News

Wednesday 2026-02-25

10:00 AM

Immigrants Will Make America Great Again Faster Than Natural-Born Citizens [Techdirt]

There’s not a single conservative left in the GOP. The ideals that were formerly considered “conservative” — small government, fiscal responsibility, etc. — have been replaced by white Christian nationalism, water-carrying for would-be autocrats, and immense amounts of deficit spending for the sole purpose of making America whiter.

That’s not the same as making it “greater,” no matter how Trump and his cohorts choose to spin it. Instead of asking themselves whether or not they’re actually making America worse, they just get on the bullhorn and blare racist invective on main.

Here’s Kristi Noem, engaging in the sort of thing most GOP politicians have managed to limit to PAC fundraisers behind closed doors:

Here’s her December 2025 X post in full:

I just met with the President.

I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.

Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and the unyielding love of freedom—not for foreign invaders to slaughter our heroes, suck dry our hard-earned tax dollars, or snatch the benefits owed to AMERICANS.

WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE.

Lovely, eh? But she’s only doing what the Supreme Leader wants her to do. After all, the guy running the nation is no better. Actually, he’s worse, since he’s supposed to hold himself to a higher standard than his own political appointees.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he did not want Somali immigrants in the U.S., saying residents of the war-ravaged eastern African country are too reliant on U.S. social safety net and add little to the United States.

[…]

“They contribute nothing. I don’t want them in our country,” Trump told reporters near the end of a lengthy Cabinet meeting. He added: “Their country is no good for a reason. Your country stinks and we don’t want them in our country.”

Counterpoint: this administration stinks and we don’t want them in our country. Every smear leveled against migrants by the Trump administration is a lie, starting with the “worst of the worst” posturing, continuing all the way down to the suggestion migrants add nothing to this country while dangling from the government teat the entire time.

It’s insanely ignorant to claim immigrants are more likely to be criminals than US citizens. That has never been true. Neither have the claims made by Trump and Noem. If there’s anyone capable of reducing the deficit, it’s migrants rather than the most powerful political party in the nation.

Cato Institute continues to expose the government’s lies about migrants by doing nothing more than simply looking at the data. While Trump continues to pretend immigrants are robbing the country blind and that levying tariffs will make average Americans richer, Cato is delivering the facts. And the facts say that the best thing this country could do for both the economy and national deficit is bring in as many migrants as possible.

  • Every year from 1994 to 2023, immigrants have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits.
  • Immigrants generated nearly $10.6 trillion more in federal, state, and local taxes than they induced in total government spending.
  • Accounting for savings on interest payments on the national debt, immigrants saved $14.5 trillion in debt over this 30-year period.

Immigrants have always paid more than their “fair share” in taxes. Tax cheats like Donald Trump are the kind of people who always insist otherwise while preaching to the ignorant faithful. Of the $14.5 trillion in debt reduction created by our nation’s migrant population, more than a third of it ($6.3 trillion) was generated by non-citizens — people who are here illegally or have yet to become naturalized citizens and/or permanent residents.

The upshot of the data is this: without immigrants, this nation would be so far underwater that it would threaten the future of the nation itself:

Without the contributions of immigrants, public debt at all levels would already be above 200 percent of US GDP—nearly twice the 2023 level and a threshold some analysts believe would trigger a debt crisis.

Both Kristi Noem and Donald Trump should be made to eat every word of this next paragraph, as painfully and protractedly as possible:

Immigrants accounted for more US income and generated more revenue for the government because they were, on average, over 12 percentage points more likely to be employed than the US-born population. This means that even if immigrants earn lower hourly wages, they can still account for more total income per capita than the US-born population by working cumulatively more hours. This higher employment rate was driven by the fact that immigrants were, on average, 20 percentage points more likely to be of working age. Immigrants usually arrive in the US as young adults and often leave before retirement.

Calling immigrants “leeches” and “entitlement junkies” is nothing but naked bigotry. It has fuck all to do with the actual facts — facts this government has access to but chooses to ignore in favor of blowing its handful of racist dog whistles repeatedly.

And yet again, let’s take the latest look at the fact that is perhaps the most uncomfortable for a regime that repeatedly infers that being a migrant means being a criminal worthy of speedy ejection:

It’s BOGO time at the migrant facts warehouse: by committing fewer crimes migrants are less of drain on public resources than US citizens, who are spending more time behind bars than their “illegal” counterparts. And lest we forget, racists think the reason migrants commit less crime than American citizens is because we have Black American citizens. Cato has already dismantled this counterargument, even after factoring in the blatant racism this collection of “but for the Black people” asshats think will allow them to double-down on their bigotry:

A persistent criticism of Cato’s paper in this series is that the native-born incarceration rate is only higher because black native-born Americans have a high incarceration rate (see Table 1 from our paper). It’s certainly true that black native-born Americans have the highest incarceration rates of any ethnic or racial group in any immigrant category. However, the high black American incarceration rate does not overturn our results. It merely narrows them. Immigrants have lower incarceration rates even without considering black native-born rates….

Excluding black native-born Americans and black immigrants reduces the native-born incarceration rate by 27 percent, from 1,221 to 891 per 100,000 in 2023 (see Table 1 for reference). Excluding black immigrants barely reduces the legal immigrant incarceration rate to 312 per 100,000, but increases the illegal immigrant incarceration rate to 626 per 100,000. Excluding blacks increases the illegal immigrant incarceration rates because their rate is below that of the rest of the population. The legal and illegal immigrant incarceration rate gap with natives also narrows to 65 percent and 30 percent lower, respectively. Excluding only black native-born Americans and keeping black immigrants in the sample, which doesn’t make sense but critics have brought it up, produces almost identical results.

This government can continue to stoke the flames of hatred. But it will never have the facts to back its hateful rhetoric. Of course, that hardly matters to this government and its top officials. But it should matter to everyone else who’s not part of the Executive Branch circle jerk. Migrants are better equipped to make this country great than the people who think merely existing here as the offspring of white people makes them the superior breed.

07:00 AM

James Cameron Complains About Netflix/Warner Bros Merger, Doesn’t Acknowledge A Paramount Deal Would Be Much Worse [Techdirt]

We’ve explained in detail how Larry Ellison is trying to scuttle Netflix’s planned merger with Warner Brothers because he wants to buy CNN and HBO, and, as he’s doing with CBS (and now TikTok) turn them into a safe space for right wing zealots, autocrats, and oligarchs. He’s unsubtly trying to build the kind of autocrat-friendly state television we’ve seen arise in places like Orban’s Hungary.

Since Donald Trump and MAGA want the same thing, they’ve been helping Ellison’s quest along, first by launching a campaign against “woke Netflix” across right wing media, and more recently by launching a fake DOJ “antitrust investigation” that scrutinizes the Netflix Warner Bros merger “to protect the public interest,” but ignores the fact that a Paramount/Warner tie up would be arguably worse.

Enter Director James Cameron, who last week decided to “help” by writing a publicized letter to Senator Mike Lee, lamenting the Netflix Warner Brothers merger (and only the Netflix merger) as “disastrous to the motion picture business.” Cameron, who in the letter calls himself a “humble movie farmer,” seems to mostly be concerned with the a possible shortening of the 45-day theater-to-streaming window:

He’s also doubtful Netflix would stick to its pledge about keeping movies in theaters for a set amount of time; his letter cited a 17-day theatrical window that was cited in an earlier Deadline report, rather than the more recently mentioned 45-day window.

“What administrative body will hold them to task if they slowly sunset their so-called commitment to theatrical releases?” Cameron wondered.

Traditional theater owners have been particularly and understandably sensitive about the shortening of this window since COVID demonstrated the outdated nature of such arbitrary restrictions. Major chains like AMC haven’t helped themselves on this front; their biggest innovation of late has been to saddle brick-and-mortar theater visitors with more ads than ever.

Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos didn’t take Cameron’s public grievances well, saying he’d already met with Cameron about maintaining the 45-day release window, and lamented Cameron’s participation in a “Paramount disinformation campaign:”

“I met with James personally in late December and laid out for him our 45-day commitment to theatrical exhibition of films and to the Warner Bros slate,” Sarandos told Fox Business’ The Claman Countdown today in the latest sit-down in the exec’s seemingly never-ending media blitz this week. “I have talked about that commitment in the press countless times. I swore under oath in front of the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust that that’s what we would be doing.”  

“So I am … I’m particularly surprised and disappointed that James chose to be part of the Paramount disinformation campaign that’s been going on for months about this deal,” Sarandos said, sticking it at the same time to the Oscar winner and his David Ellison-owned WB rival.

The weird part about Cameron’s missive is he doesn’t mention Paramount at all in his letter to Lee, despite the fact that it’s extremely likely that Paramount would be just as bad on shortening release windows. And given that Paramount and Warner have way more structural similarities than Netflix and Warner, the number of layoffs would likely be significantly worse.

This is before you even get to the fact that Larry Ellison is clearly gobbling up media giants in service to our violent kakistocracy, something that seems kind of important to mention if you’re going to inject yourself into the middle of the debate. Cameron mentions none of this; either because he doesn’t know, or because he was potentially made promises by Ellison and Paramount and didn’t want to be transparent about it (neither of which is good).

None of this is to say that a Netflix Warner Brothers merger would be great for consumers or the market. Media consolidation always results in layoffs, higher prices and steadily eroded product quality. Ideally you’d block all additional media consolidation and impose meaningful limits. But that’s simply not happening under Trump, making the Netflix Warner tie up the best of a bunch of bad options.

Anybody trying to do any good (and that includes Dem lawmakers) in the regulatory reality we currently inhabit would likely have to concur Netflix owning Warner is better than Ellison owning the entirety of U.S. media. Especially given what we’ve all been witnessing over at CBS (and know from years of watching Ellison’s nonexistent ethics at Oracle). Strange days, strange bedfellows.

05:00 AM

ICE Promised A MN Supreme Court Justice It Would Stop Raiding Courthouses. It Immediately Broke That Promise. [Techdirt]

Checks and balances. That’s the mantra. That’s what makes America great. That’s the system we deployed to prevent being just another iteration of the British empire.

It was never perfect, but it seemed to get the job done most of the time. The gentleman’s agreement underlying this system tended to hold up even when bad faith abounded.

It’s just not working anymore. The legislative branch — under a GOP majority — has basically decided to relinquish all of its power to the executive branch. The judicial branch has made its feelings known about the administration’s refusal to act in good faith, but really hasn’t done anything to prevent it from continuing to behave like an extended middle finger to the rule of law.

This government cannot be trusted. That would mean something if it actually seemed to care about being trusted. It doesn’t. It is a law unto itself, almost completely devoid of oversight.

This government continues to pretend it’s in the business of deporting dangerous foreigners from this country. Its actions say otherwise. A government that just wanted to rid the nation of dangerous criminals wouldn’t need to hang around courthouses to ambush migrants who are following the rules they’re supposed to follow to be allowed to remain in the United States. A government that isn’t beholden to racists and a red-tied megalomaniac wouldn’t send government lawyers to dismiss pending immigration cases just so ICE officers can arrest people for not being born here.

Trump’s Minnesota revenge tour may be drawing to a close, but that doesn’t mean his administration officials and officers won’t keep trying to do whatever they can to punish people in “blue” states simply for living there.

Nazi cosplayer/Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino may have been sent back to the border for being a bit too much now that federal officers are routinely murdering people. But the ICE agents remaining in Minnesota are better people than they were a few weeks ago. And “border czar” Tom Homan isn’t much of an upgrade. Being a relative moderate in a sea of anti-migrant extremists just means Homan’s probably headed for a demotion or dismissal himself.

A Minnesota judge tried to put a few fingers in the anti-migrant dike recently, as Jeff Day reports for the Minnesota Star Tribune:

On Feb. 6, [Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie] Hudson met with Homan and ICE St. Paul field office Director Sam Olson to make several requests of the federal government including: that ICE no longer conduct operations inside Minnesota courthouses; that if they need to operate inside a courthouse they do it in “low-traffic areas” and not inside courtrooms; that ICE agents not bring long guns into courthouses; that ICE coordinate with local sheriff’s offices before conducting operations at or near courthouses; and that ICE provide a local point of contact to improve communication with the courts.

Hudson’s requests were largely accepted, according to Kyle Christopherson, spokesperson for the Minnesota Judicial Branch, who confirmed details of the meeting and the agreement.

Homan and Olson made several commitments, including to conduct future operations outside of courthouses, “unless safety requires officers to enter,” and that Olson would serve as a local point of contact for the courts with federal agents. Homan agreed that ICE agents would not make arrests inside courtrooms and that it was not ICE policy to bring long guns into courthouses.

Any government agency not beholden to racist asshats like Stephen Miller and his “3,000 arrests per day” quota would have accepted this compromise in good faith, especially when the agreement was made in secret, preventing anyone from portraying it as a partisan win or loss. Tom Homan and his underlings wouldn’t lose face and the sanctity of courthouses would be respected as they almost always had been prior to Trump’s second term.

Almost immediately, it was made clear that it’s a waste of time to treat the administration like an adult.

Four days later, ICE agents executed a chaotic detainment inside the Hennepin County Government Center amid a swarm of lawyers and observers as people moved through the skyway of downtown Minneapolis at lunchtime.

18-year-old Herrera Berrios was the person detained by ICE officers, in an obvious violation of this agreement between the state Supreme Court justice and ICE officials. Berrios was chased through the courthouse before being tackled and cuffed on the lawn. After this happened, the government argued Berrios was subject to removal under Title 8 immigration law. That didn’t impress the presiding judge in Berrios’s case, who not only ordered his release, but criticized the government for its lack of a judicial warrant, as well as its attempt to use a law that applies to people “arriving” in the US to punish someone who had already been here for three years.

Berrios was in court to make an appearance after being charged with first-degree drug possession. These are still just allegations. Berrios otherwise has no criminal record. That means the pursuit and detainment here was performed just because the government wanted to, not because it needed to. And none of that backs up the claims made by the now-former front mouth for the DHS, Tricia McLaughlin.

Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, called Frank an activist judge appointed by former President Bill Clinton who had “released a criminal with drug charges back onto American communities.”

Drug charges? Yes. Criminal? Well, Berrios never received his day in court, so it’s a stretch to call someone still presumed innocent a “criminal” when all they’re facing are the government’s unproven allegations. And if you’re just as opportunistically stupid as McLaughlin, you could pretend this refers to Berrios’ undocumented status. But that would be like claiming an “activist judge” released a “criminal with drug charges” when the person being released was behind on their property taxes. Being undocumented is a civil violation, not a criminal violation, even if both refer to things that are against the law.

But this isn’t about what Berrios did or didn’t do. If he was a criminal, then evasion and eventual arrest are just part of that process. But ICE specifically promised a state justice sitting at the top level of the state’s court system that it wouldn’t do this sort of thing. And then it went out and did it anyway, less than a week after making that promise. The government is supposed to hold itself to a higher standard. Under Trump, it refuses to hold itself to any standard at all, which is making it exceedingly clear the usual “checks and balances” stuff just isn’t going to get the job done.

Daily Deal: Opusonix Pro Subscription [Techdirt]

Opusonix is the workflow-first platform built for music producers and engineers who are tired of endless email chains and scattered files. By centralizing feedback, versions, and tasks in one structured workspace, it helps you cut email traffic by up to 90% so you can focus more on creating and less on chasing approvals. From time-coded comments and version testing to album planning and client-friendly demo pages, Opusonix gives you the tools to manage every mix, project, and album with clarity and speed. It’s on sale for $50.

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.

Texas Spent Years Screaming About ‘Snowflakes’ On Campus. Now It’s Building The World’s Biggest Safe Space. [Techdirt]

For the better part of a decade, conservative politicians—and Texas politicians in particular—have been absolutely apoplectic about the state of free speech on college campuses. You’ve heard the greatest hits: students are coddled snowflakes who can’t handle the real world, trigger warnings are destroying intellectual rigor, safe spaces are turning universities into daycare centers, and the real threat to America is that professors might have opinions that lean left.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott was so concerned about this supposed crisis that he signed a campus free speech bill in 2019. The whole thing was framed as a brave stand for open inquiry and the marketplace of ideas. As state Senator Joan Huffman said at the time:

“Our college students, our future leaders, they should be exposed to all ideas, I don’t care how liberal they are or how conservative they are.”

What a beautiful sentiment. Truly inspiring stuff.

So naturally, the University of Texas System’s Board of Regents just voted unanimously to ensure students can graduate without being exposed to ideas that might make someone uncomfortable.

The University of Texas System’s Board of Regents unanimously approved Thursday a rule requiring its universities to ensure students can graduate without studying “unnecessary controversial subjects,” despite warnings it could leave them less prepared for the real world.

The rule also requires faculty to disclose in their syllabi the topics they plan to cover and adhere to the plan, and says that when courses include controversial issues, instructors must ensure a “broad and balanced approach” to the discussion.

If you had described this policy to any Texas Republican in 2018 and told them a bunch of liberal professors had come up with it, they would have been on Fox News within the hour screaming about the death of Western civilization. The words “trigger warnings,” “safe spaces,” and “cancel culture” would have been deployed at machine-gun pace all surrounded with high-minded claims about “free speech” and “academic freedom.”

But when it’s governor-appointed regents doing it? When the people being “protected” from uncomfortable ideas are conservative students and donors rather than marginalized communities? Well, then it’s just good governance.

The truly revealing moment came from Board Chair Kevin Eltife, who was asked about the fact that the policy doesn’t bother to define what “controversial” means or what a “broad and balanced approach” actually looks like. His response should be printed on a plaque and hung in the Museum of Political Cowardice:

“We are in difficult times,” he said. “Vagueness can be our friend.”

Ah yes. Vagueness. The chairman of a board governing one of the nation’s largest public university systems—more than 260,000 students across nine campuses—is openly admitting that the entire point of the policy is that nobody knows what it means. He’s saying the quiet part loud: the vagueness is a feature, not a bug.

And of course it is. Because when you leave “controversial” undefined, you don’t need to go through the messy business of actually banning specific topics, which might allow everyone to call you out on your hypocrisy and highlight the subjects you hope to censor.

You just create a system where every professor has to wonder, before every lecture, whether today’s lesson is the one that gets them hauled before an administrator. The chilling effect does all the work for you.

As UT-Austin physics professor Peter Onyisi pointed out during public testimony:

“Will they (administrators) be experts in the relevant disciplines or will they just seek to avoid unpleasant publicity?”

We all know the answer to that question. When a policy gives administrators the power to decide what counts as “unnecessarily controversial” without any definition whatsoever, administrators are going to do what administrators always do: minimize risk. That means the most easily-offended person in the room—or more precisely, the most politically connected complainant—effectively gets a veto over what gets taught. It’s a heckler’s veto laundered through bureaucratic process.

There are legitimate debates about how universities should approach controversial material in the classroom. But any time anyone has brought any of those up for serious debate over the last few decades, they were mocked as “woke snowflakes” who need their “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings.”

This is the exact dynamic that conservatives spent years claiming to oppose. The whole argument against “political correctness” and “cancel culture” was supposedly that small groups of oversensitive people shouldn’t be able to dictate what ideas are permissible in public discourse. The argument against trigger warnings was that adults should be able to encounter difficult material without having their hands held. The argument against safe spaces was that the university should be a place of intellectual challenge, not comfort.

Now Texas has built a taxpayer-funded safe space spanning nine campuses and four medical centers, complete with government-mandated trigger warnings (the syllabus disclosure requirement) and an institutionalized process for anyone who finds course material too upsetting to lodge a complaint. How very snowflake of Texas. The only difference here is who gets to be upset.

And then there’s the “broad and balanced approach” requirement, which sounds perfectly reasonable until you think about it for more than three seconds. What does “balance” look like when you’re teaching about the Holocaust? About slavery? The “germ theory” of disease? If a history professor is covering Jim Crow, are they now required to present the segregationist perspective with equal weight in the name of “balance”?

That sounds absurd, and it is. When you refuse to define “controversial” and then mandate “balance” for anything that falls under that undefined umbrella, you’ve created a system where any topic with a political dimension—which is basically every topic in the humanities, social sciences, and increasingly the natural sciences—becomes a minefield.

Allen Liu, policy counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said it could lead to “viewpoint discrimination” and disproportionately affect Black students and faculty by discouraging teaching about slavery, segregation and other subjects central to Black history.

To which, I would imagine, many of the UT Board of Regents would quietly admit among friends “well, yeah, that’s the fucking point.”

It’s also worth noting the broader context in which this is happening:

The vote comes a week after UT-Austin announced it will consolidate its African and African Diaspora Studies, Mexican American and Latino Studies, American Studies, and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies departments into a new Social and Cultural Analysis department. More than 800 students are pursuing majors, minors and graduate degrees in the affected programs.

Ah yes. Basically anything that is not white European heterosexual male focused, all gets shoved into one “those other people over there” department.

Meanwhile, the school is absolutely expanding programs that align with a very particular set of priorities. See if you can figure out which ones:

Last year, UT-Austin was also one of nine universities offered preferential access to federal funding in exchange for agreeing to ensure departments reflect a mix of perspectives and promote civic values and Western civilization, among other requirements.

Some students argue that even without formally signing the agreement, UT-Austin is already moving in that direction. Alfonso Ayala III, a doctoral student in Mexican American and Latina/o Studies at UT-Austin, pointed to the university expanding the conservative-backed School of Civic Leadership as his department loses autonomy.

“It’s hard to understand this as anything other than ideological and political,” Ayala said.

No shit.

And this is just the latest chapter in what has become a remarkable saga of Texas Republicans dismantling the very speech protections they once championed. As we wrote about last year, that 2019 campus free speech law—the one that was supposed to ensure all viewpoints could be heard—suddenly became a problem when pro-Palestinian protesters started using it.

Texas Republicans couldn’t have that.

The original 2019 law was passed specifically because Texas A&M had canceled a white nationalist rally and Texas Southern University had scrapped a conservative speaker’s appearance. The legislature was furious. Free speech must be protected!

But when the same protections enabled pro-Palestinian encampments, suddenly the legislature couldn’t pass restrictions fast enough. New rules on where you can protest, bans on amplification devices during class hours, prohibitions on overnight encampments, restrictions on wearing masks. All the things that were never a problem in the five years between the law’s passage and the moment students started saying things Texas Republicans didn’t want to hear.

So let’s trace the arc here. In 2019, the Texas legislature mandated that universities must allow protests and controversial speakers because free speech is sacred. In 2025, the Texas legislature rolled that back because the wrong people were speaking. And now in 2026, the UT Board of Regents is mandating that professors can’t even teach “unnecessarily controversial” material in their own classrooms—a phrase so deliberately vague that the board chair openly celebrates its ambiguity.

Senator Huffman, who authored the 2019 free speech law and proclaimed that students “should be exposed to all ideas,” voted in favor of restricting protest rights last year and appears to have raised no objection to the new UT policy. Let’s go out on a limb here and say it: the 2019 law was never about ensuring exposure to all ideas. It was about ensuring that a specific set of speakers (white nationalists) saying a specific set of things (racist shit) would have access to university campuses. Once the same mechanism started working for the “wrong” people, it became disposable.

The UT regents will tell you this policy is about “balance.” That it’s about making sure professors stick to their areas of expertise and don’t wander off into political editorializing. But if that were the actual concern, you’d write a clear, specific policy. You’d define your terms. You’d create transparent standards that professors could understand and follow. You would absolutely not describe your own vagueness as a strategic asset.

“Vagueness can be our friend” is what you say when the goal is discretionary power—the ability to punish the speech you don’t like while leaving the speech you do like untouched.

For all the years of rhetoric about snowflakes and safe spaces and the coddled minds of American youth, the actual policy goal was never intellectual rigor. It was control. Control over which ideas get aired, which histories get taught, which perspectives get treated as legitimate, and which get quietly filed under “unnecessarily controversial” and removed from the curriculum.

The people who spent a decade mocking trigger warnings just voted unanimously to impose the biggest trigger warning in the history of American higher education: Warning: This university has been certified free of unnecessary controversy by the State of Texas.

I guess everything really is bigger in Texas. Including the censorship.

03:00 AM

Time is the wildcard [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

There are two feet of snow blocking your car from the road. This is a problem.

Except it’s not a problem if you don’t need to leave the house for a few days—the snow will melt on its own.

And it’s not a problem if you had decided to move to the island of Saba a few years ago. It never snows there.

Traffic on the way to an important meeting is only a problem because we didn’t leave twenty minutes earlier. The rent that’s hard to cover after a vacation—same thing.

The real world feels like the source of our problems. But our decisions over time might be the actual culprits, hiding in the corner.

Instead of treating time as a given and the real world as an impediment, what happens if we accept the real world and make different decisions about time?

      

Pluralistic: Socialist excellence in New York City (24 Feb 2026) [Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow]

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

Today's links


The NYC skyline by night; several buildings have been skinned with elaborate gearing.

Socialist excellence in New York City (permalink)

In her magnificent 2023 book Doppelganger, Naomi Klein describes the "mirror world" of right wing causes that are weird, conspiratorial versions of the actual things that leftists care about:

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

For example, Trump rode to power on the back of Qanon, a movement driven by conspiratorial theories of a cabal of rich and powerful people who were kidnapping, trafficking and abusing children. Qanon followers were driven to the most unhinged acts by these theories, shooting up restaurants and demanding to be let into nonexistent basements:

https://www.newsweek.com/pizzagate-gunman-killed-north-carolina-qanon-2012850

And while Qanon theories about children being disguised as reasonably priced armoires are facially absurd, the right's obsession with imaginary children is a long-established phenomenon:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-53416247

Think of the conservative movement's all-consuming obsession with the imaginary lives of children that aborted fetuses might have someday become, and its depraved indifference to the hunger and poverty of actual children in America:

https://unitedwaynca.org/blog/child-poverty-in-america/

Trump's most ardent followers reorganized their lives around the imagined plight of imaginary children, while making excuses for Trump's first-term "Kids in Cages" policy:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44518942

Obviously, this has only gotten worse in Trump's second term. The same people whose entire political identity is nominally about defending "unborn children" are totally indifferent to the actual born children that DOGE left to die by the thousands:

https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hundreds-of-thousands-of-deaths/

They cheered Israel's slaughter and starvation of children during the siege of Gaza and they are cheering it on still today:

https://www.savethechildren.net/news/gaza-20000-children-killed-23-months-war-more-one-child-killed-every-hour

As for pedophile traffickers, the same Qanon conspiracy theorists who cooked their brains with fantasies about Trump smiting the elite pedophiles are now making excuses for Trump's central role in history's most prolific child rape scandal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Donald_Trump_and_Jeffrey_Epstein

This is the mirror-world as Klein described it: a real problem (elite impunity for child abuse; the sadistic targeting of children in war crimes; the impact of poverty on children) filtered through a fever-swamp of conspiratorial nonsense. It's world that would do anything to save imaginary children while condemning living, real children to grinding poverty, sexual torture, starvation and murder.

Once you know about Klein's mirror-world, you see it everywhere – from conservative panics about the power of Big Tech platforms (that turn out to be panics about what Big Tech does with that power, not about the power of tech itself):

https://pluralistic.net/2026/02/13/khanservatives/#kid-rock-eats-shit

To conservative panics about health – that turn out to be a demand to dismantle America's weak public health system and America's weak regulation of the supplements industry:

https://www.conspirituality.net/episodes/brief-maha-is-a-supplements-grift

But lately, I've been thinking that maybe the mirror shines in both directions: that in addition to the warped reflection of the right's mirror world, there is a left mirror world where we can find descrambled, clarified versions of the right's twisted obsessions.

I've been thinking about this since I read a Corey Robin blog post about Mamdani's campaign rhetoric, in which Mamdani railed against "mediocrity" and promised "excellence":

https://coreyrobin.com/2025/11/15/excellence-over-mediocrity-from-mamdani-to-marx-to-food/

Robin pointed out that while this framing might strike some leftists as oddly right-coded, it has a lineal descent from Marx, who advocated for industrialization and mass production because the alternative would be "universal mediocrity.”

Robin went on to discuss a largely lost thread of "socialist perfectionism" ("John Ruskin and William Morris to Bloomsbury Bolsheviks like Virginia Woolf and John Maynard Keynes") who advocated for the public provision of excellence.

He identifies Marx's own mirror world analysis, pointing out that Marx identified a fundamental difference between capitalist and socialist theories of the division of labor. While capitalists saw the division of labor as a way to increase quantity, socialists were excited by the prospect of increasing quality.

(There's a centaur/reverse centaur comparison lurking in there, too. If you're a centaur radiologist, who gets an AI tool that flags some diagnoses you may have missed, then you're improving the rate of tumor identification. If you're a reverse centaur radiologist who sees 90% of your colleagues fired and replaced with a chatbot whose work you are expected to sign off on at a rate that precludes even cursory inspection, you're increasing X-ray throughput at the expense of accuracy):

https://pluralistic.net/2025/12/05/pop-that-bubble/#u-washington

(In other words: the reverse centaur is the mirror world version of a centaur.)

After the mayoral election, Mamdani doubled down on his pursuit of high-quality public services. In his inaugural speech, Mamdani promised a government "where excellence is no longer the exception":

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/01/nyregion/mamdani-inauguration-speech-transcript.html

Robin was also developing his appreciation for Mamadani's vision of public excellence. In the New York Review of Books, Robin made the case that it was a mistake for Democrats to have ceded the language of efficiency and quality to Republicans:

https://www.nybooks.com/online/2025/12/31/democratic-excellence-zohran-mamdani/

Where Democrats do talk about efficiency, they talk about it in Republican terms: "We'll run the government like a business." Mamdani, by contrast, talks about running the government like a government – a good government, a government committed to excellence.

Writing in Jacobin, Conor Lynch takes a trip into the good side of the mirror world, unpacking the idea of socialist excellence in Mamdani's governance promises:

https://jacobin.com/2026/02/zohran-mamdani-efficiency-nyc-budget/

During the Mamdani campaign, "efficiency" was just one plank of the platform. But once Mamdani took office, he learned that his predecessor, the lavishly corrupt Eric Adams, had lied about the city's finances, leaving a $12b hole in the budget:

https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/01/mayor-mamdani-details–adams-budget-crisis-

Mamdani came to power in New York on an ambitious platform of public service delivery, and not just because this is the right thing to do, but because investment in a city's people and built environment pays off handsomely.

Maintenance is always cheaper than repair, and one of the main differences between a business and a government is that a business's shareholders can starve maintenance budgets, cash out, and leave the collapsing firm behind them, while governments must think about the long term consequences of short-term thinking (the fact that so many Democratic governments have failed to do this is a consequence of Democrats adopting Republicans' framing that a good government is "run like a business").

The best time to invest in New York City was 20 years ago. The second best time in now. For Mamdani to make those investments and correct the failures of his predecessors, he needs to find some money.

Mamdani's proposal for finding this money sounds pretty conservative: he's going to cut waste in government. He's ordered each city agency to appoint a "Chief Savings Officer" who will "review performance, eliminate waste and streamline service delivery." These CSOs are supposed to find a 1.5% across-the-board savings this year and 2.5% next year:

https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/01/mayor-mamdani-signs-executive-order-to-require-chief-savings-off

Does this sound like DOGE to you? It kind of does to me, but – crucially – this is mirror-world DOGE. DOGE's project was to make cuts to government in order to make government "run like a business." Specifically, DOGE wanted to transform the government into the kind of business that makes cuts to juice the quarterly numbers at the expense of long-term health:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2024/10/24/southwest-airlines-bends-to-activist-investor-restructures-board/

But Mamdani's mirror-world DOGE is looking to find efficiencies by cutting things like sweetheart deals with private contractors and consultants, who cost the city billions. It's these private sector delegates of the state that are the source of government waste and bloat.

The literature is clear on this: when governments eliminate their own capacity to serve the people and hire corporations to do it on their behalf, the corporations charge more and deliver less:

https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/02/public-private-partnerships-are-an-industry-gimmick-that-dont-serve-public-well/

As Lynch writes, DOGE's purpose was to dismantle as much of the government as possible and shift its duties to Beltway Bandits who could milk Uncle Sucker for every dime. Mamdani's ambition, meanwhile, is to "restore faith in government [and] demonstrate that the public sector can match or even surpass the private sector in excellence."

As Mamdani said in his inauguration speech, "For too long, we have turned to the private sector for greatness, while accepting mediocrity from those who serve the public."

Turning governments into businesses has been an unmitigated failure. After decades of outsourcing, the government hasn't managed to shrink its payroll, but government workers are today primarily employed in wheedling private contractors to fulfill their promises, even as public spending has quintupled:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-government-too-big-reflections-on-the-size-and-composition-of-todays-federal-government/

Instead of having a government employee do a government job, that govvie oversees a private contractor who costs twice as much…and sucks at their job:

https://www.pogo.org/reports/bad-business-billions-of-taxpayer-dollars-wasted-on-hiring-contractors

There's a wonderful illustration of this principle at work in Edward Snowden's 2019 memoir Permanent Record:

https://memex.craphound.com/2019/09/24/permanent-record-edward-snowden-and-the-making-of-a-whistleblower/

After Snowden broke both his legs during special forces training and washed out, he went to work for the NSA. After a couple years, his boss told him that Congress capped the spy agencies' headcount but not their budgets, so he was going to have to quit his job at the NSA and go to work for one of the NSA's many contractors, because the NSA could hire as many contractors as it wanted.

So Snowden is sent to a recruiter who asks him how much he's making as a government spy. Snowden quotes a modest 5-figure sum. The recruiter is aghast and tells Snowden that he gets paid a percentage of whatever Snowden ends up making as a government contractor, and promptly triples Snowden's government salary. Why not? The spy agencies have unlimited budgets, and will pay whatever the private company that Snowden nominally works for bills them at. Everybody wins!

Ladies and gentlemen, the efficiency of government outsourcing. Run the government like a business!

As bad as this is when the government hires outside contractors to do things, it's even worse when they hire outside contractors to consult on things. Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the Canadian government spent a fortune on consultants, especially at the start of the pandemic:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/31/mckinsey-and-canada/#comment-dit-beltway-bandits-en-canadien

The main beneficiary of these contracts was McKinsey, who were given a blank cheque and no oversight – they were even exempted from rules requiring them to disclose conflicts of interest.

Trudeau raised Canadian government spending by 40%, to $11.8 billion, creating a "shadow civil service" that cost vastly more than the actual civil service – the government spent $1.85b on internal IT expertise, and $2.3b on outside contractors.

These contractors produced some of the worst IT boondoggles in government history, including the bungled "ArriveCAN" contact tracing program. The two-person shop that won the contract outsourced it to KPMG and raked off a 15-30% commission.

Before Trudeau, Stephen Harper paid IBM to build Phoenix – a payroll system that completely failed and was, amazingly, far worse than ArriveCAN. IBM got $309m to build Phoenix, and then Canada spent another $506m to fix it and compensate the people whose lives it ruined.

Wherever you find these contractors, you find stupendous waste and fraud. I remember in the early 2000s, when Dan "City of Sound" Hill was working at the BBC and wanted to try an experiment to distribute MP3s of a radio programme.

The BBC – an organization with a long history of technical excellence – had given the exclusive contract for web delivery to Siemens, who wanted £10,000 to set up a web-server for the experiment. Dan rented a server from an online provider and put it all on his personal card, serving tens of thousands of MP3s for less than £10. It turns out that letting your technical personnel do your technology development costs 1/1000th of what it costs to have contractors do it.

Running your public institution "like a business" is incredibly inefficient. Back when Musk and Ramaswamy announced their plan to cut $2t from the US federal budget, David Dayen published a plan to realize nearly that much savings just by attacking waste arising from running the government "like a business":

https://pluralistic.net/2025/01/27/beltway-bandits/#henhouse-foxes

The US government's own estimate of the losses due to contractor fraud comes out to $274b/year – roughly the size of the entire civil service payroll (the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which Musk sadistically destroyed, accounts for 0.012% of federal spending).

Medicare "upcoding" – a form of fraud committed by companies like United Healthcare, the largest Medicare Advantage provider in the country – costs the public $83b/year:

https://www.medpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Mar24_ExecutiveSummary_MedPAC_Report_To_Congress_SEC.pdf

Congress has banned Medicare and Medicaid from bargaining for pharma prices, which is why the US government pays 178% more than other governments, for the same drugs, which are often developed at public expense:

https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/comparing-prescription-drugs

The Pentagon is a cesspit of waste. It's not just firing spies and rehiring them as contractors at a 300% markup – that's just for starters. The Pentagon receives $840b/year and has failed its last three audits:

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4992913-pentagon-fails-7th-audit-in-a-row-but-says-progress-made/

The conservative version of "efficiency" cashes out to "efficient at extracting value from public institutions, workers and customers." Mamdani's (good) mirror world "efficiency" means providing great public service through investing in public excellence.

New York City is overdue for this kind of overhaul. Everywhere you look in the city, you find high price consultants making out like bandits and starving the city of the funds it needs to deliver. The Second Avenue subway spent more on consultants than it spent on digging tunnels:

https://gothamist.com/news/mta-plans-to-hire-186m-consultant-to-oversee-second-avenue-subway-construction

Mamdani has pledged to audit the Department of Education's 25 largest contracts (the DOE spends $10b/year on outside contractors). He's rolling out "fiscal training and certification" for any government employee involved in procurement.

Mamdani isn't pretending he can bridge the gap that Adams left in the city's finances through efficiency alone: to make up the difference, he is going to tax NYC's millionaires, and ask the state to "rebalance" its relationship with NYC's taxpayers (NYC contributes 54.4% of the state budget, but only gets 40.5% in return).

As Lynch writes, NYC was the birthplace of austerity-driven outsourcing, following from the city's bankruptcy in 1975. 50 years later, Mamdani is bringing that age to a close.

Mamdani knows what the stakes are, too. He called efficiency "the most paramount left-wing concern, because it is either the fulfillment or the betrayal of that which motivates so much of our politics":

https://www.derekthompson.org/p/what-speaks-to-me-about-abundance

Mamdani is reviving the tradition of "sewer socialism," a governing philosophy based on "bringing people into your politics by improving their lives in obvious ways":

https://jacobin.com/2025/12/digital-sewer-socialism-public-ownership

Sewer socialism, public excellence, real efficiency: these are the (good) mirror world versions of the right's obsession with "government efficiency." On the conservative side of the mirror, "efficiency" is an excuse for hamstringing government employees and turning their budgets over to lazy, crooked contractors. On the left's side of the mirror, "efficiency" is building capacity in democratically accountable institutions that care about helping every person, and who deliver tomorrow's excellence by making long-term investments today.

(Image: DAVID ILIFF, CC BY-SA 3.0, modified)

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)

#20yrago UK anti-piracy officer assures Firefox she’ll catch the pirates who copy it https://web.archive.org/web/20060511105535/http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-2051196,00.html

#20yrsago Diane Duane vows to finish trilogy as a reader-supported web-book https://web.archive.org/web/20060630094910/http://outofambit.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_outofambit_archive.html#114069083471800451

#15yrago Order of Odd-Fish, a funny, mannered, hilariously weird epic romp https://memex.craphound.com/2011/02/23/order-of-odd-fish-a-funny-mannered-hilariously-weird-epic-romp/

#15yrsago HOWTO make a batpole flip-top bust switch https://web.archive.org/web/20110218013400/https://www.thenewhobbyist.com/2011/02/wireless-light-switch-or-bust/

#15yrsago Travel guide for American invalids, 1887 https://web.archive.org/web/20110225235315/http://www.butifandthat.com/guide-for-invalids/

#15yrsago Archive.org and 150 libraries create 80,000 lendable ebook library https://archive.org/post/349420/in-library-ebook-lending-program-launched

#15yrsago Scott Walker tricked into spilling his guts to fake Koch brother https://web.archive.org/web/20110226135536/https://www.salon.com/news/the_labor_movement/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/23/koch_walker_call

#10yrsago Bill Gates: Microsoft would backdoor its products in a heartbeat https://web.archive.org/web/20160223175618/https://recode.net/2016/02/22/bill-gates-is-backing-the-fbi-in-its-case-against-apple/

#10yrsago Wikileaks: NSA spied on UN Secretary General and world leaders over climate and trade https://wikileaks.org/nsa-201602/

#10yrsago Donald Trump They Live mask https://web.archive.org/web/20160224101815/http://www.trickortreatstudios.com/they-live-alien-donald-trump-limited-edition-halloween-mask.html

#10yrsago Unicorn vs. Goblins: the third amazing, hilarious Phoebe and her Unicorn collection! https://memex.craphound.com/2016/02/23/unicorn-vs-goblins-the-third-amazing-hilarious-phoebe-and-her-unicorn-collection/

#5yrsago German covid coinages https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/23/acceptable-losses/#Zeitgeist

#5yrsago A voyage to the moon of 1776 https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/23/acceptable-losses/#Filippo-Morghen

#5yrsago Malcolm X's true killers https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/23/acceptable-losses/#deathbeds-r-us

#5yrsago Private equity's nursing home killing spree https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/23/acceptable-losses/#disposable-olds

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

  • "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, 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 ( words today, total)

  • "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

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

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

https://twitter.com/doctorow

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

Three Head-Spinning Epstein Developments [The Status Kuo]

Photo and image courtesy of The Telegraph

There are three notable Epstein developments making headlines. Each strongly suggests the current story, as the Trump White House would prefer us to leave it, is far from complete. The Epstein matter could blow even further open in unexpected ways.

First, following the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, previously known as Prince Andrew, a man named Peter Mandelson, who is the ex-U.K. Ambassador to the United States, was arrested, too. Mandelson was taken in on suspicion of misconduct while in public office, based on evidence obtained in the Epstein probe.

Second, Roger Sollenberger expanded his reporting yesterday about a key victim. That woman had told the FBI directly that Trump sexually assaulted her when she was a child. She was interviewed by agents at least four times. Sollenberger’s new reporting reveals that the victim allegedly refused to cooperate with the FBI against Trump, for as yet unknown reasons, and that her name was initially left unredacted in a previously undisclosed file.

Finally, The Telegraph in the U.K. dropped a blockbuster report yesterday that Epstein had hidden files in storage units across the U.S. and paid private detectives to remove video equipment from his residences, including his place on Epstein Island, to throw off investigators.

These developments are distinct, but they point in the same direction: authorities and press in the U.K., along with independent reporters here, are piecing the puzzle together at increasing speed, and the dominoes are falling. Anyone within the Epstein network should be very worried.

Subscribe now

Mandelson arrest

Both Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson were arrested on the same suspicion: passing confidential government information to Epstein. Under U.K. law, if an officer “willfully neglects to perform their duty” or “willfully misconducts themselves” in a way that abuses the public’s trust, it’s a crime.

Apparently the British take this violation of the public’s trust far more seriously than we do here. If Mandelson is later charged and convicted of this crime, it carries a possible life sentence.

Mandelson isn’t well known to us in the U.S., but in the U.K. he’s widely recognized as a longtime Labour Party strategist and one of Britain’s most famous political figures. The latest batch of Epstein documents reveal that in 2009, when Mandelson was a cabinet minister under Gordon Brown, he apparently passed confidential and market-sensitive information to Epstein.

Why he would do that remains a mystery, but as I’ll discuss later in this piece, there may be troubling reasons.

The involvement of Mandelson with Epstein is a full-blown scandal in the U.K and even threatens to topple Keir Starmer as Prime Minister. Two close Starmer aides, who were political allies of Mandelson, resigned earlier this month. That has the British press and British investigators working overtime to chase down new Epstein leads and evidence, given how their own government and public figures are now thoroughly embroiled in this widening scandal. That’s already yielded significant new information, as I’ll also discuss below.

The possibility of serious charges against both Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson could, in theory, result in cooperation agreements with British authorities in exchange for leniency. The possibility that one or both men could sing raises the risk for anyone else in those higher Epstein circles, including, of course, Donald Trump.

Was she too frightened to implicate Trump?

Last week, I wrote twice about Roger Sollenberger’s excellent reporting concerning a key victim of Epstein. As I summarized, that victim had made credible and direct allegations against Trump, but the Justice Department apparently sought to bury the evidence.

I say “credible and direct” because the FBI did us the favor of summarizing her key allegation in a PowerPoint slide under the subheading “Trump.” And I say “bury the evidence” because, as Sollenberger reported, three of the interview forms and associated notes were removed from a list and only reappeared following his reporting. Importantly, none of that evidence has yet to be produced, but there is now a gigantic target on it.

Yesterday, Sollenberger further reported:

  • The Justice Department initially exposed the name of the Trump accuser before redacting it;

  • It chose to review and release some files in a manner that complicated the process and made it potentially legally problematic; and

  • The FBI appears to have approached the victim about a criminal investigation or potential prosecution against Trump, but she “refused to cooperate.”

Whenever the DOJ exposes a victim’s name, even if inadvertently, it raises the stakes for harassment, threats or retaliation. Perhaps that’s the point, but it’s hard to prove this exposure is intentional rather than incompetent; the two often go hand in hand with this regime.

The victim in this case is being given particularly close attention and safeguards by the DOJ, yet the department is still recklessly exposing her identity. Sollenberger notes,

As independent journalists Nina Burleigh and Kate Chenoweth reported last week, this woman appears to have had a unique status in the Epstein case: No other victim or witness in the DOJ’s full Epstein case file index is marked “PROTECT SOURCE.” Any victim or witness in this case would have a reason to fear retaliation from any number of wealthy, powerful, well-connected men. Only one of them — the Trump accuser — appears to have this note next to her name, which the DOJ still managed to publish.

The fact that there is a victim tied directly to Trump has not been lost on investigators. An internal FBI email dated July 22, 2025, just two days before Todd Blanche interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell in prison, lists “Names in JE files.” The very first name on the list is Donald Trump, and the email notes “one identified victim claimed abuse by Trump but ultimately refused to cooperate.” No other names have notes by them.

As I wrote earlier, we have some indication why she may have refused to cooperate. In the one FBI interview that was released (out of the four that exist), the victim’s attorney cited “fear of retaliation” when Trump’s name came up.

Epstein storage lockers? Really?!

The Telegraph broke a potentially huge story yesterday: Jeffrey Epstein kept storage lockers around the country that apparently have never been searched. This is almost too wild to be true, but it backs up the reporting with receipts. The first four paragraphs alone are enough to fill a whole new chapter of this saga:

Jeffrey Epstein hid computers and photographs from United States authorities in secret storage lockers across the country, The Telegraph can reveal.

Documents uncovered by this newspaper show the paedophile paid private detectives to remove equipment from his Florida home in an apparent attempt to prevent investigators from finding it.

The documents also show that he rented six storage units across the US and used them to house items from his properties, including computers from Little Saint James, his private island in the Caribbean.

He leased at least one unit from 2003, when he was part of a Florida social set that included Donald Trump. Credit card receipts obtained by The Telegraph show regular storage payments continued until 2019, the year of his death.

Those are some forensic deep dives. And now I and many others have big questions.

First, why didn’t the FBI ever search these storage lockers? If they contain computer and video equipment, they may contain footage of crimes being committed at his residence, which he allegedly recorded using hidden cameras.

Second, could this explain why relatively little photographic or video evidence has been produced so far? Do they really have it all and are simply withholding it, or is it still in the damn lockers?

Third, was Epstein using this material for blackmail or other nefarious purposes? The Telegraph earlier reported that Epstein had ordered staff to install secret cameras inside Kleenex boxes at his home after a contact told him “the Russians may come in handy.” Not suspicious at all, right?

Fourth, the FBI previously said there was no evidence that Epstein was stashing away compromising material. But don’t they watch crime dramas, where the bad guys always rent off-site storage lockers?

Fifth, Epstein’s many residences had plenty of basement and storage space. Why would he also need storage space off site, if not to hide things he didn’t want authorities to discover?

The Telegraph provides just one example of how the paper trail points to the existence of missing digital materials. Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre, now deceased, had filed a civil lawsuit in 2009 against Epstein, and she sought materials from one of his detectives, Bill Riley. His email to Epstein’s lawyer is telling:

“Over the weekend I learned that plaintiff’s counsel are looking to get from me the computers and paperwork I took from Jeff’s house prior to the Search Warrant.

“I have them locked in storage and would like to know what to do with them. They are no longer needed in the criminal case, I assume. Is it possible to give you these items for your review and safekeeping or give it to Darren Indyke [Epstein’s lawyer] or back to Jeff, etc.?”

The email further said the drives in lockup were to be copied, or “cloned.” But it’s unclear what happened to the originals or any copies.

Congressional investigators and the U.K. press will be keen to follow up on what, if anything, may still exist in these Epstein storage lockers. Perhaps they’re long empty, but perhaps not. The fact that there may still be much more and the FBI simply ignored it—or worse, actually obtained it but never publicly disclosed that fact because it was trying to protect powerful people—is a potential game-changer.

The mere existence of previously unreported rented storage lockers strongly suggests that we’ve only just begun to peel away the outer layers of what’s out there on Epstein and his circle of pedophiles. We owe the British authorities and the British press a big thank you for doing what we have been incapable of because our own institutions are so badly corrupted.

But owing to the Brits, powerful figures are being arrested in the U.K. and the truth is now far closer to coming out.

Indeed, it could break like a dam.

12:00 AM

New Release: Tor Browser 15.0.7 [Tor Project blog]

Tor Browser 15.0.7 is now available from the Tor Browser download page and also from our distribution directory.

This version includes important security updates to Firefox.

Send us your feedback

If you find a bug or have a suggestion for how we could improve this release, please let us know.

Full changelog

The full changelog since Tor Browser 15.0.6 is:

  • All Platforms
  • Windows + macOS + Linux
    • Updated Firefox to 140.8.0esr
  • Android

Trump Demands Firing Of Netflix Board Member For Suggesting U.S. Corporations Might Someday Be Held Accountable [Techdirt]

We’ve noted repeatedly how Trump wants to scuttle Netflix’s proposed merger with Warner Brothers because his friend and key donor, billionaire Larry Ellison wants to buy Warner Brothers (and CNN) instead. In fact the two have already purportedly met to discuss which CNN anchors they’d like to fire once Larry (who just bought CBS and part of TikTok) gains control.

To move this project along, MAGA has launched a lazy agitprop campaign across right wing media lamenting Netflix’s purported “wokeness.” Trump’s DOJ has also launched a fake antitrust inquiry into the Netflix Warner Brothers merger under the pretense that they’re “trying to protect the public interest” (they’ve issued no such statements of concern about the proposed Paramount deal, of course).

Now Trump has started openly calling for the firing of Netflix board member Susan Rice. Her crime? Apparently issuing some public words of caution to corporations that have broken the law during Trump’s reign, reminding them there may be accountability under future Democratic administrations:

“Rice said, “If these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to, you know, play by the old rules, and, you know, say, ‘Oh, never mind. We’ll forgive you for all the people you fired, all the policies and principles you’ve violated, all, you know, the laws you’ve skirted.’ I think they’ve got another thing coming.”

That Democrats will hold corporations meaningfully accountable for crimes and misbehaviors during Trump’s tenure certainly isn’t any sort of guaranteed mathematics. Centrist Democrats like to dabble in regulatory performance, but meaningfully, consistently, and effectively standing up to corporate power has never been what you’d call a strong suit for party leadership.

What triggered Donald’s latest toddler moment? Apparently a post by right wing extremist Laura Loomer on Elon Musk’s right wing propaganda website:

“In his Truth Social post, Trump linked to an X post from far-right activist Laura Loomer, who wrote that Rice is “threatening half of the country with weaponized government political retribution.” She also forecast that if Netflix is allowed to acquire Warner Bros., “positive messaging of the Democrats’ upcoming witch hunts against Trump from Barack Hussein Obama and his anti-White racist wife Michelle would likely be blasted across all streaming services.”

This ties in to the broader campaign to lie and claim that Netflix (an opportunistic company that airs whatever makes money regardless of ideology) is somehow left wing, to better bolster the argument that Larry Ellison and U.S. autocratic allies should control the entirety of U.S. media instead.

Trump and Trump Republicans have zero credibility whatsoever on antitrust or competition issues. The Trump DOJ gambit is being conducted entirely in bad faith. But as our corporate media consolidates, you may notice they’re utterly incapable of communicating that to readership. Which is to say our shitty press is going to help sell the Trump and Ellison con here:

As always there’s a lot of projection going on. Ellison really does want to gobble up the lion’s share of U.S. media and shovel his right wing ideology down the public’s throat (See: CBS). It’s very clear he and other members of MAGA aspire to the kind of autocratic-media model seen in Orban’s Hungary, where most outlets are owned by the autocrats’ closest allies and pepper the public with agitprop 24 hours a day.

Ideally you’d block all additional media consolidation, as it almost always results in mass layoffs, higher prices, and lower quality product. That said, Trump’s fake-populist regulators aren’t going to do that, and combating fascism requires some strange bedfellows. So if the country’s choice is homogenized Netflix cack or autocrat-friendly state television, it’s not really much of a choice at all.

Kanji of the Day: 格 [Kanji of the Day]

格

✍10

小5

status, rank, capacity, character, case (law, grammar)

カク　コウ　キャク　ゴウ

価格   (かかく)   —   price
資格   (しかく)   —   qualifications
性格   (せいかく)   —   character (of a person)
合格   (ごうかく)   —   passing (an exam)
本格的   (ほんかくてき)   —   genuine
格差   (かくさ)   —   qualitative difference
格好   (かっこ)   —   shape
本格   (ほんかく)   —   original method
格闘ゲーム   (かくとうゲーム)   —   fighting game (esp. one-on-one)
格闘   (かくとう)   —   fight

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Shorter Certificate Lifetimes and Rate Limits [Let's Encrypt]

As previously announced, over the next two years we will be switching the default certificate lifetime from 90 days to 64 days, and then 45 days. This will ultimately double the number of certificate renewal requests each day: today we expect renewal around day 60 (of a 90-day certificate), while in the future we expect renewal around day 30 (of a 45-day certificate). If you use an ACME client that supports ARI, this will happen automatically.

The good news for subscribers is that you don’t need any changes to your rate limits, whether you are using our default limits or have requested an override. Our rate limits affect issuance for new domain names (or groups of domain names), but renewals are exempt. So, for instance, if you are managing a set of 15,000 certificates that you continually renew, and create 250 new certificates (with new domain names) each day, you will be well within our limits both before and after the transition. The 250 new certificates daily will still be well under our New Orders per Account limit of 300 per day. And the 15,000 existing certificates will continue to be unaffected by rate limits, whether your ACME client is renewing them every sixty days or every thirty.

Tuesday 2026-02-24

11:00 PM

Meta Employee Deleted 9TB of Torrented Files, Adult Film Producers Claim [TorrentFreak]

moviegenIn July 2025, adult content producers Strike 3 Holdings and Counterlife Media filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Meta.

The complaint accused the tech company of using adult films to assist its AI model training. Similar claims have been made by other rightsholders, including many book authors.

This latest case, with over 350 million dollars in potential damages, specifically focuses on Meta’s BitTorrent activity that was recorded in detail through proprietary torrent tracking software. That’s no surprise, as plaintiff Strike 3 is the most active copyright litigant in the United States, known for targeting thousands of alleged BitTorrent pirates based on similar evidence.

Meta responded in October by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing the sporadic downloads were consistent with ordinary ‘personal use’ by employees and visitors on the corporate network. It was certainly not a coordinated AI training effort, Meta countered.

‘Meta Employee Deleted 9TB of Torrented Files’

The motion to dismiss remains pending and, meanwhile, the case is heating up in other areas. Last week, the parties filed their joint discovery plan, which Strike 3 used to raise a rather eye-popping allegation.

Meta said that it prefers to delay written evidence discovery requests in this case until the court ruled on its motion to dismiss. However, Strike 3 would like to start gathering evidence right away, fearing that key data may otherwise disappear.

Strike 3’s legal team points out that, at a February 5 hearing in the unrelated Kadrey v. Meta book-authors case, lawyers revealed that a Meta employee had recently deleted over nine terabytes of torrented files. Fearing more deletions, Strike 3 asks the court to allow discovery in the present case to begin immediately.

“Because of the tangible risk that relevant evidence may be deleted by Meta’s employees, Plaintiffs respectfully request that they be allowed to conduct discovery immediately,” the plaintiffs write.

Deleted?

kadrey delete

In the same filing, Meta’s legal team immediately tried to defuse the deletion claim. Meta says that no data was spoiled and clarified that it will preserve all evidence as it is legally obliged to do.

“Plaintiffs mischaracterize the Kadrey record. There was no spoliation in Kadrey, which is an unrelated case, and in any event Meta has an appropriate hold in place and is abiding by its preservation obligations,” Meta writes.

Torrent Evidence

The discovery plan also provides the clearest picture yet of what Strike 3 actually wants to find. Among the targets is Meta’s Machine Learning Hub “ML Hub,” including downloaded digital media files, torrenting-related metadata, and labeling data for content acquired from BitTorrent.

Strike 3 also wants logs of Meta servers communicating over “PySpark or Fairspark protocols,” suggesting it believes these tools were used to coordinate downloads across Meta’s infrastructure. Separately, the company is seeking records tying Meta’s alleged hidden “off-infra” IP addresses to Amazon Web Services instances.

The discovery list is broad by design, and the above are just a few examples. In essence, Strike 3 wants all policies, directives, and algorithms related to torrenting. They hope that this information will help to back up their copyright infringement claims.

Meta’s Defense & Trial Date

While Strike 3 references thousands of downloads, Meta stresses that the complaint only mentions 157 downloads from Meta’s corporate IP addresses over seven years. They note that this is illustrative of personal use, rather than an organized data collection effort.

Meta also explains that the alleged downloads began years before it started researching generative video AI, making a coordinated training effort even more implausible. In addition, Meta says that Strike 3 has “no facts whatsoever” linking it to the thousands of additional third-party IP addresses that are named in the complaint.

While Meta’s motion to dismiss is still unresolved, both parties are also looking ahead. While they differ on the exact timing of various deadlines, both believe that an eventual trial can take place in the first half of 2028, if it gets to that.

—

A copy of the parties’ 26(f) discovery plan, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is available here (pdf). We will add a copy of the transcript as soon as we notice that it is publicly posted.

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

03:00 PM

MAHA People Are Mad At RFK Jr. And For Good Reason As He Reverses Stance On Glyphosate [Techdirt]

One of the more perplexing questions in all of the coverage I’ve done on RFK Jr. has been whether or not Kennedy is some misguided true believer or if this is all some grift for power, influence, and/or money. While most people who watch how RFK Jr. has operated on the topic of vaccines, for instance, both before and after he entered government, they assume he’s a real, if stupid, crusader. But they will tell you the same when it comes to processed foods and pesticides, two topics on which Kennedy has also crusaded for years, and two topics that have been noticeably absent or reversed now that he’s in government.

The pesticide topic was recently thrust back into the news. Trump signed an executive order that essentially demanded that two chemicals be produced in higher quantities: phosphorus and glyphosate. Kennedy then came out to cheerlead the executive order as well, which was odd when you consider what glyphosate is chiefly used for.

Trump on Wednesday night signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to compel the domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides. Glyphosate is the chemical in Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup and is the most commonly used herbicide for a slew of U.S. crops. Trump, in the order, said shortages of both phosphorus and glyphosate would pose a risk to national security.

Kennedy backed the president in a statement to CNBC Thursday morning.

“Donald Trump’s Executive Order puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply,” he said. “We must safeguard America’s national security first, because all of our priorities depend on it. When hostile actors control critical inputs, they weaken our security. By expanding domestic production, we close that gap and protect American families.”

Bayer-Monsanto has been the defendant in a number of lawsuits over its Roundup product. Specifically, those suits have been powered by claims that glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a form of cancer primarily impacting blood cells. Whether or not you or I think those claims are true, Kennedy sure said he did, since he acted as counsel in some of these suits.

Kennedy, a former environmental attorney, notably once won a nearly $290 million case against Monsanto for a man who claimed his cancer was caused by Roundup. The executive order came down one day after Bayer proposed paying $7.25 billion to settle a series of lawsuits claiming Roundup causes cancer.

The MAHA crowd is understandably pissed. Building a career on these very concrete health stances, only to reverse course while in government to appease Dear Leader, is a fairly horrible look. And it’s actually a worst of both worlds situation, as his MAHA crowd is pointing to his failed promises and hypocrisy, while those who are generally his opponents are pointing out that this might be a stance in which he was actually acting rationally before pulling a u-turn.

“This was one of the few issues where Secretary Kennedy actually embraced credible science,” said Kayla Hancock, Director of Public Health Watch, a project of Protect Our Care. “But RFK Jr. tossed out his years of anti-pesticide advocacy and conviction like a used tissue to stay in the good graces of Donald Trump, who cares more about making his chemical company donors happy than protecting the public’s health. This makes it clear, Secretary Kennedy has no problem selling out his supposed value if there’s a quick buck to be made for special interest donors, or political points to be scored.” 

This seems as close to a solid answer to the question I posed at the start of this post as we’re likely to get. Kennedy, whatever else he might be, is not a true-believing crusader willing to hold firm to his beliefs. He simply does and says whatever will propel his influence and revenue. That’s it.

You’ve been lied to, MAHA people. Lied to and used to put in office the very people who have betrayed you. Let that sink in.

02:00 PM

Trump Should Have Taken the Loss [The Status Kuo]

Photo courtesy of The Atlantic Council

On Friday, a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court, including two of his own appointees, struck down Trump’s “Liberation Day” and other tariffs.

The decision was a long time coming, and there is a lot to unwind, including who, if anyone, will be repaid the $175 billion in tariffs illegally collected so far.

But before we consider that remedy down the road, there are three things to note at this point.

First, the reason Trump lost might well bleed over into other major challenges to his executive actions and overreach. This could affect major upcoming cases, from illegal impoundment to his efforts to “nationalize” elections.

Second, Trump’s rage and overt attacks on the justices won’t do him any favors in those cases. It’s foolish to antagonize the very people who will decide the limits of his power.

And third, his middle finger to the decision in the form of a worldwide tariff of 15 percent is both legally dubious and politically stupid.

Subscribe now

“Major questions” comes back to bite

Last April in a piece in The Big Picture, I highlighted a legal vulnerability in Trump’s tariff policies: the so-called “Major Questions” doctrine. I wrote at the time,

A far more promising avenue for challenging Trump’s tariffs comes from something the Chief Justice appears to have made up himself: the so-called “Major Questions” doctrine. This is more a question of statutory interpretation than one addressing the constitutional delegation of powers. It says that whenever the White House is embarking upon new programs with “vast economic or political significance,” that program must have specific authorization from Congress.

I highlighted the Court’s use of this newly invented doctrine to strike down Biden-era student loan forgiveness programs and predicted that it would be deployed against Trump to invalidate his tariff scheme.

And indeed, to my admitted satisfaction, the “major questions” doctrine was the basis for the majority striking down Trump’s tariffs in the Learning Resources opinion last Friday:

The Court has long expressed ‘reluctan[ce] to read into ambiguous statutory test’ extraordinary delegations of Congress’s powers…In Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477 (2023), for example, we declined to read authorization to “waive or modify” statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs as a delegation of power to cancel $430 billion in student loan debt….

“We have described several of these cases as ‘major questions’ cases…. [B]oth separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent” suggested Congress would not have delegated “highly consequential power” through ambiguous language.

Of particular interest was Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence. I should first caution that I rarely agree with Gorsuch on anything. The amount of common ground is exactly this small patch, where he writes,

The Constitution lodges the Nation’s lawmaking powers in Congress alone, and the major questions doctrine safeguards that assignment against executive encroachment. Under the doctrine’s terms, the President must identify clear statutory authority for the extraordinary delegated power he claims. And, as the principal opinion explains, that is a standard he cannot meet. Whatever else might be said about Congress’s work in IEEPA, it did not clearly surrender to the President the sweeping tariff power he seeks to wield.

Gorsuch swipes at the liberals, then he swipes at the radicals (whom he usually joins) but concludes with this message, with which I find myself in whole agreement:

For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day. In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future. For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious. But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.

The White House would do well to note this concurrence, because its reasoning could apply to upcoming challenges to Trump’s authority, including additional tariffs, the War Powers Resolution, and his attempts to wrest control of federal elections from the states.

If he starts to lose Gorsuch on some of these big cases, Trump’s position with even this radical Court is more precarious than he may realize.

Sure, attack the justices personally, that will work!

It was inevitable that Trump would go off on social media and in his public speeches against the justices who dared tell him that his powers were limited by law. But even for Trump, this time he took things a bit far. He personally attacked the justices, even claiming, without evidence, that they were “swayed for foreign interests.”

Such a charge is rich coming from the man steeped in conflicts of interest with foreign nations and whose family regularly receives gifts and crypto investments from them.

Trump also brought the justices’ loved ones up in a veiled threat upon them. “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families,” Trump said, knowing how this rhetoric could result in direct threats against the justices’ family members from his more rabid and unhinged followers. It was stochastic terrorism as only Trump can deploy.

His tirade even drew a rare rebuke from the Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board (as opposed to its newsroom, which has done a stellar job of holding him to account). Those far-right editors wrote,

President Trump owes the Supreme Court an apology—to the individual Justices he smeared on Friday and the institution itself. Mr. Trump doubtless won’t offer one, but his rant in response to his tariff defeat at the Court was arguably the worst moment of his Presidency.

I wouldn’t say “worst,” but it was likely one of the stupidest.

Perhaps the justices are accustomed to Trump behaving this way. But perhaps they’re also aware that any two of them who just voted with the majority could sink much of his authoritarian agenda.

Trump seems wholly oblivious to this reality, but the fact remains that he is threatening the justices at his own peril.

A new 15 percent global tariff isn’t the flex Trump thinks

Within moments of the decision’s announcement, and as if he had anticipating the ruling, Trump officially responded by declaring a 15 percent worldwide tariff on all imports, presumably under Section 122 of the Trade Act.

Let’s break this down a bit.

Section 122 isn’t about trade deficits, which were the basis for his “emergency” announcements and “Liberation Day” tariffs. Rather, that section concerns “balance of payments” deficits and how to deal with an economic crisis by raising tariffs.

So, what is a “balance of payment” deficit? I had to look this up, too, so don’t feel bad.

Balance of payment deficits occur when a country is losing reserves and can’t finance its international obligations due to capital flight, falling reserves, attacks on its currency, etc. It’s real crisis level stuff. But that’s not the U.S. today. Very few economists would say we’re experiencing a “balance of payments” situation.

The White House will argue that’s not up to anyone but Trump and his advisors to decide, but they may have to back this up in court. So expect lawsuits and motions for injunctions on these new tariffs. Trump’s own lawyers may have sunk this argument inadvertently by arguing earlier that Section 122 doesn’t have any obvious application to what Trump was addressing under the IEEPA and noting that balance of payments deficits are conceptually distinct from trade deficits.

Even if this legal effort stalls out in the courts, as we’ve seen happen before, Trump can only impose the tariffs for 150 days without obtaining reauthorization from Congress.

That timing is rather interesting. It would place tariffs front and center in late summer, just in time for it to remind voters in the midterms how much they hate Trump’s tariffs.

In short, Trump could have done the smart thing and used the Supreme Court’s ruling as an off-ramp from his disastrous tariff policy—and then blamed the Court for any continued economic fallout.

Instead, Trump lashed out and alienated the “swing” members of the Court, including a critical vote from Justice Gorsuch, all while reinstating tariffs for up to 150 days and forcing the GOP-led Congress to vote on them as voters focus on the midterms. It is a self-inflicted political and legal disaster—and he has no one to blame but himself.

10:00 AM

How Copyright Litigation Over Anne Frank’s Diary Could Impact The Fate Of VPNs In The EU [Techdirt]

“The Diary of a Young Girl” is a Dutch language diary written by the young Jewish writer Anne Frank while she was in hiding for two years with her family during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. Although the diary and Anne Frank’s death in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp are well known, few are aware that the text has a complicated copyright history – one that could have important implications for the legal status and use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) in the EU. TorrentFreak explains the copyright background:

These copyrights are controlled by the Swiss-based Anne Frank Fonds, which was the sole heir of Anne’s father, Otto Frank. The Fonds states that many print versions of the diary remain protected for decades, and even the manuscripts are not freely available everywhere.

In the Netherlands, for example, certain sections of the manuscripts remain protected by copyright until 2037, even though they have entered the public domain in neighboring countries like Belgium.

A separate foundation, the Netherlands-based Anne Frank Stichting, wanted to publish a scholarly edition of Anne Frank’s writing, at least in those parts of the world where her diary was in the public domain:

To navigate these conflicting laws, the Dutch Anne Frank Stichting published a scholarly edition online using “state-of-the-art” geo-blocking to prevent Dutch residents from accessing the site. Visitors from the Netherlands and other countries where the work is protected are met with a clear message, informing them about these access restrictions.

However, the Anne Frank Fonds was unhappy with this approach, and took legal action. Its argument was that such geo-blocking could be circumvented with VPNs, and so its copyrights in the Netherlands could be infringed upon by those using VPNs. The lower courts in the Netherlands dismissed this argument, and the case is now before the Dutch Supreme Court. Beyond the specifics of the Anne Frank scholarly edition, there are important issues regarding the use of VPNs to get around geo-blocking. Because of the potential knock-on effect the ruling in this case will have on EU law, the Dutch Supreme Court has asked for guidance from the EU’s top court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

The CJEU has yet to rule on the issues raised. But one of the court’s advisors, Advocate General Rantos, has published a preliminary opinion, as is normal in such cases. Although that advice is not binding on the CJEU, it often provides some indication as to how the court may eventually decide. On the main issue of whether the ability of people to circumvent geo-blocking is a problem, Rantos writes:

the fact that users manage to circumvent a geo-blocking measure put in place to restrict access to a protected work does not, in itself, mean that the entity that put the geo-blocking in place communicates that work to the public in a territory where access to it is supposed to be blocked. Such an interpretation would make it impossible to manage copyright on the internet on a territorial basis and would mean that any communication to the public on the internet would be global.

Moreover:

As the [European] Commission pointed out in its written observations, the holder of an exclusive right in a work does not have the right to authorise or prohibit, on the basis of the right granted to it in one Member State, communication to the public in another Member State in which that right has ceased to have effect.

Or, more succinctly: “service providers in the public domain country cannot be subject to unreasonable requirements”. That’s a good, common-sense view. But perhaps just as important is the following comment by Rantos regarding the use of VPNs to circumvent geo-blocking:

as the Commission points out in its observations, VPN services are legally accessible technical services which users may, however, use for unlawful purposes. The mere fact that those or similar services may be used for such purposes is not sufficient to establish that the service providers themselves communicate the protected work to the public. It would be different if those service providers actively encouraged the unlawful use of their services.

That’s an important point at a time when VPNs are under attack from some governments because of concerns about possible copyright infringement by those using them.

The hope has to be that the CJEU will agree with its Advocate General’s sensible and fair analysis, and will rule accordingly. But there is another important aspect to this story. The basic issue is that the Anne Frank Stichting wants to make its scholarly edition of Anne Frank’s diary available as widely as possible. That seems a laudable aim, since it will increase understanding and appreciation of the young woman’s remarkable diary by publishing an academically rigorous version. And yet the Anne Frank Fonds has taken legal action to stop that move, on the grounds that it would represent an infringement of its intellectual monopoly in some parts of Frank’s work, in some parts of the world. The current dispute is another clear example of how copyright has become for some an end in itself, more important than the things that it is supposed to promote.

Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on Bluesky. Republished from Walled Culture.

08:00 AM

Yes, Section 230 Should Apply Equally To Algorithmic Recommendations [Techdirt]

If you’ve spent any time in my Section 230 myth-debunking guide, you know that most bad takes on the law come from people who haven’t read it. But lately I keep running into a different kind of bad take—one that often comes from people who have read the law, understand the basics passably well, and still say: “Sure, keep 230 as is, but carve out algorithmically recommended content.”

Unlike the usual nonsense, this one is often (though not always) offered in good faith. That makes it worth engaging with seriously.

It’s still wrong.

Let’s start with the basics: as we’ve described at great length, the real benefits of Section 230 are its procedural protections, which make it so that vexatious cases get tossed out at the earliest (i.e., cheapest) stage. That makes it possible for sites that host third party content to do so in a way that they won’t get sued out of existence any time anyone has a complaint about someone else’s content being on the site. This important distinction gets lost in almost every 230 debate, but it’s important. Because if the lawsuits that removing 230 protections would enable would still eventually win on First Amendment grounds, the only thing you’re doing in removing 230 protections is making lawsuits impossibly expensive for individuals and smaller providers, without doing any real damage to large companies, who can survive those lawsuits easily.

And that takes us to the key point: removing Section 230 for algorithmic recommendations would only lead to vexatious lawsuits that will fail.

But what about [specific bad thing]?

Before diving into the legal analysis, let’s engage with the strongest version of this argument. Proponents of carving out algorithmic recommendations typically aren’t imagining ordinary defamation suits. They’re worried about something more specific: cases where an algorithm itself arguably causes harm through its recommendation patterns—radicalization pipelines, engagement-driven amplification of dangerous content, recommendation systems that push vulnerable users toward self-harm.

The theory goes something like this: maybe the underlying content is protected speech, but the act of recommending it—especially when the algorithm was designed to maximize engagement and the company knew this could cause harm—should create liability, usually as some sort of “products liability” type complaint.

It’s a more sophisticated argument than “platforms are publishers.” But it still fails, for reasons I’ll explain below. The short version: a recommendation is an opinion, opinions are protected speech, and the First Amendment doesn’t carve out “opinions expressed via algorithm” as a special category.

A short history of algorithmic feeds

To understand why removing 230 from algorithmic recommendations would be such a mistake, it helps to remember the apparently forgotten history of how we got here. In the pre-social media 2000s, “information overload” was the panic of the moment. Much of the discussion centered on the “new” technology of RSS feeds, and there were plenty of articles decrying too much information flooding into our feed readers. People weren’t worried about algorithms—they were desperate for them. Articles breathlessly anticipated magical new filtering systems that might finally surface what you actually wanted to see.

The most prominent example was Netflix, back when it was still shipping DVDs. Because there were so many movies you could rent, Netflix built one of the first truly useful recommendation algorithms—one that would take your rental history and suggest things you might like. The entire internet now looks like that, but in the mid-2000s, this was revolutionary.

Netflix’s approach was so novel that they famously offered $1 million to anyone who could improve their algorithm by 10%. We followed that contest for years as it twisted and turned until a winner was finally announced in 2009. Incredibly, Netflix never actually implemented the winning algorithm—but the broader lesson was clear: recommendation algorithms were valuable, and people wanted them.

As social media grew, the “information overload” panic of the blog+RSS era faded, precisely because platforms added recommendation algorithms to surface content users were most likely to enjoy. The algorithms weren’t imposed on users against their will—they were the answer to users’ prayers.

Public opinion only seemed to shift on “algorithms” after Donald Trump was elected in 2016. Many people wanted something to blame, and “social media algorithms” was a convenient excuse.

Algorithmic feeds: good or bad?

Many people claim they just want a chronological feed, but studies consistently show the vast majority of people prefer algorithmic recommendations, because they surface more of what users actually want, compared to chronological feeds.

That said, it’s not as simple as “algorithms good.” There’s evidence that algorithms optimized purely for engagement can push emotionally charged political content that users don’t actually want (something Elon Musk might take notice of). But there’s also evidence that chronological feeds expose users to more untrustworthy content, because algorithms often filter out garbage.

So, algorithms can be good or bad depending on what they’re optimized for and who controls them. That’s the real question: will any given regulatory approach give more power to users, to companies, or to the government?

Keep that frame in mind. Because removing 230 protections for algorithmic recommendations shifts power away from users and toward incumbents and litigants.

The First Amendment still exists

As mentioned up top, the real role of Section 230 is providing a procedural benefit to get vexatious lawsuits tossed well before (and at much lower cost) they would get tossed anyway, under the First Amendment. With Section 230, you can get a case dismissed for somewhere in the range of $50k to $100k (maybe up to $250k with appeals and such). If you have to rely on the First Amendment, it’s up in the millions of dollars (probably $5 to $10 million).

And, the crux of this is that any online service sued over an algorithmic recommendation, even for something horrible, would almost certainly win on First Amendment grounds.

Because here’s the key point: a recommendation feed is a website’s opinion of what they think you want to see. And an opinion is protected speech. Even if you think it’s a bad or dangerous opinion. One thing that the US has been pretty clear on is that opinions are protected speech.

Saying that an internet service can be held liable for giving its opinion on “what we think you’d like to see” would be earth shatteringly problematic. As partly discussed above, the modern internet today relies heavily on algorithms recommending stuff, giving opinions. Every search result is just that, an opinion.

This is why the “algorithms are different” argument fails. Yes, there’s a computer involved. Yes, the recommendation emerges from machine learning rather than a human editor’s conscious decision. But the output is still an expression of judgment: “Based on what we know, we think you’ll want to see this.” That’s an opinion. The First Amendment doesn’t distinguish between opinions formed by editorial meetings and opinions formed by trained models.

In the earlier internet era, there were companies that sued Google because they didn’t like how their own sites appeared (or didn’t appear) in Google search results. The E-Ventures v. Google case here is instructive. Google determined that E-Venture’s “SEO” techniques were spammy, and de-indexed all its sites. E-Ventures sued. Google (rightly) raised a 230 defense which (surprisingly!) a court rejected.

But the case went on longer, and after lots more money on lawyers was spent, Google did prevail on First Amendment grounds.

This is exactly what we’re discussing here. Google search ranking is an algorithmic recommendation engine, and in this one case a court (initially) rejected a 230 defense, causing everyone to spend more money… to get to the same basic result in the long run. The First Amendment protects a website using algorithms to express an opinion over what it thinks you’ll want… or not want.

Who has agency?

This brings us back to the steelman argument I mentioned above: what about cases where an algorithm recommends something genuinely dangerous?

Our legal system has a clear answer, and it’s grounded in agency. A recommendation feed is not hypnotic. If an algorithm surfaces content suggesting you do something illegal or dangerous, you still have to make the choice to do the illegal or dangerous thing. The algorithm doesn’t control you. You have agency.

But there’s a stronger legal foundation here too. Courts have consistently found that recommending something dangerous is still protected by the First Amendment, particularly when the recommender lacks specific knowledge that what they’re recommending is harmful.

The Winter v. GP Putnam’s Sons case is instructive here. The publisher of a mushroom encyclopedia included recommendations to eat mushrooms that turned out to be poisonous—very dangerous! But the court found the publisher wasn’t liable because they didn’t have specific knowledge of the dangerous recommendation. And crucially, the court noted that the “gentle tug of the First Amendment” would block any “duty of care” that would require publishers to verify the safety of everything they publish:

The plaintiffs urge this court that the publisher had a duty to investigate the accuracy of The Encyclopedia of Mushrooms’ contents. We conclude that the defendants have no duty to investigate the accuracy of the contents of the books it publishes. A publisher may of course assume such a burden, but there is nothing inherent in the role of publisher or the surrounding legal doctrines to suggest that such a duty should be imposed on publishers. Indeed the cases uniformly refuse to impose such a duty. Were we tempted to create this duty, the gentle tug of the First Amendment and the values embodied therein would remind us of the social costs.

Now, I should acknowledge that Winter was a products liability case involving a physical book, not a defamation or tortious speech case involving an algorithm, but almost all of the current cases challenging social media are self-styled as product liability cases to try (usually without success) to avoid the First Amendment. And that’s all they would be regarding algorithms as well.

The underlying principle remains the same whether you call it a products liability case or one officially about speech: the First Amendment bars requirements that publishing intermediaries must “investigate” whether everything they distribute is accurate or safe. The reason is obvious—such liability would prevent all sorts of things from getting published in the first place, putting a massive damper on speech.

Apply that principle to algorithmic recommendations, and the answer is clear. If a book publisher can’t be required to verify that every mushroom recommendation is safe, a platform can’t be required to verify that every algorithmically surfaced piece of content won’t lead someone to harm.

The end result?

So what would it mean if we somehow “removed 230 from algorithmic recommendations”?

Practically, it means that if companies have to rely on the First Amendment to win these cases, only the biggest companies can afford to do so. The Googles and Metas of the world can absorb $5-10 million in litigation costs. For smaller companies, those costs are existential. They’d either exit the market entirely or become hyper-aggressive about blocking content at the first hint of legal threat—not because the content is harmful, but because they can’t afford to find out in court.

The end result would be that the First Amendment still protects algorithmic recommendations—but only for the very biggest companies that can afford to defend that speech in court.

That means less competition. Fewer services that can recommend content at all. More consolidation of power in the hands of incumbents who already dominate the market.

Remember the frame from earlier: does this give more power to users, companies, or the government? Removing 230 from algorithmic recommendations doesn’t empower users. It doesn’t make platforms more “responsible.” It just makes it vastly harder for anyone other than the giant platforms to exist while also giving more power to governments, like the one currently run by Donald Trump, to define what things an algorithm can, and cannot, recommend.

Rather than diminishing the power of billionaires and incumbents, this would massively entrench it. The people pushing for this carve-out often think they’re fighting Big Tech. In reality, they’re fighting to build Big Tech a new moat.

05:00 AM

Ring’s Super Bowl Ad Generates So Much Backlash It Has Ended Its Partnership With Flock Safety [Techdirt]

Eight million ways to die.

According to AdWeek, the price for a 30-second commercial during Super Bowl LX has soared to $8 million, after NBC opened in the summer by offering spots for $7 million. As AdWeek notes, “due to demand, the company has already reached its cap for the number of spots that were available for advertisers to buy during the upfront season.”

$8 million for 30 seconds sometimes means turning a niche product into a national phenomena. The 30 seconds purchased by Ring went the other way. If you want to see how $8 million can be used to promote mass surveillance enabled by consumer products, here you go:

Sure, it looks pretty innocuous. And what could be better than turning Ring and Flock Safety’s network of cameras into a digital proxy for posting “LOST DOG” signs all over the neighborhood? Well, as it turns out, pretty much everyone saw how problematic this offering was, especially considering what’s already known about Ring, Flock Safety, and both companies’ rather cavalier attitude towards privacy and other aspects of the Fourth Amendment.

To begin with, the “Search Party” feature that allows people to access recordings and images captured by other people’s cameras is already on, which likely comes as a surprise to owners of these devices. Here’s what The Verge’s Jennifer Tuohy discovered last October, shortly after Ring announced its partnership with Flock Safety — a company best known for allowing cops to hunt down people seeking abortions and/or allowing federal officers to perform nationwide searches for whoever they might be looking for (which, of course, would be anyone looking kinda like an immigrant).

[I]t turns out that Search Party is enabled by default. In an email to customers this week, Siminoff wrote that the feature is rolling out to Ring outdoor cameras in November and noted, “You can always turn off Search Party.”

I checked my cameras this morning, and they were all automatically set to enable Search Party. And I’m not alone; Ring users on Reddit have also reported that their cameras have been enabled for Search Party. 

This under-reported “feature” was exposed by Ring’s Super Bowl ad, which resulted in enough backlash that Flock Safety no longer has a Ring to wear. Back to Jennifer Tuohy and The Verge:

In a statement published on Ring’s blog and provided to The Verge ahead of publication, the company said: “Following a comprehensive review, we determined the planned Flock Safety integration would require significantly more time and resources than anticipated. We therefore made the joint decision to cancel the integration and continue with our current partners … The integration never launched, so no Ring customer videos were ever sent to Flock Safety.”

While that last sentence may be true, it appears sharing was on by default when it came to Ring’s own cameras. That Flock Safety never got a chance to participate is good to know, but “Search Party” has apparently been active since its implementation last year, even if it was limited to Ring devices.

And while Ring claims the Search Party feature can’t be used to search for “human biometrics,” that’s hardly comforting when it appears Ring definitely wants to add more of this kind of thing to its existing cameras.

On top of this, the company recently launched a new facial recognition feature, Familiar Faces. Combined with Search Party, the technological leap to using neighborhood cameras to search for people through a mass-surveillance network suddenly seems very small.

Ring insists this is not another mass surveillance tool, but rather something that attempts to recognize who’s at any user’s door when sending alerts, in order to differentiate friends and family members from strangers who might be within camera range. Again, there’s some utility to this offering, but the tech lends itself to surveillance abuses, especially when law enforcement may only be a subpoena away from accessing images and recordings captured by privately-owned devices.

Finally, the statement given by Ring only states that this won’t be happening right now, which is a wise choice considering its unpopularity at the moment. But that doesn’t mean Ring and Flock won’t seek to consummate this marriage of surveillance tech, albeit in a more private fashion that doesn’t involve alarming hundreds of millions of sports viewers simultaneously.

Daily Deal: The 2026 Ultimate Project Managers Training Bundle [Techdirt]

The 2026 Ultimate Project Managers Training Bundle will help you learn how to efficiently manage small- and large-scale complex projects. With 9 courses focused on Asana, Jira, Agile, Microsoft Project, and more, you’ll be introduced to various ways to organize and manage teams, and to various tools that will aid productivity while keeping projects and tasks on track. The bundle is on sale for $35.

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.

04:00 AM

The Media Still Can’t Figure Out That Trump Says Things That Aren’t True [Techdirt]

Debates on how the media should be covering what Donald Trump says have been going on for over a decade now. A few months ago, we wrote about the regularity with which the mainstream media “sanewashes” his more ridiculous statements, taking the incoherent ramblings of a madman and pretending to translate them into actual policy goals. In those cases, the media downplays the things he says, while playing up what they pretend he wanted to say.

But there’s another version of this same problem. The mainstream media also loves to take some random statement he makes, that everyone knows he’s lying (or at least misleading) about, and pretends that he means it earnestly and that it should be reported on as fact.

Both of these failures stem from the same underlying instinct: a desperate need to make Trump fit within conventional political norms. Whether that means cleaning up his incomprehensible gibberish to sound like real policy, or treating his obvious lies as sincere declarations, the effect is identical. The media keeps trying to avoid reporting on just how far outside conventional—and sane—bounds Trump is in how he runs this government.

Margaret Sullivan, who has been one of the sharpest media critics around, has a piece in her newsletter that lays out this side of the problem with depressing clarity:

Are these statements worth reporting? Certainly. Do they require extra dollops of skepticism and context? Even more certainly. But too often, they don’t get that treatment.

The specific examples she highlights are instructive.

On Sunday, as if on cue, federal agents were out in two blue cities in New Jersey, detaining people on their way to work.

“Right now, (ICE) is coming for migrants,” one frightened Hoboken resident, Ernest Boyd, told CBS News. “It’s going to come for all of us.” Jersey City was another target — yes, the same weekend that Trump suggested to reporters on Air Force One that a softer approach was in the offing.

Or even pay attention to what’s happening in Minneapolis. Just as we predicted, despite headlines misleadingly reporting that there was a “new approach” there, we’re still seeing stories every day of ICE and CBP harassing people at schools and dragging away neighbors.

this morning in Minneapolis: "Ice smashed window and pulled a man out of his vehicle(Nissan posted) was a heavy ICE presence now there are 2 agents sitting in the man’s vehicle"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-02-10T14:25:22.718Z

Or take the Greenland situation.

How about his supposed “deal” over Greenland, which his administration was threatening to acquire by “unstoppable force” if necessary? At the World Economic Forum in Davos, he made some remarks about how he could do just that, but wouldn’t do it right now, after all.

The headlines and push alerts, as usual, played it just as he would have liked: “Trump said the U.S. won’t use force to take Greenland” was a typical one from the Wall Street Journal.

“If you only read those headlines,” wrote Parker Molloy on her Substack newsletter, The Present Age, “you’d think the president made some kind of conciliatory gesture.” But, she added, that’s not the core of what happened in that room: Rather, Trump “reminded everyone of his capacity for violence, made clear that resistance would be futile and then offered them a chance to surrender peacefully,” she wrote. His saying he wouldn’t use force “is misdirection, and the coverage fell for it.”

Then there was all kinds of bluster — and coverage — about a supposed “framework for a deal” over Greenland that was again reported as serious breaking news.

“Trump announces ‘framework’ for a future deal on Greenland, drops NATO tariff threat,” was the ABC News take, a typical one.

Sullivan points out the exception that proves the general rule: CNN’s Aaron Blake was one of the few who provided the context that should have been in every headline: “Trump’s Greenland framework sounds a lot like an already existing 1951 deal.” That’s the kind of journalism that actually informs readers.

But for most of the mainstream media, the old pattern holds: Trump threatens something outrageous. Then he backs off slightly from the outrageous thing. The media reports the backing-off as if it’s the story, rather than the fact that the outrageous threat was made in the first place. It’s like praising someone for only punching you once instead of twice.

Part of this is about the fundamental architecture of how news gets consumed:

As always, headlines and news alerts are important. All the nuance in the world in the 12th paragraph doesn’t help much if the headline creates a completely different impression.

This is the core problem. Most people don’t read past the headline. Push alerts are consumed in seconds. The sophisticated context that journalists might include deep in the story is irrelevant if the headline and lede have already painted a misleading picture.

Sullivan offers some practical suggestions that really shouldn’t be revolutionary but apparently are:

First, use words that convey skepticism, not credulity. Instead of a headline that says “Trump orders ICE to ease up…”, try this: “Trump claims a new approach, even as ICE continues arrests.”

Crazy idea: maybe don’t write headlines that treat Trump’s words as equivalent to reality when a decade of evidence suggests they’re often the opposite.

And, to some extent, you can understand why the media keeps doing this. For decades now, the GOP has been “working the refs,” insisting that they got unfair treatment. That the “liberal media” covered them in unfair ways. This was never particularly accurate. The mainstream media has always had a corporatist-bent rather than one that focused on any political ideology.

But, the end result of all that yelling and screaming about “liberal media bias” means that they go out of their way to avoid accurate reporting on just how ridiculous President Trump is. Sometimes that means taking his word salad pronouncements and hopelessly trying to map them to the kinds of things any normal political leader might say. And sometimes, it means taking the untrue things he says as truth, just to pretend there’s some level of normalcy.

The media’s learned helplessness on this issue is its own kind of institutional failure. These are smart people at major news organizations. They have editors. They have fact-checkers. They have a decade of experience covering this specific individual. And still, the default mode is to treat his utterances as newsworthy declarations rather than what they often are: strategic noise designed to generate exactly the coverage it gets.

The press isn’t supposed to be stenographers. They’re supposed to help people understand what’s actually happening. And what’s actually happening is that Trump keeps saying things and the press keeps trying to mold those things from where they really are—way outside political, cultural, reality norms—and presents them in a manner that downplays the reality, cleans up the crazy, and just generally misleads the public.

As the old journalism saw says, if someone says it’s raining, and someone else says it isn’t, a reporter’s job is not to report on what they said, but to look out the damn window and report on what’s actually happening.

It’s raining. It’s been raining for a decade. Now would be as good a time as any for reporters to look out the damn window and report on what’s actually happening.

01:00 AM

Sarcasm self-defeats [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

Sarcasm is an easy way to amplify feedback.

It has two hidden costs:

  1. It reveals low status. People with power don’t need to use sarcasm to make a point. If you want to lead with status, using sarcasm undermines that goal.
  2. It adds emotion where it’s not always needed. The emotion is an amplifier, but it often causes division and defensiveness.

If you have confidence in your standing and your idea, then sarcasm is simply getting in the way, because it undermines both.

      

Pluralistic: Deplatform yourself (23 Feb 2026) [Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow]

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

Today's links

  • Deplatform yourself: Copyright infringement is your least entertainment dollar.
  • Hey look at this: Delights to delectate.
  • Object permanence: "Lawer" threatens suit; Landmark metaphotos; 3DP v (c); Forced arbitration; Imperial Scott Walker; Keysigning ritual; Polyfingered robot dictaphone; DNS bug; Register of copyright damns term extension; How Anonymous decides; Christchurch quake people-finder; Minor HP disenshittification; US v developing world at WIPO; TfL v anagram tube-map; Disneyland waiting; Internet of Garbage.
  • Upcoming appearances: Where to find me.
  • Recent appearances: Where I've been.
  • Latest books: You keep readin' em, I'll keep writin' 'em.
  • Upcoming books: Like I said, I'll keep writin' 'em.
  • Colophon: All the rest.


The Muse Thalia, pictured brandishing a comedy mask and putting a laurel wreath on a bust of a bearded figure. It has been altered. The bust has an extra set of eyes and ears. Thalia has two extra sets of arms, one ending in lion's paws, the other in lobster's claws. She has one cyclopean eye. Her comedy mask is now a tragedy mask. The image has been tinted blue.

Deplatform yourself (permalink)

The first time I met William Gibson – to interview him for the Globe and Mail on the release of 1999's All Tomorrow's Parties – there was one question I knew I wanted to ask him: "What happens to the counterculture in the era of instantaneous commodification?"

https://craphound.com/nonfic/transcript.html

Gibson's answer stuck with me for decades:

What we're doing pop culturally is like burning the rain forest. The biodiversity of pop culture is really, really in danger. I didn't see it coming until a few years ago, but looking back it's very apparent.

I watched a sort of primitive form of the recommodification machine around my friends and myself in the sixties, and it took about two years for this clumsy mechanism to get and try to sell us The Monkees.

In 1977, it took about eight months for a slightly faster more refined mechanism to put punk in the window of Holt Renfrew. It's gotten faster ever since. The scene in Seattle that Nirvana came from: as soon as it had a label, it was on the runways of Paris.

There's no grace period, so that's a way in which I see us losing the interstitial.

This may seem like an odd thing to think about, but nearly all the art and culture that means something to me started as something that was transgressive and weird, and even if it was eventually metabolized by the mainstream, that was only after it had a chance to ferment and mutate in a tide-pool of Bohemian weirdness.

All this century, I've asked friends and weirdos about what can resist this commodification and co-option. Scott Westerfeld – author of Uglies – had a very on-brand answer: he told me that he thought that teenagers might deliberately start cultivating acne as a badge of rebellion. That hasn't happened yet, but if it does, it will be born co-opted, because there's already a luxury brand called "Acne":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acne_Studios

One anti-commodification measure that's worked reasonably well over the years is to be ugly. Punk zines and early Myspace pages embraced an aesthetic that the existing cohort of trained designers available to work for would-be co-opters would rather break their fingers than imitate. Eventually, some punk zinesters and Myspacers became freelance designers and offered the aesthetic for sale, but after the "grace period" that Gibson was worried about in 1999. By contrast, after a brief period in which early AI image-gen snuck psychedelic fish-dogs into every output, AI became so mid and inoffensive that even when it was used to make transgressive images (Trump spraying protesters with liquid shit from an airplane), it looked incredibly, terminally normal:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/20/ransom-note-force-field/#antilibraries

There's more than one way to be ugly, of course. The "edgelords" that defined forums like SomethingAwful and /b/ made heavy use of slurs, rape "jokes" and other beyond-the-pale rhetoric. Whether this reflected sincerely felt beliefs or a mere desire to shock (or both), it had the effect of making these subcultures very difficult to commodify. If you and your friends barely utter a single sentence that can be quoted in a mainstream news forum or office email, it's going to be very hard to co-opt you. For a long time, edgelords festered in the "dark corners" of the internet. But that's changed. The Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes – who thinks that "every woman and girl" should be "sent to a gulag" – has had dinner at the White House:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nick-fuentes-women-gulag/

Last week, Ryan Broderick wrote a short, striking article for his must-read Garbage Day newsletter about the way that the far right have become "cool" within Gen Z by being so outre that they were evicted from the major platforms (before Trump II, that is):

https://www.garbageday.email/p/the-only-taboo-left-is-copyright-infringement

As Broderick writes, "cool" isn't just "trends" ("hyperpop, brainrot, crowdwork comedy, Instagram collages, their weird post-COVID pop punk exploration"). For Broderick, cool things used to become trends after they were "begrudgingly canonized" by the likes of Time Magazine. But with Hollywood replaced by Youtube, magazines replaced by Tiktok, and radio replaced by Spotify, that looks very different today. Today's version of artist management teams is "hype houses." All forms of cultural activity have collapsed into a single, overriding imperative: "getting attention."

Which brings Broderick to his main question:

If everything is just attention now, and attention is completely commodified by algorithmic tech platforms, how can you push back against that?

His answer: "You have to essentially pre-deplatform yourself."

For young people, "the only things that have the level of scarcity and danger required to be seen as cool" are "whatever is unacceptable on those platforms." In other words, anything (and maybe only things) that're blocked or banned are a candidate to be cool. Cool people walk away from the places where you'd expect to find them and hang out in places that are culturally viewed as less important.

Broderick argues that this is the source of far-right influencers' influence: the fact that manosphere weirdos and trolls are hanging out in "shadowy corners" like Kick makes them feel authentic and outside of the norm and thus intrinsically interesting. And (Broderick continues) the fact that these manosphere types are now totally reliant on Discord clip-farmers has made them feel more mainstream and thus potentially less interesting.

This is where it gets cool. Broderick argues that there's nothing intrinsically reactionary about this kind of self-deplatforming as a parallel evolution taking place in progressive media. When Stephen Colbert's Trump-colonized network bans him from airing an interview with a Democratic politician, he puts it on Youtube instead, where it gets far more attention than it would have if the network had just left him alone.

But by and large it's not Democratic politicians who are too dangerous for the platforms – it's copyright infringement. The law makes it very easy to get things removed via unproven accusations of copyright infringement, and the platforms make it even easier:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/27/nuke-first/#ask-questions-never

Copyright is a doctrine that, by design, has very fuzzy edges where things may or may not be prohibited. But in the digital world, those edges are often erased, even as the zone of lawful activity they enclose contracts. This means that media that can be accused of infringing copyright is the most unwelcome content on platforms.

Broderick's theory predicts that the "coolest" media – the stuff that makes taste – is the stuff that fits in this zone of copyright infringement. He cites some compelling case studies, like Vera Drew's "The People's Joker," an amazing, unauthorized Batman mashup/trans allegory. Warner shut down multiple screenings of The People's Joker (including at TIFF), and this increased the coolness and prominence of the movie, driving people to underground screenings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People%27s_Joker

A more contemporary version is Nirvanna The Band The Show The Movie, which Broderick describes as "a copyright rats nest" based on a web series that is "completely illegal to watch on streaming platforms":

https://pagesix.com/2026/02/14/hollywood/how-nirvanna-the-band-the-show-the-movie-skirted-copyright-law/

Despite this/because of this, NTBTSTM just had "the biggest opening ever for a live-action Canadian film":

https://x.com/hertzbarry/status/2023521583923663342

Broderick's conclusion is that "as platforms police speech less and less, edgelords lose their sheen," but that this material, at or beyond the edge of copyright, unwelcome on platforms, is the future face of cool.

And here's where Broderick really got me: "the most dangerous thing for platforms is not racist garbage. It’s unmonetizeable content."

I make a lot of "unmonetizable content," starting with this blog, which has no metrics, no analytics, and (of course) no ads. I refuse to add social media cards, and hide obscure jokes in incredibly long URLs that get truncated on social media. I labor for hours over the weird illustrations that go at the top of the posts, which I release (along with the text they accompany) under Creative Commons licenses that let pretty much anyone do pretty much anything with them, without asking me, telling me, or paying me (it's always very funny when someone accuses me of publishing this work as clickbait – clickbait for what? To increase bandwidth consumption at my server?).

I do this to "woo the muse of the odd," a phrase I lifted from Bruce Sterling's 1991 keynote for the Game Developers' Conference, a talk that struck me so hard that I dropped out of university to make weird multimedia shortly after reading it:

https://lib.ru/STERLINGB/story.txt

It's a great talk, but the best parts are where Sterling grapples with this question of coolness, counterculture, and commodification:

In the immortal words of Lafcadio Hearn, a geek of incredible obscurity whose work is still in print after a hundred years, "woo the muse of the odd." A good science fiction story is not a "good story" with a polite whiff of rocket fuel in it. A good science fiction story is something that knows it is science fiction and plunges through that and comes roaring out of the other side. Computer entertainment should not be more like movies, it shouldn't be more like books, it should be more like computer entertainment, SO MUCH MORE LIKE COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT THAT IT RIPS THROUGH THE LIMITS AND IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE TO IGNORE!

I don't think you can last by meeting the contemporary public taste, the taste from the last quarterly report. I don't think you can last by following demographics and carefully meeting expectations. I don't know many works of art that last that are condescending. I don't know many works of art that last that are deliberately stupid… Get weird. Get way weird. Get dangerously weird. Get sophisticatedly, thoroughly weird and don't do it halfway, put every ounce of horsepower you have behind it.

It's been more than 30 years since I read that essay, more than a quarter century since I asked William Gibson whether Madison Avenue "finds its own use for things." Over the ensuing decades, media has become ever-better at "following demographics and carefully meeting expectations," thanks to vast troves of behavioral data correlated with media analytics. That process has only accelerated the "recommodification machine" that Gibson worried about in 1999, but as Broderick points out, there's one thing that is even harder to co-op than acne – "unmonetizable content," the Kryptonite of the platforms.

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 Mysterious “lawer” threatens to sue me over Bad Samaritan story https://memex.craphound.com/2006/02/20/mysterious-lawer-threatens-to-sue-over-bad-samaritan-story/

#20yrsago Flickr set documents locations in Neal Stephenson trilogy https://www.flickr.com/photos/notlikecalvin/sets/72057594068198516/

#20yrsago How the US is boning the developing world at WIPO https://web.archive.org/web/20060501000000*/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004434.php

#20yrsago Why kids are on MySpace https://www.danah.org/papers/AAAS2006.html

#20yrsago Transport for London censors anagram Tube map https://web.archive.org/web/20060222021226/https://www.unfortu.net/anagrammap/

#20yrsago More clues to identity of author of EFF-sliming article in The Reg https://memex.craphound.com/2006/02/22/more-clues-to-identity-of-author-of-eff-sliming-article-in-the-reg/

#20yrsago US copyright head: world “totally rejects” webcasting restrictions https://memex.craphound.com/2006/02/21/us-copyright-head-world-totally-rejects-webcasting-restrictions/

#20yrsago Copyright office head denounces “big mistake” of extending copyright https://web.archive.org/web/20060329162217/https://www.ibiblio.org/yugen/video/too_long.mp4

#20yrsago Artists paint Detroit’s derelict buildings Tiggeriffic Orange https://web.archive.org/web/20060411143941/http://www.thedetroiter.com/nov05/disneydemolition.php

#20yrsago Canadian Uni bans WiFi because its safety can’t be proved https://web.archive.org/web/20060307004018/http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=38093&PageMem=1

#15yrsago Overcome information overload by trusting redundancy https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/feb/22/information-overload-probabilistic

#15yrsago Embattled PS3 hacker raises big bank to fight Sony https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/02/george-hotz-secures-enough-donations-to-fight-sony-rap-battle-begins/

#15yrsago How Anonymous decides: inside the lulz-sausage factory https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/02/empty-suit-the-chaotic-way-that-anonymous-makes-decisions/

#15yrsago America’s Chief Apocalypse Officer, a Fed job ad from 1956 https://web.archive.org/web/20110210020542/http://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore/2011/02/nuclear-weapons-post-attack-job-description-1956.html

#15yrsago What happens when you stick your head in a particle accelerator https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/03/what-happens-when-you-stick-your-head-into-a-particle-accelerator/

#15yrsago Saif Gadaffhi, plagiarist https://web.archive.org/web/20110225114903/https://saifalislamgaddafithesis.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

#15yrsago Google App to help locate people in Christchurch quake https://web.archive.org/web/20110222091007/http://christchurch-2011.person-finder.appspot.com/

#15yrsago Photos of kids waiting at Disneyland https://web.archive.org/web/20110301045827/https://arinfishkin.com/fishkin_delayed_gratification.html

#15yrsago Westboro Baptist Church attempts to lure Anonymous into attacking it? https://www.siliconrepublic.com/life/were-not-attacking-westboro-baptist-church-anonymous

#15yrsago Egyptian orders a pizza for the Wisconsin demonstrators https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/from-cairo-to-madison-some-pizza-049888#ixzz1EXkqdxcu

#15yrsago Metaphotos of landmarks made from hundreds of superimposed tourist snaps https://web.archive.org/web/20110219193205/http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/hundreds-of-tourist-photos

#15yrsago Armed Services Edition books: abridgements and pocket-editions for doughboys https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/military/literature-on-the-frontlines-the-history-of-armed-services-edition-books/?doing_wp_cron=1771432700.1463210582733154296875

#15yrsago 3D printing’s first copyright complaint goes away, but things are just getting started https://memex.craphound.com/2011/02/20/3d-printings-first-copyright-complaint-goes-away-but-things-are-just-getting-started/

#15yrsago Imperial Scott Walker, the worker-hating AT-AT Destroyer https://web.archive.org/web/20110224024111/https://simulacrumb.tumblr.com/#3388763986

#10yrsago Forced arbitration clauses are a form of wealth transfer to the rich https://web.archive.org/web/20160322142114/https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Arbitration_as_Wealth_Transfer_1.pdf

#10yrsago Eleven years and counting: EFF scores a major victory in its NSA mass surveillance suit https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/big-victory-judge-pushes-jewel-v-nsa-forward

#10yrsago What a serious keysigning ceremony looks like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9j-sfP9GUU

#10yrsago Pseudoscientific terror ended fluoridation in Calgary, now kids’ teeth are rotting https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12215

#10yrsago Manual typewriter + servos = polyfingered robot dictaphone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNSCL4YOd5E

#10yrsago Sarah Jeong’s Harvard lecture: “The Internet of Garbage” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUSctMLLNUE

#10yrsago Citing copyright, Army blocks Chelsea Manning from receiving printouts from EFF’s website https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/military-prison-blocks-chelsea-manning-reading-eff-blog-posts

#10yrsago Improve your laptop stickering technique https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juRDql6wBIQ

#10yrsago Photo of Bernie Sanders being arrested in 1963 Chicago protest https://web.archive.org/web/20160220024814/https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219-story.html

#10yrsago Uber uses customer service reps to push anti-union message to drivers https://qz.com/619601/uber-is-using-its-us-customer-service-reps-to-deliver-its-anti-union-message

#10yrsago The latest DNS bug is terrifying, widespread, and reveals deep flaws in Internet security https://web.archive.org/web/20160222231840/http://dankaminsky.com/2016/02/20/skeleton/

#10yrsago 19th century spam came by post, prefigured modern spam in so many ways https://web.archive.org/web/20160915000000*/http://www.ephemerasociety.org/blog/

#10yrsago Republican Congressmen backed by airline money kill research on legroom and passenger safety https://web.archive.org/web/20160221163010/https://theintercept.com/2016/02/21/backed-by-airline-dollars-congress-rejects-effort-to-address-shrinking-legroom/

#5yrsago The Paltrow-Industrial Complex https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/21/paltrow-industrial-complex/#goopy

#5yrsago Facebook vs Australia https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/21/paltrow-industrial-complex/#facecrook

#5yrsago K-shaped recovery vs wealth taxes https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/21/paltrow-industrial-complex/#wealth-tax

#5yrsago What Democrats need to do https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/22/sorcerers-apprentice/#do-something

#5yrsago Tech trustbusting's moment has arrived https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/20/escape-velocity/#trustbusting-time

#1yrago Ad-tech targeting is an existential threat https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/20/privacy-first-second-third/#malvertising

#1yrago We bullied HP into a minor act of disenshittification https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/22/ink-spattered-pitchforks/#racehorse-semen

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

  • "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, 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 (1035 words today, 351334 total)

  • "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

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

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

https://twitter.com/doctorow

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

12:00 AM

Who Knew? Mindless And Corrupt Deregulation Apparently Kills People [Techdirt]

You might recall that a central pillar of the Trump administration during the last election season was that a second Trump term would “take aim at big tech,” protect the little guy, rein in corporate power, and even “continue the legacy of antitrust enforcers like Lina Khan.” The press was filled with endless stories credibly parroting these sorts of claims, all day, everyday.

More than a year later and it’s nothing but corruption and cronyism as far as the eye can see.

The Trump administration and its courts have effectively destroyed regulatory independence, federal consumer protection, U.S. cybersecurity standards, and public safety oversight. Massive, terrible mergers are rubber stamped with reckless abandon, provided companies show authoritarian leadership they’re racist and feckless enough.

A 2025 report by nonprofit consumer advocacy firm Public Citizen calculated that the Trump administration has frozen regulatory action for at least 165 corporations under investigation for a wide variety of abuses, crimes, and fraud. And a more recent study by the nonprofit watchdog Environmental Integrity Project has found that EPA environmental protection has effectively ground to a halt:

“By analyzing a range of federal court and administrative data, the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project found that civil lawsuits filed by the US Department of Justice in cases referred by the Environmental Protection Agency dropped to just 16 in the first 12 months after Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025. That is 76 percent less than in the first year of the Biden administration.”

Of course, this didn’t just begin with Trumpism. For the better part of the last fifty years years “free market Libertarians” and Republicans (often with help from corrupt Democrats) have waged a brutal war on the regulatory state, insisting repeatedly that the path toward innovative utopia in all industries required that we defund, understaff, and legally undermine regulators at every turn.

It’s worth noting the majority of these folks weren’t arguing for reasonable and modest regulation, they were arguing, repeatedly, for no meaningful oversight of corporate power whatsoever (see: telecom). When the reality of that unpopular policy choice surfaces in the form of mass suffering, financial hardship, and death, a lot of these very vocal opinion havers routinely get mysteriously fucking quiet.

When it comes to most regulatory agencies, including the EPA, the assault has been multi-pronged. Numerous rulings (like Loper Bright) by the extremist U.S. Supreme Court have utterly demolished regulatory autonomy. And if an enforcement action against a corporation for predatory behavior somehow is brought, Republicans at the 5th and 6th Circuits ensure it can’t go anywhere.

At the same time, you have clowns like Elon Musk waging open war on essential government employees under the pretense of innovative efficiencies, ensuring that agencies don’t have the staff to do their job even if they wanted to:

“Part of the decline in lawsuits against polluters could be due to the lack of staff to carry them out, experts say. According to an analysis from E&E News, at least a third of lawyers in the Justice Department’s environment division have left in the past year. Meanwhile, the EPA in 2025 laid off hundreds of employees who monitored pollution that could hurt human health.”

While authoritarians have taken this all to an entirely new level, the path to this point was paved by no limit of anti-governance propaganda by countless U.S. Libertarian “free market” types, who, from my vantage point, have faced zero reputational or financial harm from leading the country down the path to what will be some extremely bloody and ugly outcomes.

It’s not really possible to fathom the real-world impact of the complete collapse of the federal regulatory state across labor, consumer protection, environmental enforcement, and public safety is going to have in the decades to come. But fortunately for the individuals and companies that made all of this possible, our corporate press really doesn’t seem all that interested in covering the story with any zeal.

Even outlets that do cover this story tend to downplay the impact of the destruction of regulatory oversight structures that took generations to build, with explanations that lull the reader into a deep fucking slumber long before any serious point is made.

It will take decades to repair the damage this era of open corruption has caused, if we ever do. Some state enforcement will attempt to step in and fill the void, but that will prove erratic at best, and nonexistent in many MAGA-dominated states.

Even if we can dislodge ourselves from Trumpism, I suspect many of the most likely candidates for a Democratic Presidency (Gavin Newsom, Mark Kelly) somehow won’t find the time to ensure that restoring regulatory integrity is as big of a priority as restoring corporate research grants. Forcing boxed-in, understaffed, and underfunded regulators to take action on piecemeal issues only after large swaths of people have avoidably died in, once again, completely avoidable and terrible ways.

That’s all depressing as hell, but I’m bored of people normalizing or downplaying the real-world impact of some of the worst corruption this country has ever seen (which is truly saying something).

Kanji of the Day: 谷 [Kanji of the Day]

谷

✍7

小2

valley

コク

たに　きわ.まる

谷川   (たにがわ)   —   mountain stream
渓谷   (けいこく)   —   valley (with a river running through it)
谷町   (たにまち)   —   sponsors of rikishi or their stables
谷地   (やち)   —   marsh land
谷間   (たにあい)   —   valley
谷垣派   (たにがきは)   —   Tanigaki Faction (of the LDP)
峡谷   (きょうこく)   —   gorge
九谷焼   (くたにやき)   —   Kutani ware (style of Japanese porcelain)
谷水   (たにみず)   —   rill
谷風   (たにかぜ)   —   valley wind

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Kanji of the Day: 偽 [Kanji of the Day]

偽

✍11

中学

falsehood, lie, deceive, pretend, counterfeit, forgery

ギ　カ

いつわ.る　にせ　いつわ.り

虚偽   (きょぎ)   —   falsehood
偽装   (ぎそう)   —   camouflage
偽造   (ぎぞう)   —   forgery
偽り   (いつわり)   —   lie
偽物   (いかもの)   —   fake
偽札   (ぎさつ)   —   counterfeit bill
真偽   (しんぎ)   —   truth or falsehood
偽計   (ぎけい)   —   deceptive plan
文書偽造   (ぶんしょぎぞう)   —   forgery of documents
偽善   (ぎぜん)   —   hypocrisy

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Interview with Øyvind Kolås, GIMP developer [GIMP]

GIMP is Free and Libre Open Source Software, but none of it is possible without the people who create with and contribute to it. Our project maintainer Jehan wanted to interview the volunteers who make GIMP what it is, and share their stories so you can learn more about the awesome people behind GIMP!

Early interviews with co-maintainer Michael Natterer and Michael Schumacher were published shortly after the first Wilber Week. Unfortunately, the rest of the interviews from that event have never seen the light of day - until now!

Our previously resurfaced interview was with Simon Budig. The interview in this article is about Øyvind Kolås. He is the maintainer of GEGL and babl, the color engines of GIMP. His work was instrumental in (among many other things) the long-waited non-destructive filters implemented in GIMP 3.0!

This interview took place on February 4th, 2017. In addition to Jehan and Øyvind, Michael Schumacher, Simon Budig, and Debarshi Ray were also involved and asked questions.

Øyvind Kolås, by Michael Schumacher, CC-BY-SA - 2019
Øyvind Kolås, by Michael Schumacher, CC-BY-SA - 2019

Jehan: Okay, hello Pippin! So, first off, how should we call you, Pippin or Øyvind?

Øyvind: If people know how to pronounce ‘Øyvind’, that is perhaps easiest. In some contexts it is a difficult name to pronounce and I have to go by my nickname Pippin.

Jehan: Ah, and where does it come from?

Øyvind: The nickname Pippin originates from Lord of the Rings. The first time I went on IRC, must have been ‘95 or ‘96, I had to come up with a nickname for myself, and I chose the nickname of a hobbit. I used the nickname “Sméagol”.

Jehan: But you’re not very small.

Øyvind: No, but Sméagol is the hobbit in terms of Gollum, and I kind of decided that I didn’t want to have the association that came along with that hobbit. So after just one day of using that nickname I skimmed a little bit through the history of the Lord of the Rings again, and noticed that the “Pippin” hobbit might be more appropriate. He’s a hobbit that’s a little bit too curious – he throws stones in Morannon and stares into Saruman’s palantír and wonders how things work.

Jehan: So, how many times have you read Lord of the Rings?

Øyvind: Two or three times? I’ve seen the movies more than once.

Jehan: How are the movies?

Øyvind: They’re okay. They’re long!

Jehan: So, you’re the GEGL maintainer. Maybe first, let’s explain what GEGL is. For people who read the website, they may know GIMP, maybe not necessarily GEGL.

Øyvind: GEGL is a library or system where you can plug components together. You can create chains of image manipulation filters or operations. So you can first adjust the colors of an image, and then apply some sharpening to it. So you can construct those as a flow chart or similar – “First do this then do that, then do that” – so programmers can create data structures representing such chains or flows of image data, and developers can use such components to use in the chain.

Jehan: And so how did you come into this project?

Øyvind: I had been using GIMP for quite a while, and then at some point I was experimenting with writing my own video editor. And I started implementing various transform tools and operations – I implemented perspective rotation tools and similar. And while I was doing that, I was also taking a look at how GIMP was doing some such transformation tools and operations. And I realized that the perspective transform in GIMP produced not quite the results that I would like it to produce.

It had big problems with moire and aliasing when you did severe perspective transforms, for instance. So with my newly gained knowledge of making something similar myself, I sat down and tried to figure out how to improve what GIMP was doing. So I made a patch fix to add adaptive subdivision super-sampling to the transform tools.

Jehan: So it was not GEGL?

Øyvind: It was for GIMP. That’s how I got involved in the GIMP project, it was my first patch that I did there. But even that was after I had ran into many of the people from the GIMP project at a GNOME conference in Copenhagen in, I believe, 2001.

Jehan: Okay. So, how does GEGL change GIMP? What is GEGL for GIMP?

Øyvind: Well, I’m the wrong person to ask that question. I know how GEGL works. I know many of the needs of GIMP. But the person who has the greatest knowledge and detail of how GEGL makes that work and happen for GIMP is Mitch.

Jehan: We should have asked him yesterday then! Thank you. So, maybe you can still explain some of the cool features in GIMP. Like what everyone has been talking about, such as non-destructive editing, which is enabled by GEGL?

Øyvind: So this graph-based data-flow chains of operations that you can do with GEGL – most parts of GIMP have been transformed to make use of that. The core thing that is currently non-destructive editing in GIMP is the layers dialog. Other software has more capabilities there, but it’s not easy for us to know what interface to provide and present to the user to add such capabilities as drop shadows, or blurs, or color adjustments.

Jehan: It’s easy or not easy?

Øyvind: It’s easy to do it as a hack or as a proof of concept, but it’s more difficult to figure out how to do it in a way we can guarantee will be stable for many years into the future. So where we are currently, as we are close to being able to release GIMP 2.10 is that we’re doing all the layer processing that GIMP 2.8 use to do, but there’s no hacks – we’re using GEGL as the engine instead.

Jehan: So, do you use GIMP a lot?

Øyvind: Sometimes GIMP is the appropriate tool, and sometimes there’s other existing software that I use as a tool. And sometimes the tools I want or need don’t exist, and then I try to make those tools.

Jehan: You also have a background as an artist. Could you maybe speak on this?

Øyvind: From when I was a teenager, I’ve been doing both visual arts such as painting and drawing, and being interested in creating media in various forms such as videos. The only form of creative expression that I haven’t much played with is music. My original education and training was in fine arts. Only after having done that for a few years did I go back to computers and digital media, and go more the academic route in computer science.

Jehan: So you studied computer science before, then you went to art?

Øyvind: No, but I’ve been doing computer graphics since I was 14 or 15 years old. I was inspired by the demoscene community and having access to dial-up bulletin boards systems with people discussing programming techniques and languages. They contained tutorials in C and Pascal and Assembly and also involving Turbo Pascal. Demoscene-style graphics are things I’ve done since before University level age, along with experimenting with painting and traditional physical drawing media.

Illusion, CC-BY-2.0 - 2019
The illusion in this image came as a result of pippin’s curiosity about images and perception, and since it went viral on social media, it has been used in new papers online and in print, books and tv-shows.

Jehan: So how do you see the future of GEGL and free software graphics in general? How do you see GEGL in 20 years?

Øyvind: If GIMP still exists in 20 years in some form of UI, then most probably GEGL is part of that story as well. I hope that some of the existing core processing code actually doesn’t survive! But the idea of the graph and maybe some of the operations that are hooked up to each other, I hope that continues to exist. Just like how other applications that use GEGL like video editing software, GIMP, GNOME Photos – the API and how they do that, I hope are very similar. But maybe both the CPU based processing code and the OpenCL one, will have been replaced.

Jehan: There’s something I’ve never really completely understood. If you look at the GitLab of GIMP and GEGL, they started around the same time. So why are they getting merged only recently?

Øyvind: I only know stories of this – I haven’t been around in the project since in the beginning.

Michael Schumacher: You said you’re not the best person to ask how GIMP is using GEGL. So can you tell us how you wish it was being used, or how you think it could be used more? Because I recall you making comments on IRC in that regard.

Øyvind: Well, we are close in 2.10 to a state where I am happy about how things are at the moment. It’s been a while since I was unhappy about how GIMP’s projection was driving the layer compositing code or creating a graph for compositing with GEGL – it’s been a long while since it was fixed. So when it comes to the performance of doing those things, or the performance on-canvas preview of vectors, the current problems are more in GEGL land than GIMP land.

Jehan: In GEGL?

Øyvind: Yes, it’s an architectural puzzle to figure out, before GIMP should change how it does its rendering to make use of the new capabilities in GEGL.

Jehan: So how fast can GEGL go? How fast do you think (compared to now) it can improve?

Øyvind: I think for most filters in common use for photo manipulations as well as working with multiple layers, that even on a CPU that you should have 10 frames per seconds updates on dragging layers around as well as doing color adjustment to the photos or the individual layers. I don’t see why that should be a big problem. That is what solving the mip-mapping problem should provide.

Debarshi Ray: Any plans for what you want to use for GEGL’s API documentation? It used to use kind of like GTKDoc at some point. There’s always the website, but any plans?

Øyvind: It currently displays a GObject introspection repository data directly on the website using Javascript. I kind of hope that the documentation people start working towards more documentation on GObject introspection and perhaps we align with something they do, if they do something like that.

Jehan: Do you want to see GEGL in more software, not only GIMP?

Øyvind: That would be really nice because if people then create more filters and interesting things you can do in that software, it becomes available in GIMP and also in other software.

Jehan: Actually that’s very interesting. Can you explain a little about the architecture of GEGL which makes it so that its filters can be available everywhere? How it will work in other software that integrates GEGL?

Øyvind: Well, you could imagine that for the operations you have in GIMP in terms of filters, there are many that you invoke for an image, that could be something that also you could apply as an effect in a video editor to a clip. You can animate some of the properties over time, like increasing or decreasing the blur on some background that you composite something on top of.

Michael Schumacher: What would you suggest people should do to learn about the capabilities of GEGL and how to use it, either in GIMP development or in their own software?

Øyvind: Mostly, study what already exists, and if there is anything doing something similar to what they want already, then try to tweak that to do something new.

Michael Schumacher: Do you have a suggestion on what someone can use to play around with GEGL? For instance, if someone has fairly decent experience developing software, is there some kind of best approach like “Oh, use Python”?

Øyvind: I haven’t really tried to use any of the language bindings apart from C in a long while. I can see how approaching a library framework with C can be difficult for some users. But no, I don’t know of any of these integrated languages that have a very good integration.

Simon Budig: I think that the first start would be to use the GEGL command line tool and build trees in XML or something like that.

Øyvind: I guess there’s also the data formats, the XML and JSON based data formats, as well as the data format you can fully construct on the command line just chaining operations and properties.

Debarshi Ray: Can you comment on how GEGL compares to GStreamer, since they are both graph based and you can even do some image manipulation with GStreamer like their application does? Would it be easier with GEGL?

Øyvind: GEGL is focused on rendering and creating images. GStreamer is focused on playback and streaming of video. So the things passed around between the components of the graph of GStreamer are always full frames of videos. And it has many considerations for how to deal with playback and pre-feeding data to be able to stay in continuous playback and similar. Whereas GEGL has only a concern about generating pixels for a static graph.

So the concerns involved in piecing together video codecs and the muxing of codecs and doing those things in a data flow, are different from doing just image processing with it – but kind of the core idea, which is visual programming using a graph instead of more like a human language with abstract syntax to create, is shared between GEGL and GStreamer. The data flow based approach and creating a framework for visual components and ordering.

Jehan: I have a similar question. There was an efficiency test – I think the product name was libvips – with various graphics software library, and GEGL was in the list. In the tests they said it was worse.

Øyvind: Maybe that has improved recently, I’m not sure. Both GEGL and babl have had a traditional approach to bench-marking at runtime when things are already up and running and for interactive use. Whereas those benchmarks are based on equating command-line utilities with those that also include all the overhead of start-up. That is something that has improved recently in both, particularly in babl – it keeps measurement and profiling information from previous runs around in a file on disk so it can load, so it doesn’t have to do a lot of computations the first time you do a computation of a particular kind.

But I haven’t really re-run those benchmarks lately. But a lot of the trouble involved for GEGL and babl is that they’re very generic and have many plug-ins and do loads of file system access and those things before it can do any form of processing.

Jehan: Have you tried this libvips library?

Øyvind: Yes.

Jehan: How does it compare – not efficiency wise, but API, architecture? Why would one choose GEGL over libvips?

Øyvind: That I don’t know. Depends on the capabilities of what you need it to do, GEGL is well on the way to have most traditional GIMP filters as operations. I haven’t studied the actual program APIs and how you would rig up pipelines with those APIs. I looked more at the graphical user interface of libvips – it’s an Excel spreadsheet-like approach to it, where you refer to data in a different cell. It’s one way of expressing a graph but I don’t know the actual programmatic APIs.

Jehan: So there’s different ways of expressing graphs?

Øyvind: GEGL’s API for expressing and manipulating the graphs is loosely based on the W3C’s Document Object Model and hierarchical tree structures. I have no idea if or what type of API inspirations that libvips is using.

Debarshi Ray: I have a question. GIMP has a new website, shiny and everything. Will GEGL have a new website as well?

Jehan: It has to be shiny!

Øyvind: Do you have a PNG file called “Shiny” that we can use? Or do you also have some CSS and some pages and content for the GEGL website?

Debarshi Ray: No, I have nothing.

Øyvind: I have tried for the last two or three years to make some existing GIMP and GEGL contributors excited about writing some documentation and content as part of the website. They do rebuild the website every single time they build GEGL and it ends up in the docs folder of the website. But it seems like it’s actually easier to get people to contribute code and new operations and exciting new features in GIMP and things than to get them to improve the website documentation.

And I must admit that I’d rather fix bugs and performance and features than spend too much time on the website.

Jehan: So, unless anyone has another question, we can finish…

Simon Budig: Did we talk about the Patreon?

Jehan: Oh right! So you’re trying to live off free software coding, especially GEGL. Can you try to explain it?

Øyvind: I spent a lot of time over the last ten years doing code for both GEGL and GIMP, but also many other projects. It is strange how the media exploration experiments I do in code seem to not really have much cultural worth in society. So creating software and creating tools is not something that seems to be on the culture budget of any Western European country or something that would be considered part of improving the digital literacy of the population. It’s something that’s left up to private companies to maybe create software tools – but it’s not something that you’ll find on the budget of a country, that they want to let people improve and create tools for, say, image manipulation.

Maybe that’s a horrible way to start out to explain this.

Jehan: You can start over if you want.

Øyvind: I’ve been playing with creative expression in both visual media and in code for a couple of decades. I have made music videos, I’ve made short films, I’ve made paintings and I’ve made software. And sometimes when I make software, I get paid for it because there’s other business interests behind wanting it to exist. But I consider many of the contributions I’ve made to GIMP and GEGL to be valuable contributions, and that it would be good if I could do more of that type of experiments that end up in actual software – but also freely be able to do my own research and find out how it is possible to do a certain thing with videos or images or other ways that you can combine digital media types.

I’ve been fortunate enough to have had a software development job where I made a bit of money and had a safety cushion. So I’ve been living off savings for quite a while, creating software for GIMP and other things while traveling. But lately I’ve seen that my bank account has started screaming and turning red soon. So I was wondering, maybe this Patreon thing that I’ve seen both other software projects and other types of things suggested that I could try to keep bills paid. And I decided that okay, in some sense it’s asking for money and a little bit begging to be like a street music performer and saying “I’m making this thing and if you’re enjoying it, maybe you’d like me to continue doing some of the things I’m already doing”.

And it turns out there are a couple hundred people already who would like me to continue writing code and sharing it publicly and openly. That at least sustains me roughly on the level of unemployment benefits in European countries. And I hope that this will even slightly increase – I will not have a Silicon Valley level software developer salary, but I’ll have enough money to cover my expenses.

Øyvind’s portfolio website

Monday 2026-02-23

09:00 PM

Belgian Pirate Site Blocking Order Targets Cloudflare and Google, But Not Their DNS [TorrentFreak]

cloudgoogleBelgium has become one of Europe’s most active testing grounds when it comes to pirate site-blocking enforcement.

The country’s two-step system, where a court issues an injunction and a government department (BAPO) then determines how it is implemented, has resulted in a series of diverse site-blocking orders since the framework launched in 2025.

An Eclectic Site Blocking Push

The first order, obtained by sports broadcaster DAZN in April 2025, started quite aggressively. It required ISPs and third-party DNS resolvers, including Cloudflare, Google, and Cisco’s OpenDNS, to stop resolving over 100 pirate domains. If not, they would risk a fine of €100,000 per day.

Cisco refused to comply with the order and instead pulled OpenDNS out of Belgium entirely. Cloudflare and Google remained in Belgium and cooperated, though each did so in its own way.

A second blocking order followed in July last year, requiring various intermediaries, including ISPs, hosting companies, and payment services, to block shadow libraries. Initially, Internet Archive’s Open Library was also targeted, but this decision was eventually reversed after the U.S. non-profit agreed to geo-block certain content on its service.

Meanwhile, Cisco reportedly appealed the initial site-blocking order and returned to Belgium. While this appeal remains ongoing, the Belgian site-blocking machine didn’t stop.

Last November, an order obtained by Disney, Netflix, Sony, Apple, and others, targeted popular movie piracy sites, including 1337x and Soap2day. Notably, this order only applied to Belgium’s five major ISPs. DNS resolvers were nowhere on the list, likely due to Cisco’s appeal.

First IPTV Blocking Order

A new order, issued by the Court of Brussels, targets five illegal IPTV services: LEMEILLEURIPTV, BESTIPTVABO, ATLASPRO12, OTT PREMIUM, and MIJNIPTV. The order was obtained by Belgian broadcasters RTL Belgium and RTBF, whose broadcasts were distributed by these services without permission.

IPTV targets
iptv block

The implementation decision, published by Belgium’s Department for Combating Infringements of Copyright and Related Rights Committed Online (BAPO), described the IPTV services as “structurally dedicated to the mass infringement of audiovisual content”.

Note: While the BAPO implementation order does not explicitly name the rightsholders, it lists specific content from RTL Belgium and RTBF. Both broadcasters confirmed obtaining an IPTV blocking order against Belgian ISPs at the Brussels court earlier this month.

According to information shared by the rightsholders, the services used cryptocurrency, which they see as a sign of illegality. In addition, the IPTV services showed users how to circumvent blocking measures.

All in all, the implementation order requires Belgium’s five major ISPs, Proximus, Telenet, Orange Belgium, Mobile Vikings, and DIGI Communications, to block domain names associated with these IPTV services. This also applies to mirror sites and redirect domains that can be added to the blocklist in future updates.

Cloudflare and Google Are Back, But Not for DNS

The ISPs will have to use DNS-based blocking measures, as is standard procedure in most countries. However, DNS blocking measures are not requested from Cloudflare and Google, which are also covered by the injunction.

The order names the American tech companies as intermediaries and requires them to help stop the IPTV services through other routes.

Specifically, if Cloudflare acts as a CDN or hosting provider, it must take measures to prevent Belgian users from accessing the named IPTV services. Crucially, Cloudflare’s DNS resolver and WARP service are not covered.

Google is not required to block the domains on its DNS resolver either. Instead, Google must de-index the relevant domains from its search results, deactivate associated Google Ads, and block access through Google Sites and Google Cloud services where applicable.

This omission of any third-party DNS restrictions is almost certainly not accidental. Cisco’s appeal of the April 2025 order resulted in a Brussels court suspending enforcement of the DNS blocking requirement, allowing OpenDNS to resume operations in Belgium pending a final ruling.

With that legal challenge still unresolved, rightsholders appear to have opted for a more defensible scope, targeting Cloudflare and Google in their roles as infrastructure providers rather than as DNS operators.

Exploring the Blocking Limits

The latest blocking order shows how Belgium’s blocking regime continues to calibrate itself in real time. Each new order is seemingly shaped by the legal and practical fallout from the last.


April 2025: Initial DAZN order aggressively targets ISPs and third-party DNS resolvers. Cisco pulls OpenDNS from Belgium.

July 2025: Second order requires various intermediaries to block shadow libraries.

Summer 2025: Cisco appeals; court suspends DNS blocking requirement, allowing OpenDNS to return.

Nov 2025: Broad order against movie piracy sites applies strictly to ISPs. DNS resolvers are omitted.

Current: Broadcasters RTL & RTBF obtain IPTV blocking order. Cloudflare and Google are targeted, but are not required to block DNS.

Whether the broader DNS blocking orders will return depends in part on how Cisco’s appeal resolves. A ruling against DNS blocking obligations could permanently reshape the scope of future Belgian orders, and there may be even broader repercussions.

Increasingly, European countries are granting ever more far-reaching pirate site blocking orders, covering a broad range of intermediaries, including DNS resolvers, but also VPN providers.

While these orders have been given the green light in France, Spain, and elsewhere, they are not uncontested. Given what’s at stake, the European Court of Justice will likely be asked to weigh in eventually to lay out the ground rules.

—

A copy of the latest blocking implementation order, published by the Department for Combating Infringements of Copyright and Related Rights Committed Online, is available here (pdf).

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

01:00 PM

Blizzard pasttimes [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

Millions of folks are about to get snowed in. Stay safe.

Here’s a code for last year’s Thriving with AI course on Udemy. It’s free for the first 1,000 people. Sorry, we hit Udemy’s limit. That was quick. Here’s an unlimited 50% off for the Strategy course.

And I see that This is Marketing is currently half-price on Amazon.

Or you could build a snowman.

      

08:00 AM

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

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is MrWilson (who racked up a lot of wins this week) with a comment about the Twitter Files crew staying quiet when there are real attacks on free speech:

“Free speech absolutists”: “You’re absolutely free to shut up and listen to my speech. Also, your speech is a violent assault on me.”

In second place, it’s an anonymous comment about where things go from here:

Unfortunately, the only way out might be to the bottom and through.

Provoking Trump to use the Insurrection Act won’t take much but it will also be the only way that either he gets convicted on impeachment by the current Senate or a subsequent Democratic one with 60 (likely needing 65) votes.

Short of that everyone is content to just piss, moan and wait out the clock which isn’t the appropriate action here, and street protesting has its limits.

You have an entire Overton Window to revert to pre-2016, trillions of dollars to snatch and grab from billionaires and an entire political party to crush, and no one seems to be writing a Project 2026 to do that, both a public half with the policy changes and machinery to govern and the unitary executive fiat reversions of a hundred years of conservative jurisprudence, followed by the hidden half that requires convincing the remaining regional military leadership to coup the GOP out of existence plus logistics for disasters and conflict zones that you hope never to have to need.

A Democratic Presidential Candidate is going to need a menu of options and priorities to pursue hitting the ground running on or prior to 2028 because they are going to have to use the same powers written and unwritten Trump claimed to restore democracy, it’s going to be messy, and it sure as shit won’t follow rule of law or allow 77.5 million Trump voters to walk free once voter rolls are examined for the last 3 or 4 election cycles within this plan (If the GOP wants to try to seize them then the responsibility should be to follow through and use it on them first).

For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from Arianity about the FTC’s threat of an “investigation” into Apple’s supposed liberal news bias:

Part of fascism is weaponizing things others care about. If they know you care about free speech, they use the trappings of free speech to help push fascism.

Next, it’s Stephen T. Stone with a thought about where the claims of bias come from:

And the algorithm probably leans toward citing left-leaning sources (or sources perceived to be left-leaning) because those sources have far more credibility in re: reporting actual facts. I’m sure that pisses off the MAGA crowd.

Over on the funny side, both top comments come from MrWilson again. In first place, it’s a comment about Trump’s apparent belief that he’s an absolute ruler:

Well, I mean, he was in fact elected in the biggliest landslide victory of 600% of the electoral vote and over 1000% of the popular vote because he’s the…look, nobody understands nuclear like he does, and the Chinese are just ripping us off, so you just have to raise tariffs on the Swiss Prime Minister because she’s just nasty and prices are down everywhere like you’ve never seen and all the experts are saying he should have won the Olympic Gold medal in everything but they cheated him out of it because they’re just awful people like you’ve never seen and everybody knows and windmills cause cancer and have you seen his ratings because they’re the best ever, everyone loves him except fake people. Thank you for your attention to this.

In second place, it’s a comment about how so many high-ranking Trump loyalists are incompetent and stupid:

Apply Dunning-Kruger directly to forehead.

For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a reply from Scott_in_MI to the assertion that Brett Kavanaugh knows the law better than his critics:

Objection – assumes facts not in evidence.

Finally, it’s Thad invoking a well-known image in response to our description of how the DOGE grant review process operated:

That’s that butterfly meme, right?

That’s all for this week, folks!

RSSSiteUpdated
XML About Tagaini Jisho on Tagaini Jisho 2026-02-25 10:00 AM
XML Arch Linux: Releases 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML Carlson Calamities 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML Debian News 2026-02-25 10:00 AM
XML Debian Security 2026-02-25 10:00 AM
XML debito.org 2026-02-25 10:00 AM
XML dperkins 2026-02-25 03:00 AM
XML F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository 2026-02-24 06:00 PM
XML GIMP 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML Japan Bash 2026-02-25 10:00 AM
XML Japan English Teacher Feed 2026-02-25 10:00 AM
XML Kanji of the Day 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML Kanji of the Day 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML Let's Encrypt 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML Marc Jones 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML Marjorie's Blog 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML OpenStreetMap Japan - 自由な地図をみんなの手で/The Free Wiki World Map 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML OsmAnd Blog 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow 2026-02-25 03:00 AM
XML Popehat 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML Ramen Adventures 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML Release notes from server 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect 2026-02-25 03:00 AM
XML SNA Japan 2026-02-25 03:00 AM
XML Tatoeba Project Blog 2026-02-25 10:00 AM
XML Techdirt 2026-02-25 10:00 AM
XML The Business of Printing Books 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML The Luddite 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML The Popehat Report 2026-02-25 03:00 AM
XML The Status Kuo 2026-02-25 03:00 AM
XML The Stranger 2026-02-25 12:00 AM
XML Tor Project blog 2026-02-25 10:00 AM
XML TorrentFreak 2026-02-25 10:00 AM
XML what if? 2026-02-25 10:00 AM
XML Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed 2026-02-21 01:00 AM
XML xkcd.com 2026-02-25 10:00 AM