News

Wednesday 2026-06-03

05:00 AM

School Phone Bans: Great Politics, Mediocre Education Policy [Techdirt]

Before the current wave of laws banning mobile phones in schools, we had published a piece from some researchers who had looked at how similar bans had worked in Australia, with the conclusion that… they didn’t. At best, the research showed the evidence on school phone bans to be “weak and inconclusive.” Those authors suggested that rather than doing outright bans, politicians should leave the issue to the schools themselves to determine what’s best.

So it should come as little surprise that two years later, after many similar bans have gone into effect in the US that… the studies are showing up as (you guessed it) weak and inconclusive. The new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) has some people shaking their heads because it can find no evidence of better student performance in schools.

Schools that adopted strict bans — requiring students to keep their devices in locked pouches throughout the school day — saw a meaningful decline in student cellphone use. But test scores have not increased in those places on average. And at first, banning phones led to higher suspension rates.

That’s not to say there should be a free for all in schools. But, once again, it would be nice if politicians, the media, and other commentators could finally (for once) recognize that blanket bans of technology are almost never the answer. The relationship between students and technology is complex and nuanced and doesn’t have a single effect in a single direction. Instead, it’s highly context and individual dependent.

A reasonable, nuanced approach is (1) better equipping teachers with tools to be flexible, (2) better educating students on the tradeoffs of technology use, and (3) improving the overall education environment with an actual recognition that context matters.

Obviously, if kids are just sitting in class all day staring at their phones instead of paying attention to the teacher, that’s a problem. But there are ways to deal with that specific scenario that don’t require a full ban. For some schools a full ban could absolutely make sense, and for others it doesn’t.

We’re going through this in our own local school district where, starting a few years ago, the high school (after studying and then testing different solutions) put boards in every classroom with pockets, where students were asked to deposit their phone at the beginning of every class. This created some challenges, such as when some teachers used the phones in pockets as an attendance-taking short-cut and some students (including my own kid) did not have a phone with them at all in school (by their own choice at the time). But it also meant kids could have phones on them between classes and at lunch.

It’s not a perfect solution, but that’s an important point: nothing is a perfect solution, and pretending otherwise is a problem.

But then California passed a new law, which required schools to come up with plans to ban phones. While the law was not nearly as strict as many other school phone ban laws and does actually give schools more freedom in creating a policy for their own community, it already has resulted in a bunch of wasted time where our school district feels they need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new phone ban plan, even though the old one appeared to be working decently well.

At the last minute, California has even scaled back its original law, giving schools even more freedom — but also more confusion.

But this whole episode reeks of the usual political and media reflex of “we must do something, this is something, therefore we will do it.”

Letting communities and schools decide how best to handle in school distractions seems like a much more appropriate approach. And part of that is teaching everyone that there is no magic bullet solution to problems. Kids are in school to learn, and part of that learning should be “hey, you shouldn’t be staring at your phone all day, but also it shouldn’t take a law to get you to put down the phone.”

The new study just confirms what the earlier research already showed. Blanket bans make for good press releases. They don’t make for better students.

The hard, unglamorous work of actually improving education — better-equipped teachers, more engaged classrooms, students who’ve been taught to think critically about their own technology use — doesn’t fit on a campaign mailer. So we keep getting laws instead of solutions.

Daily Deal: LabsDigest [Techdirt]

LabsDigest is built for those who learn best by doing. Whether you’re preparing for a CompTIA certification or diving into Python development, our platform offers interactive labs that simulate real-world tasks—no passive watching or reading, just real experience. Work through performance-based exercises for CompTIA A+, Network+, Security+, and more, or sharpen your coding skills with hands-on Python projects. Learn by solving problems, fixing bugs, and applying your knowledge in practical scenarios that prepare you for the real world. It’s on sale for $30.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackSocial. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Administration ‘Aliens’ Website Proudly Announces ICE Has Arrested Over 700 US Citizens [Techdirt]

This is hardly the worst thing about the administration’s aliens.gov website but it’s still worth noting.

Let’s get to the worst stuff first. The site URL is aliens.gov, which would lead most normal people to believe it has something to do with the ongoing declassification of UFO-related files. That’s something Trump actually made happen, which is weird, because it doesn’t actually deliver him any immediate personal gain.

But that’s not what this site is. Instead, it’s more the same gruesome shit served up by the pin-headed bigots who run the nation’s immigration enforcement agencies. The term “illegal alien” has always been dehumanizing, which is why people who hate brown people love using it, while regular people opt for terms like “undocumented migrants.”

If you choose to visit the site, you’ll be greeted by a mid-budget, somewhat-glitchy, factually-fluid, one-sided take on humanity that reduces anyone this administration wants gone to less than human. The metaphors make it literal: this administration doesn’t think (most) immigrants are human beings. At this site, they’re portrayed as invaders from another world. It’s horrific, gross, and stupid in equal measures.

And it can’t even get the job done properly, as Dell Cameron points out for Wired. The problems start with the splash screen… and get dumber/more evil from there:

Visitors to the site are meant to be greeted by the opening notes of the X-Files theme song, WIRED discovered, set to play beneath a stylized “TOP SECRET” stamp and a warning that immigrants have “shopped in the same stores, attended the same classes as our children, and lived seemingly normal human existences.” The music has gone unnoticed because nearly every browser in the past 10 years has blocked autoplay audio by default.

The music track contains metadata indicating the file was created using late-2000s-era CD-ripping software. 

Jesus. Not only do the nation’s top tech people not appear to recognize changes in browser tech, they apparently couldn’t be bothered to license the music they hoped would help complete their dehumanizing metaphor. Copyright infringement is a crime, and thousands of migrants have been arrested and detained for far less.

It’s not just the dumb tech stuff. It’s also the lies and misleading information presented as fact. Some of this appears to be deliberate, like the “3,129,580” number presented to site viewers as “encounters.” The site does nothing to explain what “encounters” means but obviously hopes viewers will read this either as arrests or deportations. That number actually means nothing at all:

The figure does not correspond to any enforcement total published by immigration authorities and is roughly seven times larger than the actual ICE arrest count since January 2025.

When your only goals are (1) making migrants appear less than human and innately dangerous, and (2) tossing around a bunch of big numbers to make it appear as though this nation is overrun by “illegal aliens,” stuff like citations and double-checking your math fall completely off the list of priorities.

And that’s how a site that’s bragging about all the “aliens” the administration has “encountered” ends up bragging about how many legal US citizens have been arrested or detained by ICE:

In 715 of the locations listed, the site identifies at least one of the people arrested as being born in the United States. In 83 of the locations, every single arrestee is reported to be an American.

Whoops. I mean, ICE is certainly doing this sort of thing, but it’s an unforced error for the administration to admit it on its own website. Linking dehumanization to immigration enforcement data keeps proving points administration officials constantly pretend aren’t real… like the uncomfortable fact that migrants are far less likely to commit criminal acts than US citizens. The data provided on this site shows that at least 20% of all arrests aren’t linked to any criminal charges, including the vaguely-worded “immigration” flag most often used in the arrest stats.

Then there’s the fact that this administration continues to believe Puerto Rico is just another Latin American country that’s flooding the nation with illegal immigrants.

Puerto Rico, a US territory whose residents are American citizens, is mapped on the site as a separate jurisdiction; in one row, the site lists Puerto Rico itself among the foreign countries the arrestees came from.

What usually follows this sort of botchery is apologies and the distant sound of heads rolling. Not here. Not in this version of the United States. Under this administration, no apologies are offered for anything seen here, ranging from the nasty, racist dehumanization of people from foreign countries to the factual errors to the use of unlicensed music.

Instead, we get the government claiming the reason everything looks so stupid and shitty is because it couldn’t be bothered to vet its own data sources before going live:

In a statement provided post-publication, the White House said aliens.gov “pulls data directly from DHS, which initially included a handful of non-immigration HSI arrests,” adding that “this has been updated.” HSI, or Homeland Security Investigations, is a part of ICE. WIRED reviewed the updated data and found there were 270,214 fewer arrests listed.

This is an administration that actively, demonstrably doesn’t care for facts. It’s no surprise that it saw the initial data dump and thought it looked impressive enough to help preach to the converted in the cheap seats. It’s only after people started asking questions that it bothered to look at its own data. And while cleaning this up may make some of the arrests of US citizens disappear, it also subtracts more than a quarter-million-worth of gaudiness from the arrest totals.

The administration continues moving from one dumpster to another, setting each one alight and responding by either claiming its casual carelessness is the equivalent of clerical errors or by personally insulting the journalist and/or the publication they work for. The administration learns nothing from the experience and the wet-brained fucks who dream this sort of thing up will continue to laugh at their own cruel jokes like the pathetic, cruel assholes they are. No one wins, but America just keeps on losing.

02:00 AM

Arti 2.4.0 released: Relay and directory authority development; flowctl-cc stable [Tor Project blog]

Arti is our ongoing project to create a next-generation Tor implementation in Rust. We're happy to announce the latest release, Arti 2.4.0.

This release continues our ongoing development towards using Arti as a relay and as a directory authority. It also contains fixes for a number of bugs affecting onion service client connectivity.

Additionally, as of this release, flow control and congestion control is considered stable, and can be enabled by compiling Arti with the flowctl-cc feature.

Users of the arti-client crate should note that there are multiple breaking changes to the TorClient APIs, and that the use_obsolete_software option has been removed (see #1960).

As usual, this release also contains a number of bugfixes, cleanups, and improvements to our CI infrastructure.

For full details on what we've done, including API changes, and for information about many more minor and less-visible changes, please see the CHANGELOG.

For more information on using Arti, see our top-level README, and the documentation for the arti binary.

Thanks to everybody who's contributed to this release, including Aaron Dewes, Andrew Kloet, Boris Nagaev, Neel Chauhan, Nihal, syphyr.

Also, our deep thanks to our sponsors for funding the development of Arti!

12:00 AM

Disney Moves To Protect Its Broadcast Licenses From Brendan Carr’s Sham Investigations [Techdirt]

If you recall, Trump FCC censor Brendan Carr recently launched numerous sham investigations of Disney/ABC because a comedian made fun of the President.

One of those sham investigations includes the bogus claim that Disney should be stripped of its eight broadcast licenses because the company is sometimes nice to women and minorities. Another involves the false claim that an ABC affiliate violated the law because an ABC affiliate broadcast an interview with Texas Democratic Senate hopeful James Talarico without filling out the appropriate paperwork.

The inquiries are complete bullshit, but that hasn’t stopped the press from helping Carr pretend otherwise. And Disney and their lawyers have had to jump through costly hoops all the same.

Like last week, when Disney filed its application for broadcast license renewal, something an attached letter notes the company did “in protest.” It’s a pretty heated retort, as far as giant corporations go:

“WABC-TV (“WABC” or the “Station”) submits this license renewal application under
protest in response to an unlawful, arbitrary, and unconstitutional Order issued on April 28, 2026, by the Media Bureau. The Commission had not demanded early renewal in over five decades. And it has never before demanded simultaneous license renewal applications from a group of stations commonly owned with a network as it has here.

The Order has no legitimate purpose. There is no information that the application will reveal that the Commission could not obtain through other means. The Order is inconsistent with a legitimate exercise of investigative authority and is plainly incompatible with the First Amendment. Worse, the Order opens the door to an assault on the Station’s license, while the Commission searches for a legal pretext to achieve its desired goal. This effort to suppress speech under the guise of bureaucratic process must not prevail. WABC files this application without waiving any rights, and calls on the Commission to rescind the Order.”

Carr’s attacks on Disney are legally incoherent. But such assaults are not really designed to win in court, they’re designed to chill speech. They’re designed to send the message that if you criticize the president (whether via comedian or journalist), you’ll face all manner of costly legal headaches.

It’s a pathetic assault on the First Amendment, and while Trump early second tenure threats have had some notable successes among the country’s pathetic corporate media giants, the effectiveness will only dwindle as Trump’s polling, health, and political power wanes, leaving Carr holding an empty bag and a terrible reputation as a cowardly zealot.

Carr’s legal efforts are in particular hot water here given that, as one previous ABC filing indicated, he appears to have collaborated with right wing local broadcasters to create the illusion that ABC-owned Houston affiliate KTRK had violated the law. It’s just the sort of thing you’d hope would result in corporations thinking twice the next time they’re keen on electing censorial fascists.

Tuesday 2026-06-02

09:00 PM

Stop ruining it [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

Paul McGowan makes stereos. To paraphrase his insight: The musicality isn’t a feature you add to an amplifier. It’s what’s left when you stop ruining it.

To expand: Customer delight isn’t something we add to our projects. It’s what’s left if we don’t ruin it.

Curiosity isn’t simply what’s left after a complete education. It’s still there if the system doesn’t ruin it.

Or perhaps: Satisfaction in our work isn’t created by the boss. It’s what’s left if they don’t ruin it.

And one last one: Trust isn’t something a brand builds with an ad campaign. It’s what’s left if the marketers don’t ruin it.

      

Pluralistic: The tedious power of storytelling (02 Jun 2026) must-we-pretend [Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow]

->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Top Sources: None -->

Today's links



An 18th century portrait of a grand lady ('Mrs Robinson'). She looks extremely put-upon. To either side of her is a tiny storyteller, declaming loudly into her ears.

The tedious power of storytelling (permalink)

Yesterday, I attended a Brian Eno talk about the nature of creativity and art based on What Art Does, the short book he published with Bette Adriaanse last year:

https://www.faber.co.uk/product/9780571395514-what-art-does-an-unfinished-theory/

I haven't read the book (yet – I just ordered a copy), but the talk really got me fizzing. The subject matter (not just what art does, but also what art is) is one I've given a lot of thought to, and Eno's characteristic mix of gnomic koans and deceptively plainspoken assertions brought me along to some realizations of my own.

For Eno, art is "everything you don't have to do." You have to wear clothes to protect yourself from the elements, but you don't need to adorn those clothes. You need to speak to make yourself understood by the people around you, but you don't have to sing or write poetry or make up stories.

This is a really critical point, and I think it can be further refined by this: "Art is intended to make other people feel something." This distinguishes "art" from "beauty." A sunset can be beautiful, but no one intends anything by it. An artist who takes a photo or paints a picture of a sunset does so in the hopes that it will make you feel something, but the sun and the atmosphere and the Earth's curvature and rotation don't hope anything, because they are inanimate.

This distinction has lately become far more significant, thanks to the rise of images and words that have the seeming of intent, but who don't have an intender. When you paint a painting, every brushstroke conveys an intent, even if you can't point at an individual brushstroke and articulate its purpose. The same is true of prose: every word and punctuation mark is there for a reason, and "being good at writing" (like "being good at painting") is how we describe someone who has practiced so much that these reasons can be infused into each micro-decision on a near-totally subconscious level.

Contrast this with AI: when you prompt an AI to generate words or pixels, you are conveying some intent about the feeling you want the people who experience the model's output to experience. The problem is that the AI doesn't have any intent of its own – it just has statistical predictions, based on other people's intent, which it has analyzed through its training data.

So when the AI expands the three sentences in your prompt into 100,000 words or 1,000,000 pixels, it isn't adding any of its intention to the finished work, it's diluting the intention you fed to it. Three sentences divided by one million pixels yields an image that has an average intentionality that's so low that it's practically homeopathic.

Until recently, we weren't accustomed to encountering coherent strings of words or polished images that had no intender, so we imputed the existence of that intender to them, and we did what we always do when we encounter a work of art: we tried to mentally materialize a facsimile of the feeling the artist experienced while creating the work.

Because the intention of these works was so dilute, we ended up hallucinating an intent. We made up an imaginary artist who meant something by every choice in the work, and experienced an emotional affect that we ourselves had created out of (nearly) whole cloth.

As a species, we've been through this before. Think back to those sunsets. There was a time when we all thought of sunsets as being explicitly created by another being, who was in communication with us through the natural environment (some people still believe this). Looking at a sunset was an exercise in asking yourself, "If I were God, what would I be trying to say to me with this sunset?" just as looking at one of my photos of a sunset would be an exercise in asking yourself, "If I were Cory, what would I be trying to say to me with this photo of a sunset?"

The rise of materialism and scientific rationalism is sometimes called a "disenchantment" and indeed, there's a sense in which a sunset that we know to have no intender is no longer "enchanted." The experience of a sunset becomes something like, "Those colors and their interplay with the physical world is very beautiful." It might even be, "How could I capture that beauty in a painting or a photo or a description so that I could communicate it to someone else?" But it's not, "I wonder what God wants me to feel when I look at this sunset?"

So for many of us, the experience of AI "art" went from, "Wow, there's a person in the machine that's trying to tell me something," to "Wow, that is an impressive feat of software design, but it doesn't say anything to me." Maybe some of us think, "Huh, I could take some element of this, refine it with my own brushstrokes or words, and make something out of it." That's like thinking about turning a sunset into a painting: the sunset is striking and maybe beautiful, but it doesn't become art until you work at it, in order to make it communicate something:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/03/25/communicative-intent/#diluted

Mark Fisher describes the "seeming of an intent without an intender" as "eerie." It's true: when the door slams in the night and there's no one else in the house, it's eerie. But eeriness is easily dispelled: once you locate the open window that's creating the draft that's blowing the door closed, the eeriness regresses swiftly to the mean:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/13/spooky-action-at-a-close-up/#invisible-hand

Banishing eeriness may be straightforward, but preventing eeriness is much harder. We are prone to imputing intent to the things we see in the world. In "Genesis," an essay from EL Doctorow's (no relation) collection The Creationists, Doctorow describes the origins of the Babylonian creation story (which the Hebrews ripped off for Genesis 1:1-29 – Genesis is Babylonian fanfic). The Babylonians made up this story about how God created the heavens and Earth and so forth, and this story was so cool that they couldn't believe that they had just made it up, so they concluded that God must have put it in their minds:

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/41520/creationists-by-e-l-doctorow/

Back to Eno: central to his talk was the "theory of mind." To have a theory of mind is to be able to impute someone else's intent. It's when you ask yourself, "What does that person mean by the thing they just said or did?" Because art is a process by which an artist tries to get you to feel something, it requires that the artist have a theory about your mind. And because experiencing art is a process of trying to figure out what the artist wanted you to feel when you experienced their work, experiencing art also requires a theory of mind.

From time to time, I teach fiction writing workshops, and one of the lectures I always give is about how stories are a "fuggly hack":

https://locusmag.com/feature/cory-doctorow-stories-are-a-fuggly-hack/

It's very weird that storytellers can trick our brains into experiencing emotions based on empathy for "people" whom we know to be imaginary. Romeo and Juliet are made up, they never lived, they never died, and so, objectively speaking, their deaths are less tragic than the death of the yogurt you ate for breakfast. That yogurt was alive and now it's dead, after all. And yet, we weep for Romeo and Juliet.

Our automatic "theory of mind" processes create empathy for stuff even when we know that stuff is inanimate. But the purpose of narrative isn't getting you to experience empathy with an imaginary person. The purpose of narrative is to get you to experience that empathy so that you will feel something. In other words, the storyteller who describes a character who is swept away by the beauty of a sunset is trying to get you to feel "swept away" not "empathy for someone who is swept away."

There's lots of art that skips the step in which you are asked to first experience empathy for an imaginary person in order to arrive at some feeling. A lot of music, visual art, dance, and poetry seeks to evince that feeling in you directly.

When this works, it's profound. I think about this a lot in terms of built environments, specifically Disney themepark rides. When I started hanging around with Imagineers (the multidisciplinary artists who design and execute these rides), I noticed that they made frequent reference to the role of narrative storytelling in their ride designs, which was weird, because the very best Disney rides do not use narrative to evince a feeling.

Think of two Disney rides: Snow White's Enchanted Wish (1955); and The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Undersea Adventure (2011). In Snow White, riders follow a track through a series of animated vignettes with UV-fluorescing painted backdrops and an orchestral soundtrack. There are almost no words spoken in the soundtrack. The ride's vignettes recreate scenes from the 1937 animated film, but they don't make any attempt to explain the plot of the movie.

A rider who'd never seen Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs could not recount the plot of the movie to you. However, that rider could absolutely convey the emotional affect of every scene in the film. It is a near-perfect transmission of the feelings evinced by the movie, notwithstanding that it bypasses recounting the film's narrative.

By contrast, The Little Mermaid ride is what's sometimes pejoratively called a "book report ride." The scenes are full of dialog, and they explicitly re-create the storyline of the 1989 film. These scenes are well-executed, with lots of clever mechanical effects and skillfully painted and sculpted scenes and robots. A rider who never saw the film could give you a scene-by-scene breakdown of it – but they could not tell you about any of the emotional beats of the film. For all that the ride faithfully recreates the story of the film, it does so at the expense of the purpose of the film, the feeling the film is designed to evince from its audience.

As a novelist, I find it natural that someone trying to build a Little Mermaid ride would start from the premise that it should explicitly retell the story of the film. If you want an audience member to experience a feeling, narrative gives you the opportunity to explicitly describe the feeling you want the audience member to experience. You can situate a character on a lonely beach at sunset and tell the reader how that character feels.

The problem is that while this has an increased likelihood of being high-fidelity way of transmitting a feeling, it also has an increased likelihood of being a low-intensity way of conveying that feeling. When you tell someone about what's going on in another person's mind (including an imaginary person's mind), it doesn't fire up the theory-of-mind machine in the way that asking someone to infer the state of someone else's mind from implicit cues does.

This is why fiction writers are exhorted to "show, not tell." Dramatic, implicit evocations of an emotion are intrinsically more interesting than explicit statements about emotions. That's not to say that exposition can't evince an emotion – it can and does. It's just harder to do this with exposition than it is to do it with dramatization:

https://maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/my-favorite-bit/my-favorite-bit-cory-doctorow-talks-about-the-bezzle/

In his talk yesterday, Eno discussed abstract art, and the way that it evinces feelings in the viewer directly, without ever telling you what to feel. This is in keeping with much of Eno's own art (he recently told me that when he writes lyrics, he never uses the words "I," "me," "you," or "love").

In this theory I'm developing here, we could say that the more abstract a work is, the harder it is to evince a specific feeling with high fidelity, but the more likely it is that the feelings it does evince will be intensely felt. When your aesthetic sense resonates with a Henry Moore bronze or an Eno ambient track, the thrum is deep and strong.

Key to this theory is that it's about how hard it is for an artist to evince a feeling and how hard it is for the artist to make that feeling intense. Abstract art is more likely to be misunderstood (or not understood) than explicit narratives, but lots of abstract art is very well understood by people for whom it resonates. Explicit narratives are more likely to have a flatter affect than work that attempts to skewer your emotions directly, but plenty of explicit narratives make you feel the most profound emotions you're capable of feeling.

A 2x2 grid depicting different kinds of art laid out on two axes: 'intensity' and 'fidelity'

Imagine a 2×2 grid with "intensity" on one axis and "fidelity" on the other. It's easier to evince an intense feeling when you are more abstract, but it's harder to control what that feeling will be. These are works that operate on an implicit theory of mind ("I think I know what you'll feel when you see this"). It's easier to control the feeling you're evincing when you are more concrete, but it's harder to make that feeling an intense one ("I will tell you what someone else is feeling using this work").

None of this is to establish a hierarchy of art. As Eno says, the value of art is in whether it makes you feel something and what it makes you feel – not how that feeling is drawn forth. In What Art Does, Eno describes both art and science as an extension of our natural, in-born tendency to play. The difference is that we judge the success of science based on whether we can validate its conclusions, while we judge the success of art based on whether it excites us:

'Excitement' is to art as 'falsifiability' is to science.

(With thanks to Brian Eno.)


Hey look at this (permalink)



A shelf of leatherbound history books with a gilt-stamped series title, 'The World's Famous Events.'

Object permanence (permalink)

#20yrsago IRS insider accuses agency of giving archives to lowest bidder https://web.archive.org/web/20060614142129/http://wftm.diaryland.com/060601_71.html

#20yrsago Telemedicine rigs coming to all Virgin jets https://web.archive.org/web/20060616063357/http://europetravelnews.com/2006_05/844_virgin-atlantic-life-saving-technology/

#15yrsago Con artists caught tricking med-students into helping with high-tech entrance exam cheat https://web.archive.org/web/20110603051231/https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/05/31/bc-high-tech-mcat-scam.html

#10yrsago How a “lost” Marx Brothers musical found its way back to the stage https://web.archive.org/web/20160602114803/https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/how-a-lost-marx-brothers-musical-found-its-way-back-onstage

#10yrsago How security and privacy pros can help save the web from legal threats over vulnerability disclosure https://iapp.org/news/a/how-you-can-help-white-hat-security-researchers

#10yrsago US Patent and Trademark Office refuses to issue “Drumpf” trademark https://www.worldipreview.com/trademark/drumpf-trademark-application-refused-by-uspto-10210

#10yrsago How an engineer/public health whistleblower led the citizen scientists who busted Flint’s water crisis https://web.archive.org/web/20160604112755/https://www.wired.com/2016/06/flint-water-marc-edwards/

#10yrsago Why 3D scans aren’t copyrightable https://web.archive.org/web/20160605140300/https://www.shapeways.com/blog/archives/25599-new-whitepaper-on-3d-scanning-and-the-lack-of-copyright.html

#10yrsago Cable One used customers’ credit scores to decide how good their internet would be https://wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/broadband-privacy-can-prevent-discrimination-the-case-of-cable-one-and-fico-scores/

#10yrsago Class action: publishers paid writers “sale” royalties on ebooks whose fine-print says they’re “licensed” https://www.copylaw.org/2016/05/simon-schuster-hit-with-ebook-royalties.html

#5yrsago The antitrust case against Prime https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/01/you-are-here/#prime-facie

#5yrsago Google cheats on location privacy https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/01/you-are-here/#goog

#5yrsago Canadian telco monopolists run the show https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/01/you-are-here/#crtc


Upcoming appearances (permalink)

A photo of me onstage, giving a speech, pounding the podium.



A screenshot of me at my desk, doing a livecast.

Recent appearances (permalink)



A grid of my books with Will Stahle covers..

Latest books (permalink)



A cardboard book box with the Macmillan logo.

Upcoming books (permalink)

  • "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book about being a better AI critic, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, June 2026 (https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374621568/thereversecentaursguidetolifeafterai/)

  • "Enshittification, Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It" (the graphic novel), Firstsecond, 2026

  • "The Post-American Internet," a geopolitical sequel of sorts to Enshittification, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2027

  • "Unauthorized Bread": a middle-grades graphic novel adapted from my novella about refugees, toasters and DRM, FirstSecond, April 20, 2027

  • "The Memex Method," Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2027



Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing: "The Post-American Internet," a sequel to "Enshittification," about the better world the rest of us get to have now that Trump has torched America. Third draft completed. Submitted to editor.

  • "The Reverse Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux about being an effective AI critic. LEGAL REVIEW AND COPYEDIT COMPLETE.

  • "The Post-American Internet," a short book about internet policy in the age of Trumpism. PLANNING.

  • A Little Brother short story about DIY insulin PLANNING


This work – excluding any serialized fiction – is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. That means you can use it any way you like, including commercially, provided that you attribute it to me, Cory Doctorow, and include a link to pluralistic.net.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Quotations and images are not included in this license; they are included either under a limitation or exception to copyright, or on the basis of a separate license. Please exercise caution.


How to get Pluralistic:

Blog (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Pluralistic.net

Newsletter (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://pluralistic.net/plura-list

Mastodon (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic

Bluesky (no ads, possible tracking and data-collection):

https://bsky.app/profile/doctorow.pluralistic.net

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

Tumblr (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/tagged/pluralistic

"When life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla" -Joey "Accordion Guy" DeVilla

READ CAREFULLY: By reading this, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

ISSN: 3066-764X

06:00 PM

Google’s Top DMCA Sender Plateaus at 70 Million Takedowns Per Week [TorrentFreak]

google paperwork colorsLink-Busters is the preferred anti-piracy partner for many of the world’s largest book publishers, including Penguin Random House and HarperCollins.

The Dutch company is also the most active DMCA sender at Google by a wide margin, flagging billions of ‘pirate’ URLs in the search engine, mostly from shadow libraries.

6.5 Billion and Plateauing

Google recently updated its search transparency report, showing that Link-Busters now accounts for more than 6.5 billion delisting requests. This is more than a third of the nearly 18 billion requests Google received in total.

The 6.5 billion is also more than four times the volume of the next-largest reporting organization, Rivendell, which sits just under 1.5 billion. MG Premium, the enforcement arm of Pornhub parent Aylo, follows with roughly 1.26 billion removal requests.

Top reporting partners

reporters

These mind-boggling numbers are all the more impressive when you realize that the company only started ramping up its takedown efforts less than three years ago. In record time, its output dwarfed that of all competitors. However, its takedown activity no longer appears to be growing.

Looking at Link-Busters’ takedown activity, we see a near-vertical rise through 2023 and into 2024, which flattened into a plateau in the 60 to 70 million weekly range about a year ago. The volume is enormous, but it is no longer growing.

Plateauing?

link busters chart

The shape of the data suggests a hard ceiling rather than a coincidental drop in infringing material to report. To find out what is keeping these URL reports on a plateau, we reached out to Link-Busters, but the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“The Quantity They Need”

TorrentFreak asked Google directly whether it enforces a daily cap, and if so, why. A spokesperson for the search engine did not confirm or deny the existence of a hard cap. Instead, they pointed out that trusted rightsholders get what they need.

“We offer a Trusted Content Removal Program (TCRP) that provides a path for bulk submissions from trusted partners, and work to ensure the accuracy of these submissions and that these partners can submit the quantity they need,” a Google spokesperson said.

The response did not directly answer our question. It is, however, more reserved than the response we received in 2013, when Google said there was “no limit on the number of DMCA notices” rightsholders may send in.

At the time, Google was accused of enforcing a cap of 10,000 URLs per day per rightsholder, which anti-piracy group BREIN was trying to raise to 40,000. In that context, a ceiling of roughly 10 million reported URLs per day for a single reporter would be a 1,000-fold increase.

3.5 Billion Reported URLs a Year….

At the current rate, Link-Busters is reporting roughly 3.5 billion URLs per year. The company has a good standing when it comes to the accuracy of its notices, with less than a percent being duplicates or other errors. That’s well below the average error rate.

Finally, it should be noted that nearly 8% of the reported URLs were not indexed by Google, yet. Google removed these URLs proactively to accommodate rightsholders.

Whether the 70 million weekly figure is a deliberate limit, a technical bottleneck, or simply the point at which Link-Busters’ own crawling capacity tops out, remains a mystery for now. What is clear is that the line was drawn nearly a year ago and appears to be holding.

Ceiling or not, Link-Busters remains comfortably the largest DMCA sender Google has ever seen. No other company comes even close to hitting the same 70 million ceiling.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

03:00 PM

Feds Begin Targeting ‘Anti-Technology Extremists’ Which Is Going To Make Everything So Much Worse [Techdirt]

The whole conversation around AI is about to get much, much worse.

We’ve been talking a lot about AI, generative AI, LLMs, or whatever your preferred moniker has become, for some time now. And for good reason. This is a still-emerging technology that has begun to infiltrate many parts of our lives, willingly or otherwise. We’ve talked about how its use has amounted to the production of slop garbage as companies look to cut costs and staff counts, which has led some to believe that we’re a very anti-AI site. We’ve also talked about some of the interesting and useful ways everyone from children to artists are experimenting with AI to make all kinds of things, which has led some to believe we’re a bunch of pro-AI tech bros or whatever.

What we actually are, when it comes to AI, is interested in talking about where this technology can fit in a way that promotes more innovation, more content growth and production, and ultimately good outcomes for we mere human beings. And what is going to run absolutely counter to all of that is the Trump administration’s decision to sic domestic intelligence and fusion centers on supposed “anti-technology extremists.”

U.S. law enforcement agencies have taken notice of the growing backlash to AI and in response are shifting their sights to what they are calling “anti-technology extremists.”

“The chaotic atmosphere that may result from emergent AI technology in the next five years may fuel large-scale protests that devolve into civil unrest and anti-tech violent extremist activity, especially in large urban areas such as New York City,” reads one report from the New York Intelligence and Counterterrorism Bureau.

WIRED notes that the term “anti-tech violent extremism” does not appear in any public domestic extremism reports from DHS or the FBI, suggesting that this is a relatively new category.

Now, this is precisely the opposite of what I have personally advocated for, which is for a nuanced, friendly conversation about how we use AI in the present and future. That’s going to require all kinds of opinions across a large spectrum coming together to start hammering out policy. Hell, on a long enough timeline, I imagine the chances of there not being some kind of amendment to the U.S. Constitution that has something to do with AI is probably zero. That’s the level of influence this technology is going to eventually have, one way or the other.

But what immediately kills the ability to have that conversation and policy discussion is if one authoritarian, cynical federal administration simply labels one side as “extremists” and turns the kind of law enforcement surveillance on them, and publicly, that is typically used on terrorist groups. That will lead only to further stratification, turning the AI question into a largely partisan affair. And that is bad for everyone.

Dissenting on the use of AI, or the types of uses that could occur, is not extremism. It’s not illegal. It’s not even unwelcome. In fact, it’s completely necessary. Those worried about AI and its impact on humanity have completely valid reasons to be worried. We may disagree on their approach, but that disagreement is in no way disqualifying.

I’m not talking about some of the truly unhinged that are committing violence in the name of an anti-AI crusade. Those people are nuts and they are well outside of any conversation we’re having. But if you think the Trump administration is going to limit its extremist designations to only those who commit real violence, you’ve lost the plot.

Is Pope Leo an anti-technology extremist for calling on companies to make sure AI serves all of humanity, rather than just corporate or governmental interests? Of course not. He merely makes the same nuanced point many of the rest of us are making.

Pope Leo XIV has taken up the legacy of his predecessor, writing a social encyclical which addresses one of the principal challenges of the contemporary age: artificial intelligence.

Divided into five chapters, Magnifica humanitas has an underlying premise: technology is not “a force antagonistic to humanity” (4), nor is it “inherently evil” (9). However, “technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate, and use it.

I’m not typically one to go around quoting any Popes, nor am I quoting this one merely because he’s Pope Bob from the South Side of Chicago (though I admit that helps). His take on this is the right one: technology isn’t good or evil, but it can be used for either. And talking about how we do this the right way is necessary.

The federal government is working against that idea, plainly. It now seeks to label one side of the debate, or a large portion of one side of it, as extreme in the same way terrorists are extreme. The history of this country conducting surveillance on legitimate speech is a long one. This will be used in the same way. In fact, it already is.

By portraying protesters and political activists as extremists, federal authorities gain cover to conduct surveillance and investigations. We’ve seen this countless times before, from the monitoring of socialist groups, civil rights advocates, antiwar protesters, and others considered subversive in the last century to more recent antics involving Black Lives Matter activists or government-critical groups on both the left and the right.

Illogical and sometimes illiberal anti-tech sentiment certainly abounds—and deserves criticism. But putting the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security on the case could endanger free speech and people who are merely exercising their First Amendment rights. It could be used to justify monitoring protester group chats, sending federal agents to surveil peaceful protests, and more.

A March report from the Northern Virginia Regional Intelligence Center showed “monitoring of constitutionally protected events and demonstrations related to critical views on technology,” notes Wired. “These events included multiple ‘Tesla Takedown‘ protests … and a ‘Break Up With Tech Rager’ sponsored by Eject Elbit, an activist group organizing to halt investment in the Israeli weapon’s manufacturer Elbit.”

I’ve been known to make a sport of sparring with some of our own readers who are very anti-AI. I think those conversations are important and useful. I don’t want those voices to be targeted, tamped down, or otherwise fear-mongered into silence. We need those voices every bit as much, if not more, as we need those who are pointing out where AI can find a good place in our lives.

If you, like me, believe that AI is going to have an important role in the future, if not the present, we simply cannot allow this all to get derailed by an authoritarian buffoon and monied interests teaming up to try to make the universe of Deus Ex a reality.

But it seems that that may be where we’re heading.

10:00 AM

Prosecutor Nopes Out Of The DOJ After Being Handed The James Comey ‘8647’ Case [Techdirt]

The DOJ has gone past bleeding talent. Now, it’s just bleeding whatever.

It’s one thing to do a bit of MAGA swagger before a captive audience and walk out with a criminal indictment that contains no evidence of criminal activity. It’s quite another thing to present that case to a court, where you’ll have to answer questions from judges and opposing counsel.

Matthew Petracca wasn’t really the sort of person someone would expect to be elevated to the position of Assistant US Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Sure, he had some past experience with the state’s Department of Justice, but he definitely wasn’t a seasoned prosecutor by any stretch of the imagination. He was, however, a registered Republican and that may have been the only thing that mattered.

But Donald Trump really wanted to see former FBI director James Comey punished for daring to choose loyalty to the public over loyalty to Trump during Trump’s first presidency. The first attempt to lock him up fell apart for several reasons, but most notably because another one of Trump’s handpicked prosecutors — his former insurance lawyer, Lindsey Halligan — managed to set fire to pretty much everything she touched before deciding to exit to the DOJ.

This case is even stupider than the first vindictive prosecution attempt — one that attempts to convert obviously protected speech into a true threat against the sitting president. Ellis Boyle — the US Attorney for the EDNC — definitely wants this to happen. Boyle has made it clear he doesn’t actually work for the Department of Justice. He works for the Department of Whatever The Fuck Trump Wants.

Boyle wears Trump’s hallmark red ties, mimics the double thumbs up in photos, and ends his emails with, “Thank you for your attention to this matter,” echoing the president’s social media sign-offs. He peppers press releases with the same sort of charged language, like catching “thugs” and “bad hombres,” that Trump uses on Truth Social.

Trump pushed Boyle. Boyle pushed his office. And Petracca got stuck with this case. But only temporarily. Unlike his two bosses, Petracca was expected to present this case to a court. Faced with that reality, Petracca chose to exit as gracefully as he could under the circumstances.

Friday’s court filing requests that Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Petracca, who was listed as the government’s lead lawyer on the Comey case, be removed from the docket. Federal prosecutor Timothy Severo was swapped in.

Petracca has also been taken off at least three other cases since last week, according to court filings, which do not specify why he is stepping aside. 

This doesn’t look like a move made by the DOJ to replace a prosecutor it felt couldn’t handle these cases. Instead, according to this reporting by NBC News, it looks like Petracca is leaning towards getting out of the DOJ business altogether.

Petracca had contemplated leaving the Justice Department altogether, according to two people familiar with the matter, but instead remained a DOJ employee after taking a week off. Petracca had not responded to a previous request for comment on his status at the Justice Department, and did not respond to an additional request for comment on Friday. 

Leaving would be the smart thing to do. Any junior prosecutor stuck with this loser of a case should leave as well. If Ellis Boyle wants to be Trump’s mini-me, the least he can do is show up in court and defend his office’s transparently vindictive actions in person. Anything other than dismissing the charges with prejudice is just going to further destroy the DOJ’s reputation. And it really doesn’t have any reputation to spare at this point… and Trump’s still going to be running/ruining it for another couple of years.

Petracca’s best course of action would have been to quit as soon as he was handed this case. He didn’t and now his name will forever be associated with this vindictive, unconstitutional indictment. But if he wants to salvage what’s left of his integrity, he’ll need to leave this iteration of the DOJ entirely and put as much space between him and it as possible.

08:00 AM

A Trump-sized Fraud Upon The Court [The Status Kuo]

Photo courtesy of National Review

Donald Trump, true to form, tried to pull a fast one—this time on the courts as well as the American public.

As I wrote about earlier, Trump had sued the IRS, a federal agency he controls, for a whopping $10 billion. The case was questionable from the get-go, and Trump ultimately dropped it in favor of a “settlement” the moment a judge started asking uncomfortable questions.

He then used the maneuver as cover for something far more brazen. His acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, who until recently was Trump’s personal criminal defense lawyer, signed two separate orders on behalf of the U.S. in connection with, the “settlement”:

  1. A directive creating a $1.776 billion slush fund drawn straight from the U.S. Treasury, with no congressional appropriation, deliberately structured to keep any court from reviewing a word of it; and

  2. A permanent order barring the IRS from ever auditing Trump, his family, or his businesses again, wiping out, among other things, a pending audit estimated to cost Trump as much as $100 million.

Even Republicans couldn’t stomach it. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called it “utterly stupid, morally wrong.” The fund was so toxic it blew up negotiations over the Republican immigration bill Trump had demanded be enacted by today.

On May 29, a federal judge in Miami slammed on the brakes. Judge Kathleen M. Williams reopened the IRS case and ordered Trump’s lawyers to answer, by June 12, why the entire arrangement shouldn’t be treated as a fraud on the court. A second judge, in Virginia, froze the slush fund the same day.

Let’s do a quick primer on Trump’s IRS lawsuit, the “settlement” and the slush fund, then survey the Republican migraines and judiciary’s ire they have unleashed.

Subscribe now

What if I just sued myself?

Trump had some nominal grievance over what had happened to his tax returns, which honestly he should have disclosed as promised long ago.

Sometime between 2018 and 2020, a mid-level IRS contractor named Charles Littlejohn stole confidential tax records belonging to Trump, his family, and thousands of other wealthy Americans, then leaked them to journalists. The New York Times received Trump’s records and reported in September 2020 that Trump had paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017, and nothing at all in ten of the previous fifteen years, largely because he reported losing much more money than he made. ProPublica received a broader tranche and published a series on how the ultra-wealthy legally minimize their tax burdens.

Littlejohn pleaded guilty in October 2023 to one count of unauthorized disclosure of tax return information and was sentenced in January 2024 to five years in federal prison, the statutory maximum.

Trump was not satisfied, and when he regained the presidency he saw a fresh opportunity to grift. On January 29, 2026, he filed suit in Miami federal court in his personal capacity, joined by Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and the Trump Organization, against the IRS and the Treasury Department. The complaint alleged that the agencies had failed to take “mandatory precautions” to prevent Littlejohn’s theft, and that the resulting disclosures had caused the plaintiffs “reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment” and damage to their business reputations.

But there was a structural problem with the lawsuit. Trump is the president of the United States, while the IRS is a federal agency and Treasury is a cCabinet department. Every named defendant reported, through a chain of command, to the plaintiff. There was no actual adversarial relationship between the parties, meaning the courts likely lacked the power to hear the case.

Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to deciding actual disputes between parties with genuinely opposing interests, what jurists and our Constitution call a “case or controversy.” The requirement exists for a reason: Courts are not advisory bodies, and they can’t be used to decide academic questions or stage choreographed proceedings.

When a president sues an agency he controls, there is no real adversary. The agency’s lawyers work for the Justice Department, which works for the president. The defendant, in any meaningful sense, is the same person as the plaintiff. Federal courts, many note, therefore have no power to hear cases with such arrangements.

Judge Kathleen M. Williams, an Obama appointee sitting in Miami, saw this issue immediately. Before the case was a month old, she had asked outside lawyers to brief her on whether the court even had jurisdiction, that is, whether the lawsuit presented an actual “case or controversy” between genuinely adverse parties. The outside lawyers came back with serious concerns. The parties, apparently having no interest in that question being answered, began making other plans to come to a “settlement” out of court.

Okay, so what if I just settled with myself?

On May 18, 2026, just two days before Judge Williams’s deadline for the parties to address whether the lawsuit was even legally valid, Trump’s lawyers filed a formal notice dropping the case. Under court rules, because the defendant government (which, I need to point out again, Trump controls) had not yet filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the plaintiff (same dude) was entitled to walk away unilaterally without asking the judge’s permission or holding a hearing. The lawsuit ended the moment the paperwork was filed. Of interest to all inquiring minds, the notice made no mention of any settlement.

Hours later, the Justice Department (these days controlled by Trump) issued an order creating a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” The fund was presented to the public as the settlement’s centerpiece. It grabbed headlines and made anyone who cares about the rule of law apoplectic, likely by design. Judge Williams, with no pending inquiry left to pursue, formally closed the case that evening.

The following morning, after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had already appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee to field questions about the slush fund, the DOJ posted a one-page order, billed as supplement to the settlement agreement, bearing Blanche’s signature alone. (IRS CEO Frank Bisignano had signed the underlying settlement, but he had not signed the immunity addendum.) Metadata embedded in the document showed it had been prepared hours before Blanche testified. He did not mention it once during more than two hours of Senate testimony.

The addendum declared, in capital letters, that the IRS is “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED” from auditing Trump, his family members, their affiliated trusts, and their businesses for any tax returns filed before the settlement date. It covered not just the specific claims in the lawsuit but, in Blanche’s language, “any matters that were raised or could have been raised” and “any matters currently pending or that could be pending.” In plain terms: every tax return Donald Trump has ever filed is now, on paper, permanently beyond the IRS’s reach.

The pending audit that Trump had cited for years as the reason he could not release his tax returns was now permanently closed. It was a dispute the Times and ProPublica had previously reported could cost Trump as much as $100 million.

At Blanche’s Senate hearing, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) put the addendum on the record: “This all seems to be an obvious abuse of power by the Department of Justice, by the president. He negotiated essentially with himself. You’re his appointee, the IRS are his appointees, he’s the plaintiff.” Blanche did not dispute this.

Trump, for his part, acknowledged the arrangement’s underlying absurdity in a social media post, writing that he was “supposed to work out a settlement with myself.” He framed this as a public sacrifice: he had, he explained, “given up a lot of money” by directing the settlement proceeds toward the broader anti-weaponization effort rather than taking a larger personal payout.

Taken together, the two stages of the settlement reflect distinct attempts to slip something past the courts and the public.

The first maneuver was aimed directly at the courts. By dropping the lawsuit two days before Judge Williams’s deadline—without disclosing that a settlement had already been arranged—Trump’s lawyers prevented her from doing her job. She had been preparing to ask a straightforward question: is this a real lawsuit, or a staged proceeding between parties who both report to the same man? The answer almost certainly was the latter. The dismissal made sure she never got to say so. In short, a federal court was used to file and work up a case, then discarded before it could reach an inconvenient conclusion.

The second maneuver was aimed at the public. The fund was the headliner: $1.776 billion for Trump’s allies (the figure being a keening dog whistle to insurrectionists) announced with fanfare, immediately controversial, immediately drawing fire. While Washington spent May 18 arguing about the fund, the more consequential document slipped past the following morning. The audit immunity order, with direct and lasting financial benefit to Trump personally, arrived buried beneath the noise, signed by a single official, and disclosed to no one during two hours of Senate testimony.

What if I handed “settlement” funds to my political allies?

Money for Trump’s $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” would come from something called the Judgment Fund, a permanent Treasury account created by Congress in 1956 to allow the government to pay off court judgments and legal settlements quickly, without needing a separate congressional vote each time. That original fund was designed for routine use, such as a slip-and-fall at a federal building, a wrongful termination claim, or a contract dispute. Critics noted immediately that it was not designed for this kind of payoff. “The Judgment Fund is for lawsuits,” one legal expert told PBS. “It’s not for an amorphous group of people who feel like they’ve been wronged generally by a prior administration.”

The fund would be administered by a five-member commission with sweeping authority, including the power to issue both cash payments and formal government apologies to anyone who claimed they had been a victim of “lawfare” or “weaponization” by a prior administration. Four of the five commissioners would be appointed directly by Blanche. The fifth would be selected in consultation with congressional leadership, with Trump retaining the power to remove any of them.

As Axios reported, there is virtually no oversight over this slush fund. The commission’s decisions could not be appealed or challenged in court, stripping the judiciary of any ability to oversee the merits of the disbursements. Nor is there any requirement that payouts be disclosed to the public. The fund could, under its own terms, spend a portion of the $1.776 billion on its own operations—staff, travel, facilities—with no cap on those costs disclosed by the Justice Department or the White House.

Eligibility was defined so broadly as to be almost meaningless as a limiting principle. Blanche told the Senate Appropriations Committee that “anybody in this country can apply.” When pressed on whether members of the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers—groups convicted of seditious conspiracy for their role in the January 6 Capitol attack—could receive payments, Blanche declined to rule it out. “The commission will set the rules,” he said. When asked whether people convicted of assaulting Capitol Police officers could collect, he said the same.

The administration pointed to a precedent: a 2011 settlement called Keepseagle v. Vilsack, in which the Obama administration created a fund to compensate Native American farmers who had suffered decades of racial discrimination in federal loan programs. PolitiFact examined the comparison and rated it false. The Keepseagle fund had specific, documented eligibility standards; it arose from a genuine class-action lawsuit with adverse parties; it was subject to judicial oversight; and it served a defined group of verifiable victims. The Anti-Weaponization Fund had none of those features.

What it did have was a structure perfectly calibrated to serve the president’s political interests with the minimum possible accountability.

The Republicans are revolting!

As I wrote at the time of the fund’s announcement, its creation triggered one of the more remarkable displays of intraparty rebellion of Trump’s second term. Republican senators came out of a closed-door meeting with Blanche furious. Thom Tillis (R-NC) called it “stupid on stilts.” And Ted Cruz reported that at least half the senators in the room were “screaming at the acting attorney general.” In the House, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) announced flatly: “We’re gonna try to kill it.”

The collateral damage was immediate: Senate Republicans left for the Memorial Day recess without passing the $72 billion immigration enforcement package Trump had demanded be on his desk by June 1. This was a self-inflicted wound, as one senior Republican aide put it, because the immigration funding “would have passed, if not for the actions of the administration.”

Since that time, the situation has deteriorated for the White House. Some Republican allies are quietly urging the White House to scrap the fund entirely before it does further damage heading into the 2026 midterms. Trump, characteristically, has shown no interest in retreat. He defended the fund publicly and made clear he considers his grip on the party firm enough to outlast the dissent.

Not so fast there, Donald

The administration’s strategy to use the court for his case, then escape before the court could rule, lasted eleven days.

On May 27, a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges filed a motion in Miami asking Judge Williams to reopen the case. The filing was itself unusual. Former judges rarely intervene in pending matters, and the willingness of prominent conservatives to sign on signaled how seriously the legal community viewed what had happened.

Their argument was direct: Trump’s lawyers had dropped the case without disclosing that a settlement had already been arranged, deliberately racing past the court’s deadline to address whether the lawsuit represented a genuine legal dispute. The settlement that emerged immediately afterward, the former judges argued, was “a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court”—a serious accusation carrying specific legal meaning. A fraud on the court is not merely sharp practice or aggressive lawyering. It refers to conduct that corrupts the judicial process itself, deceiving the court in a way that impairs its ability to function as an independent institution.

Two days later, Judge Williams acted. In a brief but pointed order, she said she would examine “grievous allegations” that the deal had been “premised on deception.” She directed Trump’s lawyers to answer two questions by June 12: whether the court had been the victim of a fraud, and whether the parties had colluded to settle a case in which they were never genuinely on opposite sides. In reopening the case, she restored it to the moment before the dismissal was filed, restoring her own authority to examine what had happened.

The same afternoon, in Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Clinton appointee, issued an emergency order freezing the fund entirely. The plaintiffs before her included a former federal prosecutor who had been fired, a college professor who had been acquitted of charges brought against him, the city of New Haven, Connecticut, and several advocacy groups. Their core argument was that the administration had used the Judgment Fund for a purpose Congress never authorized, namely a broad political compensation program with no defined class of victims, no genuine lawsuit underlying it, and no judicial oversight of how the money would be spent.

Brinkema agreed that the situation was urgent enough to halt everything immediately, writing that the freeze was necessary to ensure no public money was “irreversibly disbursed” while the legal challenges proceeded. Her order barred the administration from transferring money into the fund, accepting claims, appointing commissioners, or taking operational steps to stand the program up.

Both courts have set June 12 as the next critical date. In Miami, Trump’s lawyers must respond to Judge Williams on the fraud allegations by either defending the settlement’s legitimacy or moving to shut down the inquiry. In Virginia, Judge Brinkema will hear full arguments on whether to extend her freeze into a longer stay while the case proceeds.

With two federal courts moving to block his scams, Trump once again may find himself spending the wee hours firing off Truth Social diatribes against “radical” and “communist” judges. And lawyers at the DOJ, including Todd Blanche, may need to lawyer up themselves if they want to keep their law licenses.

07:00 AM

John Deere Faces Second Class Action For Monopolizing Repair [Techdirt]

John Deere is facing a second class action lawsuit for its ongoing, ham-fisted effort to monopolize tractor repair and drive up costs for its customers. The latest lawsuit was filed in mid-May in the Northern District of Illinois against John Deere by Christy Webber Landscaping of Chicago, which alleges that the company actively makes it harder to get needed tools, manuals, and parts for repairing equipment, in order to drive customers to more expensive dealership repairs.

From the lawsuit:

“Deere abuses its monopoly power in that market to force Deere C&F equipment owners to use a Deere Dealer for many key repairs, and through those repairs, also forces those equipment owners to purchase replacement parts sold by Deere. In so doing,Deere and the Deere Dealers eliminate competition from all Deere C&F equipment owners who wish to repair their own equipment, as well as from repair services offered by independent repair providers (“IRPs”). As a result of this conduct, Deere and the Deere Dealers completely control the market for Restricted Deere C&F Repairs, thereby coercing Deere C&F equipment owners to purchase labor and parts at artificially inflated prices.”

So, more of the same, then.

This latest lawsuit comes directly on the heels of John Deere paying $99 million to settle a different class action also accusing the company of monopolizing repair, driving competing repair shops out of business (or acquiring them), making parts, tools, and manuals hard to find, and engaging in stuff like “parts pairing” — requiring owners and independent repair shops buy a collection of costly parts and assemblages if they want to repair a single, smaller part.

The company is also facing an ongoing lawsuit by the FTC, but the bones of the case were built under the Lina Khan FTC, and as we saw with the Trump administration’s cozy backroom deal with Ticketmaster, there are concerns the Trump administration will somehow let the company off the hook.

John Deere executives have repeatedly promised to do better, then turned right around and continued engaging in anticompetitive and anti-consumer behavior. Bipartisan annoyance at the company’s aggressive monopolistic actions have been the driving motivational force behind the push for state “right to repair laws.” Eight states have passed such laws, but not one has yet to actually enforce them, despite no shortage of corporate abuse on this front.

Around 2023, after facing increased criticism for its monopolistic behavior, Deere struck a “memorandum of understanding” with the American Farm Bureau Federation promising that the company will make sure farmers have the right to repair their own farm equipment or go to an independent technician. But the promise wound up being largely performative, and was designed primarily to get the AFBF to promise they wouldn’t support new state level right to repair reforms.

06:00 AM

Kanji of the Day: 因 [Kanji of the Day]

✍6

小5

cause, factor, be associated with, depend on, be limited to

イン

よ.る ちな.む

原因   (げいいん)   —   cause
要因   (よういん)   —   main cause
一因   (いちいん)   —   one cause
死因   (しいん)   —   cause of death
因果関係   (いんがかんけい)   —   relation of cause and effect
敗因   (はいいん)   —   cause of defeat
因みに   (ちなみに)   —   by the way
因縁   (いんえん)   —   fate
起因   (きいん)   —   to be caused by
本因坊   (ほんいんぼう)   —   Hon'inbo

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Kanji of the Day: 刑 [Kanji of the Day]

✍6

中学

punish, penalty, sentence, punishment

ケイ

刑事   (けいじ)   —   detective
求刑   (きゅうけい)   —   recommended sentence
死刑   (しけい)   —   death penalty
量刑   (りょうけい)   —   judge's sentence
刑務所   (けいむしょ)   —   prison
実刑   (じっけい)   —   prison sentence (without a stay of execution)
死刑囚   (しけいしゅう)   —   criminal condemned to death
刑事裁判   (けいじさいばん)   —   criminal trial
死刑判決   (しけいはんけつ)   —   death sentence
受刑者   (じゅけいしゃ)   —   prisoner

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

05:00 AM

Judge Reopens Trump’s IRS Case, Wants To Know If The Court Was Defrauded [Techdirt]

Most legal experts seemed pretty skeptical about the tactic of 35 former federal judges asking federal judge Kathleen Williams to reopen the case where Trump sued his own IRS demanding $10 billion. Turns out they were wrong — on Friday, Judge Williams reopened the case, not going so far as to investigate whether fraud had been committed upon the court (yet), but ordering the plaintiffs (Donald Trump) to file a response to those claims:

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs shall file a response to the Motion (DE 63) on or before June 12, 2026, detailing their position on the matters set forth in the Motion, including (1) the charges of collusion and whether the Parties are truly adverse; (2) the assertion that the dismissal in this case was premised on deception by the Parties; and (3) the question of whether the case should be reopened because the Court was the “victim of a fraud.”

So it’s not yet a full reopening, but clearly signals that the judge felt compelled by what those other judges had submitted. We already knew she was skeptical about whether the parties were truly adverse — she had flagged it explicitly, which is part of what pushed Trump to have his IRS settle with himself before she could dig any deeper.

While Trump has been ordered to respond by June 12th, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see his lawyers (I almost said the DOJ, but, you know, same thing these days) try to rush to either an appeals court or straight to the Supreme Court’s shadow docket — Donald Trump is not exactly known for accepting courts telling him he broke the rules.

There are some other interesting tidbits in the ruling from the judge, including this footnote:

The Court is aware of reporting that the IRS prepared a memorandum outlining ways to challenge Plaintiffs’ claims. Andrew Duehren, The I.R.S. Thought It Could Fight Trump’s Lawsuit, but It Struck a Deal Anyway, N.Y. Times (May 19, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/19/admin/irs-trump-lawsuit-deal.html. These defenses are consistent with the positions taken by the IRS and the Department of Justice in other litigation.

That’s a pointed eyebrow raise from the judge — essentially noting for the record that the IRS knew the lawsuit was bullshit and the DOJ “settled” anyway.

Just before that, there’s another footnote putting a spotlight on Donald Trump’s former personal attorney and now Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche for his unusually hands-on involvement:

This addendum, as the non-party movants point out, may be in conflict with internal Department of Justice policies that require the Department to only enter into compromises that are “specifically limited to the immediate subject matter of the claim which was in fact compromised.” (DE 63 at 8). The addendum was signed only by the Acting Attorney General.

While it’s still early days, the judge is essentially putting it on the record that basically everything here looks sketchy, and she wants Donald Trump’s lawyers to explain themselves before she turns the heat up.

Daily Deal: uTalk Language Education [Techdirt]

We have all wanted to learn a language at some point but it’s hard to get started. Some language learning tools can be complicated and very time-consuming. But with uTalk, you’ll be speaking keywords and phrases in no time, and will start to see the results straight away. It helps you overcome the language barrier challenge by helping you learn real, practical vocabulary in a wide variety of languages from any device that you choose. uTalk’s language programs let you listen to native speakers who are recorded in uTalk’s recording studio and feature independently verified translations so you’ll be able to navigate through your next vacation like a real local. Get 2 languages for $30, 6 languages for $50, or all 100+ languages for $69.97.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

03:00 AM

CBP Commander Greg Bovino Is Taking Guest Speaker Spots At White Nationalist Conferences [Techdirt]

CBP Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino made that title literal by showing up wherever Trump needed trouble started. Once he had arrived far north of the southern border he was supposed to be patrolling, Bovino (and the people he was “commanding”) found themselves on the receiving end of several lawsuits.

Not only did they find themselves on the receiving end of lawsuits, they — especially Gregory Bovino — found themselves hit with judgments and orders forbidding them from constantly violating the rights of anti-ICE protesters and journalists covering the protests.

After a couple of murders were committed by CBP officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the Trump administration decided Bovino was more trouble than he was worth. Sure, he was loyal and loved to personally engage in violence against protesters, but he also loved to see himself on TV and to dress like he’s auditioning for a Hitler Youth leadership position.

Now that he’s back at the border and bored, Bovino appears to be using his free time to push his own personal brand: a buzzcut bigot willing to spread hatred wherever it’s welcomed. Jeff Tischauser points out on Bluesky that Bovino recently headed overseas to help European bigots push their anti-migrant narratives.

Greg Bovino will speak at a white nationalist conference in Portugal tomorrow. He will share the stage with no fewer than five people who idolize Hitler, including one who joined a group created by two Nazi SS members. Another guy is a self-described racist who refers to women as "cockroaches."🧵

Jeff Tischauser (@jtischauser.bsky.social) 2026-05-29T16:06:00.682Z

Greg Bovino will speak at a white nationalist conference in Portugal tomorrow. He will share the stage with no fewer than five people who idolize Hitler, including one who joined a group created by two Nazi SS members. Another guy is a self-described racist who refers to women as “cockroaches.

RESUM26 is this year’s “Remigration Summit,” which was held in Porto, Portugal on May 30. If you’re not familiar with “Remigration” and/or RESUM26, I’ll let the organization speak for itself, even if it can’t seem to limit itself to 14 words.

Remigration is the umbrella term that designates and encompasses a set of fiscal, cultural, economic, social, political, and logistical policies whose objective is to prevent population replacement through the reversal of migratory flows, thereby restoring the sovereignty, independence, and identity of countries, through the defense of their ethnocultural specificity.

It’s almost twice as long as it needs to be at 25 words, but it’s pretty much saying the same thing Nazi supporters have been saying for years. Oh, and since literal Nazi supporters spoke at this event, here’s another reminder that Bovino himself seems to be on the supply side of Nazi sympathy.

If you can’t see the Bluesky post, It’s a screencap of Bovino’s recent X post where he’s captured giving what looks a hell of a lot like a Nazi salute while in his CBP work uniform. The accompanying text suggests Nazi salutes are just another way federal officers can visibly show their support for ICE and its activities.

Here’s one of the multiple anti-migrant luminaries Bovino joined at RESUM26: Alfonso Goncalves, as summarized by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism:

Gonçalves is a white supremacist and misogynist who fashions himself as an authoritarian leader. He revels in descriptions of himself as “transphobic,” and proudly accepts the characterization that he is “ultranationalist, racist, and xenophobic.” Gonçalves is particularly known for his misogyny, posting bizarre rants about women’s right to votecasual sex, and women sitting in public. He refers to women as “whores” and “cockroaches.” He has argued that women who get divorced should “not be entitled to receive money/goods” from their husbands and should be mandated to “pay for damages caused to the family.” He says abortions are a “crime against humanity” and has called for women who have the procedure to receive the death penalty. For Gonçalves, “non-traditional families” are an “aberration,” “80% of all divorces are initiated by women” and people of African descent are creating a “population replacement” of people of “native” European descent. He has argued that “African American men are 12x more likely to commit murder than white men.” His bigotry is so extreme that even Elon Musk’s Twitter, known for being lenient towards hateful accounts, permanently suspended both his main and backup accounts, in one instance for “abusive behavior.” 

And that’s just one speaker at this event. Also speaking at RESUM26 were Dutch far-right activist Eva Vlaardingerbroek (great replacement theory proponent), Austrian far-right activist Martin Sellner (great replacement theory proponent), former French National Front politician Jean-Yves Gallou (more of the same), and RESUM co-founder Dries Van Langenhover (who adds some Holocaust denialism to the mix).

Greg Bovino has done this while still employed by the US federal government. Under any normal president, his resignation might have been demanded for choosing to associate with people promoting racist theories. But this isn’t a normal presidency. No one in the DHS is going to criticize Bovino. And, while no one seems all that eager to return Bovino to anti-migration front lines, he’s still going to keep being paid by the US public to cheer on racism from the sidelines, when not traveling overseas to do the same thing from the stage.

02:00 AM

12:00 AM

AT&T Sues California Regulators For Trying To Make Broadband Affordable [Techdirt]

Five years years ago AT&T effectively stopped selling DSL and started hanging up on DSL and copper phone line customers. While killing landlines and DSL is understandable given the limitations of the dated copper-based tech, the problem is that thanks to concentrated telecom monopolization, many of these customers were left without any replacement options due to a lack of competition.

There are other issues at play too. AT&T has, for decades, received countless billions in tax cutssubsidiesmerger approvals, and regulatory favors in exchange for building infrastructure it either didn’t complete, didn’t maintain, or didn’t upgrade. There’s a rich back history of AT&T taking taxpayer money and then failing to deliver upgrades that were promised local municipalities.

Many of folks impacted by AT&T’s decision to hang up on copper are rural or elderly folks who relied on traditional landlines for reliable 911 access but are either outside the range of cellular, or find cellular to be less reliable and significantly more expensive on fixed budgets. The system has a tendency to downplay or ignore these folks.

So you can see how there’s a tension between private telecom monopolies and public interest regulators (the few we still have) tasked with protecting taxpayers and the public interest.

In 20 of the 21 states AT&T operates in, its lobbyists have managed to sell lawmakers on eliminating Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligations requiring it provide landline telephone service to any potential customer in its service territory. It’s easy to lobby lawmakers on the idea that the company needs to “move forward past outdated regulations,” and ignore the actual real-world impact or AT&T’s rich history of subsidy fraud or limitations of wireless as a fixed-line alternative.

But they’ve run into trouble in California, after the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) told AT&T in 2024 it can’t just hang up on these unwanted (taxpayer subsidized) connections. The CPUC said it’s not blocking AT&T from retiring its aging copper networks, but it wants some AT&T dedication to upgrading failing infrastructure to more modern fiber, not just throw “good enough” wireless at the problem.

Last week AT&T sued California and CPUC (full lawsuit here). AT&T is also asking the Trump FCC to intervene and prevent the CPUC from doing its job. AT&T, for its part, sells this as a story of California leveraging outdated regulations to block AT&T from embracing modernization:

“The federal government and virtually all States where AT&T historically offered POTS [Plain Old Telephone Service] have now eliminated outdated regulatory obstacles, allowing AT&T to begin powering down its POTS network and increasing its investments in modern communication technologies. California stands alone in resisting this progress.”

CPUC counters by saying they don’t want customers who used to have reliable landline service shoveled off to costly and less reliable wireless services instead of fiber. Or left without any connection whatsoever after spending the last four decades slathering AT&T with subsidies.

But it’s worth noting that AT&T’s legal assault is about more than just the fate of dying copper landlines.

California’s CPUC has been filling the void left by Trump regulators and attempting to ensure U.S. broadband is somewhat affordable. That’s involved conditions affixed to grants, affordability conditions applied to recent telecom mergers, and public safety requirements in response to climate-related risks. AT&T, as you might expect, doesn’t like that. Their goal is, with no hyperbole, no oversight at all.

So in addition to this lawsuit, they appear to be leveraging Dem politicians (like Assemblymember Tasha Boerner) in the state to push amendments to the state constitution that would strip the CPUC of its independence, ensuring that AT&T would have more direct lobbying control over the CPUC’s makeup through its robust lobbying control of state legislators.

The changes, which were approved by a California State Assembly vote (67-1), would need to be voted on by California residents later this year. As such, they are being sold to local state folks as a way to keep CPUC focused on soaring electrical utility rates. But the timing of the effort to limit CPUC’s oversight of broadband, just as AT&T tries to deliver the killing blow to the agency, is hard to miss.

Ultimately the broader narrative in the press sold to voters will be that California regulators are engaged in broad over-reach and hampering AT&T’s potential innovation. Downplayed or ignored will be the fact that federal consumer protection has largely been destroyed, and semi-independent regulators like the CPUC in a handful of states are the last line of defense in a country being devoured by corruption.

It’s a lopsided fight that historically telecom monopolies tend to win, which is why, as you can see with your own eyes, most U.S. broadband is patchy, expensive, sluggish, with abysmal customer service. Instead of empowering regulators that protect affordability and competition, we have a nasty tendency to lobotomize them on behalf of “free market competition” that isn’t real, and that monopolies don’t want.

Monday 2026-06-01

08:00 PM

Rethinking famous college admissions [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

Even if you’re not applying, this thought experiment gives a glimpse into how the world is about to be rewired.

The top 10 most selective colleges in the US admit about 5% of those who apply. They’re not selling education as much as a label, a rare chance for someone to slot themselves into a category in our economic and cultural hierarchy.

If all the famous schools wanted to do was be elite, they could use a formula–grades plus SAT plus something–and algorithmically draw a line and pick everyone over that line.

But it’s more complicated than that.

First, they want to find some sort of balance, to create a reasonably diverse group of backgrounds that coalesce into a community. They don’t want 100 kids from the same high school…

Second, they have special cases, many of which they don’t want to talk about in public, involving alumni, outgroup dominance considerations, and sports, which in many cases can count for as much as 50% of the incoming body.

Third, they use variable pricing, with many students ultimately paying different tuition. Few can afford to be fully need-blind in selection.

The end result is complicated, onerous and mostly a charade. 50,000 applicants coming into each institution cannot possibly be reviewed coherently or consistently. And uncertainty takes a toll, not just on the students, but the schools and their teams as well.

It’s expensive and time-consuming, and fraught with worry. The typical fancy college applicant applies to nearly ten schools. Some kids get into a few schools, some to none at all. And essays in the age of AI are now officially meaningless.

[I’ve written earlier that they should have two sorts of rejection letters. Half the people should get one saying that they simply didn’t get in. The other half should receive a letter saying that they were good enough to get in, but didn’t get lucky.]

This is what you’d invent if it were 1952.

If we rethink it, it might be more like this:

  1. Each applicant ranks the schools they apply to. That’s a forced ranking, and binding.
  2. The application is online and interactive. It shifts in real time based on the answers applicants give. I’d prefer we get rid of standardized testing, but I’d imagine some sort of asynchronous vetted skills testing can be referred to by the applicant.

    Sit down at 10 am on the day of your choosing, and all your applications will be done by 3 pm. Chaperones, video, and real-time snippets make it likely that the real applicant actually is the one engaging with the application.

    It’s easy to imagine that this is simply a digital form of the existing application, but it’s not. It works with the student, finding their strengths, asking follow-up questions, presenting them in the best light for their skill set. Get some math questions right and it will ask you some more. Talk about your work at the Fuller Center and it will dive deeper. It’s not adversarial; instead, it’s a scout and a coach.

    Even better, it’s not just one session–it’s a series of conversations, over time. And as a coach, the process can advise the student on their forced rankings, helping them reconsider preferences based on their interactions.
  3. The schools have to be very clear to the system about the balances they seek, the trade-offs they’re making and what’s important to them. This won’t be easy at first, because naming it is uncomfortable. In fact, this is the hardest part of the transition.

    [Hard indeed: Lawsuits will be an inevitable outcome. Discovery in the SFFA case against Harvard put the previously unrevealed rules into the record—the admission rates by legacy status and athletic skill. Naming the trade-off is what turns it into a lawsuit.]
  4. Then, on selection day, the AI system, which has read every single application, applies game theory and ranking to create the best possible allocation of seats, aid and students. The Gale-Shapley stable-matching algorithm is already used in medical residency placement. It leads to its own game theory implications, of course.

This shift saves money, reduces anxiety, is probably more fair. It’s auditable and improvable and uses far less time as well. It used to be impossible. Now that it’s not just possible but easy, the pressure falls on the constituents who’d prefer to avoid it.

Is it better to believe that you got into a famous college because of a mysterious, perhaps human, definitely flawed, and easily gamed system, or would we prefer a different sort of black box, one that puts data to work in a coordinated and prioritized way?

Systems change is difficult and unpredictable, and I’m not holding my breath. Just imagine, though, how many processes we live with now that will be rebuilt on top of widespread coordination.

      

Pluralistic: Molly Crabapple's 'Here Where We Live Is Our Country' (01 Jun 2026) [Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow]

->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->-> Top Sources: None -->

Today's links



The cover for the Penguin Random House edition of Molly Crabapple's 'Here Where We Live Is Our Country.' It features one of Crabapple's distinctive watercolor paintings, depicting a woman carrying a red Jewish Bund banner in Yiddish, amidst a menacing crowd of her red-armband-wearing comrades.

Molly Crabapple's 'Here Where We Live Is Our Country' (permalink)

Molly Crabapple's Here Where We Live Is Our Country is one of the most important, timely and salient works of history I've ever read. It's a history of the Jewish Labor Bund, a socialist, internationalist organization that once dominated Jewish political identity:

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/646320/here-where-we-live-is-our-country-by-molly-crabapple/

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were hundreds of thousands of Bund members, both in the Pale of Settlement (the rural regions of the Russian empire that the Tsar confined most Jews to) and in diasporic centers like New York City. The Bund played an important role in the Russian Revolution and in the resistance to the rise of European fascism, and fought valiantly in the antifascist underground guerrilla bands in Nazi-occupied territories.

Despite this faded prominence, the Bund is all but unknown today. I was only vaguely aware of it, even though I attended seven years' worth of Yiddish classes at the Workmen's Circle, a Bund-originated socialist fraternal organization, and was bar-mitzvahed at a Workmen's Circle hall. It wasn't until I read about the Bund in Naomi Klein's essential 2023 book Doppelganger that I first caught a glimmer of its significance:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/05/not-that-naomi/#if-the-naomi-be-klein-youre-doing-just-fine

The thesis of Doppelganger is that the world is full of "mirror world" pairs with opposite political valences. For example, the mirror world version of the health justice movement is MAHA. Both MAHA and health justice share many commonalities (such as a skepticism of Big Pharma and its captured regulators), but arrive at totally different conclusions. Health justice demands universal access to medical care, compulsory licenses and patent reform for life-saving medicines, and systemic interventions to address discrimination against gender minorities, women, and racialized people. MAHA starts from the same diagnosis, but arrives at a totally different prescription: "eating clean," buying unregulated supplements from grifters, rejecting vaccines, attributing chronic health problems to personal moral failings, along with a conspiratorial rejection of life-saving medication.

Mirror worlds are everywhere. One chapter of Klein's work deals with the "mirror worlds" of Jewish identity and what radical Jews once called "the Jewish question":

https://ernestmandel.org/english/works/Jewish-Question-Since-World-War-II

In the 19th century, antisemitism was often described as "the socialism of fools." In the real world, we observe the dominance of parasitic finance capital over productive labor and embark upon a great class struggle to seize the means of production. In the mirror world, antisemites observe this same fact, combine it with the fact that some of these bankers are Jewish, and embark on a genocidal program of antisemitic violence.

But antisemites weren't the only mirror-world pairing with a view on "the Jewish question." Early 20th century Jews also lived on either side of the political looking-glass. On one side, you had the Bundists, whose motto (and the title of Crabapple's book) was "Here, where we live, is our country." For Bundists, Jews belonged everywhere Jews were. As the Jewish socialist Meyer London wrote, "Thousands of Jewish boys and girls pray to God not to lead them again out of Egypt, but to help them free Egypt."

The Bund saw its struggle as just one aspect of the universal struggle for liberation. They understood that persecuted minorities everywhere labored under the double bind of racist and class oppression (and further, that women labored under gender oppression), but they also understood that these identity markers were tactical facts about how these workers should set about freeing themselves.

They didn't mistake identity for a strategic difference: the goal was always universal liberation, and the reason to consider identity-based oppression was to ensure that every comrade was brought along in the struggle. As Crabapple writes, the Bund more-or-less invented intersectional analysis, and they practiced it with an eye to all the struggles of the world. Bund newspapers (even those published by the Bund underground in the Warsaw Ghetto) closely tracked the struggles of Black workers in the Jim Crow south, just as the Black radical press of the day reported closely on antisemitic lynchings in Europe. The Bund underground even managed to send telegrams of support to Gandhi from Nazi-occupied Poland.

On the other side of the Jewish mirror was (of course) Zionism. Zionism and the Bund were founded in the same year, in response to the same events. The Bund was founded in secret by exiled radical Jews in Vilna whom the Tsar had banished for their resistance activities. Zionism was founded in Geneva by Theodor Herzl, who sheltered Jews who had fled Tsarist Russia to escape antisemitic violence.

Where the Bund called for universalism and solidarity with all workers to keep Jews safe in every place where Jews lived, Zionists dreamed of a Jewish homeland, a stronghold to which Jews could retreat from the world. Where the Bund fought antisemites who would banish or exterminate Jews, Zionist leaders were willing to align themselves with antisemites, finding common cause in the idea that European Jewry should abandon Europe in favor of Palestine.

Indeed, the Balfour Declaration – which established a plan for the UK handing over its occupied territories in Palestine to create a Jewish homeland – was fomented by vicious antisemites as part of a plan to ethnically cleanse the UK of all Jews:

https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/232119

As Crabapple documents in detail, in the ensuing decades of struggle that followed, Zionist leaders repeatedly entered into alliances with antisemitic politicians, even those who presided over (and sometimes directed) campaigns of racist terror against Jews. Despite their mutual hatred, they shared a common goal: terrorizing Europe's Jews out of Europe and into Palestine.

Meanwhile, Bundists never wavered from their rejection of antisemites. In the Bundists' socialist, internationalist program, the pursuit of a Jewish homeland merely dangled the possibility of Jewish liberation – at the expense of Palestinians, and without having anything to offer to all the other oppressed peoples of the world.

While I discovered the Bund through reading Naomi Klein, many others learned about it from Crabapple's widely circulated 2018 New York Review of Books article, "My Great-Grandfather the Bundist":

https://archive.is/20260518010455/https://www.nybooks.com/online/2018/10/06/my-great-grandfather-the-bundist/

Predictably, Crabapple's article provoked attacks from Zionists who told Crabapple they blamed the Bund for its own extermination. In their telling, the Bund's stubborn refusal to confront antisemitism as "history's oldest hatred" was a suicidal delusion that led their members into the Nazis' mass graves.

But for many Jews, Crabapple's article was a revelation about a different way to be Jewish, an identity that rejected the Apartheid state of Israel (South African Apartheid and the state of Israel share a birth year, and Apartheid South Africa and Israel carried on a robust program of mutual trade in arms and surveillance tools):

https://imeu.org/resources/key-issues/fact-sheet-an-overview-apartheid-south-africa-israel/275

This revelation only gained salience and prominence after October 7, 2023, when Israel responded to a massacre perpetrated by Hamas by embarking on a years-long program of genocide and extraterritorial aggression. Zionists have defended these crimes against humanity as inseparable from Jewish identity and the only plausible answer to "the Jewish question."

Israel's defenders insist that even naming the genocide in Palestine (let alone opposing it) is inherently antisemitic. Ironically, Israel's loudest cheerleaders are the millions of antisemitic evangelical Christian Zionists who vastly outnumber Jewish Zionists, who support Israel in hopes of bringing about a Biblical prophecy in which Christ returns and every Jew is cast down to Hell.

In the years since, Crabapple's work to revive the Bund has only gained adherents, especially among Jews who refuse to accept that their safety can only be secured through mass slaughter and imperial conquest. Crabapple's response to this burgeoning movement is this book, a massive, heroic, brilliant, and pitiless history of the Bund that proposes its own answer to "the Jewish question."

Beyond its political importance, Here Where We Live Is Our Country is a remarkable scholarly and artistic achievement. Crabapple taught herself to speak and read Yiddish so that she could consume primary sources, and she crisscrossed the globe to see and research the key sites of Jewish oppression and the Jewish liberation struggle.

It's a monumental book. Thanks to Crabapple's voluminous research, Here Where We Live delivers a blow-by-blow look at the Bund's rise and its triumphs, but even more importantly, the tactical disagreements, factional disputes, and personal animus that too often snatched defeat from the jaws of victory for these committed revolutionaries.

At times, Crabapple's tick-tock of these fights seems to embody the wry maxim: "Two Jews, three arguments." But the point of all this nuanced, textured detail isn't to rehash the tittle-tattle of the previous century, nor is it to show off Crabapple's prowess as a researcher. Rather, in rehearsing these fights, Crabapple shows how reasonable these disputes seemed at the time, and how terrible the consequences were for all concerned.

In this mode, Crabapple manages the admirable achievement of being both sympathetic and pitiless. Crabapple, after all, is a veteran political activist who has traveled extensively to active war-zones to document atrocities and offer mutual aid to those fighting for justice. She's endured every failure that radical politics can manifest, sat through every kind of bad meeting, and she recognizes in these disputes the same personalities and personal failings that have broken her heart a hundred times. She understands why these people are this way – but she can also see, with perfect hindsight, the ghastly horrors that followed, which swamp any matter of principle these people might have stood on.

There's plenty of this sympathetic pitilessness to go around, and it's not just the Bund or Jews who come in for it. Every factionalist blunder in pre-Revolutionary Russia, in the Soviet Union, in interwar Poland, and in occupied Poland comes in for examination – as do every imprisonment, maiming, rape and death that these blunders opened the door to. Crabapple's heroes are principled, but they are imperfect, and sometimes foolish, and sometimes self-deluding (for example, the Palestinian leader who insists that his rank-and-file fighters want to establish a multi-ethnic democracy, despite the undeniable presence in their number of people who want to banish all Jews from Palestine).

The twentieth century was a charnel house, and so the cost of these mistakes is high. Often, these mistakes lead to mass graves, with these mistake-makers tangled among the bodies. They never had the chance to learn from their mistakes. But, through Crabapple's work, we might.

It is in the postscript to this book that its true message lands. After 480 pages, we arrive at Crabapple's conclusion. In reflecting on these people, who died in their millions and whose memory was all but erased, she asks, "Did the Bund fail?"

Her answer is a resounding no. The Bund lost, but it did not fail. The Bund was failed, as were the Zionists, the Roma, European socialists, disabled and queer people – everyone the Nazis burned, gassed, or buried alive. These people cried out to the rest of the world – to America, to Canada, to the UK, to all the places that were not under Nazi occupation – and begged for help, for safe passage, for rescue.

The world slammed its doors. Even after they joined the war, they refused to admit Jews and other victims of Nazi genocide. They refused visas, closed borders, turned back boats of escapees, sometimes sending them back to occupied Europe to be slaughtered.

In his review in the New York Review of Books, historian Adam Hochschild writes:

Imagine that the United States had not passed the Immigration Act of 1924, which essentially slammed the door on almost all newcomers for more than forty years. Without it, Jewish immigration to the US would surely have soared during the 1920s and 1930s. Some 2.5 million Jews, most of them hoping for a better life than they had in tsarist Russia, had already come here between 1880 and 1924. Then, even in the decade before Hitler took power, Jews still had many reasons to leave Europe. Poland, whose Jewish population of 2.8 million was the continent’s largest, was a cauldron of antisemitism between the wars, with outbreaks of deadly violence, segregated seating and de facto quotas in many universities, and numerous other humiliations.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2026/05/28/a-dream-of-a-socialist-commonwealth-the-jewish-bund/

No one who's paid attention during this century's xenophobic policies and attacks on refugees can fail to see the parallels. And no one who's paid attention to the genocide in Gaza and the official response in the "free" world to Palestinian solidarity movements can fail to see those parallels, either.

For the Jews who are told – by Zionists, including the millions of American gentile Zionists who outnumber Jewish Zionists 30:1 – that all this is being done for us, that our continued existence requires it, Crabapple's history of the Bund shows us what's on the other side of the mirror. As NYT editor Max Strasser writes in his review of Here Where We Live:

[The Bund was] the kind of movement leftists today dream about — political party, social movement, mutual aid group — with tens of thousands of members. The Bund published newspapers and ran soup kitchens and summer camps; its athletes competed in a socialist version of the Olympics. Bund activists organized across Eastern Europe and beyond — they helped elect a congressman on the Lower East Side.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/06/books/review/here-where-we-live-is-our-country-molly-crabapple.html

The politics we dream of isn't a fantasy. It's the politics our grandparents lived – a politics that wasn't lost, but rather, erased. Erased by Nazis and Stalinists, who committed wholesale slaughter of Bundists. But that politics was also erased by Zionists, who swept through the Displaced Persons' camps of post-war Europe, imposing a draft on the Jews who'd been penned in those stinking camps by a world that refused to welcome Jews, even after the horrors of the death-camps were widely known. Zionists bullied and coerced these Jews – including Bundists who rejected their cause – to serve as foot-soldiers in the Israeli army, even beating elderly parents until their sons and daughters agreed to fight.

Bundists always rejected all forms of ethno-nationalism. As Jews, they had lived in the violence and oppression that always attended every ethno-nationalist program. They never imagined that Israel would escape this fate. As the Bundist leader Henryk Erlich wrote in 1933: "We are not a chosen people. Our nationalism is just as ugly, just as harmful as the nationalisms of all the other nations."

Crabapple has done heroic and important work in excavating this history. She has vindicated the sacrifices made by the Bundist archivists who smuggled their papers out of Nazi occupation and gave their lives to ensure that some day their story could be told.

In so doing, she has also vindicated her own great-grandfather, Sam Rothbort, a Bundist who fled the Pale of Settlement for New York City, whose art-practice traveled to Crabapple through her mother, who is also a painter. It wasn't just the art-practices that traveled – it was also the art, and it was one of Rothbort's paintings ("Itka, the Bundist," depicting a girl throwing a rock through a window) that set her on this journey.

This volume is also graced by Crabapple's own art, stark monochrome ink-washes in her characteristic style, which bring these long-dead people to vivid life. They're a reminder of the role that culture plays in every radical movement, of the ways that the Bund welcomed its members to live a radical life through sport and song and picnics, and not just meetings and street-demonstrations.

Even before this book, Crabapple had made a mark through her paintings and writings. But with Here Where We Live Is Our Country, Crabapple has given us a magnum opus, a book that might help us turn the tide of history.


Hey look at this (permalink)



A shelf of leatherbound history books with a gilt-stamped series title, 'The World's Famous Events.'

Object permanence (permalink)

#20yrsago Sign a letter supporting the BBC’s online archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060704182401/http://www.freeculture.org.uk/letters/CreativeArchiveLetter

#20yrsago Home chemistry under assault https://web.archive.org/web/20060603021709/http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/chemistry_pr.html

#20yrsago Cliches to avoid when writing about women and video-games https://web.archive.org/web/20060704223941/http://www.richardcobbett.co.uk/codex/clicktoread/filingcabinet/writing_a_girls_in_games_article/

#20yrsago JPEG patent invalidated https://web.archive.org/web/20060613015757/http://www.pubpat.org/Chen672Rejected.htm

#20yrsago SF story about AI-human love https://www.salon.com/2006/05/30/perfect_man/

#15yrsago Sensation: Acerbic novel about pop culture and popular madness as functions of parasitic manipulation https://memex.craphound.com/2011/05/30/sensation-acerbic-novel-about-pop-culture-and-popular-madness-as-functions-of-parasitic-manipulation/

#15yrsago Every Pirate Wants to Be an Admiral: why less copyright gets you more culture https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2011/may/30/internet-piracy-cory-doctorow

#15yrsago Social incentives vs economic incentives in crowdsourced work https://web.archive.org/web/20110602184500/https://blog.crowdflower.com/2011/05/designing-incentives-for-crowdsourcing-workers/

#15yrsago Painful workarounds from computer novices https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/hmlmd/what_is_the_most_painful_way_you_have_seen_your/

#10yrsago To imagine the ocean of the future: picture a writhing mass of unkillable tentacles, forever https://web.archive.org/web/20160530145354/https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/octopuses-may-indeed-be-your-new-overlords/

#10yrsago When Brad Birkenfeld blew the whistle on UBS, the US government paid him $104M and sent him to jail https://web.archive.org/web/20160602152611/http://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/the-whistleblower-05-23-2016

#10yrsago The last time there were this many unsold $100M+ homes on the market, the world economy imploded https://web.archive.org/web/20160529040314/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/business/a-worrisome-pileup-of-100-million-homes.html

#10yrsago David Foster Wallace’s essays on tennis, finally collected between one set of covers https://www.csmonitor.com/Arts-Culture/Books/2016/0530/String-Theory-gathers-the-brainy-witty-tennis-writing-of-David-Foster-Wallace

#10yrsago United Arab Emirates hacked UK journalist https://citizenlab.ca/research/stealth-falcon/

#10yrsago Internet economics 101: “bandwidth hogs” considered harmless https://web.archive.org/web/20160530155601/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/should-broadband-data-hogs-pay-more-isp-economics-say-no/

#20yrsago JPEG patent invalidated https://web.archive.org/web/20060613015757/http://www.pubpat.org/Chen672Rejected.htm

#20yrsago SF story about AI-human love https://www.salon.com/2006/05/30/perfect_man/

#15yrsago Sensation: Acerbic novel about pop culture and popular madness as functions of parasitic manipulation https://memex.craphound.com/2011/05/30/sensation-acerbic-novel-about-pop-culture-and-popular-madness-as-functions-of-parasitic-manipulation/

#10yrsago To imagine the ocean of the future: picture a writhing mass of unkillable tentacles, forever https://web.archive.org/web/20160530145354/https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/octopuses-may-indeed-be-your-new-overlords/

#10yrsago When Brad Birkenfeld blew the whistle on UBS, the US government paid him $104M and sent him to jail https://web.archive.org/web/20160602152611/http://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/the-whistleblower-05-23-2016

#10yrsago The last time there were this many unsold $100M+ homes on the market, the world economy imploded https://web.archive.org/web/20160529040314/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/business/a-worrisome-pileup-of-100-million-homes.html

#10yrsago David Foster Wallace’s essays on tennis, finally collected between one set of covers https://www.csmonitor.com/Arts-Culture/Books/2016/0530/String-Theory-gathers-the-brainy-witty-tennis-writing-of-David-Foster-Wallace

#10yrsago United Arab Emirates hacked UK journalist https://citizenlab.ca/research/stealth-falcon/

#10yrsago Internet economics 101: “bandwidth hogs” considered harmless https://web.archive.org/web/20160530155601/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/should-broadband-data-hogs-pay-more-isp-economics-say-no/


Upcoming appearances (permalink)

A photo of me onstage, giving a speech, pounding the podium.



A screenshot of me at my desk, doing a livecast.

Recent appearances (permalink)



A grid of my books with Will Stahle covers..

Latest books (permalink)



A cardboard book box with the Macmillan logo.

Upcoming books (permalink)

  • "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book about being a better AI critic, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, June 2026 (https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374621568/thereversecentaursguidetolifeafterai/)

  • "Enshittification, Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It" (the graphic novel), Firstsecond, 2026

  • "The Post-American Internet," a geopolitical sequel of sorts to Enshittification, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2027

  • "Unauthorized Bread": a middle-grades graphic novel adapted from my novella about refugees, toasters and DRM, FirstSecond, April 20, 2027

  • "The Memex Method," Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2027



Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing: "The Post-American Internet," a sequel to "Enshittification," about the better world the rest of us get to have now that Trump has torched America. Third draft completed. Submitted to editor.

  • "The Reverse Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book for Farrar, Straus and Giroux about being an effective AI critic. LEGAL REVIEW AND COPYEDIT COMPLETE.

  • "The Post-American Internet," a short book about internet policy in the age of Trumpism. PLANNING.

  • A Little Brother short story about DIY insulin PLANNING


This work – excluding any serialized fiction – is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. That means you can use it any way you like, including commercially, provided that you attribute it to me, Cory Doctorow, and include a link to pluralistic.net.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Quotations and images are not included in this license; they are included either under a limitation or exception to copyright, or on the basis of a separate license. Please exercise caution.


How to get Pluralistic:

Blog (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Pluralistic.net

Newsletter (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://pluralistic.net/plura-list

Mastodon (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic

Bluesky (no ads, possible tracking and data-collection):

https://bsky.app/profile/doctorow.pluralistic.net

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

Tumblr (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/tagged/pluralistic

"When life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla" -Joey "Accordion Guy" DeVilla

READ CAREFULLY: By reading this, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

ISSN: 3066-764X

07:00 AM

Suboptimal events [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

Any gathering of more than two people involves compromise.

Embracing this fact actually increases the utility of the event. It’s a trap to commit to making it perfect for everyone–we end up sacrificing what the event could be and creating mediocrity instead.

A surprise party might be designed to make the host feel good, or perhaps to create a memorable moment for the guest of honor. The wedding might exist to cement the status and relationships of the bride. The quarterly management meeting is probably organized to increase the security and power of the boss.

There’s a reason that they don’t serve “wedding food” at restaurants. The food is a compromise, not the sort of thing people seek out.

When planning any event, the first two questions are the most important, and they need to be repeated, again and again:

Who’s it for?

What’s it for?

If we can be clear about that, we can make progress in making it happen.

      

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt [Techdirt]

We’ve got a double-winner this week, but also a very very slow week overall on the funny side, so this will be a somewhat truncated post. On the insightful side, both top comments are similar thoughts in response to the judge dismissing charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, starting with this first-place winning comment from Huntly:

Fastest way to shut down Trump’s 1776 fund will be for Kilmer, Letitia James, James Comey and others who have been targeted by Government weaponization to start applying.

In second place for insightful, it’s an anonymous comment along similar lines, which also racked up the votes to be the first place winner on the funny side too:

Does Kilmar get a cut of the anti-weaponization fund?

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ve got a pair of comments about the legislative effort in California to stop companies from killing off old games. First, it’s JoeDetroit with a response to the comments from the Electronic Software Association:

“The eventual shutdown of outdated or obsolete games is “a natural feature of modern software,” the group added, especially when that software requires online infrastructure maintenance.”

Natural feature of “modern software”?! A big FU right there. Perfectly good software out there gets a new version that fucks everything up, harder to use, & has no real improvement is what we often get. As long as their is no security holes, I’ll run the older version, thanks.

As to “software requires online infrastructure maintenance” we’ve seen fan based wildcat servers that work very well many times. They use copyright to shut them down. It boggles my mind that they waste resources chasing down their best customers to stop them from enjoying their older products. Why do they care? It’s not costing them any money.

Next, it’s n00bdragon emphasizing our point that measures like this bill aren’t really the true fight:

I agree completely. All this other stuff feels like people pretending trying to do something even if that something is entirely useless and ineffective. Real copyright reform is needed and it should be targeted directly rather than these little culturally downstream problems.

Over on the funny side, we’ve already had the first place winner above, and beyond that there’s really just a lot of not-particularly-funny comments that received a tiny smattering of votes here and there (and none with enough to receive a badge). So we’ll just wrap things up with a single hybrid of second place and editor’s choice, from Thad responding to our headline about Trump Mobile’s “struggle” to ship any phones:

I don’t know about “struggled”. That would seem to imply that they’ve tried.

That’s all for this week, folks!

RSSSiteUpdated
XML About Tagaini Jisho on Tagaini Jisho 2026-06-03 05:00 AM
XML Arch Linux: Releases 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML Carlson Calamities 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML Debian News 2026-06-03 05:00 AM
XML Debian Security 2026-06-03 05:00 AM
XML debito.org 2026-06-03 05:00 AM
XML dperkins 2026-06-02 09:00 PM
XML F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository 2026-06-03 12:00 AM
XML GIMP 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML Japan Bash 2026-06-03 05:00 AM
XML Japan English Teacher Feed 2026-06-03 05:00 AM
XML Kanji of the Day 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML Kanji of the Day 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML Let's Encrypt 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML Marc Jones 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML Marjorie's Blog 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML OpenStreetMap Japan 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML OsmAnd Blog 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow 2026-06-02 09:00 PM
XML Popehat 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML Ramen Adventures 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML Release notes from server 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect 2026-06-02 09:00 PM
XML SNA Japan 2026-06-02 09:00 PM
XML Tatoeba Project Blog 2026-06-03 05:00 AM
XML Techdirt 2026-06-03 05:00 AM
XML The Business of Printing Books 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML The Luddite 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML The Popehat Report 2026-06-02 09:00 PM
XML The Status Kuo 2026-06-02 09:00 PM
XML The Stranger 2026-06-02 06:00 AM
XML Tor Project blog 2026-06-03 05:00 AM
XML TorrentFreak 2026-06-03 05:00 AM
XML what if? 2026-06-03 05:00 AM
XML Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed 2026-05-28 07:00 AM
XML xkcd.com 2026-06-03 05:00 AM