#like say. the GDPR.

[regallibellbright]

It’s telling, in a “oh you REALLY didn’t think this one through did you” way, that one of Unity’s walkbacks/clarifications was “Oh no, DEVELOPERS won’t be on the hook for Gamepass/Playstation Plus installations, those fees will go to the distributors!”

Meaning, Microsoft and Sony.

For fees that will be applying retroactively.

If you throw a rock at Gamepass’s biggest indie titles you will probably hit one made in Unity.

And the point at which they go into effect - $200,000 in revenue, 200,000 installs - is COMICALLY low compared to Gamepass numbers.

Like, this is going to easily be in the realm of tens of millions of dollars for Microsoft, minimum. It’s fairly likely to be enough money they actually give a shit.

For fees that will be applying retroactively.

I wish them fucking luck is what I’m getting at they’re gonna fucking need it.

[effervescentdragon]

i think a lot of people should google datenschutz/gdpr and how it protects people who bring in a complaint to their workplace/place of study before you start calling for the investigation to be published

[a-teardrop-of-the-sun]

dear diary, today the (spiritually 1000000 years old) director of my anthropology master's program somehow fucked up so bad that she accidentally invited me, a student finishing the program in 7 days, as a 'teacher' for the upcoming year's lecture module with full access to all program data

[well-maxed-kaiser]

I love reading the "opinions on legality" of people that would like all their apps to be tiktok

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Apple to EU: “Go fuck yourself”

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/2024/02/06/spoil-the-bunch/#dma

There's a strain of anti-anti-monopolist that insists that they're not pro-monopoly – they're just realists who understand that global gigacorporations are too big to fail, too big to jail, and that governments can't hope to rein them in. Trying to regulate a tech giant, they say, is like trying to regulate the weather.

This ploy is cousins with Jay Rosen's idea of "savvying," defined as: "dismissing valid questions with the insider's, 'and this surprises you?'"

https://twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu/status/344825874362810369?lang=en

In both cases, an apologist for corruption masquerades as a pragmatist who understands the ways of the world, unlike you, a pathetic dreamer who foolishly hopes for a better world. In both cases, the apologist provides cover for corruption, painting it as an inevitability, not a choice. "Don't hate the player. Hate the game."

The reason this foolish nonsense flies is that we are living in an age of rampant corruption and utter impunity. Companies really do get away with both literal and figurative murder. Governments really do ignore horrible crimes by the rich and powerful, and fumble what rare, few enforcement efforts they assay.

Take the GDPR, Europe's landmark privacy law. The GDPR establishes strict limitations of data-collection and processing, and provides for brutal penalties for companies that violate its rules. The immediate impact of the GDPR was a mass-extinction event for Europe's data-brokerages and surveillance advertising companies, all of which were in obvious violation of the GDPR's rules.

But there was a curious pattern to GDPR enforcement: while smaller, EU-based companies were swiftly shuttered by its provisions, the US-based giants that conduct the most brazen, wide-ranging, illegal surveillance escaped unscathed for years and years, continuing to spy on Europeans.

One (erroneous) way to look at this is as a "compliance moat" story. In that story, GDPR requires a bunch of expensive systems that only gigantic companies like Facebook and Google can afford. These compliance costs are a "capital moat" – a way to exclude smaller companies from functioning in the market. Thus, the GDPR acted as an anticompetitive wrecking ball, clearing the field for the largest companies, who get to operate without having to contend with smaller companies nipping at their heels:

https://www.techdirt.com/2019/06/27/another-report-shows-gdpr-benefited-google-facebook-hurt-everyone-else/

This is wrong.

Oh, compliance moats are definitely real – think of the calls for AI companies to license their training data. AI companies can easily do this – they'll just buy training data from giant media companies – the very same companies that hope to use models to replace creative workers with algorithms. Create a new copyright over training data won't eliminate AI – it'll just confine AI to the largest, best capitalized companies, who will gladly provide tools to corporations hoping to fire their workforces:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/#bullied-schoolkids

But just because some regulations can be compliance moats, that doesn't mean that all regulations are compliance moats. And just because some regulations are vigorously applied to small companies while leaving larger firms unscathed, it doesn't follow that the regulation in question is a compliance moat.

A harder look at what happened with the GDPR reveals a completely different dynamic at work. The reason the GDPR vaporized small surveillance companies and left the big companies untouched had nothing to do with compliance costs. The Big Tech companies don't comply with the GDPR – they just get away with violating the GDPR.

How do they get away with it? They fly Irish flags of convenience. Decades ago, Ireland started dabbling with offering tax-havens to the wealthy and mobile – they invented the duty-free store:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty-free_shop#1947%E2%80%931990:_duty_free_establishment

Capturing pennies from the wealthy by helping them avoid fortunes they owed in taxes elsewhere was terribly seductive. In the years that followed, Ireland began aggressively courting the wealthy on an industrial scale, offering corporations the chance to duck their obligations to their host countries by flying an Irish flag of convenience.

There are other countries who've tried this gambit – the "treasure islands" of the Caribbean, the English channel, and elsewhere – but Ireland is part of the EU. In the global competition to help the rich to get richer, Ireland had a killer advantage: access to the EU, the common market, and 500m affluent potential customers. The Caymans can hide your money for you, and there's a few super-luxe stores and art-galleries in George Town where you can spend it, but it's no Champs Elysees or Ku-Damm.

But when you're competing with other countries for the pennies of trillion-dollar tax-dodgers, any wins can be turned into a loss in an instant. After all, any corporation that is footloose enough to establish a Potemkin Headquarters in Dublin and fly the trídhathach can easily up sticks and open another Big Store HQ in some other haven that offers it a sweeter deal.

This has created a global race to the bottom among tax-havens to also serve as regulatory havens – and there's a made-in-the-EU version that sees Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and sometimes the Netherlands competing to see who can offer the most impunity for the worst crimes to the most awful corporations in the world.

And that's why Google and Facebook haven't been extinguished by the GDPR while their rivals were. It's not compliance moats – it's impunity. Once a corporation attains a certain scale, it has the excess capital to spend on phony relocations that let it hop from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, chasing the loosest slots on the strip. Ireland is a made town, where the cops are all on the take, and two thirds of the data commissioner's rulings are eventually overturned by the federal court:

https://www.iccl.ie/digital-data/iccl-2023-gdpr-report/

This is a problem among many federations, not just the EU. The US has its onshore-offshore tax- and regulation-havens (Delaware, South Dakota, Texas, etc), and so does Canada (Alberta), and some Swiss cantons are, frankly, batshit:

https://lenews.ch/2017/11/25/swiss-fact-some-swiss-women-had-to-wait-until-1991-to-vote/

None of this is to condemn federations outright. Federations are (potentially) good! But federalism has a vulnerability: the autonomy of the federated states means that they can be played against each other by national or transnational entities, like corporations. This doesn't mean that it's impossible to regulate powerful entities within a federation – but it means that federal regulation needs to account for the risk of jurisdiction-shopping.

Enter the Digital Markets Act, a new Big Tech specific law that, among other things, bans monopoly app stores and payment processing, through which companies like Apple and Google have levied a 30% tax on the entire app market, while arrogating to themselves the right to decide which software their customers may run on their own devices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/07/curatorial-vig/#app-tax

Apple has responded to this regulation with a gesture of contempt so naked and broad that it beggars belief. As Proton describes, Apple's DMA plan is the very definition of malicious compliance:

https://proton.me/blog/apple-dma-compliance-plan-trap

Recall that the DMA is intended to curtail monopoly software distribution through app stores and mobile platforms' insistence on using their payment processors, whose fees are sky-high. The law is intended to extinguish developer agreements that ban software creators from informing customers that they can get a better deal by initiating payments elsewhere, or by getting a service through the web instead of via an app.

In response, Apple, has instituted a junk fee it calls the "Core Technology Fee": EUR0.50/install for every installation over 1m. As Proton writes, as apps grow more popular, using third-party payment systems will grow less attractive. Apple has offered discounts on its eye-watering payment processing fees to a mere 20% for the first payment and 13% for renewals. Compare this with the normal – and far, far too high – payment processing fees the rest of the industry charges, which run 2-5%. On top of all this, Apple has lied about these new discounted rates, hiding a 3% "processing" fee in its headline figures.

As Proton explains, paying 17% fees and EUR0.50 for each subscriber's renewal makes most software businesses into money-losers. The only way to keep them afloat is to use Apple's old, default payment system. That choice is made more attractive by Apple's inclusion of a "scare screen" that warns you that demons will rend your soul for all eternity if you try to use an alternative payment scheme.

Apple defends this scare screen by saying that it will protect users from the intrinsic unreliability of third-party processors, but as Proton points out, there are plenty of giant corporations who get to use their own payment processors with their iOS apps, because Apple decided they were too big to fuck with. Somehow, Apple can let its customers spend money Uber, McDonald's, Airbnb, Doordash and Amazon without terrorizing them about existential security risks – but not mom-and-pop software vendors or publishers who don't want to hand 30% of their income over to a three-trillion-dollar company.

Apple has also reserved the right to cancel any alternative app store and nuke it from Apple customers' devices without warning, reason or liability. Those app stores also have to post a one-million euro line of credit in order to be considered for iOS. Given these terms, it's obvious that no one is going to offer a third-party app store for iOS and if they did, no one would list their apps in it.

The fuckery goes on and on. If an app developer opts into third-party payments, they can't use Apple's payment processing too – so any users who are scared off by the scare screen have no way to pay the app's creators. And once an app creator opts into third party payments, they can never go back – the decision is permanent.

Apple also reserves the right to change all of these policies later, for the worse ("I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it further" -D. Vader). They have warned developers that they might change the API for reporting external sales and revoke developers' right to use alternative app stores at its discretion, with no penalties if that screws the developer.

Apple's contempt extends beyond app marketplaces. The DMA also obliges Apple to open its platform to third party browsers and browser engines. Every browser on iOS is actually just Safari wrapped in a cosmetic skin, because Apple bans third-party browser-engines:

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

But, as Mozilla puts it, Apple's plan for this is "as painful as possible":

https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-ios-browser-rules-firefox

For one thing, Apple will only allow European customers to run alternative browser engines. That means that Firefox will have to "build and maintain two separate browser implementations — a burden Apple themselves will not have to bear."

(One wonders how Apple will treat Americans living in the EU, whose Apple accounts still have US billing addresses – these people will still be entitled to the browser choice that Apple is grudgingly extending to Europeans.)

All of this sends a strong signal that Apple is planning to run the same playbook with the DMA that Google and Facebook used on the GDPR: ignore the law, use lawyerly bullshit to chaff regulators, and hope that European federalism has sufficiently deep cracks that it can hide in them when the enforcers come to call.

But Apple is about to get a nasty shock. For one thing, the DMA allows wronged parties to start their search for justice in the European federal court system – bypassing the Irish regulators and courts. For another, there is a global movement to check corporate power, and because the tech companies do the same kinds of fuckery in every territory, regulators are able to collaborate across borders to take them down.

Take Apple's app store monopoly. The best reference on this is the report published by the UK Competition and Markets Authority's Digital Markets Unit:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63f61bc0d3bf7f62e8c34a02/Mobile_Ecosystems_Final_Report_amended_2.pdf

The devastating case that the DMU report was key to crafting the DMA – but it also inspired a US law aimed at forcing app markets open:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2710

And a Japanese enforcement action:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Japan-to-crack-down-on-Apple-and-Google-app-store-monopolies

And action in South Korea:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/skorea-considers-505-mln-fine-against-google-apple-over-app-market-practices-2023-10-06/

These enforcers gather for annual meetings – I spoke at one in London, convened by the Competition and Markets Authority – where they compare notes, form coalitions, and plan strategy:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cma-data-technology-and-analytics-conference-2022-registration-308678625077

This is where the savvying breaks down. Yes, Apple is big enough to run circles around Japan, or South Korea, or the UK. But when those countries join forces with the EU, the USA and other countries that are fed up to the eyeballs with Apple's bullshit, the company is in serious danger.

It's true that Apple has convinced a bunch of its customers that buying a phone from a multi-trillion-dollar corporation makes you a member of an oppressed religious minority:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/12/youre-holding-it-wrong/#if-dishwashers-were-iphones

Some of those self-avowed members of the "Cult of Mac" are willing to take the company's pronouncements at face value and will dutifully repeat Apple's claims to be "protecting" its customers. But even that credulity has its breaking point – Apple can only poison the well so many times before people stop drinking from it. Remember when the company announced a miraculous reversal to its war on right to repair, later revealed to be a bald-faced lie?

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

Or when Apple claimed to be protecting phone users' privacy, which was also a lie?

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

The savvy will see Apple lying (again) and say, "this surprises you?" No, it doesn't surprise me, but it pisses me off – and I'm not the only one, and Apple's insulting lies are getting less effective by the day.

Image: Alex Popovkin, Bahia, Brazil from Brazil (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Annelid_worm,_Atlantic_forest,_northern_littoral_of_Bahia,_Brazil_%2816107326533%29.jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

--

Hubertl (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015-03-04_Elstar_%28apple%29_starting_putrefying_IMG_9761_bis_9772.jpg

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

[canmom]

i feel a little careless about talking about the more esoteric end of computer security because in practice, keeping your devices up to date, using a password manager, not clicking sussy links and taking care what executables you run will protect you pretty well! 'throw up your hands and give up' is very much not the message here.

like here's an analogy. you could at any moment be killed by a meteorite. but it's happened so rarely that there are no modern recorded examples of someone being killed by a meteorite and historical reports are kind of dubious. you could invest in lining the roof of your house with steel and always go out in a suit of medieval armour. it would lower your chance of getting meteorite'd... but it would also cause all sorts of other problems, which probably aren't worth the tradeoff.

silly example, but all security is the same sort of tradeoff between risk and inconvenience. for example, I don't like being tracked by advertisers (it just makes my skin crawl), so I run a bunch of anti-tracking browser extensions like NoScript, PrivacyPossum and Decentraleyes and always opt out in the gdpr popups. I wouldn't generally recommend this because often this breaks the functionality of websites and I have to spend some time figuring out which scripts to enable to get them to work, and it's hard to say the annoyance is worth the benefits. on the other hand, I would pretty generally recommend blocking ads with uBlock Origin.

another example: I don't make much of a secret of my IRL name, or separate my online presence from my IRL stuff. this is a risk - e.g. if I ran afoul of some social media hate mob it could lead to trouble. but I decided the effort it would take to keep that secret is not worth it. on the other hand, if I was, say, a famous vtuber who had to worry about being stalked by fans or haters, or even aspired to be one, this would be a big secret that I'd go to great pains to maintain.

certain rituals like the activist phone bowl are arguably 'security theatre': they're not really aligned with what is a realistic threat. sure, some really weird attacks exist out there, but you really need to be realistic about who's attacking you and how they're likely to go about it, or you'll just become so paranoid that you never do anything.

[pinkcarsupremacy]

lmao take this with a grain of salt but reddit comments are saying that alpine may have broken uk privacy laws/esteban potentially has grounds for a lawsuit by tracking the company car outside of working hours???

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1edo9sv/marcin_budkowski_revealed_that_alpine_found_out/

I would tend to agree with them I mean of course none of us know the ins and outs of the situation but the UK has pretty strict privacy laws (GDPR) and whilst I'm sure all their company cars are tracked with GPS the legality of accessing that data would be very strict and they would need a legitmate reason for doing so. Checking up on where your employee is going in their private time would not be considered a legit reason under any circumstance save suspicion of criminal activity or something. And not to mention that not only was that information accessed, it was then seemingly spread to multiple Alpine employees, who in turn spread it to the press and we can assume that's where all the Ocon/Williams rumours came from in the last few weeks.

Like disregard the fact it was Williams he visited for a moment and let's say instead it was a hospital. So they have checked his GPS because [insert dodgy reason here] and found he spent 5 hours at a hospital. They then tell other staff this. They then spread it to the press. Then the media would be speculating about why he was at a hospital. That would be a pretty insane (and illegal) breach of privacy, right?

[tournament-announcer]

Hey ik this is not tournament related, but in case you didn't know and want to spread the word, Tumblr is selling everybody's data to AI companies.

Here is the staff post about it https://www.tumblr.com/loki-valeska/743539907313778688

And a post with more information and how to opt out https://www.tumblr.com/khaleesi/743504350780014592/

Hi thanks for the information and sorry for my late reply. I was a bit low on spoons this week and I wanted to form thoughts about this.

Because the thing is, I am doing a PhD at an AI department in real-life. Not in generative AI, in fact I’m partly doing this because I distrust how organisations are currently using AI. But so this is my field of expertise and I wanted to share some insights.

First of all yes do try to opt out. We have no guarantee how useful that’s going to be, but they don’t need to be given your data that easily.

Secondly, I am just so confused as to why? Why would you want to use tumblr posts to train your model? Everyone in the field surely knows about the garbage in, garbage out rule? AI models that need to be trained on data are doing nothing more than making statistical predictions based on the data they’ve seen. Garbage in, garbage out therefore refers to the fact that if your data is shit, your results will also be shit. And like not to be mean but a LOT of tumblr posts are not something I would want to see from a large language model.

Thirdly I’ve seen multiple posts encouraging people to use nightshade and glaze on their art but also posts wondering what exactly it is these programs do to your art. The thing is, generative ai models are kinda stupid, they just learn to associate certain patterns in pictures with certain words. However these patterns are typically not patterns we’d want them to pick up on. An example would be a model that you want to differentiate between pictures of birds and dogs, but instead of learning to look for say wings, it learns that pictures of birds usually have a blue sky as background and so a picture of a bird in the grass will be labelled as ‘dog’.

So what glaze and nightshade are more or less doing is exploiting this stupidness by changing a few pixels in your art that will give it a very different label when an AI looks at it. I can look up papers for people who want to know the details, but this is the essence of it.

To see how much influence this might have on your art, see this meme I made a few years ago based on the paper ”Intriguing properties of neural networks”, Figure 5 by Szegedy et al. (2013)

Finally, staff said in that post that they gave us the option to opt out because of the maybe upcoming AI act in Europe. I was under the impression that they should give us this opportunity because of the GDPR and that the AI act is supposed to be more about the use of AI and less about the creation and data aspect but nevertheless this shows that the EU has a real ability to influence these kinds of things and the European Parliament elections are coming up this year, so please go vote and also read up on what the parties are saying about AI and other technologies beforehand (next to everything else you care about) (also relevant for other elections of course but the EU has a good track record on this topic).

Anyway sorry for the long talk, but as I said this is my area and so I felt the need to clarify some things. Feel free to send me more asks if you want to know something specific!

[gayloringinplainsight]

"Rights are being stripped from basically everyone who isn't a straight white cisgender male," she tells Vogue, when asked about why she chose to, all of a sudden, stand up for LGBTQ+ rights. "I didn't realize until recently that I could advocate for a community that I'm not a part of."

Source: https://www.out.com/news/2019/8/08/taylor-swift-says-shes-straight-despite-all-bisexual-rumors#toggle-gdpr

I was waiting for this to come through my inbox lol. (There was more then one ask about this but I'm only responding to the first.)

There's lots to unpack here but the first and foremost thing is: She doesn't actually say here, "I'm straight." It was a perfect opportunity. It was the ideal conversation. She punted. Why?

Why did she instead give this vague, circuitous, carefully couched answer?

She calls out communities encompassing sexuality, race, and gender, followed by saying, "a community that I'm not a part of." There are lots of communities that she could have been referring to, but she crafted the sentence in such a way that makes it unclear which one. She could have been talking about the trans community. She could have been talking about the poc community. She could have been talking about the ace community. She could have been talking about the gay male community. There are lots of possibilities. In this carefully worded sentence, she deliberately avoided naming the specific community she's talking about.

Another thing to consider is that many, many closeted people don't consider themselves part of the queer community. They don't feel like they belong because they're not out and proud. And even once people come out, it often still takes time before they feel like they're part of the queer community. That was certainly my personal experience. Cara Delevingne said something similar in her Hulu show when discussing her own coming out.

Let's move on. The link anon provided isn't the source. It's an article quoting the source. The actual source is the 2019 Vogue cover article. And the full article is important because there are lots of interesting things that give context to this quote.

First, there's a great deal of conversation about gay stuff and lgbtq+ rights. And the writer makes a point of saying about this subject matter that Taylor seems to enjoy that part of the conversation "as much as she’d enjoy a root canal." Wouldn't a straight ally be eager to discuss this? They would. And a closeted queer person would be uncomfortable and panicking at the thought of having to talk so blatantly about this subject. The writer also makes a point of saying that once the conversation changes to music, Taylor lights up and her demeanor and speech patterns relax dramatically.

The other important context that the Vogue article discusses is Taylor's very long history of supporting lgbtq+ rights. Everything from the Mean mv of a gay boy being bullied to the "boys and boys and girls and girls" line in WTNY to donations to lgbtq+ organizations to giving out queer awards to queer people to dedicating Dress to Loie Fuller, an openly gay artist. There are plenty of other examples of Taylor advocating for the queer community that aren't mentioned. All the way back in 2008 she participated in the LOGO queer anti-bullying PSA. In 2009 she was in Seventeen magazine taking a stand against the slaying of a teenager for being gay.

Why is this important? Because it proves that Taylor is lying in the quote in question. "I didn't realize until recently that I could advocate…" girl yes you did. You've been advocating for years and years at this point. She's lying. She's lying. She's covering herself up. She's hiding in the closet and hoping desperately that no one notices.

And this isn't the first time she's done this either. During the 1989 press tour she gave an interview where she was asked about the "And you can want who you want / Boys and boys and girls and girls" line. As the interviewer is starting to speak about this, a look of pure panic immediately takes over Taylor's face:

And then she starts stumbling around trying to give a coherent answer. At one point she stutters out, "And also I wrote this song, um, I wrote this song, kind of, kind of following, the, uh, when gay marriage became legal in New York." This interview was in October 2014. Gay marriage had been legal in New York since June 2011. Sooo three years later is "kind of following." Right. Sure, Taylor. Nice closeting. You really nailed it.

Okay let's review. She doesn't actually say she's straight even though this was a perfect opportunity to do so. She doesn't name the actual community she's talking about, giving herself cover if she ever comes out. She's closeted and probably doesn't think she's part of the queer community anyways. She full-on lies about not knowing she can advocate for others. And the writer states Taylor seems deeply uncomfortable talking about lgbtq+ things even though the context of the article was that blondie wanted to make it clear how much of an ally she is.

None of this remotely adds up to hetero. And none of this comes even close to Taylor saying that she's straight.

[lover-of-mine]

Just wanted to let you know, the api that was used is hosted in Russia (and therefore isn't liable under GDPR). There have been many concerns associated with it regarding data privacy like, selling individuals' personal information, refusing to delete when a request is submitted, and so on. The legality of its activities might depend upon a country's laws but I think upon reading its terms and policy, most people would agree that it is unethical.

Gdpr is only liable inside the European Union regarding EU citizens. You're not saying what you think you are. Also, we're not selling information. But sure, you want a path that doesn't go through pullpush? Here you go!

[echo]

this is a response to @anarcho-yorpism's tag for me in this post. i'm not directly rbing bc that post is long and it has a lot going on in the notes.

anyway please note all of my responses here are my own, and not representative of Staff or tumblr. i am not T&S and have zero power to make any moderation decisions here.

with that disclaimer:

Predstrogen received a message from Tumblr saying she was banned for "sexual content". If she was not, why was she told this, why were her transition photos removed, and why has she still not been told the actual reason? (I understand not making it public, but it is your policy to tell the user) If she was, what was this sexual content, if not her transition timeline?

i can't really directly answer this for few reasons. firstly, i feel that staff shouldn't talk about her anymore bc i feel this continued controversy will only attract more harassment for her on other platforms.

secondly, as a low-level staffer talking about moderation decisions can get me, y'know, fired. i'd prefer not to do that.

also just like... i want to avoid getting into a narrative of "well she did bad things so she deserves it" or whatever. idc if she broke the rules or not, she didn't deserve what happened.

i know this isn't terribly satisfying to hear, but i'd like to be honest about why i'm not saying more at least.

If you can't answerblegal questions, ignore this question: The NYCLU settlement agreed that Tumblr would fix its moderation so it targeted transfem users less. Why has there been no comment on the settlement and actions taken since? There could genuinely be a large legal case against Tumblr after this, and I love this site and don't want that to happen. Also, wasn't it illegal under GDPR to release her usernames?

i'm not able to answer legal questions. i don't know the exact text of the agreement, but it mostly boiled down to some training and stuff from my personal experience there.

however not as a staffer but as NYC trans human: i would not put a ton of faith in the NYCCHR. they have some noble goals but they are a chronically underfunded city agency that in practice does very little to curb real-world violence against marginalized people. i tried to use them myself when my landlord was kicking me out right after i had surgery and they didn't even get back to me until months after everything resolved. nobody i know in the community out here has been helped by them off the top of my head.

i have sincere doubts in relying on the state to help people here.

A lot of transfem users don't like vague language like "prioritize", especially given point 2 and Matt's statement that improving moderation was not on the agenda. I understand you can't reveal company secrets in an already risky post, but we would like to see the specific actions taken after this, given a lot of broken trust by what @\photomatt has said. Are any of the trans women banned recently for "sexual content" going to have their accounts restored?

i don't know. i'm pushing internally for at least a review of everyone suspended to see if the less egregious stuff can be reversed. but like i said, i don't have a ton of power as i'm not in charge of anything.

and yeah, "prioritize" is vague corpo-speak. i know some stuff is shifting internally and what we said does match what is happening inside. but also... i've been disappointed before.

i can say i'm tentatively optimistic. people are responding seriously, and being asked our opinions for once is pretty nice. but also, systemic stuff is hard. i trust in my fellow workers and i'll continue to fight until i can't anymore.

so... yeah. i genuinely wish i can be more informative here, but what we wrote (and i want to emphasize we here, it was not just me by any stretch!!) is what we can say in an official capacity.

i'm just frustrated, tired, angry, depressed... and also weirdly hopeful?

[theanxiousghostartist]

TMAGP 26 SPOILERS

(theories and reactions)

Sorry this is late, I didn't have time to listen to the episodes last night 😭

Pre - Case (Sam, Celia, and Alice):

Celia classified the case as "dog?" Idk, it's been bothering me (like it was with Sam) because it had no cross-reference whatsoever. Putting that aside, this scene, it felt like Celia was manipulating Sam a little bit? Like the tone she had while asking Sam what he was worried about felt werid. It could be just me but idk.

Yay! Establishing and respecting boundaries about the Institute! /pos

Helen tried to eat Celia, so it makes sense that she would bring a big knife to their meeting. "It is remarkably easy to buy an axe in Central London."

Also, can we take a moment to appreciate the word "Magnussing?" It was very clever on Alice's part, and I have a feeling that will become a new word in the language of the OIAR.

Case (Chester):

This case is Eye-related, mainly because of [Error], but it also feels like the End a bit? Not just because Rumins's father and Jarrod died, but when Rumins's father died - so did his love of running and his relationship with Jarrod.

The line "...if I took my eyes off him, something truely awful would happen." reminded me of Graham in TMA, the person that told his neighbor to keep watching and was later taken by the Stranger (specifically a Not-Them). Maybe Rumins is Eye aligned?

Jarrod's statememt (or at least the fragment we get) "They're coming now and getting close and when I slow and when I stop they will catch me and they will hurt me." makes him seem like he was a victim of a fear before [Error], as he is forcibly giving a statement. Perhaps he was a victim of the Hunt (his running reminds me of prey running from a predator)?

[Error] is an Archivist!!!! (Annabelle Cane theory fell through, but failed Archivist theory still stands lol)

Post Case (Alice and Gwen):

Alice realizing that [Error] is from the Archives!!!

I really like the Alice/Gwen back and forth here, even if it was a small bit. You can really see how each character shines through here!/pos

Post Case (Helen):

Helen is getting a section dedicated to her because something feels off with her.

Helen yay!!!!!!!!!!! (She is my favorite character from TMA so I am so happy)

Helen feels like she's reading off a script? IDK how to put it, but it feels like she's trying to manipulate Sam and Celia with a facade. When they start talking about the Institute, her voice lost it's softness, and it feels more real. I might be reading into this way too much, though.

She seems to have a good amount of information on the Institute. I wonder if she will have a reoccurring role...

Institute requirements - big basement, security options - what was the Institute doing? What kind of experiements were they partaking in?

Helen hasn't had contact with the Institute in 20 years, and she assumes all contacts are out of date, and she can't share them because of a GDPR. She could be hiding something. I wonder if she's had contact with Gertrude since she was firm about nor giving up contacts. Maybe she wants to try to steer them away from information, like Gertrude?

She is giving Celia and Sam real estate information that relates to the Institute, violating her GDPR... She is most definitely manipulating them in some way. We know that she wants to be featured in the documentary, but I wonder if there's more.

Also, her laugh - it is very reminiscent of the distortion. It says so in the transcript, lol. I wonder if this is a different path for her, sort of like Gerry. With Gerry, instead of being traumatized, he's happy. Maybe with Helen, she feels more in line with the Spiral as time went on. So instead of being forcibly turned into the Distortion, could this be a path where she slowly Becomes on her own? It would be cool to see how the Distortion could come to be, without forcing someone to it's heart.

Post Case (Sam and Celia):

Sam is worried because he and Alice let out [Error], which is to be expected, but Celia? It feels like she's more disappointed here, not knowing how to outplay [Error], since they don't act like Jon. It's a bit suspicious on her part.

Celia is very nervous around Helen, which makes sense because, again, Helen tried to eat her.

Sam and Jack are so cute, I love his little impression of Helen!

Celia said she felt like they were being watched - perhaps [Error] is on to them?

The Celia and Sam scene - where they flirt and kiss - it felt wrong to me? This could be because I'm demi romantic and sex - adversed ace, but it didn't feel right. Sam is awkward during their conversation and seems uncomfortable at first, while Celia is not. It feels like Celia is manipulating him again. She's trying to get closer to Sam and pushing him further down the Magnussing route in order to figure out how/why she is in the TMAGP universe.

I might add more to this later, because I feel like I'm missing things....

Overall though, I really liked the case and the character interactions, especially with Helen and Alice/Gwen!

[weird-little-horsey]

Hi everyhorsey, I'm turning off reblogs temporarily (and potentially permanently) for every post except this one and this other one.

I really didn't want to have to, but I treasure my art, and Tumblr's recent decision to automatically opt blogs into AI crawling scares me. I have opted out on my blog, but I can't guarantee that other people will opt out on their blogs before reblogging. I also will not be posting after this, at least until something changes.

Tumblr @staff, you NEED to make this an opt-in feature, not opt-out. As another user pointed out, opting people in by default is very likely a GDPR violation.

Similar things have happened on other websites. For example, DeviantArt opted its users into AI crawling automatically, and they got in serious hot water with their userbase.

Eventually, they switched to opting users out automatically, but the damage was done. Countless users had their artwork scraped for AI generation, and this was a violation of trust that broke the camel's back for many users... Including me.

You cannot abuse your userbase like this and expect that there will be no consequences. You cannot say one thing and do another. I'll give you a month, and if nothing changes, I'll pack my bags and leave.

[ingravinoveritas]

Have you seen the Pointless episode today that mentions Michael?

Hi there! I know this is from yesterday, but I'm assuming this is referring to one of the contestants on the show revealing herself to be a nanny for Michael and AL. I did indeed see the clip in question, and while I don't have that specific part available, @invisibleicewands posted some screenshots here. The woman herself also posted part of this moment to her business' Instagram:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Piccoline Parenting (@piccolineparenting)

I think more than anything, I was a bit taken aback, as when it comes to nannies/au pairs/other domestic employees, it's my understanding that there is usually a GDPR/NDA in place that prevents said employees from disclosing who their clients are. I realize that it is possible that Michael (or Anna) gave permission for her to say this on national television, but I also can't really picture Michael ever giving permission, especially not when something like this has a chance of putting the kids at risk. (Not intentionally, of course...just that all it takes to find someone's location these days is a little information and frighteningly few clicks of a mouse.)

What's not surprising, though, is Michael and AL actually having a nanny, as we knew they had one in New York in early 2020 when they just had Lyra. And with Michael being so busy with work at the moment, it makes sense that he wouldn't have time to be as hands-on as he would like/want to be. From what was said on the show, the nanny is from Swansea, so it could also be that she is their nanny in Wales, but not in London, but I am not entirely sure.

It's also interesting to me that, of all the clients this Mel lady must have, that she specifically mentioned Michael and AL. (It's also worth noting that she said Michael's name readily, and then actually seemed to pause/hesitate before saying Anna's.) Again, a logical conclusion would be that Michael has been on Pointless previously and is a longtime fan/friend of the show, so this nanny saw it as a way of connecting her more to the host/the show itself. Whatever the case may be, the whole thing is giving "broken privacy policy" vibes, and I'm very curious as to what (if anything) happened between her and Michael/AL after the show aired.

Those are my thoughts, at any rate. If anyone who has more knowledge of/experience with GDPR or NDAs would like to weigh in, I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments...

[kef-meister]

Nintendo Music

I'll go ahead and say it - Nintendo is just weird. Earlier the year they posted a big FAQ on how piracy is evil and everyone's a criminal - because Nintendo loves that they have a following, but absolutely despises their fan-base.

Since then, we got the baffling Nintendo Alarmo - because I guess Nintendo saw the $99 clock apps on the eShop and figured they'd do one better ... and then since yesterday, Nintendo introduced ... Nintendo Music™?

I downloaded this thing and gave it a try. I've some information already available on the website and app to type down here just so it's in the same place - but also some first impressions and personal takes. Let's-a go.

Data Collection: As with any app, this thing wants your data. It's "the usual", such as what normally is available to apps; log-in info, what phone you use, location and app activity. I mention this, because knowing that your data will be collected and used means you can put a stop to it if necessary. That said, the data collected via the app can be completely deleted by request. (given that I'm in the EU, I'm hoping this is GDPR compliant) Side-note: I'm guessing this might be also be collecting data for Nintendo Alarmo themes. That seems like a Nintendo thing to do.

The App Itself Completely free to download and install, but needs a Nintendo Switch Online (NSO) membership to function. Opens the browser rather than going in-app for your log-in efforts. Feels a little sluggish. Looks and feels like a YouTube Music/Spotify baby. Also immediately tries to be cool by giving you 'character playlists'. I think that's oddly charming.

Music Selection Yeah, this is a meager selection. I think they'll be doing the thing where they will drip-feed more music, since they immediately ask you to turn notifications on when more music drops. So far we got: Switch: Pikmin 4 / PkMn Scarlet & Violet / Splatoon 3 / ACNH / Kirby Star Allies / Super Mario Odyssey / Mario Kart 8 DX / TLOZ: BotW Wii: Super Mario Galaxy / Wii Channels Nintendo DS: Tomodachi Collection / Nintendogs Gamecube: Metroid Prime Game Boy Advance: Fire Emblem: The Blazing Blade Nintendo 64: TLoZ: Ocarina of Time / Star Fox 64 SNES: Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island / Donkey Kong Country Gameboy: Kirby's Dream Land / Dr.Mario NES: Metroid / Metroid (Famicom) / Mario Bros. The promotional material also lists F-Zero's "Mute City", so we'll see a drop soon enough.

What the app does/allows:

This thing's a streaming service, but does something incredibly un-Nintendo as a treat. I call it that, because Nintendo famously has floundered with a lot of online things .. but I am pleasantly surprised:

Allows song extensions up to an hour in-app (!)

Allows individual downloads for offline listening(!!)

Allows playing the music even when the app is in the background and if the screen is off(!!!). The last point is interesting, because while dedicated music apps tend to do that per default, the most used third-party method for streaming Nintendo's music needs you to pay a premium to do that.

Conclusion: I might not like that this is 'another app' in the pile of apps and distribution systems, but this is a start to solving Nintendo's distribution problem (see the bit about piracy at the top) - which went doubly so for their music. It makes it extra bizarre to me that they allow you to download tracks. Previously, either games had to have a 'music' feature, there had to be specific sales for OST's or people had to go for ... third-party methods.

If you have NSO, consider this app a bonus. I'm hoping this won't get enshittified within half a year.

[mariacallous]

Elon Musk is a ‘promoter of evil,’ EU rule-of-law chief says

BRUSSELS — Elon Musk, unlike other tech bosses, "is not able to recognize good and evil,” a European Union top official said Wednesday.

The multibillionaire tech mogul and boss of X, Tesla and SpaceX is amplifying hatred, outgoing European Commission Vice President Věra Jourová told POLITICO in an interview, calling him a “promoter of evil.”

Musk has been on a collision course with European officials, fighting regulators and governments on multiple fronts. The tech mogul bought Twitter in April 2022, rebranding it as X shortly after, and he has attracted criticism for his management of the platform, with European politicians and civil society saying he has allowed hate speech to fester on the site.

“We started to relativize evil, and he's helping it proactively. He's the promoter of evil,” Jourová said.

The Czech politician, who was the EU’s justice chief from 2014-2019 and has been in charge of “values and transparency” since 2019, has had regular contact with many of the world’s largest technology companies over the last decade on issues like privacy, disinformation and content moderation. 

Big tech companies have “monstrous power in their hands,” Jourová said. “I'm really scared by digital platforms in bad hands."

X is “the main hub for spreading antisemitism now,” Jourová said, adding that she warned ministers from EU capitals on Tuesday to be vigilant to the possibility of online antisemitism spilling over into the real world. 

“Now we are in the situation where the member states’ law enforcement powers have to protect the people who are under threat, under physical threat,” she said. “This is what I mean ... This new chapter, new intensity of antisemitism, where we don't see sufficient action from the side of the platforms.”

Jourová has never met Musk in person, but said that “even without this personal meeting, I would say that out of all the bosses I met, he is the only one who is not able to recognize good and evil.” 

The EU’s former internal market chief Thierry Breton did meet Musk in California in 2022, and since clashed with him publicly over Musk’s approach to online content moderation. 

X did not respond to a request for comment.

Regulation vs. innovation

Jourová also dismissed the increasingly popular narrative that Brussels' overregulation has stifled tech innovation.

The EU passed a raft of digital legislation over the last five years, leading some of the world’s largest technology companies to argue that they cannot launch AI tools and other innovative products in the bloc because they don’t know how the new laws work together or how they will be enforced. 

But innovation for innovation’s sake is not necessarily desirable, Jourová said: “We have to be sure that the innovations are developed to do good to people.”

She said she wondered why innovation was typically "described as something absolutely good, [and] regulations as something which is bad … It's not black and white."

Big tech companies’ vast profits should not be at the expense of Europeans, Jourová said — even if that means product-launch delays. “Nobody says that Google and others cannot introduce new technologies in Europe. Maybe, one, two months, half a year later than somewhere else, but we want to be sure,” she said. 

Jourová led work on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a landmark privacy regime that went into force in 2018 and remains one of the EU’s most famous — and infamous — laws. 

Though the EU recently passed the Artificial Intelligence Act, the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, the GDPR often remains the main target of tech companies' ire, particularly because of how it is interpreted. The question of whether the law will need to be changed in the next five years is a key issue for incoming Commission tech chief Henna Virkkunen, Jourová said. 

“I think in [terms of] GDPR, we will have to look again at how to better enforce under the principle of one continent, one law,” she said. 

Jourová, who is leaving Brussels after 10 years at the Berlaymont, joked that she was returning to Prague as a “dissident,” given she left her own ANO party, which has turned more illiberal under former Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš. 

The return of the Euroskeptic Babiš, who is currently leading the polls ahead of next year's Czech election, would strengthen the illiberal forces in the EU, given Babiš’ ties to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. 

Jourová dismissed rumors that she would start her own political movement to take on her former boss. Instead, she will return to her alma mater, Charles University in Prague, in a management and teaching role.