taiwan's unicameral legislature. It is one of Taiwan's five branches of government.

Some names to know right now

Lai Ching-Te (DPP) : He is NOT in the LY, as he is Taiwan's president, but this is a name that will naturally come up quite often in the coverage of all this. Late Friday night, he posted his support for the protestors on his Instagram.

Han Kuo-Yu (KMT) : This is the president of the LY. He lost the 2020 presidential election to incumbent Tsai Ing-Wen and has been a low-key meme ever since.

Ker Chien-Ming (DPP) : He leads the DPP.

Huang Kuo-Chang (TPP) : He is the leader of the TPP in the LY. Notably, he was one of the leaders of the Sunflower Movement and has been criticized in this recent movement as betraying his principles. In the protests on 24 May, there was a memorial set up for him outside the legislature as though he were dead.

Chen Yu-Jen (KMT) : She's not necessarily important, but she is quite vocal in the LY and has been known for some elaborate stunts. Recently after a brawl sent a legislator to the hospital, she showed up to the next session wearing a helmet and elbow pads. She annoys me more than most of the other KMT legislators so I wanted to put her on this list, please indulge me.

Puma Shen (DPP) : He was the one hospitalized in the recent brawl and has been quite vocal in his opposition to the reform bill. He's quite popular.

Can't the president just veto these reforms?

There is not actually any president for a Taiwanese president to veto a law once it has been passed by the LY. If President Lai were to do so, it could cause a constitutional crisis. The Executive or Judicial Yuan could theoretically dispute it or declare it unconstitutional, but we would just have to see.

Is the Bluebird Movement focused on China's recent military actions?

Nope! In Friday's protest, I don't believe a single speaker mentioned them. Taiwanese people are largely not bothered by China's intimidation tactics.

Further Reading

Acronyms Explained

China's Recent Military Actions Toward Taiwan

Taiwan FAQ

[captainjonnitkessler]

How does a trade union work? You mentioned union politics and stuff and I really don't know anything about that

This is mostly going to apply to the IBEW because that's what I'm a member of, but I think most unions amongst the trades work similarly. Also I'm not sure if you meant how the union in general works or specifically the politics so I did both!

So my union is a hiring hall, which means that when any electrical company who has signed our contract agreement needs workers, they put a call in to the union hall, and whoever is out of work at the moment can pick up that call and go to work for that company. You get laid off when work slows down, you sign the book at the hall and wait for another company to put out a call. So you might work for one company for a few months or for a few years, but ultimately you're really working for the union, and both the workers and the companies are bound by the collective bargaining agreement, or CBA.

The CBA is signed by both the union hall and the electrical companies, who negotiate the terms of each contract (contracts last 3 years in my local). The companies negotiate through a contractor's organization, and the union appoints a committee to negotiate on our behalf. Stalemates go to a supposedly-neutral party called CIR, but I'm told they rule against us more often than not, so we try hard to avoid that and have had to make major concessions because of it.

As far as the political stuff goes: The union membership votes for an administration - president, business manager, organizer, etc. Those people appoint others to committees who take care of things like the pension fund, annuity loans, the healthcare plan, political lobbying and of course negotiating.

The problems come in like with any politics - people pick their friends for positions they're not qualified for, they backstab people to gain standing or maintain their positions, they waste union funds, they spend union money in shady ways, they'll run on one platform and then not follow through, they aren't clear and transparent with the membership, etc. It's all the worse because construction workers are absolutely notorious for being an old boy's club, and it's very much about who you know even on the jobsites, let alone in the political sphere.

The mechanism that's supposed to make unions different is that most major decisions have to go through a vote in the membership. Things like approving a CBA, deciding how a raise will be distributed, what our healthcare plan should cover, anything about the pension - it all has to be voted on by the membership. So the workers have a say in what the union does. The catch, though, is once again endemic to all politics: most people don't care. We have over 800 active members, and barely 50 show up to most meetings. People complain loudly about how much they hate the administration and then say that they're glad they're not an apprentice so they aren't required to go to meetings anymore. Most people genuinely don't know or care what the union does as long as they keep getting paid. It's just the same apathy you see in regular politics, on a smaller scale.

So this was probably way more information than you wanted or needed, but if you have any other questions feel free to ask! I do like talking about union stuff, even when I'm annoyed with mine.