News

Saturday 2025-11-29

06:00 AM

Build a better alternative to Black Friday [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

About thirty years ago, Jerry Shereshewsky invented “Cyber Monday” as an alternative to Black Friday. The idea was that you’d wait until you got to work on Monday after the Thanksgiving break (where there was high speed internet and you wanted to avoid doing drudge work) to do your shopping from your desk. After all, who wants to get trampled at a big box store?

Of course, since then, the hype machine that is Black Friday has shifted its focus from mobs in the store to mobs online. And the media is still all in in promoting the orgy of consumption and fake deals that happens today.

We’re still going to shop for the holidays. A blog post probably isn’t going to change that. But perhaps we can counter the downward spiral of Amazon’s recommendations, fake reviews and search ads with some AI oomph of our own.

With Claude’s help I built a simple “project” that lets me automatically do powerful research and searches with no junk or distractions. Here’s a bit of what it gave me when I asked it for ‘healthy dog chews’:

If you have a claude.ai account, here’s how to do it. It takes about a minute to set it up. You’ll find that the searches are way slower than the instant overoptimized Amazon results, and the pause is worth it.

Open your Claude account on the web or in their app and look for PROJECTS on the left hand column. Until Claude taught me about this, I had no idea it existed.

Start a new project. Name it something fun and then hit Create Project to save it.

On the next page, it will ask you to “add instructions”. Hit the plus sign to the right…

Copy what’s below and you’re done. Now, every time you do a search with this project, you’ll find thoughtfully researched results. As a bonus, I’ve added a line that adds my affiliate code, which generates royalties for charity (this year, it’s buildon.org.) Feel free to delete that or substitute your own.

All you need to do is hit the + sign in the basic Claude user text entry box every time you want to use it. The first choice is “use a project”.

One other benefit: when it finds something great that’s not on Amazon, you’ll know it when you click through and it’s not there. Then you can go buy it somewhere else…

Okay, here’s the text to copy and paste:


You help people find products worth buying by cutting through Amazon’s ad-filled, fake-review-laden search results. When someone tells you what they’re looking for, do actual research and recommend 4-5 genuinely good options.

How to research:

Use web search for every query. Check multiple source types:

  • Expert reviewers (Rtings.com, Consumer Reports, specialty publications)
  • Specialty retailers and enthusiast shops
  • Reddit and forum discussions (what do people say after 6 months?)
  • Professional recommendations (vets for pet products, audiophiles for audio, etc.)

What to deliver:

Start with 2-3 sentences of context: what matters in this category, common mistakes to avoid, or pitfalls.

Then give 4-5 picks. For each:

  • A label (Best Overall, Best Value, Best for Power Users, etc.)
  • Who it’s ideal for (one phrase)
  • Why it wins (3-4 specific reasons from your research)
  • Tradeoffs (every product has them—be honest)
  • An Amazon search link with this format: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=[search+terms]&tag=permissionmarket-20

Tone:

Be opinionated. If something is the clear winner, say so. If a category has safety issues or scams, warn them. You’re a knowledgeable friend who actually did the homework—not a hedging AI or a generic listicle.

Don’t recommend anything you couldn’t verify across multiple sources. If you can’t research a category well, say so.


Have fun!

      

Pluralistic: (Digital) Elbows Up (28 Nov 2025) [Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow]


Today's links



A rectangular motif suggestive of the Canadian flag, flanked by red bars. In the centre is the Jailbreaking Canada logo, a complex vector illustration of a maple leaf mixed with a keyhole, buildings, and various abstract figures.

(Digital) Elbows Up (permalink)

I'm in Toronto to participate in a three-day "speculative design" workshop at OCAD U, where designers, technologists and art students are thinking up cool things Canadians could do if we reformed our tech law:

https://www.ocadu.ca/events-and-exhibitions/jailbreaking-canada

As part of that workshop, I delivered a keynote speech last night, entitled "(Digital) Elbows Up: How Canada Can Become a Nation of Jailbreakers, Reclaim Our Digital Sovereignty, Win the Trade-War, and Disenshittify Our Technology."

The talk was recorded and I'll add the video to this post when I get it, but in the meantime, here's the transcript of my speech. Thank you to all my collaborators at OCAD U for bringing me in and giving me this wonderful opportunity!

==

My theory of enshittification describes the process by which platforms decay. First, they are good to their end users, while finding a way to lock those users in.

Then, secure in the knowledge that they can make things worse for those users, without risking their departure, the platforms make things worse in order to make things attractive for business customers. Who also get locked in, dependent on those captive users.

And then, in the third stage of enshittification, platforms raid those business customers, harvesting all available surpluses for their shareholders and executives, leaving behind the bare, mingy homeopathic residue of value needed to keep users locked to the platform and businesses locked to the users, such that the final, ideal stage of the enshittified platform is a attained: a giant pile of shit.

This observational piece of the theory is certainly valuable, inasumuch as it lets us scoop up this big, diffuse, enraging phenonmenon, capture in a net and attach a handle to it and call it "enshittification," recognising how we're being screwed.

But much more important is the enshittification hypothesis's theoretical piece, its account of why this is happening now.

Let me start by saying that I do not attribute blame for enshittification to your poor consumer choices. Despite the endless insistences of the right, your consumption choices aren't the arbiters of policy.

The reason billionaires urge you to vote with your wallets is that their wallets are so much thicker than yours. This is the only numeric advantage the wealthy and powerful enjoy. They are in every other regards an irrelevant, infinitesimal minority. In a vote of ballots, rather than wallets, they will lose every time, which is why they are so committed to this wallet-voting nonsense. The wallet-vote is the only vote they can hope to win.

The idea that consumers are the final arbiters of society is a laughable, bitter counsel of despair. You will not shop your way free of a monopoly, any more than you will recycle your way out of wildfires. Shop as hard as you like, you will not – cannot – end enshittification.

Enshittification is not the result of your failure to grasp that "if you're not paying for the product, you're the product." You're the product if you pay. You're the product if you don't pay. The determinant of your demotion to "the product" is whether the company can get away with treating you as the product.

So what about the companies? What about the ketamine-addled zuckermuskian failures who have appointed themselves eternal dictators over the digital lives of billions of people? Can we blame them for enshittifying our world?

Well, yes…and no.

It's obviously true that it takes a certain kind of sociopath to run a company like Facebook or Google or Apple. The suicide nets around Chinese iPhone factories are a choice, not a integral component of the phone manufacturing process.

But these awful men are merely filling the niches that our policy environment have created. If Elon Musk ODs on ket today, there will be an overnight succession battle among ten horrible Big Balls, and the victor who emerges from that war will be indistinguishable from Musk himself.

The problem isn't that the wrong person is running Facebook and thus exercising a total veto over the digital lives of four billion people, the problem is that such a job exists. We don't need to perfect Zuck. We don't need to replace Zuck. We need to abolish Zuck.

So where does the blame lie?

It lies with policy makers. Regulators and politicians who created an enshittogenic environment: a rigged game whose terrible rules guarantee that the worst people doing the worst things will fare best.

These are the true authors of enshittification: the named individuals who, in living memory, undertook specific policy decisions, that had the foreseeable and foreseen outcome of ushering in the enshittocene. Policymakers who were warned at the time that this would happen, who ignored that advice and did it anyway.

It is these people and their terrible, deliberate misconduct that we need to remember. It is their awful policies that we must overthrow, otherwise, all we can hope to do is replace one monster with another.

So, in that spirit, let us turn to the story of one of these enshittogenic policy choices and the men who made it.

This policy is called "anti-circumvention" and it is the epicenter of the enshittogenic policy universe. Under anti-circumvention law, it is a crime to modify a device that you own, if the company that sold it to you would prefer that you didn't.

All a company has to do is demarcate some of its code as off-limits to modification, by adding something called an "access control," and, in so doing, they transform the act changing any of that code into a felony, a jailable offense.

The first anticircumvention law is America's Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA. Under Section 1201 of the DMCA, helping someone modify code behind an access control is a serious crime, punishable by a five-year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine. Crucially, this is true whether or not you break any other law. Under DMCA 1201, simply altering a digital device to do a perfectly legal thing becomes a jailable crime, if the manufacturer wills it so and manifests that will with an "access control."

I recognize that this is all very abstract, so let me make it concrete. When you buy a printer from HP, it becomes your property. What's property? Well, let's use the standard definition that every law student learns in first year property law, from Sir William Blackstone's 1753 treatise:

"Property: that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe."

The printer is yours. It's your property. You have sole and despotic dominion over it in exclusion of any other individual in the universe.

But HP printers ship with a program that checks to see whether you're using HP ink, and if it suspects that you've bought generic ink, the printer refuses to use it. Now, Congress never passed a law saying "If you buy an HP printer, you have to buy HP ink, too." That would be a weird law,given the whole sole-and-despotic dominion thing.

But because HP puts an "access control" in the ink-checking code, they can conjure up a brand new law: a law that effectively requires you to use HP ink.

Anticircumvention is a way for legislatures to outsource law-making to corporations. Once a corporation adds an access control to its product, they can create a new felony for using it in ways that benefit you at the expense of the company's shareholders.

So another way of saying "anticircumvention law" is "felony contempt of business model." It's a way for a corporation to threaten you with prison if you don't use your property in the way they want you to.

That's anti-circumvention law.

The DMCA was a enshittifier's charter, an invitation for corporations to use tactical "access controls" to write invisible, private laws that would let them threaten their customers – and competitors who might help those customers – with criminal prosecution.

Now, the DMCA has a known, living author, Bruce Lehman, a corporate IP lawyer who did a turn in government service as Bill Clinton's IP Czar.

Lehman tried several ways to get American policymakers to adopt this stupid idea, only to be rebuffed. So, undaunted, he traveled to Geneva, home of the World Intellectual Property Organization or WIPO, aa UN "specialized agency" that makes the world's IP treaties. At Lehman's insistence, WIPO passed a pair of treaties in 1996, collectively known as the "Internet Treaties," and in 1998, he got Congress to pass the DMCA, in order to comply with the terms of these treaties, a move he has since repeatedly described as "doing an end-run around Congress."

This guy, Bruce Lehman, he is still with us, breathing the same air as you and me. We are sharing a planet with the Louis Pasteur of making everything as shitty as possible.

But Bruce Lehman only enshittified America, turning our southern cousins into fodder for the immortal colony organisms we call limited liability corporations. To understand how Canada enshittified, we have to introduce some Canadian enshittifiers.

Specifically, two of Stephen Harper's ministers: James Moore, Harper's Heritage minister, and the disgraced sex-pest Tony Clement, who was then Industry minister. Stephen Harper really wanted a Canadian anti-circumvention law, and he put Clement and Moore in charge of the effort.

Everyone knew that it was going to be a hard slog. After all, Canadians had already rejected anti-circumvention law three times. Back in 2006, Sam Bulte – a Liberal MP in Paul Martin's government – tried to get this law through, but it was so unpopular that she lost her seat in Parkdale, which flipped to the NDP for a generation.

Moore and Clement hatched a plan to sell anti-circumvention to the Canadian people. They decided to do a consultation on the law. The thinking was that if we all "felt heard" then we wouldn't be so angry when they rammed it through.

Boy, did that backfire. 6,138 of us filed consultation responses categorically rejecting this terrible law, and only 53 responses offered support for the idea.

How were Moore and Clement going to spin this? Simple. Moore went to a meeting of the International Chamber of Commerce in Toronto, and gave a speech where he denounced all 6,132 of us as "babyish" and "radical extremists." Then Harper whipped his caucus and in 2012, Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernisation Act passed, and we got a Made-in-Canada all-purpose, omnienshittificatory anti-circumvention law.

Let's be clear about what this law does: because it makes no exemptions for circumvention for lawful purposes, Canada's anti-circumvention law criminalizes anything you do with your computer, phone or device, if it runs counter to the manufacturer's wishes.

It's an invitation for foreign manufacturers to use Canada's courts to punish Canadian customers and Canadian companies for finding ways to make the products we buy and use less shitty.

Anti-circumvention is at the root of the repair emergency. All companies have to do is add an "initialization" routine to their devices, so that any new parts installed in a car, or a tractor, or a phone, or a ventilator has to be unlocked by the manufacturer's representative before the device will recognize the new part, and it becomes a crime for an independent mechanic, or a farmer, or an independent repair shop, or a hospital technician to fix a car, or a tractor, or a phone, or a ventilator.

This is called "parts pairing" or "VIN locking. "Now, we did pass C-244, a national Right to Repair law, last year, but it's just a useless ornament, because it doesn't override anti-circumvention. So Canadians can't fix their own technology if the manufacturers uses an access control to block the repair.

Anti-circumvention means we can't fix things when they break, and it also means that we can't fix them when they arrive pre-broken by their enshittifying manufacturers.

Take the iPhone: it can only use one app store, Apple's official one, and everyone who puts an app in the app store has to sign up to use Apple's payment processor, which takes 30 cents out of every dollar you spend inside an app.

That means that when a Canadian user sends $10 to a month to a Canadian independent news outlet or podcast, $3 out of that $10 gets sucked out of the transaction and lands in Cupertino, California, where it is divvied by Apple's shareholders and executives.

It's not just news sites. Every dollar you send through an app to a performer on Patreon, a crafter on Etsy, a games company, or a software company takes a roundtrip through Silicon Valley and comes back 30 cents lighter.

A Canadian company could bypass the iPhone's "access controls" and give you a download or a little hardware dongle that installed a Canadian app store, one that used the Interac network to process payments for free, eliminating Apple and Google's 30% tax on Canada's entire mobile digital economy.

And indeed, we have 2024's Bill C-294, an interoperability law, that lets Canadians do this. But just as with the repair law, our interoperability law is also useless, because it doesn't repeal the anti-circumvention law, meaning you are only allowed to reverse engineer products to make interoperable alternatives if there is no access control in the way. Of course, every company that's in a position to rip you off just adds an access control.

The fact that foreign corporations have the final say over how Canadians use their own property is a font of endless enshittification. Remember when we told Facebook to pay news outlets for links and Facebook just removed all links to the news? Our anti-circumvention law is the only reason that a Canadian company couldn't jailbreak the Facebook app and give you an alternative app, one that slurped up everything Facebook was waiting to show you in your feed, all the updates from your friend and your groups while blocking all the surveillance, the ads and the slop and the recommendations, and then mixing in the news that you wanted to see.

Remember when we tried to get Netflix to show Canadian content in your recommendations and search results? Anti-circumvention is the only reason some Canadian company can't jailbreak the Netflix app and give you an alternative client that lets you stream all your Netflix shows but also shows you search results from the NFB and any other library of Canadian media, while blocking Netflix's surveillance.

Anticircumvention means that Canadian technologists can't seize the means of computation, which means that we're at the mercy of American companies and we only get the rights that they decide to give us.

Apple will block Facebook's apps from spying on you while you use your iPhone, but they won't let you block Apple from spying on you while you use your iPhone, to gather exactly the same data Facebook steals from you, for exactly the same purpose: to target ads to you.

Apple will screen the apps in its app store to prevent malicious code from running on your iPhone, but if you want to run a legitimate app and Apple doesn't want you to, they will block it from the app store and you will just have to die mad.

That's what's happened in October, when Apple kicked an app called ICE Block out of the App Store. ICE Block is an app that warns you if masked thugs are at large in your neighborhood waiting to kidnap you and send you to a camp. Apple decided that ICE thugs were a "protected class" that ICE Block discriminated against, hey decided that you don't deserve to be safe from ICE kidnappings, and what they say goes.

The road to enshittification hell is paved with anticircumvention. We told our politicians this, a decade and a half ago, and they called us "babyish radical extremists" and did it anyway.

Now, I've been shouting about this for decades. I was one of those activists who helped get Sam Bulte unelected and flipped her seat for 20 years. But I will be the first person to tell you that I have mostly failed at preventing enshittification.

Bruce Lehman, James Moore and even Tony "dick pic" Clement are way better at enshittifying the world than I am at disenshittifying it. Of course, they have an advantage over me: they are in a coalition with the world's most powerful corporations and their wealthy investors.

Whereas my coalition is basically, you know, you folks. People who care about human rights, workers' rights, consumer rights, privacy rights. And guys, I hate to tell you, but we're losing.

Let's talk about how we start winning.

Any time you see a group of people successfully push for a change that they've been trying to make unsuccessfully for a long-ass time it's a sure bet that they've found some coalition partners. People who want some of the same things, who've set aside their differences and joined the fight.

That's the Trump story, all over. The Trump coalition is basically, all the billionaires, plus the racists, plus the dopes who'd vote for a slime mold if it promised to lower their taxes by a nickle, even though they somehow expect to have roads and schools. Well, maybe not schools. You know, Ford Nation.

Plus everyone who correctly thinks the Democratic Party are a bunch of do-nothing sellouts, who think they can bully you into voting for genocide because the other guy is an out-and-out fascist.

Billionaires, racists, freaks with low-tax brain-worms and people who hate the sellout Dems: Trump's built a coalition that gets stuff done. Sure, it's terrible stuff, but you can't deny that they're getting it done.

To escape from the enshittificatory black hole that Clement and Moore blew in Canadian policy, we need a coalition, too. And thanks to Trump and his incontinent belligerence, we're getting one.

Let's start with the Trump tariffs. When I was telling you about how anticircumvention law took four tries under two different Prime Ministers, perhaps you wondered "Why did all these Canadian politicians want this stupid law in the first place?"

After all, it's not like Canadian companies are particularly enriched by this law. Sure, it lets Ted Rogers rent you a cable box that won't let you attach a video recorder, so you have to pay for Rogers' PVR, which only lets you record some shows, and deletes them after a set time, and won't let you skip the ads.

But the amount of extra money Rogers makes off this disgusting little racket is dwarfed by the billions that Canadian business leave on the table every year, by not going into business disenshittifying America's shitty tech exports. To say nothing of the junk fees and app taxes and data that those American companies rip off every Canadian for.

So why were these Canadian MPs and prime ministers from both the Liberals and the Tories so invested in getting anticircumvention onto our law-books?

Simple: the US Trade Rep threatened us with tariffs if we didn't pass an anti-circuvmention law.

Remember, digital products are slippery. If America bans circumvention, and American companies starts screwing the American public, that just opens an opportunity for companies elsewhere in the world to make disenshittifying products, which any American with an internet connection and a payment method can buy. Downloading jailbreaking code is much easier than getting insulin shipped from a Canadian pharmacy!

So the US Trade Rep's top priority for the past quarter-century has been bullying America's trading partners into passing anti-circumvention laws to render their own people defenseless against American tech companies' predation and to prevent non-American tech companies from going into business disenshittifying America's defective goods.

The threat of tariffs was so serious that multiple Canadian PMs from multiple parties tried multiple times to get a law on the books that would protect us from tariffs.

And then in comes Trump, and now we have tariffs anyway.

And let me tell you: when someone threatens to burn your house down if you don't follow their orders, and you follow their orders, and they burn your house down anyway, you are an absolute sucker if you keep following their orders.

We could respond to the tariffs by legalizing circumvention, and unleashing Canadian companies to go into business raiding the margins of the most profitable lines of business of the most profitable corporations the world has ever seen.

Sure, Canada might not ever have a company like Research In Motion again, but what we could have is a company that sells the tools to jailbreak iPhones to anyone who wants to set up an independent iPhone store, bypassing Apple's 30% app tax and its high-handed judgments about what apps we can and can't have.

Apple's payment processing business is worth $100b/year. We could offer people a 90% discount and still make $10b/year. And unlike Apple, we wouldn't have to assume the risk and capital expenditure of making phones. We could stick Apple with all of the risk and expense, and cream off the profits.

That's fair, isn't it? It's certainly how Big Tech operates. When Amazon started, Jeff Bezos said to the publishers, "Your margin is my opportunity." $100b/year off a 30% payment processing fee is a hell of a margin, and a hell of an opportunity.

With Silicon Valley, it's always "disruption for thee, not for me. When they do it to us, that's progress, when we do it to them, it's piracy (and every pirate wants to be an admiral).

Now, of course, Canada hasn't responded to the Trump tariffs with jailbreaking. Our version of "elbows up" turns out to mean retaliatory tariffs. Which is to say, we're making everything we buy from America more expensive for us, which is a pretty weird way of punishing America, eh?

It's like punching yourself in the face really hard and hoping the downstairs neighbour says "Ouch."

Plus, it's pretty indiscriminate. We're not angry at Americans. We're angry at Trump and his financial backers. Tariffing soybeans just whacks some poor farmer in a state that begins and ends with a vowel who's never done anything bad to Canada.

I guarantee you that poor bastard is making payments on a John Deere tractor, which costs him an extra $200 every time it breaks down, because after he fixes it himself, he has to pay two hundred bucks to John Deere and wait two days for them to send out a technician who types an unlock code into the tractor's console that unlocks the "parts pairing," so the tractor recognises the new part.

Instead of tariffing that farmer's soybeans, we could sell him the jailbreaking tool that lets him fix his tractor without paying an extra $200 to John Deere.

Instead of tsking at Elon Musk over his Nazi salute, we could sell every mechanic in the world a Tesla jailbreaking kit that unlocks all the subscription features and software upgrades, without sending a dime to Tesla, kicking Elon Musk square in the dongle.

This is all stuff we could be doing. We could be building gigantic Canadian tech businesses, exporting to a global market, whose products make everything cheaper for every Canadian, and everyone else in the world, including every American.

Because the American public is also getting screwed by these companies, and we could stand on guard for them, too. We could be the Disenshittification Nation.

But that's not what we've done. Instead, we've decided to make everything in Canada more expensive, which is just about the stupidest political strategy I've ever heard of.

This might be the only thing Carney could do that's less popular than firing 10,000 civil servants and replacing them with chatbots on the advice of the world's shadiest art dealer, who is pretty sure that if we keep shoveling words into the word-guessing program it will wake up and become intelligent.

Which is just, you know, stupid. It's like thinking that if we just keep breeding our horses to run faster, one of our mares will eventually give birth to a locomotive. Human beings are not word-guessing programs who know more words that ChatGPT.

So it's clear that the coalition of "people who care about digital rights" and "people who want to make billions of dollars off jailbreaking tech" isn't powerful enough to break the coalition that makes hundreds of billions of dollars from enshittification.

But Trump – yes, Trump! – keeps recruiting people to our cause.

Trump has made it clear that America no longer has allies, nor does it have trading partners. It has adversaries and rivals. And Trump's favorite weapon for attacking his foreign adversaries are America's tech giants.

When the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant against Bejamin Netanyahu for ordering a genocide, Trump denounced them, and Microsoft shut down their Outlook accounts.

The chief prosecutor and other justices immediately lost access to all the working files of the court, to their email archives, to their diaries and address books.

This was a giant, blinking sign, visible from space, reading AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

Trump's America only has adversaries and rivals, and Trump will pursue dominance by bricking your government, your businesses, your whole country.

It's not just administrative software that Trump can send kill signals to. Remember when those Russian looters stole Ukrainian tractors and they turned up in Crimea? John Deere sent a kill-signal to the tractors and permanently immobilized them.

This was quite a cool little comeuppance, the kind of thing a cyberpunk writer like me can certainly relish. But anyone who thinks about this for, oh, ten seconds will immediately realise that anyone who can push around the John Deere company can order the permanent immobilization of any tractor in the world, or all the tractors in your country.

Because John Deere is a monopolist, and whatever part of the market Deere doesn't control is controlled by Massey Ferguson, and Trump can order the bricking of those tractors, too.

This is the thing we were warned we'd face if we let Huawei provide our telecoms infrastructure, and those warnings weren't wrong. We should be worried about any gadget that we rely on that can be bricked by its manufacturer.

Because that means we are at risk from the manufacturer, from governments who can suborn the manufacturer, from corporate insiders who can hijack the manufacturer's control systems, and from criminals who can impersonate the manufacturer to our devices.

This is the third part of our coalition: not just digital rights weirdos like me; not just investors and technologists looking to make billions; but also national security hawks who are justifiably freaking out about America, China, or someone else shutting down key pieces of their country, from its food supply to its administrative capacity.

Trump is a crisis, and crises precipitate change.

Just look at Europe. Before Putin invaded Ukraine, the EU was a decade behind on its energy transition goals. Now, just a few years later, they're 15 years ahead of schedule.

It turns out that a lot of "impossible" things are really just fights you'd rather not have. No one wants to argue with some tedious German who hates the idea of looking at "ugly solar panels" on their neighbour's balcony. But once you're all shivering in the dark, that's an argument you will have and you will win.

Today, another mad emperor is threatening Europe – and the world. Trump's wanton aggression has given rise to a new anti-enshittification coalition: digital rights advocates, investors and technologists, and national security hawks; both the ones who worry about America, and the ones who worry about China.

That's a hell of a coalition!

The time is right to become a disenshittification nation, to harness our own tech talent, and the technologists who are fleeing Trump's America in droves, along with capital from investors who'd like to back a business whose success isn't determined by how many $TRUMP Coins they buy.

Jailbreaking is how Canada cuts American Big Tech down to size.

It's unlike everything else we've tried, like the Digital Services Tax, or forcing Netflix to support cancon, or making Facebook and Google pay to link to the news.

All of those tactics involve making these companies that are orders of magnitude richer than Canada do something they absolutely do not want to do.

Time and again, they've shown that we don't have the power to make them do things. But you know what Canada has total power over? What Canada does.

We are under no obligation to continue to let these companies use our courts to attack our technologists, our businesses, our security researchers, our tech co-ops, our nonprofits, who want to jailbreak America's shitty tech, to seize the means of computation, to end the era in which American tech companies can raid our wallets and our data with impunity.

In a jailbroken Canada, we don't have to limit ourselves to redistribution, to taxing away some of the money that the tech giants steal from us. In a jailbroken Canada, we can do predistribution. We can stop them from stealing our money in the first place.

And if we don't do it, someone else will. Because every country was arm-twisted into passing an anti-circumvention law like ours. Every country had a supine and cowardly lickspittle like James Moore or Tony Clement who'd do America's bidding, a quisling who'd put their nation's people and businesses in chains, rather than upset the US Trade Rep.

And all of those countries are right where we are: hit with tariffs, threatened by Trump, waiting for the day that Microsoft or Oracle or Google or John Deere bricks their businesses, their government, their farms.

One of those countries is going to jump at this opportunity, the opportunity to consume the billions in rents stolen by US Tech giants, and use them as fuel for a single-use rocket booster that launches their tech sector into a stable orbit for decades to come.

That gives them the hottest export business in living memory: a capital-light, unstoppable suite of products that save businesses and consumers money, while protecting their privacy.

If we sleep on this, we'll still benefit. We'll get the consumer surplus that comes from buying those jailbreaking tools online and using them to disenshittify our social media, our operating systems, our vehicles, our industrial and farm equipment.

But we won't get the industrial policy, the chance to launch a whole sector of businesses, each with the global reach and influence of RIM or Nortel.

That'll go to someone else. The Europeans are already on it. They're funding and building the "Eurostack": free, open source, auditable and trustworthy versions of the US tech silos. We're going to be able to use that here.

I mean, why not? We'll just install that code on metal running in Canadian data-centres, and we'll debug it and add features to it, and so will everyone else.

Because that's how IT should work, and it should go beyond just the admin and database software that businesses and governments rely on. We should be building drop-in, free, open software for everything: smart speakers, smart TVs, smart watches, phones, cars, tractors, powered wheelchairs, ventilators.

That's how it should already be: that the software that powers these devices that we entrust with our data, our integrity, our lives should be running code that anyone can see, test, and improve.

That's how science works, after all. Before we had science, we had something kind of like science. We had alchemy. Alchemy was very similar to science, in that an alchemist would observe some natural phenomena in the world, hypothesise a causal relationship between them, and design an experiment to validate that hypothesis.

But here's where alchemy and science diverge: unlike a scientist, an alchemist wouldn't publish their results. They'd keep them secret, rather than exposing them to the agony of adversarial peer review, where your enemies seek out every possible reason to discredit your work. This let the alchemists kid themselves about the stuff they thought they'd discovered, and that's why every alchemist discovered for themself, in the hardest way possible, that you shouldn't drink mercury.

But after 500 years of this, alchemy finally achieved its long sought-after goal of converting something common to something of immeasurable value. Alchemy discovered how to transform the base metal of superstition into the precious metal of knowledge, through the crucible of publishing.

Disclosure is the difference between knowledge and ignorance. Openness is the difference between dying of mercury poisoning and discovering medicine.

The fact that we have a law on our statute books, in the year of two thousand and twenty-five, that criminalises discovering how the software we rely on works, and telling other people about it and improving it – well, it's pretty fucking pathetic, isn't it?

We don't have to keep on drinking the alchemists' mercury. We don't have to remain prisoners of the preposterous policy blunders of Tony Clement and James Moore. We don't have to tolerate the endless extraction of Big Tech. We don't have to leave billions on the table. We need not abide the presence of lurking danger in all our cloud-connected devices.

We can be the vanguard of a global movement of international nationalism, of digital sovereignty grounded in universal, open, transparent software, a commons that everyone contributes to and relies upon. Something more like science than technology.

Like the EU's energy transition, this is a move that's long overdue. Like the EU's energy transition, amad emperor has created the conditions for us to get off of our asses, to build a better world.

We could be a disenshittification nation. We could seize the means of computation. We could have a new, good internet that respects our privacy and our wallets. We could make a goddamned fortune doing it.

And once we do it, we could protect ourselves from spineless digital vassals of the mad king on our southern border, and rescue our American cousins to boot.

What's not to like?


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 Ten (sensible) startup rules https://web.archive.org/web/20060324072607/https://evhead.com/2005/11/ten-rules-for-web-startups.asp

#20yrsago Bosnian town unveils Bruce Lee statue of peace http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4474316.stm

#20yrsago Sony rootkit author asked for free code to lock up music https://web.archive.org/web/20051130023447/https://groups.google.de/group/microsoft.public.windowsmedia.drm/msg/7cb5c4ad49fa206e

#20yrsago Singapore’s executioner gets fired http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4477012.stm

#20yrsago Pre-history of the Sony rootkit https://web.archive.org/web/20181126020952/https://community.osr.com/discussion/42117#T3

#15yrsago Support the magnetic ribbon industry ribbon! https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/ecr1t/ill_see_your_empty_gesture_and_raise_you/

#15yrsago Molecular biologist on the dangers of pornoscanners https://web.archive.org/web/20101125192455/https://myhelicaltryst.blogspot.com/2010/11/tsa-x-ray-backscatter-body-scanner.html

#15yrsago Wunderkammerer front room crammed with nooks https://web.archive.org/web/20101125184317/http://mocoloco.com/fresh2/2010/11/23/villa-j-by-marge-arkitekter.php

#15yrsago Delightful science fiction story in review of $6800 speaker cable https://www.amazon.com/review/R3I8VKTCITJCX6/ref=cm_cr_dp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B000J36XR2&nodeID=172282&tag=&linkCode=

#15yrsago German Pirate Party members strip off for Berlin airport scanner protest https://web.archive.org/web/20101129043459/https://permaculture.org.au/2010/11/26/full-monty-scanner-or-enhanced-pat-down-the-only-options/

#10yrsago Dolphin teleportation symposium: now with more Eisenhowers! https://twitpic.com/3aqqa0

#10yrsago Vtech breach dumps 4.8m families’ information, toy security is to blame https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/11/when-children-are-breached-inside-the-massive-vtech-hack/

#10yrsago A Canadian teenager used America’s militarized cops to terrorize women gamers for years https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/magazine/the-serial-swatter.html?_r=0

#10yrsago What the 1980s would have made of the $5 Raspberry Pi https://www.wired.com/beyond-the-beyond/2015/11/raspberry-pi-five-bucks-us/

#10yrsago Workaholic Goethe wished he’d been better at carving out time for quiet reflection https://www.wired.com/beyond-the-beyond/2015/11/the-aged-herr-goethe-never-had-enough-time-for-himself/


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)

  • "Unauthorized Bread": a middle-grades graphic novel adapted from my novella about refugees, toasters and DRM, FirstSecond, 2026

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

  • "The Memex Method," Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2026

  • "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book about being a better AI critic, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, June 2026



Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing:

  • "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

There’s A Lot Going On [The Status Kuo]

Wow, that’s a whole lotta news for a holiday week. But I’ve been around long enough to know that the world will still be there with all its problems tomorrow. So I’m taking the day off and enjoying time with my babies, my brother and my nephew.

Two things before I go:

First, the irrepressible Joyce Vance and I have rescheduled our joint livestream for tomorrow, Saturday Nov. 29, at 11 a.m. ET. We’ll be covering everything from recent tragic events in D.C., to the splintering of the GOP over the Epstein files, to Trump’s failing political revenge tour. As subscribers here, you should receive an email alert when we are live. Thanks for your patience as we have had to reschedule this a few times.

Second, I typically offer a Thanksgiving discount for new paid subscriptions to support all my work here. If you’re already a subscriber, thank you! If you’d like to offer your own thanks and become a paid supporter, this is a good opportunity.

Yes! Count Me In For 20% Off!

And to those who are wondering, I’ll post some “first Thanksgiving together” photos of my babies as soon as I can sort through all the ones we took! They are sooooo cute.

See you for some hilarity in Skeets and Giggles and then a lively livestream with Joyce Vance tomorrow!

Jay

02:00 AM

Kanji of the Day: 臨 [Kanji of the Day]

✍18

小6

look to, face, meet, confront, attend, call on

リン

のぞ.む

臨む   (のぞむ)   —   to look out on
臨時   (りんじ)   —   temporary
臨場感   (りんじょうかん)   —   presence
臨床   (りんしょう)   —   clinical (e.g., pathology, physiology)
臨み   (のぞみ)   —   challenge
臨時国会   (りんじこっかい)   —   extraordinary Diet session
臨海   (りんかい)   —   coastal
臨床心理士   (りんしょうしんりし)   —   clinical psychologist
臨月   (りんげつ)   —   final month of pregnancy
臨機応変   (りんきおうへん)   —   adapting oneself to the requirements of the moment

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Kanji of the Day: 紹 [Kanji of the Day]

✍11

中学

introduce, inherit, help

ショウ

紹介   (しょうかい)   —   introduction
自己紹介   (じこしょうかい)   —   self-introduction
紹介状   (しょうかいじょう)   —   letter of introduction
紹介文   (しょうかいぶん)   —   introductory essay
紹興酒   (しょうこうしゅ)   —   Shaoxing wine (chi:)
紹介者   (しょうかいしゃ)   —   person who introduces someone
新刊紹介   (しんかんしょうかい)   —   book review

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Friday 2025-11-28

07:00 PM

Pirate Site Operator’s Appeal Goes Bad, Court Extends Prison Term By 50% [TorrentFreak]

noonoo-logoDespite a stream of news reports that seem to suggest the opposite, there are more examples of pirate site operators surviving unscathed than there are public catastrophes.

That’s to be expected when facing finite anti-piracy resources, yet some individuals do seem to fly under the radar with very little effort. Others prefer to weigh the likelihood of enforcement against available resources and confidence in their personal skill set. For some, the strategy has proven successful, but thanks to a volatile mix of unpredictable variables, some suddenly find things going in the opposite direction.

The warning signs are often glaringly obvious to those viewing from the periphery, but for those involved, up close they may be almost invisible.

The Rise and Fall of NunuTV

Operating from July 2021 to April 2023, NunuTV (NooNoo TV) quickly gained a reputation for illegally streaming domestic and international titles to the pirating masses.

Reportedly servicing tens of millions of visitors every month, the site’s popularity was never in doubt. Neither did it go unnoticed by those increasingly concerned by its meteoric growth. Rightsholders claimed that the site facilitated over 1.5 billion views of pirated movies and TV shows, with damage to the entertainment industries estimated at five trillion Korean won (US$3.7 billion).

noonoo-tv

Whether that figure was wildly overblown or about right wasn’t the main concern. South Korean media companies and groups clearly felt strongly enough to join forces under the Video Copyright Protection Council (VCPC) to put an end to it. Facing a “stronger together” strategy in respect of legal action and the aggressive pursuit of site-blocking measures, NunuTV’s response to the latter was predictable and extremely persistent.

Blocked / Unblocked / Arrested

Every time a NunuTV domain was blocked, the site would reappear on an almost identical domain, usually with a number tagged on the end that increased incrementally; noonootv1 became noonootv2, noonootv24 became noonootv25, a pattern that continued to noonootv30 and several beyond.

Blocked / Unblockednoonoo-dmns

In the background, few if any other sites were mentioned in public as potential targets. The profile of the site meant that if rightsholders and the authorities saw value in sending a deterrent message, one option stood out above all others.

When the government announced the formation of a dedicated piracy investigation unit and VCPC became even more vocal, momentum seemed to shift. NunuTV shut down in April 2023, suggesting that the “outrageous” cost of bandwidth and anti-piracy measures had detracted from keeping the site alive. A successor site, NunuTV Season 2, enthusiastically emerged soon after, but it didn’t last.

In November 2024, a notice posted to GitHub revealed that Korean authorities had shut down TVWiki, a streaming piracy site with millions of monthly users. The site’s alleged operator who, according to reports, was also behind streaming platform OK Toon, was arrested by a special unit operating under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism.

The Shutdown Notice (translated)

noonoo

A takedown notice hosted on GitHub revealed that the individual behind TVWiki and OKToon was also the operator of NunuTV. Identified in court records only as ‘Person A’, he had conveniently used the new sites to fill the void left by the original shutdown.

All three websites generated revenue from illegal gambling platform banner ads, a known aggravating factor but still quite lucrative. Authorities went on to seize assets worth 2.6 billion won (US$1.9 million), a haul that included luxury vehicles and 14 bitcoin.

Initial Sentence and a Roll of the Dice

At sentencing, the Daejeon District Court commented on the severity of the crime, and the negative impact it had on copyright holders’ revenues. Five trillion Korean won wasn’t realistic or representative of the actual damages suffered and the length of the sentence reflected that.

Initially sentenced to serve three years in prison, with the Court recognizing the 31-year-old’s admission of guilt as a positive factor, the outcome could’ve been significantly worse. Nevertheless, Person A lodged an appeal and even enjoyed partial success.

Earlier this month, the original sentence was overturned at the Daejeon District Court. Judge Park Eun-jin reduced the confiscation amount, detailed in the original sentence, from 700 million Korean won (~US$478,000) to 374.7 million Korean won (~US$256,000), accepting a claim by the defendant that some of the alleged profits may have been attributable to third parties operating separate sites, as Chosun Daily reports.

However, while the court was willing to reduce the financial penalty, it took a very different view on the prison term.

Gamble Fails to Pay Off

While the operator succeeded in saving some money, the appeal process drew attention to his history of recidivism. The court pointed to Person A’s prior convictions, indicating a pattern of criminal behavior.

“A had previously received actual prison sentences for crimes related to sports gambling sites and aiding the distribution of obscene materials, yet committed this crime,” the appellate court noted.

“When the investigation began, A closed the site and opened another, showing that the methods, means, and duration of the crime have escalated. Considering the need for strict punishment to prevent recidivism and the fact that the victimized broadcasters have petitioned for severe punishment, the original sentence was excessively lenient and unjust.”

With that, the original sentence was extended by 50%, from three years in prison to four years and six months.

Rightsholders will likely be satisfied that a clear message has been sent. Whether it will be received and acknowledged remains to be seen, but if there are gaps unfilled by locals in a national market, it’s usually just a matter of time before more elusive targets take up the slack.

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

04:00 PM

Practical results [F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository]

This Week in F-Droid

TWIF curated on Thursday, 27 Nov 2025, Week 48

F-Droid core

In the process of doing all this development work, we ran mass rebuilds of the whole collection of apps, killing two birds with one stone. First, it served to test our new build automation with the existing apps, and second, it showed us which apps are reproducible. For the apps that were not reproducible, we have looked into fixes in our stack, in upstream build tools, and in the apps themselves.

We mapped out all the issues we have encountered caused by running builds in VMs versus containers. There are two classes:

  • Builds needing privileged calls that containers normally do not support in production setups (e.g. direct writes to sysctl or /sys/devices/system/cpu/)
  • The methods of presenting CPU and RAM limits are implemented differently between virtualization (e.g. libvirt) and containerization (e.g. Podman), and are not interchangeable. This can lead to build differences and we currently know of no workaround or fix for this.

There is not final statistic as apps builds change with each cycle, but currently we see about 68% reproducible builds.

NOTE: Our verification server shows if apps packages were reproducible against our published APKs on f-droid.org, when the F-Droid buildserver is used as the build environment. We don’t yet surface information if an app is reproducible against the upstream developer builds, but one can see this in each app’s web page by following the “Build Metadata” link, and search if there’s a field named AllowedAPKSigningKeys present near the end.

Community News

Ente Photos - Encrypted photo storage was updated to 1.2.20 and Notesnook - Private notes app was updated to 3.3.9. Following our mention on a Tuta & Ente partnership back in Oct 17 TWIF, here comes another offer between Notesnook and Ente. Access the Notesnook offer and here’s the Ente offer.

Oh, talk about photo apps, Immich was updated to 2.3.1, and reading their latest October recap I noticed OCR being mentioned. So here’s a challenge from me, which one do you find better, Immich’s OCR or Ente’s OCR?

K-9 Mail and Thunderbird: Free Your Inbox were updated to 14.0 and Thunderbird Beta for Testers was updated to 15.0b1. Thunderbird for Android has been out for just over a year so the team prepared a special retrospective post (and a bonus 1 hour long discussion) with the mobile team to look back at what they were able to accomplish this last year, what they’re still working on, and what’s up ahead. /PS: While I, for one, hate the “new” Account Drawer thing, hearing about JMAP being worked on makes me happy.

Proton Pass: Password Manager was updated to 1.35.1 and ProtonVPN - Secure and Free VPN was updated to 5.14.65.0, and they are now joined by the new Proton Authenticator, Private, secure, offline 2FA across devices, raising the number of Proton apps to four.

Saracroche, Block unwanted spam calls automatically and protect your privacy if you’re France, was just added. Camille Bouvat, the developer, gave an interview (in French) back in September to talk about how the app came into existence and how you can help to make it better.

Missed last week, Status: Ethereum Crypto Wallet 2.34.4 will be the last version in this current form as the app will be replaced by a new one soon. The devs wrote a post explaining the reasons why and how to switch when ready. What about the new app? It’s called “the Unified Status Mobile App” and it’s work in progress, sharing an unified code-base with the Desktop client, running on QT version 6. F-Droid will be supported, as we can read in the revealing post but it might take some time until then. NOTE: Pre-built QT libs are no longer available under a FLOSS license hence we’ll need to first built QT6 before building the app. A dauting task no less, but doable as we already build plenty of other apps like this.

@linsui checks a signing key:

Syncthing-Fork was updated to 2.0.11.3 and Syncthing-Lite was updated to 2.0.0.1, but they are now both under a new development team. There was bit of a mystery about why, how and when the original developer handed over the keys and blessings to the new team, and you can follow some of the discussions in this upstream issue and this long forum thread. Both apps are built reproducible which means that the guarantees mentioned in our inclusion page are helpful in assessing the situation.

Newly Added Apps

11 more apps were newly added
  • Al-Quran - Simple: A simple open-source Quran reader
  • BikeBridge: Companion app for e-bikes and components
  • ciphernotes: Client-side encrypted notes that sync across devices
  • Dnd Toggle: Toggle DND from a Quick Settings tile
  • IPerf3Client: iPerf3 is a tool for active measurements of the max bandwidth on IP networks
  • Janus: Contextual translations using Wikipedia’s knowledge graph
  • Mental Math: Practice mental arithmetic solo or compete with friends
  • Quotes - Quotes Status Creator: Quotes Status Creator lets you share quotations as images on social media
  • Repertoire: An app for musicians to track their repertoire and media
  • Sift: A minimalist, open-source recipe keeper
  • WiFi Exporter: Export your WiFi passwords (requires root)

Updated Apps

203 more apps were updated
(expand for the full list)

Thank you for reading this week’s TWIF 🙂

Please subscribe to the RSS feed in your favourite RSS application to be updated of new TWIFs when they come up.

You are welcome to join the TWIF forum thread. If you have any news from the community, post it there, maybe it will be featured next week 😉

To help support F-Droid, please check out the donation page and contribute what you can.

05:00 AM

Gratitude and empathy [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

Empathy is difficult. I’m not you, I can’t imagine the path you’ve traveled, the stories you tell yourself and the pressures you’re under.

But real gratitude requires empathy. Everyone is under the circumstances. Everyone does the best they think they can with the options they think they have.

All of us know what something is worth to us, but we often don’t think much about how much it cost.

Once we understand this, it’s easier to embrace the kindness and opportunities that people offer us.

PS here’s my favorite Thanksgiving Day post. It’s every day if we let it. Sending good vibes and hugs to you and your family.

      

Pluralistic: Normie diffusion and technophilia (27 Nov 2025) [Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow]


Today's links



A supercomputing data center with a drop ceiling. Hanging upside down from the ceiling is a young girl, tinted acid-green, with a halo of light radiating off her body. Around the data center are several young children, running towards her or pointing at her.

Normie diffusion and technophilia (permalink)

It's an accepted (but wrong) fact that some groups of people are just more technologically adventurous by temperament, and that's why they adopt technologies before the rest of society (think here of pornographers, kids, and terrorists).

As I've written before, these groups aren't more (or less) temperamentally inclined to throw themselves into mastering new technologies. Rather, they have more reason to do so:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/21/early-adopters/#sex-tech

Whenever a new communications technology arrives, it is arriving into a world of existing communications technologies, which are, by definition, easier to use. They're easier to use for two reasons: the obvious reason is that you're more likely to be familiar with an existing technology than you are with a new technology. After all, it's literally impossible to be familiar with a technology that has just been invented!

But the other reason that existing communications technologies are easier to use is that communication is – again, by definition – something you do with other people. That means that if you want to use a new communications tool to talk with someone else, it is not sufficient for you to master that technology's use – you must also convince the other person you're hoping to reach to master that technology, too.

In economic terms, the "opportunity cost" (the amount of time you lose for doing other things) of mastering a new communications tool isn't limited to your own education, but also to the project of convincing someone else to master that tool, and then showing them how to use it.

If the existing communications technology is working for you, mastering the new tool is mostly cost, with very little upside. Perhaps you are a technophile by temperament and derive intrinsic satisfaction from exploring a new tool, and that's why you do it, but even so, you're going to find yourself in the bind of trying to convince the people you'd like to communicate with to follow your lead. And if they're all being well-served by the existing communications tools, and if they're not technophiles, you're asking them to engage in a lot of labor and endure a high opportunity cost for no obvious benefit. It's a hard slog.

But there are many groups of people for whom the existing technology does not work, and one of the biggest ways an existing technology can fail is if the authorities are using it to suppress your communications and/or spy on your usage in order to frustrate your goals.

This brings us back to sex workers, kids and terrorists. All three groups are typically poorly served by the existing communications technology. If you're a pornographer in the age of celluloid film, you either have to convince your customers to visit (and risk being seen entering) an adult movie theater, or you have to convince them to buy an 8mm projector and mail order your reels (and risk being caught having them delivered).

No wonder pornographers and sex workers embraced the VCR! No wonder they embraced the internet! No wonder they embraced cryptocurrency (if your bank accounts are liable to being frozen and/or seized, it's worth figuring out how to use an esoteric payment method and endure the risk of its volatility and technological uncertainty). Today, sex workers and their customers are doubtless mastering VPNs (to evade anonymity-stripping "age verification" systems) and Tor hidden services (to evade "online safety" laws).

The alternative to using these systems isn't the status quo – making use of existing websites, existing payment methods, existing connection tools. The alternative is nothing. So it's worth learning to use these new tools, and to engage in the social labor of convincing others to join you in using them.

Then there's kids. Unlike sex workers, kids' communications aren't broadly at risk of being suppressed so much as they are at risk of being observed by authority figures with whom they have an adversarial relationship.

When you're a kid, you want to talk about things without your parents, teachers, principals, or (some of) your peers or siblings listening in. You want to plan things without these people listening in, because they might try and stop you from doing them, or punish you if you succeed.

So again, it's worth figuring out how to use new technologies, because the existing ones are riddled with censorship and surveillance back-doors ("parental controls") that can be deployed to observe your communications, interdict your actions, and punish you for the things that you manage to pull off.

So of course kids are also "early adopters" – but not because being a kid makes you a technophile. Many kids are technophiles and many are not, but whether or not a kid finds mastering a new technology intrinsically satisfying, they will likely have to do so, if they want to communicate with their peers.

For terrorists, the case for mastering new technologies combines the sex-workers' cases and kids' cases: terrorists' communications are both illegal and societally unacceptable (like sexual content) and terrorists operate in an environment in which entities far more powerful than them seek to observe and interdict their plans, and punish them after the fact for their actions (like kids).

So once again, terrorists are apt to master new communications technologies, but not because seeking to influence political outcomes by acts of violence against civilian populations is somehow tied to deriving intrinsic satisfaction from mastering new technologies, but rather because the existing technologies are dangerously unsuitable for your needs.

Note that just because being in one of these groups doesn't automatically make you a technophile, it doesn't mean that there are no technophiles among these groups. Some people are into tech and the sex industry. Some kids love mastering new technologies. Doubtless this is true of some terrorists, too.

I haven't seen any evidence that being a kid, or a terrorist, or a sex-worker, makes you any less (or any more) interested in technology than anyone else. Some of us just love this stuff for its own sake. Other people just want a tool that works so they can get on with their lives. That's true of every group of people.

The difference is that if you're a technophile in a group of people who have a damned good reason to endure the opportunity cost of mastering a new technology, you have a much more receptive audience for your overheated exhortations to try this amazing new cool thing you've discovered.

What's more, there are some situational and second-order effects that come into play as a result of these dynamics. For example, kids are famously "cash-poor and time-rich" which means that spending the time to figure out new technologies when they're still in stage one of enshittification (when they deliver a lot of value at their lowest cost, often free) is absolutely worth it.

Likewise, the fact that sex-workers are often the first commercial users of a new communications technology means that there's something especially ugly about the fact that these services jettison sex workers the instant they get leaned on by official prudes. The story of the internet is the story of businesses who owe their commercial existence to sex workers, who have since rejected them and written them out of their official history.

It also means that technophiles who aren't kids, pornographers or terrorists are more likely to find themselves in techno-social spaces that have higher-than-average cohorts of all three groups. This means that bright young technologists can find themselves being treated as peers by accomplished adults (think of Aaron Swartz attending W3C meetings as a pre-teen after being welcomed as a peer in web standardization online forums).

It also means that technophiles are more likely than the average person to have accidentally clicked on a terrorist atrocity video. And it means that pornographers and sex-workers are more likely to be exposed to technologically adventurous people in purely social, non-sexual online interactions, because they're among the first arrivals in new technological spaces, when they are still mostly esoteric, high-tech realms, which means that even among the less technophilic members of that group, there's probably an above-average degree of familiarity with things that are still way ahead of the tech mainstream.

My point is that we should understand that the adoption of technology by disfavored, at risk, or prohibited groups is driven by material factors, not by some hidden ideological link between sex and tech, or youth and tech, or terrorism at tech.


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 TSA makes flier remove body jewelry https://web.archive.org/web/20051129025951/https://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/s_397618.html

#20yrsago Microsoft caught subverting UN process, censoring FOSS references https://web.archive.org/web/20051128030303/https://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39238443,00.htm

#15yrsago Zimbabwean law will put legislation, parliamentary gazette, etc, under state copyright https://web.archive.org/web/20101129133649/https://www.theindependent.co.zw/local/28907-general-laws-bill-inimical-to-democracy.html

#10yrsago Steiff Japan’s centaur teddybears http://www.steiff-shop.jp/2007w_ltd/037351_seet.html

#10yrsago Woman adds vaginal yeast to sourdough starter, Internet flips out https://web.archive.org/web/20180808194241/https://anotherangrywoman.com/2015/11/25/baking-and-eating-cuntsourdough/

#10yrsago Party like it’s 1998: UK government bans ripping CDs — again https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/thanks-to-the-music-industry-it-is-illegal-to-make-private-copies-of-music-again/

#10yrsago Devastating technical rebuttal to the Snoopers Charter https://www.me.uk/IPBill-evidence1.pdf

#10yrsago AIDS-drug-gouging hedge-douche reneges on promise to cut prices for Daraprim https://www.techdirt.com/2015/11/25/turing-refuses-to-lower-cost-daraprim-hides-news-ahead-thanksgiving-holiday/

#10yrsago US credit union regulator crushed Internet Archive’s non-predatory, game-changing bank https://blog.archive.org/2015/11/24/difficult-times-at-our-credit-union/

#10yrsago The last quarter-century of climate talks explained, in comics form https://web.archive.org/web/20151126142914/http://www.nature.com/news/the-fragile-framework-1.18861

#10yrsago The Paradox: a secret history of magical London worthy of Tim Powers https://memex.craphound.com/2015/11/26/the-paradox-a-secret-history-of-magical-london-worthy-of-tim-powers/

#1yrago Bossware is unfair (in the legal sense, too) https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/26/hawtch-hawtch/#you-treasure-what-you-measure


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)

  • "Unauthorized Bread": a middle-grades graphic novel adapted from my novella about refugees, toasters and DRM, FirstSecond, 2026

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

  • "The Memex Method," Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2026

  • "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book about being a better AI critic, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, June 2026



Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing:

  • "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

02:00 AM

Kanji of the Day: 優 [Kanji of the Day]

✍17

小6

tenderness, excel, surpass, actor, superiority, gentleness

ユウ ウ

やさ.しい すぐ.れる まさ.る

優勝   (ゆうしょう)   —   overall victory
女優   (じょゆう)   —   actress
俳優   (はいゆう)   —   actor
声優   (せいゆう)   —   voice actor or actress (radio, animation, etc.)
優先   (ゆうせん)   —   preference
優しい   (やさしい)   —   tender
優秀   (ゆうしゅう)   —   superior
初優勝   (はつゆうしょう)   —   first championship win (esp. sumo)
準優勝   (じゅんゆうしょう)   —   being the runner-up
最優秀   (さいゆうしゅう)   —   best

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Kanji of the Day: 窟 [Kanji of the Day]

✍13

中学

cavern

クツ コツ

いわや いはや あな

洞窟   (どうくつ)   —   cave
巣窟   (そうくつ)   —   den
巌窟   (がんくつ)   —   cave
魔窟   (まくつ)   —   den of vice
仙窟   (せんくつ)   —   enchanted cave
鴉片窟   (あへんくつ)   —   opium den
阿片窟   (あへんくつ)   —   opium den
貧民窟   (ひんみんくつ)   —   slum
私娼窟   (ししょうくつ)   —   brothel
理窟   (りくつ)   —   theory

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

Thursday 2025-11-27

08:00 PM

MPA Shut Down OnionPlay’s Discord & Tries to Unmask Pirate Site Operator [TorrentFreak]

onionplayFounded in 2019, pirate streaming service aggregator OnionPlay has been around for half a decade already.

While the site had to switch domain names occasionally, OnionPlay maintained its core identity while its user base continued to grow.

Discord Deletes OnionPlay Channel

At a time when pirate streaming sites are under heavy pressure from the MPA and its anti-piracy branch ACE, staying online can be quite a feat. This pressure also affected OnionPlay to some degree, as it suddenly lost its main Discord channel at the end of October.

OnionPlay’s owner and operator, who uses the online handle “TexasHomie,” was told that the channel was shut down after copyright-infringing links were posted in violation of Discord’s rules.

As a result, two years of community-building work disappeared overnight but TexasHomie didn’t throw in the towel. Inside two weeks, a new Discord channel was active.

Back on November 12

onion domain

At the same time, OnionPlay traded in its .mx domain name for a new .bz variant. While business seemed to continue as usual, a new filing at federal court in California would soon reveal who was behind the Discord shutdown.

MPA/ACE Demanded the Discord Shutdown

On November 14, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) requested a DMCA subpoena on behalf of its member studio Warner Bros. These subpoenas can be signed off by a court clerk, provided that the requester has sent a DMCA notice to the intermediary involved.

In this case, the MPA seeks information from Discord, and their legal request includes a copy of a DMCA notice in which ACE complains about links that were posted in OnionPlay’s old Discord channel.

From the takedown notice

takeodwn

The DMCA notice was sent late October, shortly before the OnionPlay channel was taken down by Discord. As shown above, the email came with an exhibit mentioning “OnionPlay” by name and urged Discord to take the channel offline.

“We request Discord’s assistance to (i) remove or otherwise disable access to the channels and servers identified above; and (ii) take steps to address Piracy Contents on the Discord platform,” the takedown notice, signed by MPA’s Larissa Knapp, informed Discord.

Discord complied with the takedown notice, but that was not the end of the matter. With the recent DMCA subpoena, the movie industry group now hopes to unmask the owner and operator of the site.

Discord Subpoenaed to Unmask TexasHomie

The legal paperwork includes two examples of infringing links that were allegedly posted by a Discord user. One links to a pirated copy of the season 2 finale of “Peacemaker” and the other links to a pirated stream of the movie Weapons.

Examples from the subpoena request

dmca

The MPA specifically requests Discord to identify the user behind ID ‘417142124228771850,’ which it had previously linked to “TexasHomie”.

“Warner Bros. (via the Motion Picture Association, Inc.) is requesting issuance of the attached proposed subpoena that would order Discord, Inc. to disclose the identities, including the names, physical addresses, IP addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses, of the individual(s) that operate the Discord account with the following User ID: 417142124228771850”

The request notes that information obtained through the subpoena will only be used to identify the alleged infringer so that Warner Bros. can protect its rights. This was sufficient for the court clerk, who signed off on the subpoena on November 17.

The DMCA subpoena

subpoena

As shown above, Discord has until November 28 (tomorrow) to comply with the subpoena and hand over the information to the MPA.

TexasHomie Remains Calm and Collected

The DMCA subpoena is a useful tool for the MPA, but whether it will result in actionable information has yet to be seen. The MPA and ACE have tried to get information on OnionPlay’s operator before, with subpoenas targeting Cloudflare and the .to registry, presumably without effect.

TexasHomie informs TorrentFreak that he was not aware that the MPA was behind the shutdown of the Discord channel. Nor has he been informed that Discord was asked to disclose his personal information.

OnionPlay’s operator doesn’t appear to be particularly worried either and notes that he keeps his online and offline identities separate.

“I’ve always operated behind VPNs, privacy layers, separate identities—the usual precautions when you spend enough years around the internet and IT infrastructure. It’s not about being shady; it’s about minimizing noise and keeping my real life cleanly separated from my online projects,” TexasHomie notes.

“I’ve dealt with plenty of takedown notices and all the usual headaches, but when you work with the right hosting providers and understand how the infrastructure works, you learn how to manage things calmly and professionally.”

TexasHomie takes pride in the fact that he has managed to keep OnionPlay going in a rather competitive streaming landscape. Community input is taken seriously, he notes, adding that OnionPlay is mainly an old-school “passion project” that requires quite a bit of manual work.

Needless to say, this is a high-stakes passion project that can have criminal repercussions if the operator’s identity is unveiled. These are life-altering risks, making this Discord subpoena all the more important.

A copy of the subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on November 17 is available here (pdf)

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

02:00 PM

Not Just Measles: Anti-Vaxxers Have Produced 3 Infant Deaths From Pertussis [Techdirt]

In all of our conversations surrounding RFK Jr.’s appointment to lead HHS and the legitimization of his anti-vaxxer beliefs as a result, we have understandably been hyper-focused on measles. The reason for that is mostly that this is as stark an example of just how stupid and horrible anti-vaccination misinformation is combined with the horror that is measles infections. This disease was essentially gone as of the year 2,000, but it has come roaring back due to unvaccinated populations being slammed by major outbreaks this year. Three people have died and thousands have been needlessly infected with measles all because Kennedy, and people like him, want to play pretend with medicine and science.

But it isn’t just measles. Pertussis, commonly referred to as whooping cough, has also been on the increase over the past few years. While the data on who is getting infected is much more varied with pertussis, due primarily to the vaccine’s waning protections for it over time compared with measles vaccines, it’s still the case that the unvaccinated account for a heavy number of the infected and the deaths that have resulted from it. Kentucky appears to be getting hit particularly hard by pertussis, with the state tallying three infant deaths from the disease so far this year.

Kentucky’s three infant deaths from whooping cough over the past 12 months are the state’s first reported since 2018. None of the infants or their mothers had been vaccinated against the respiratory disease, the Kentucky Department of Public Health confirmed.

Kentucky is in the midst of its largest pertussis spike since 2012, says a Monday state news release that says the disease has increased nationwide as vaccination rates decline.

As of Nov. 19, there have been 566 cases of whooping cough identified in Kentucky, with health officials anticipating more cases as the year ends. Babies younger than 1 year old are at the greatest risk for whooping cough. 

Local healthcare providers are advocating for the public to get themselves and their children vaccinated to prevent the spread of the disease, but Kentucky has a fairly terrible adoption of the pertussis vaccine. School-aged children in the state currently have a vaccination rate of roughly 85%. That may sound like a big number, but you’re typically looking at a target of 95% vaccination rate to achieve herd immunity. It’s herd immunity that best protects those most vulnerable, such as very young children and those who cannot get vaccinated for unrelated medical reasons.

And that is precisely who is dying in Kentucky from pertussis. Infants. Infants are dying, all so that Kennedy and the vaccine-deniers out there can sit on their stupid soap boxes and spew stupid.

“We are deeply saddened to learn of another infant death in Kentucky due to pertussis and are concerned by the volume of cases we are seeing throughout the commonwealth,” said Dr. Steven Stack, secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. “We continue to urge Kentuckians to get their whooping cough vaccine and to make sure they are up to date on all other recommended immunizations. Many illnesses can be prevented through vaccination, which helps protect not only the individual but also those around them.”  

Unfortunately, the very person in charge of American health at the moment is not urging anyone to get vaccinated. Quite the opposite, in fact. And it all appears to be largely ego-driven.

Ego in favor of infants remaining alive. If that doesn’t turn your stomach, you have no soul.

11:00 AM

Keeping the internet free together: State of the Onion Community Day [Tor Project blog]

Fighting for a free internet requires collective action. And the Tor Project is proud to be in the company of many likeminded organizations that work to maintain and restore access to trustworthy information for millions of people globally. Tune into the State of the Onion: Community Day livestream to hear directly from other members of the Tor community about their efforts to defend your privacy, protect you from surveillance and censorship, and how they are making an impact in 2025.

Community Day - December 10, 2025, 17:00 UTC 

Join us on Day 2 as organizations from the wider Tor ecosystem discuss how they are providing privacy preserving technologies on the most trusted anonymity network. Here is a little preview of who to expect: 

  • OONI: Working to advance transparency of internet censorship globally by collecting and publishing empirical network measurement data that serves as open evidence for research, advocacy, and litigation.

  • The Guardian Project: Keeping mobile users connected to sites and apps they need in times of crisis, making design choices that prioritize users' physical security, and bringing "Kindness" to more platforms and users.

  • Hushline: Providing a safe way for whistleblowers to reach someone who can help-- with a focus on lawyers, journalists, and mental health professionals--while providing native Onion Services for high-risk sources.

  • Freedom of the Press Foundation: Looking at the challenges of building open-source tools that facilitate journalism in dangerous situations and the future of technology-enabled whistleblowing.

  • And many more to come...

How to watch

Engage in the conversation on social media with the hashtags #Tor #StateOfTheOnion2025 or post questions and comments in the chat during the event.

Did you miss Tor's State of the Onion 2025 Day 1 broadcast? Watch the recast

See you there!


We couldn't do the work we're sharing at this year's State of the Onion without your support! This event is part of our year-end fundraising campaign. You can fund the Tor Project's work by making a donation today.

Right now, if you make a donation to Tor, your donation will be matched by a generous supporter. That means if you donate $25, they will also donate $25 --- effectively doubling your gift and raising $50 for our teams.

You can check out our previous State of the Onion streams on our YouTube channel or replay some other virtual events we've participated in earlier this year like the Anonymity for a healthy democracy with Isabela Fernandes or IGF 2025: Truth Under Siege.

Oaths Of Office, And How Everyone Not Moving To Impeach Trump Is Violating Their Own [Techdirt]

Until very recently the only member of Congress excused from not having moved to impeach Trump was Rep. Grijalva, because until someone swore her in there was nothing she could officially do. But for everyone else already sworn into this 119th Congress, there was no excuse. There is no excuse. The refusal to act, to even start to pound the drum on impeachment, is an abdication of their own declared duty to the nation and destructive in and of itself.

I. Trump’s behavior invokes the oath

The oath every member of Congress has now taken, as we’ve just seen, is far from a meaningless formality; it is the key to the power granted by the Constitution to everyone elected to that august body and the commitment each must make to unlock it. A statute sets forth the specifics of what every member of Congress must promise:

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Failing to even try impeach Trump, as he wantonly violates his own oath, violates that promise.

We know it does because we can see, right at the beginning of the oath members of Congress take, the language where every oath-taker swears to defend against “all enemies foreign and domestic,” a promise that is broken every day that Trump is allowed to continue his lawless rampage unchecked. He is our domestic enemy, doing no less damage than any foreign adversary would do if given a chance, with no more legitimacy. His behavior, far beyond anything the Constitution allows his office by even the most executive-friendly read, is indistinguishable from that of an invading power, right down to occupying the nation’s capital with military.

Like any conqueror he has displaced our laws and constitutional guarantees, replacing them with his own autocratic and corrupt dictates and whims. He has destroyed infrastructure and public property and gutted civic institutions the nation had long invested in and still depended on. He has looted the public treasury and wasted the nation’s wealth. He has undermined the local economy, public health, and the national security apparatus, leaving the nation weaker and more vulnerable. He has antagonized allies, encouraged enemies, and engaged in illicit war. He has committed ethnic cleansing of the population. And he has abused the power he has amassed to suppress the opposition that would seek to wrest the country back from his imperial clutches.

None of these things that he’s done “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” as he promised to do, nor do they amount to “faithfully execut[ing]” the office that he was entrusted with. None of these things “take care” to make sure the laws of the United States are upheld, nor are most even lawful themselves. None of these things are in service of the United States, its people, and its constitutional order; they are only in service of himself.

But what these things are, in fact, are the high crimes and misdemeanors that make him eligible for impeachment and removal from the office he abuses to inflict his harm on us. And Congress obligated to take such steps to defend the nation from someone so hostile to its survival.

Yet the nation still waits for it to start.

II. Nothing excuses Congress’s inaction

That Trump may be a homegrown threat does not exonerate Congress from its duty to police him; the oath provides no distinction between foreign and domestic dangers that must be defended against, nor does the Constitution itself allow oath-taking officials to defend the Constitution only sometimes. It is Trump’s illegitimate, lawless behavior that compels Congress to act, just as it would if the attack on American democracy had come from an adversary abroad. It is so compelled because we know from tragic example what happens when inaction by an elected government allows an occupying force to take over a country, subjugating its sovereignty so that only enfeebled Vichy collaborators still believe in the illusion of it remaining: liberty is squelched, dictatorship flourishes, and suddenly neighbors get disappeared and killed. Such things are not supposed to happen here, in our constitutional order, and yet they already have. The invasion is already complete; the only question is whether it will be permanent. And that answer depends entirely on whether Congress will finally step up to do the job it swore to the public that it would do.

That there may be other paths to challenge Trump’s abuses also does not exonerate Congress’s inaction either. It is a dereliction of a promised duty for anyone in office to pass the buck and wait for someone else (“the courts!” “the states!” “the military!” “the electorate!”) to address the threat Trump poses to our democracy. Congress has its own powers, and while it is increasingly starting to use them, its efforts have hardly been enough. What pushback anyone in Congress has so far managed has been but a drop in the bucket relative to the deluge of destructive illegality, and even simply governmental malpractice, daily unleashed by Trump’s administration. It has always been too little too late, where the best Congress has been able to do is react to yet something else outrageous the Trump administration has done, instead of doing what it takes to make it impossible for the outrageous to ever have been attempted in the first place. Stopping it requires the impeachment power, which is a power unique to Congress and uniquely appropriate to meet the crisis facing us. It is incumbent on Congress to use it, and yet so far it continues to refuse.

Even if there is in theory some merit to “keeping one’s powder dry” and holding some of the most powerful tools in reserve until the best time to use them, that strategy still implies that they will be used before it’s too late. Yet there’s no sign that Congress has any intention of using its impeachment tool in time. Instead, as the time to act is increasingly overdue, it keeps proceeding as if the entire impeachment mechanism is somehow off-limits, as members not only refuse to bring forth their own articles but kneecap those few among them who recognize their duty to act. Rather than flexing its constitutional muscles, Congress has chosen a strategy of helpless passivity. Like allowing a drunk driver who’s already plowed over people to continue his reckless journey, hoping that he’ll run out of gas before anything else too dire results, rather than taking away the keys away before any more injury is caused, here Congress is content to let Trump keep hold of the office whose power he has already abused and be free to keep abusing it. It is not just an ineffective strategy for protecting America from his abuses; it’s an outright abdication of Congress’s affirmative duty to defend it from an obvious danger.

While Congress’s abject fear of allowing any momentum for impeachment to be unleashed seems to be based on the reasonable idea that if you come at the king you’d better not miss, so terrified are its members that impeachment will fail that they refuse to do what’s needed so that it can succeed. Even if there are not yet the votes for it to result in removal, that political math, however correct, hardly excuses inaction. The oath to defend America does not only apply when it is politically expedient. If the vote numbers aren’t where they need to be for impeachment to happen today, then the job is to get them to where they need to be tomorrow, and that requires creating the political pressure needed to get enough support behind removing Trump from office so that it can finally happen.

Congress should at the very least be pounding the drum, putting impeachment on the table and helping everyone see that it is needed, and now. Because impeachment is so rare and dramatic a remedy, it may be correct to worry that it will be hard to impose from out of the blue and be politically accepted—although, then again, Trump is so unpopular that a majority may already welcome an offramp to the madness of his presidency. But that concern is exactly why the groundwork needs to be laid now, post haste, to acclimate everyone to the idea to the point that they demand it—assuming, again, of course, that we are not already there. Not just because removing Trump from office needs to happen sooner before later, well before the midterms, but because the idea that it will suddenly become more politically possible after the midterms is utter fantasy if it is not already an issue the public should care about heading into the campaign. If the willingness of a candidate to vote for impeachment should be something driving votes in 2026, so that Congress can get populated by more people willing to do it, then it should be an issue for the public to already care about by now—and perhaps wonder why it is not already underway.

But impeachment will remain an impossible dream, now and in the future, as long as Congress refuses to even talk about it as a possible option, let alone do anything to advance it. But imagine if it did. Imagine where we would be if Congress had already started pounding the drum so that Trump’s removal from office was the subject consuming talk shows and social media discourse. Or even better: imagine where we would be if every day members had come in with their own articles of impeachment, showing all the many, many reasons why it was necessary, and forcing everyone in Congress to publicly either fulfill their oath of office by voting for it, or pay a political price if they don’t.

Imagine where we would be if they even started now. And imagine where we will be if they never do.

III. Congress’s inaction is as damaging as Trump himself

Even in the face of this obvious existential threat to our Constitutional order, Congress has basically done nothing. In fact, it’s done worse than nothing by, instead of impeaching, pursuing normal order as if everything were business as usual: allowing Trump’s lackeys to burrow further into what’s left of our government, writing “laws” that our invading monarch and his minions will inevitably deem optional—or, worse, even use against us—and generally enabling his abuses by giving them an air of legitimacy as if they were the sorts of things that a President of the United States could do.

As Congress rearranges the policy deck chairs on our rapidly sinking ship of state our elected leaders have all but abandoned us, leaving us to fend for ourselves and hopefully not be fired, starved, arrested, deported, bankrupted, or otherwise had our lives turned upside down, or even ended, before we can finally choose new leaders who will take their oaths seriously and do the one thing that the current crew will not even begin to do: use their impeachment power to end the threat, once and for all.

Assuming, of course, that this opportunity to choose these new leaders does not itself get taken away before then by the rampaging autocrat Congress refuses to check—which is an increasingly unfounded assumption. If our future is not to be sunk, Congress cannot keep delaying responding to the threat to our democracy with all the weapons it has in its arsenal to appropriately deal with it—both on a practical level and constitutional one. After all, nowhere in the language of anyone’s oath or the Constitution itself is permission granted to Congress wait until midterms to defend our country. How could there be; existential dangers don’t wait. Would we have waited until the midterms to respond to Pearl Harbor? Or 9/11? What possible tactical wisdom could there be to sit back and do nothing but embolden an attacker to inflict even more harm? If we would not have allowed our foreign enemies to run so rampant for so long, then how can we possibly allow our domestic ones to? There is still a nation to be saved and not a moment to lose in saving it.

Yet as Congress fiddles while our home burns, time we can’t afford to act is being wasted. The question needs to be seriously asked: how much harm is Congress willing to allow Trump to cause before it finally takes steps to stop it? Does it let him kidnap, kill, and deport more people? Gut the rest of the economy? Compromise more sensitive data? Start a few more wars? Undermine our elections? Arrest or assassinate the rest of Congress? This bizarre, cowardly idea that Congress needs to wait until it can finally strike the final blow on his presidency before it even takes the first swing means that, given the rate of Trump’s destruction, by the time it finally steps up to bat it will be far too late. There might finally be the votes, but there will be too little left to save, and too little left to save us.

Especially when the damage we are suffering comes not just from all the harm that Congress allows Trump to inflict by not impeaching him but from what Congress teaches, the nation and the world, with its inaction: that it is totally fine for any of what Trump is doing to happen in America, not just now but at any point in the future. It tells everyone that the United States is but a Potemkin democracy that will crumble at the feet of the first autocrat that manages to grab the reins. Sure, we talked a good game all these years, about liberty and freedom and justice for all, but the more we stand idly by letting Trump and his tyrannical abuse happen, as if it is something that ever could happen, the more apparent it becomes to everyone that all those platitudes were obviously just talk and nothing actually worth believing in or fighting for.

We should all be fighting. Fighting is important, as is being seen to fight, because it helps others hang on and fight too. Which is why it is especially important that Congress be right there with us, fighting just as hard as so many ordinary citizens already have. It would tell everyone that Congress has their back: federal workers, including those still hanging on; the military, suddenly called upon to do a very different job than they signed up for; our trade partners; our allies; our businesses; our schools. And of course the millions of protestors who have already taken to the streets. By stepping up to fight the danger Congress would be telling everyone that it understands what’s at stake, and that it’s on it. Which would be a vastly different message than what it’s saying now: that it is not.

And just as courage would have been contagious, so is cowardice. When Congress retreats, others do too. Look at how many companies, schools, foreign allies, and others have surrendered to Trump’s illicit power-grab, and how each concession has only fueled Trump’s ability to continue his abuse and make it that much harder for anyone else to resist.

Moreover, if we are to ever have any credibility in the world again, we have to show it that we have the institutional capability to protect our system of self-government. And we have to show it soon. Not just because the geopolitical order of the globe is teetering into chaos, as the world wonders if America will ever regain its footing as a serious nation, and whether it can afford to wait to find out. But if we can’t show that Trump is but a temporary aberration about to be excised, we instead legitimize him, and with that legitimization let him tighten his grip. Whereas the opposite is also true: if everyone knew he was soon on his way out, then they would also know it is no longer in their interest to keep enabling his power grab. And with fewer supporting him, the easier he will be to eventually dislodge.

Instead, by not impeaching, or even starting the process of getting there, Congress sends the message that Trump is America, and that it has acquiesced to the Constitution being replaced by Trump’s brand of corrupt evil. After all, Congress’s refusal to impeach, despite all circumstances compelling it, functionally edits that ability out of the Constitution, effectively deleting through disuse the very defense mechanism the Constitution provided for just this sort of occasion. In fact, Congress’s inaction rewrites more than just that clause, because it effectively also nullifies the oath provision itself, which should have required Congress to act.

And it fundamentally alters the Constitution in yet another way, by inherently superseding the provisions that leave its revisions to popular control. Instead it is Congress now unilaterally helping itself to that power by silencing words in the text that still should be speaking. Recalcitrant members of Congress who refuse to fulfill their Constitutional duty thus become just like Trump, using the incumbent powers of their office to remake the Constitution in a way that better suits their lazy preference, rather than adhering to the limitations and obligations the Constitution actually prescribes. As they draw their public salaries yet abandon their public purpose they are no better than Trump in how they misuse their own office, and ultimately just as much a threat to our constitutional order as he is.

08:00 AM

Secret Third-Party Litigation Funding Threatens American Innovation [Techdirt]

Imagine a leading American technology firm, the engine of thousands of jobs and critical innovation, besieged by a patent lawsuit. Typical enough, but this time there is a twist: The plaintiff is a shell company with no assets and no products, yet it litigates with the inexhaustible resources of a global superpower. The American company is forced to spend millions on defense, all while fighting in the dark, unaware that the true adversary funding the assault is a sovereign wealth fund controlled by a geopolitical rival.

This is not a hypothetical scenario. It is the reality of third-party litigation funding. This secretive, multi-billion-dollar industry has turned our courtrooms into a speculative asset class. Litigation funding allows outside investors—hedge funds, private equity firms, and even foreign governments—to secretly purchase a financial stake in a lawsuit in exchange for a portion of any award or settlement. The current lack of mandatory disclosure for these arrangements in U.S. federal courts has created a dangerous blind spot. It allows foreign adversaries to weaponize our own justice system against us, posing a direct threat to American technological leadership and national security. Principled, targeted transparency is not merely a procedural nicety; it is a national imperative.

Growth of a Shadow Industry

The litigation funding market has grown exponentially, from a niche practice to an industry with major funders managing over $15 billion in U.S. litigation assets. This rise in speculative capital fundamentally alters the dynamics of justice. With no uniform federal rule requiring disclosure, the decision to unmask a funder is left to the discretion of individual judges, creating an inconsistent and easily exploited patchwork of local rules.

This secrecy infects the legal process. Settlement negotiations, traditionally a two-party affair, are distorted by the presence of a hidden, typically profit-motivated stakeholder whose sole objective is maximizing return on investment. Many litigation funding contracts contain “waterfall” clauses that require the funder to be repaid its investment, often with a multiple of two or three times, before the plaintiff receives a single dollar. This structure creates a powerful incentive to reject reasonable settlement offers that would satisfy the actual parties but fail to meet the funder’s high-return threshold. The case of food distributor Sysco, which alleged in court that its funder, Burford Capital, blocked reasonable settlements in a $140 million-plus funding deal, is a stark illustration of funders controlling litigation to protect their investment.

The discovery process, a cornerstone of American civil procedure, is similarly weaponized. When the funder is a secret competitor or a foreign state, discovery becomes a backdoor for corporate espionage. An adversary can fund a lawsuit against a U.S. tech or defense firm specifically to gain legal access to trade secrets, proprietary technology, and sensitive business plans. The defendant is left with an impossible choice: hand over confidential data to an unknown enemy or pay a nuisance settlement to make the case disappear.

This problem is particularly acute in patent litigation. The Government Accountability Office reports that most large technology companies believe over half the patent infringement suits they face are backed by third-party litigation funders, often involving weak claims. These lawsuits, frequently brought by “patent trolls”—entities that produce nothing but exist only to sue innovators—act as a tax on American ingenuity, forcing companies to divert capital from R&D to legal defense costs.

A Tool for Foreign Adversaries

The most alarming threat is the use of TPLF by foreign adversaries as a tool of asymmetric warfare. A sovereign wealth fund can finance harassing litigation to drain a U.S. competitor’s resources, damage its reputation, and stifle its innovation pipeline—achieving a strategic victory even if the lawsuit ultimately fails.

The potential for foreign interference is high. More than half of new U.S. patents granted in 2024—approximately 180,000—went to foreign companies, with China taking a large share. Thousands of those patents went to entities that are controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and do not operate within the United States. 

These foreign-owned patents empower companies controlled by or working at the behest of  foreign governments, to sue companies operating in this country. Such lawsuits, covering thousands of patents, can drain resources, distract strategy, and derail research and development for the innovative American companies targeted by the litigation, and under the current rules, the foreign countries can execute this strategy without disclosing who is funding the litigation. The United States is essentially giving foreign governments a ticket to steal U.S. trade secrets under a cloak of anonymity.

This threat is now a documented reality. A Bloomberg investigation revealed that a subsidiary of a Russian conglomerate with ties to Vladimir Putin has funded lawsuits in the U.S. while its founders were under international sanctions. In another case, only revealed due to a Delaware judge’s standing order, a Chinese litigation funder was found to be financing intellectual property lawsuits against Samsung in U.S. courts. And Fortress Investment Group, a major litigation funder now majority-owned by an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund, has financed aggressive patent suits against American tech giants like Intel.

Pathways to Reform

Congress is now considering several proposals to bring this shadow industry into the light. The solutions reflect different diagnoses of the core problem. Rep. Darrell Issa’s Litigation Transparency Act (H.R. 1109) offers a straightforward, comprehensive solution: require disclosure of the funder and the funding agreement in all federal civil cases. Rep. Ben Cline’s Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act (H.R. 2675) is more proscriptive, requiring disclosure of foreign funders while outright banning foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds from investing in U.S. litigation. A third bill by Sen. Thom Tillis, the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act (S. 1821), uses the tax code to disincentivize litigation funding by imposing a steep tax on funders’ profits, eliminating a loophole that allows some foreign investors to pay no U.S. tax on their gains.

The primary criticism of broad disclosure, embodied by the Issa bill, is that it could have a chilling effect on funding for legitimate civil rights or public interest lawsuits. Funders may be unwilling to support controversial causes if their identity is exposed to public backlash. This concern may create unusual political alliances, as both progressive and conservative groups rely on strategic litigation to advance their agendas and may fear the effects of transparency on their donors.

The political reality of these concerns was on full display during a House Judiciary Committee markup just this week. While Rep. Cline’s targeted measure to block foreign adversaries, H.R. 2675, was reported favorably, Rep. Issa’s broader transparency bill, H.R. 1109, failed to reach a vote following strong opposition from a coalition of conservative organizations. In a letter to congressional leadership, some conservative groups argued that the “sweeping disclosure mandates” in H.R. 1109 would violate donor privacy and chill free speech by exposing supporters of sensitive causes to harassment. While acknowledging the urgent need to stop foreign manipulation of the courts, these critics argued for a narrower legislative approach that protects national security without compromising the confidential associations of American citizens.

Transparency in patent litigation raises none of these concerns.  The patent is not a civil right, but a grant of a franchise, and its effects are entirely economic. The civil rights interests that surround who funds advocacy around a legislative or issue campaign are absent. On the other side of the ledger, there is no legitimate interest to protect the ability of foreign adversaries to covertly interfere in American business and innovation. Semiconductor companies should know who is behind invasive discovery requests into sensitive advanced manufacturing technology, generative AI developers should know who is attacking and dissecting the inner workings of their AI models, and retailers should know who is using weak patents to disrupt, for example, basic online sales technology like the use of online shopping carts. The stakes in such cases are focused on the parties, technology, and discovery requested—defendants have a right to know who is suing them.

An Urgent and Achievable Goal

Despite these complexities, something needs to change. Defendants have a right to know the identity of their true adversary. More urgently, the stakes of allowing foreign governments to secretly manipulate our courts are simply too high. American leadership in generative AI and advanced manufacturing can be disrupted and undermined through abusive litigation—we need to know who is behind such lawsuits. The national security threat is not speculative; it is happening now. 

We can target the most egregious threats with a bipartisan solution. An approach that focuses on transparency in high-risk commercial litigation and blocking foreign-state interference is desperately needed. The favorable committee vote on Rep. Cline’s bill is encouraging—continued support for H.R. 2675 as it moves forward is key—but the opposition to a disclosure requirement in Rep. Issa’s bill is misguided. Even if a carve-out is needed for non-profit, mission-driven litigation, we must act to secure our courts from foreign manipulation and protect the intellectual property that fuels our economy. This is not a partisan issue. Secret misuse of American courts must end.

Nathanael Andrews is Senior Associate Counsel for the Software & Information Industry Association

This Level Of Corruption Requires Stupidity [Techdirt]

The abyss. The darkness. The meaningless void that life rebels against. It stares at us. Nietzsche warned about this moment—when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. When the frameworks that make meaning possible collapse, when the principles that make reasoning together conceivable dissolve, when words lose their moorings to reality and power becomes the only truth—that’s when the abyss stares back.

It is very much staring us in the face right now.

Which brings me to Lindsey Halligan.

On November 24, 2025, a federal judge threw out Donald Trump’s prosecution of James Comey. Not because Comey was innocent. Not because the evidence was insufficient. But because the prosecutor Trump installed to indict his enemy—Lindsey Halligan, a former insurance lawyer and Trump’s personal defense attorney with zero prosecutorial experience—was never lawfully appointed as a U.S. attorney and therefore had no legal authority to bring charges at all.

Judge Cameron McGowan Currie’s ruling was devastating: Because Halligan’s appointment violated federal statute, “all actions flowing from it were unlawful exercises of executive power.” The indictment was void. And because the statute of limitations expired while Halligan pursued her invalid prosecution, Comey likely can never face the same charges again.

Trump’s attempt to weaponize the Justice Department didn’t just fail—it immunized his target. The corruption was so obvious, the execution so incompetent, that it collapsed under its own illegality.

And this is what staring into the abyss looks like in practice. Not some abstract philosophical crisis, but the concrete collapse of the frameworks that make legal reasoning possible. When you cannot distinguish between legitimate prosecution and personal vendetta, when appointment statutes become “technical” obstacles rather than constitutional constraints, when the only question is loyalty rather than legality—you’re not just breaking rules. You’re destroying the conditions that make rules intelligible.

The corruption requires the stupidity. And the stupidity reveals the abyss.

A Timeline Of Stupidity

Understanding what happened requires seeing the timeline not as a series of unfortunate errors but as the inevitable unfolding of corruption that cannot permit competence. September 20, 2025: Trump posts on Truth Social, addressing Attorney General Pam Bondi directly: “Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, ‘same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.’”

September 22, 2025: Erik Siebert, the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia who had expressed doubts about prosecuting Trump’s enemies, is pushed out. Lindsey Halligan—Trump’s former personal defense attorney—is sworn in as his replacement.

September 25, 2025: Three days later, Halligan secures a two-count criminal indictment against James Comey. She is the sole prosecutor presenting to the grand jury. She later admits she did not present the case to the full grand jury.

September 30, 2025: The statute of limitations for Comey’s alleged offenses expires.

October 9, 2025: Halligan secures an indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James on charges of bank fraud and false statements. Again, Halligan alone presents to the grand jury.

November 24, 2025: Judge Currie throws out both cases, ruling that Halligan’s appointment violated 28 U.S.C. § 546—the statute governing interim U.S. attorney appointments. Because Siebert had already served his 120-day term, the Justice Department could not simply install a new interim prosecutor. The power to appoint belonged to the district court, not the Attorney General. Halligan had no legal authority. Her indictments were void. And because she pursued an invalid prosecution past the statute of limitations deadline, Comey cannot be recharged.

The corruption immunized its target through its own illegality.

There Is No World In Which This Isn’t Corrupt

It is almost comedic to imagine the narrative pretzels one must jump through in order to pretend that a coherent argument can be made here, that what we are witnessing is the application of a good faith effort in pursuit of justice. You would need to explain how installing your personal defense attorney as a federal prosecutor to indict your named enemies isn’t corrupt. There is no framework that makes this defensible. The appearance of impropriety isn’t subtle—it’s the entire structure. You would need to argue that violating the appointment statute is a “technical” issue rather than a constitutional constraint. But that requires treating the law as an obstacle to be gamed rather than a framework constraining power. Once you make that move, you’ve abandoned the rule of law entirely. You would need to justify why the prosecutor indicted within three days of taking office, presenting to a partial grand jury, mere days before the statute of limitations expired. The timeline screams vindictiveness. There’s no good-faith explanation for this haste—no sudden discovery of crucial evidence, no compelling prosecutorial necessity. Just Trump’s public demand followed immediately by prosecution.

You would need to explain why, after the judge ruled the appointment unlawful, the White House “stands with” Halligan and Bondi says the ruling “does not” affect her role. This isn’t defending a good-faith legal position—it’s doubling down on the violation itself.

None of these things can be defended coherently without abandoning basic principles: that the rule of law constrains power, that procedures matter, that appointment statutes exist for reasons, that the appearance of justice matters, that constitutional constraints aren’t “technical” obstacles. The corruption required destroying these frameworks. And destroying frameworks requires stupidity—not because the people involved lack intelligence, but because intelligent defense of the indefensible is impossible.

You cannot think clearly while maintaining that personal lawyers should prosecute personal enemies, that appointment statutes are technical trivialities, that three-day indictments after presidential demands aren’t vindictive, that partial grand jury presentations are proper procedure, that immunizing your target through illegal process is winning. The framework cannot cohere. So stupidity becomes the only option. Not chosen stupidity, but necessary stupidity—the epistemic collapse that corruption requires.

The Brain Death Of Conservative Thought

When I searched for conservative responses to the Halligan appointment and prosecution, I found something more revealing than silence. I found fracture. The response wasn’t unified defense or unified condemnation—it was the complete breakdown of any coherent conservative position, revealing exactly what Jonathan Chait describes in his devastating Atlantic piece on the brain death of conservative thought.

Andrew McCarthy—former federal prosecutor, Fox News contributor, National Review writer—called the indictment “ill-conceived,” “incoherently drafted,” and “factually without foundation.” In a piece titled “With More Scrutiny, the Trump DOJ Indictment of Comey Gets Worse,” McCarthy concluded the case “should be dismissed.” On Fox News, he characterized it as “a mess” and stated “the charge itself is incoherent.” This is a conservative legal analyst, writing in National Review, appearing on Fox News, saying the prosecution was indefensible garbage.

But we should pause here to acknowledge National Review‘s broader posture in this moment. While McCarthy—a contributor—maintained intellectual honesty about the Halligan prosecution, the publication itself has been busy providing intellectual frameworks for constitutional crisis. In March 2025, they published an editorial outlining scenarios where “the executive may have a persuasive case for defying a judicial order”—a roadmap for extra-constitutional power dressed as constitutional analysis. When I critiqued this editorial, National Review senior writer Dan McLaughlin devoted an entire article to dismissing my concerns without engaging the substance, calling me “a Substack writer” and hiding behind procedural pedantry.

McLaughlin wrote: “When the courts seize powers never granted them in the Constitution, that is a usurpation of power—and arguably an even worse one than executive overreach, precisely because there are so very few remedies for it.” There’s the argument laid bare: because judicial overreach is difficult to remedy constitutionally, extra-constitutional remedies become justified. This isn’t constitutional analysis—it’s constitutional surrender dressed as principle.

So when McCarthy calls the Comey prosecution incoherent while National Review publishes frameworks for justified executive defiance of court orders, we’re watching the fracture in real time. The conservative legal analyst maintains standards while the institution provides intellectual cover for abandoning them. McCarthy says the Halligan prosecution is garbage. National Review says the executive can ignore judges. Both appear in the same publication, serving different functions in the ecosystem of conservative intellectual collapse.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board—the flagship of conservative economic thought—published an editorial after the dismissal titled “The Gang That Couldn’t Indict Straight,” mocking the administration’s incompetence. “In its rush for retribution, the Trump Administration cut corners” and “This is what happens when officials don’t follow legal procedure. They lose cases.” Not defending. Mocking.

The Federalist—which has refashioned itself from Trump-skeptical to slavishly pro-Trump under Mollie Hemingway, who dismissed Trump in 2016 as “a demagogue with no real solutions for anything at all”—did mount a defense. On November 10, it published “Evidence Contradicts Comey’s Claim His Indictment Is Political,” arguing that Halligan “backed up the charges with evidence that far surpasses what is necessary to survive a motion to dismiss.” After the dismissal, The Federalist blamed a “partisan judge” and argued the ruling represented a “judicial coup against presidential power.”

The Heritage Foundation posted a video to social media, where Roger Severino crowed that “James Comey needs to face justice. It’s long overdue” in September 2025, but produced no substantive legal defense of the Halligan appointment or prosecution procedure.

And the White House? Karoline Leavitt called the ruling “technical,” described Judge Currie as a “partisan judge,” and insisted “everybody knows that James Comey lied to Congress. It’s as clear as day.” No legal argument for why Halligan’s appointment was valid. No defense of the procedure. No engagement with the vindictive prosecution claim. Just the assertion that Comey is guilty and the judge is biased.

This isn’t silence. This is something worse. This is the complete fragmentation of conservative intellectual infrastructure into warring factions that cannot even agree on whether to defend blatantly illegal prosecutions, let alone how to defend them. You have McCarthy and The Wall Street Journal—traditional conservative legal thinkers—saying this is indefensible garbage while National Review provides blueprints for ignoring judicial authority. You have The Federalist—now fully captured by Trump—saying the judge is partisan and the prosecution was fine. You have Heritage making vague supportive noises while producing nothing substantive. You have the White House calling constitutional constraints “technical” and judges “partisan.”

Chait documents this pattern: “I regularly search for the best conservative defense of these actions. Most of the time, I find nothing.” But what I found here is more revealing than nothing. I found conservative legal analysts on Fox News and in National Review calling the prosecution “a mess” and “incoherent” while the publication employing them argues executives can defy court orders. I found The Wall Street Journal editorial board—the voice of conservative economic establishment—mocking the administration’s incompetence. And I found The Federalist abandoning any pretense of legal argument for pure tribal defense: the judge is biased, therefore the ruling is wrong.

Conservative intellectuals aren’t just silent. They’ve fractured into camps that cannot speak to each other: the traditional conservatives who maintained intellectual standards and are being pushed out or marginalized within their own publications (McCarthy calling prosecutions garbage while National Review justifies defying courts), the fully captured who defend anything Trump does through pure partisanship (Federalist), and those trying to have it both ways through vague gestures without substance (Heritage). The Halligan case didn’t produce silence. It produced a demonstration that there is no longer a conservative intellectual movement capable of coherent response. There are only fragments that used to be a movement, now unable to agree on whether openly corrupt prosecutions should be defended, condemned, or ignored—or whether the rule of law itself should be maintained or abandoned when inconvenient.

A Reckoning With 2024’s Blindspots

We should pause for a moment, however, to harken back to how The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board assessed the risk of a second Trump term before the election. Low. Probably lower risk than Kamala Harris, they reckoned.

“A second Trump term poses risks, but the question as ever is compared to what?” they wrote in October 2024. “Voters can gamble on the tumult of Trump, or the continued ascendancy of the Democratic left. We wish it was a better choice, but that’s democracy.”

They acknowledged Trump’s “character flaws” and that it “surely wouldn’t be a return to ‘normalcy.’” But: “We don’t buy the fascism fears, and we doubt Democrats really do either.” Their concern wasn’t authoritarianism but whether Trump “can successfully address the country’s urgent problems.”

The risks they identified? That Trump “has instincts but no clear philosophy of government” and his second term would be “more of a policy jump ball.” That he might pursue tariffs instead of free markets. That he surrounds himself with “grifters and provocateurs who flatter him.” That Tucker Carlson might have more influence than Jared Kushner. That it “could result in four more years of divisive partisan warfare.”

What they didn’t identify as a risk: installing personal defense attorneys as federal prosecutors to indict political enemies in violation of appointment statutes. The systematic weaponization of the Justice Department. The appointment of a Secretary of Defense who advocates war crimes and calls the Geneva Conventions “arbitrary rules.” The complete collapse of the rule of law documented in federal court ruling after federal court ruling. Federal investigations of senators for stating constitutional law.

“The authoritarian rule that Democrats and the press predicted never appeared,” they wrote confidently. “Mr. Trump was too undisciplined, and his attention span too short, to stay on one message much less stage a coup. America’s checks and balances held.”

Six months later, they’re publishing editorials titled “The Gang That Couldn’t Indict Straight,” mocking the administration for cutting corners “in its rush for retribution” and losing cases because “officials don’t follow legal procedure.”

I thought somewhat differently at the time. A stance that would have been seen by these same WSJ editorial board members as hyperbolic, with partisan blinders on.

In October 2024, three weeks before the election, I wrote: “If you are actually gullible enough to believe that Kamala Harris is a mortal threat to American capitalism, freedom of speech and democracy, as this rising fascist cabal of political power out of Silicon Valley is trying so desperately hard to convince you of, then there’s probably not much I’m going to be able to do here to convince you otherwise. But for the rest of you, who come at this from a somewhat less insular perspective, let me warn you of something: It is these people who are out for your freedom of speech and your democracy. They are literally wolves circling what they think is a dying carcass of the American political order.”

I continued: “These people are deeply fucking dangerous. They have way too much power and way too much money… what these people—from Elon Musk, to Marc Andreessen, Keith Rabois, and others—are fighting for is merely the capacity of these people to seize political power for their own ends. They believe they can run the world better, and they are prepared to do what it takes to remove their obstacles to obtaining that power…They are, in fact, 21st century fascists. Propelled by their egos of their impressive economic and technological successes, they have fallen headfirst into a dark Nietzschean, will to power frame, that if not confronted, would sunset our entire experiment in self-government.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board would have read that and dismissed it as partisan hyperbole. “We don’t buy the fascism fears,” they wrote confidently. They were sophisticated analysts weighing risks and tradeoffs. I was apparently someone who couldn’t see past partisan blinders.

A year later, the sophisticated analysts are publishing “The Gang That Couldn’t Indict Straight,” mocking vindictive prosecutions. And I’m documenting how the Secretary of Defense received $348,000 to write a book advocating war crimes while a federal prosecutor with no legal authority indicted Trump’s enemies in violation of appointment statutes while the regime opens federal investigations into senators for stating constitutional law.

The difference wasn’t intelligence or analytical sophistication. It was willingness to take seriously what was being said explicitly. When Trump promised retribution, I believed him. When Silicon Valley billionaires funded explicitly anti-democratic candidates, I believed they meant it. When people published books advocating monarchy, I believed they were serious. When Hegseth wrote that we should “rip arms off and feed them to hogs” and ignore “what other countries think” about the Geneva Conventions, I believed he would try to implement exactly that worldview.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board, with all their sophisticated analysis and careful weighing of risks, couldn’t process that someone might actually mean what they say when what they say is monstrous. Their framework assumed everyone operates within frameworks—that Trump’s rhetoric was positioning, that authoritarian positions were provocations, that threats were negotiating tactics. They looked at explicit statements of authoritarian intent and concluded: manageable risks, probably lower than Harris.

They were catastrophically wrong. Not because they lacked information but because their analytical framework couldn’t process what the information meant. When someone tells you they’re going to do something monstrous, and you have sophisticated reasons why they won’t actually do it or why it won’t be that bad, you’re not being analytical—you’re rationalizing your unwillingness to believe what you’re hearing.

This is the brain death Chait documents. Not just the inability to defend what’s happening now, but the prior failure to predict it would happen despite being told explicitly that it would. The fracture isn’t just between McCarthy calling prosecutions incoherent and The Federalist defending them, or between McCarthy maintaining standards while National Review publishes blueprints for defying courts. It’s between The Wall Street Journal in October 2024 saying “we don’t buy the fascism fears” and The Wall Street Journal in November 2025 mocking vindictive prosecutions they apparently didn’t think would happen.

And it’s between me in October 2024 saying “these people are deeply fucking dangerous” and “21st century fascists” and being dismissed as hyperbolic, and me in November 2025 documenting exactly the dangerous fascist behavior I predicted while the sophisticated analysts who dismissed me are reduced to mockery having failed to prevent what they assured us wasn’t a serious risk.

The sophisticated framework failed. Completely. Because sophistication that cannot recognize monsters when they tell you what they are isn’t sophistication at all—it’s a defense mechanism against believing uncomfortable truths. McCarthy calls it “a mess” and “incoherent.” The WSJ mocks it as incompetent. National Review justifies ignoring courts when executives find them inconvenient. But none of them predicted it would happen. None warned that installing Trump posed the risk of exactly this kind of vindictive, illegal prosecution backed by frameworks for defying judicial authority. They assured us the risks were manageable, that checks and balances would hold, that we shouldn’t buy the fascism fears.

The checks didn’t hold. The balances failed. The fascism they didn’t buy is documented in federal court rulings and federal investigations of senators for stating constitutional law. And now they’re left mocking the incompetence of prosecutions they said wouldn’t happen, defending against fears they said were overblown, criticizing or providing cover for the very administration whose risks they assured us were acceptable.

Pete Hegseth Is The Lindsey Halligan Of The Military

If Lindsey Halligan shows us what corruption looks like when it destroys legal reasoning, Pete Hegseth shows us what it looks like when it destroys military culture. The pattern is identical. When you cannot defend your position coherently, you have two options: silence or redefinition. Halligan’s defenders fractured—McCarthy and the WSJ calling it garbage while National Review justifies defying courts, The Federalist defending it tribally, Heritage gesturing vaguely. Hegseth redefines the terms entirely.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth—former Fox News host, author of The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free—thinks he’s arguing with woke professors and purple-haired Portland activists about diversity training and pronouns. He’s not. He’s arguing with Dwight D. Eisenhower about the fundamental purpose of American military power. The man who led Allied forces to victory over the Nazis in World War II. The man who became president and warned America about the military-industrial complex. The man who, more than perhaps any other single figure, shaped modern American military culture into what it became in the post-war period.

Eisenhower hated war. The Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, the general who planned D-Day, who wrote two speeches for that day—one for success, one for failure—who bore the weight of sending tens of thousands of young men to storm beaches where German Panzer divisions waited, who carried those deaths with him for the rest of his life. He hated war. He saw it as an existential necessity when confronting evil like Adolf Hitler, something you must be capable of winning, but never something to glorify. Never something to celebrate. Never something to seek.

This is why Eisenhower changed the Department of War to the Department of Defense. Not as cosmetic rebranding but as philosophical statement: America’s military posture is defensive. We maintain the capacity for violence to deter and defeat aggression, not to celebrate brutality as masculine virtue. This principle runs deep in post-WWII military culture. The Geneva Conventions. The Uniform Code of Military Justice requiring soldiers to disobey illegal orders. The integration of legal and ethical training into military education. The understanding that while war sometimes cannot be avoided, it should never be sought, and when fought it must be constrained by law—not because law is weakness but because law is what separates civilization from barbarism.

Pete Hegseth—who received a $348,000 advance from HarperCollins to write his book—calls this “woke.”

One might take a moment to dwell on these things for more time than our scrolling-addled brains typically have patience for in this dystopic future we inhabit, because the contempt this book deserves requires documenting its actual content. On the Geneva Conventions, Hegseth writes: “What do you do if your enemy does not honor the Geneva conventions?…Would that not be an incentive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism? Hey, Al Qaeda: if you surrender, we might spare your life. If you do not, we will rip your arms off and feed them to hogs.”

He continues: “We are just fighting with one hand behind our back—and the enemy knows it…If our warriors are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice more lives so that international tribunals feel better about themselves, aren’t we just better off winning our wars according to our own rules?! Who cares what other countries think?”

On LGBTQ service members: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and its repeal served as a “gateway” and “camouflage” that “opened the door for broader political and ideological changes” undermining military effectiveness. He admits he once believed “we needed everybody” when “America was at war,” but “later came to see this mindset as naive,” stating that “our good faith was used against us.”

On diversity: The Pentagon “will not stop until trans-lesbian black females run everything.” Regarding DEI initiatives: “Turns out, all the ‘diversity’ recruiting messages made certain kids—white kids—feel like they’re not wanted.”

On the American left: He compares them to “Jody”—military slang for someone who sleeps with a service member’s spouse while they’re deployed—writing they “stayed home and wrecked our house. America-wreckers, all of them.”

On countering extremism: “Rooting out ‘extremism,’ today’s generals push rank-and-file patriots out of their formations.”

On Confederate base names: He advocates renaming Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg because “legacy matters. My uncle served at Bragg. I served at Bragg. It breaks a generational link.”

This is the book. These are the positions. This is what the Secretary of Defense believes about the military culture he now controls.

Eisenhower, who bore the responsibility for D-Day, who understood the weight of violence better than Hegseth could imagine, who carried those deaths with him for the rest of his life—he would be horrified by someone treating war as an arena for demonstrating masculine dominance rather than as tragic necessity. The Geneva Conventions weren’t imposed by “international tribunals” to make themselves “feel better.” They were written by people who had seen what unrestrained warfare produces—the Holocaust, the systematic torture and execution of prisoners, the complete breakdown of civilization into barbarism. They were written by the victors of World War II, including American generals like Eisenhower, who understood that maintaining constraints on violence isn’t weakness but the foundation of any military culture compatible with democratic governance.

Hegseth poses the question, “who cares what other countries think?” Petulance. Flippancy. Fuck the world. We’re America, and we can do what we want!

The World Responds

Meanwhile, the world moves to diversify away from America.

There is a growing patriotic wave in China where consumers are turning away from American brands and buying local instead. At the forefront is a Gen Z movement called Guochao, which roughly translates to “national tide.” The numbers are devastating: Gucci’s online bag sales in China have dropped more than 50% compared to two years ago while local premium brand Songmont has surged 90% in the same period. Nike used to be the market leader in China for athletic wear just four years ago with 25% market share. Today they’re down to 20%, displaced by a Chinese company called Anta whose China business is now 30% larger than Nike’s. Starbucks had 34% market share in China in 2019—they’re down to 14%. Tesla’s market share just shrank to 3%, down from 8% the previous month, the lowest level in three years. BYD now leads with 23% market share.

The younger you are in China, the more you dislike the United States. This shows up in surveys. It shows up in state media. And it shows up in consumer behavior—a generation of Chinese consumers rejecting American brands for local alternatives that are increasingly competitive, increasingly innovative, increasingly aspirational.

China is Nike’s third largest market. It’s Coca-Cola’s third largest market too. It’s Tesla’s second largest market. Half of Qualcomm’s sales last year came from China. These are not peripheral relationships—American companies depend on Chinese consumers in ways that “who cares what other countries think?” simply ignores.

When Hegseth writes “who cares what other countries think?” about ignoring the Geneva Conventions, he’s not just rejecting international law. He’s rejecting the entire framework of alliances and shared values that won World War II and maintained American power through the Cold War. He’s rejecting NATO. He’s rejecting the idea that American power derives from anything other than raw capacity for violence. He’s rejecting the economic interdependence that American companies actually rely on while pretending American dominance is self-sufficient.

Eisenhower would recognize this immediately: not as the “warrior ethos” but as the petulant ignorance of someone who’s never borne responsibility for anything larger than a Fox News segment. Not as strength but as the flailing performance of weakness—the desperate insistence that we don’t need anyone else right as everyone else decides they don’t need us.

The world is watching. Not with fear of American strength but with pity for American decline. They’re building alternatives to American brands, American payment systems, American technology, American alliances. They’re diversifying away from dollar dependence. They’re creating parallel institutions. And they’re doing it faster than the people writing $348,000 books about “warrior ethos” seem to notice.

“Who cares what other countries think?” They don’t care what we think anymore. That’s the answer Hegseth can’t process. That’s the consequence his framework can’t accommodate. That’s what happens when you mistake petulance for strength and flippancy for strategy.

The difference isn’t between “strong” and “weak.” It’s between two completely incompatible understandings of what strength is for. Eisenhower’s conception: Strength exists to protect. To defend the defenseless. To win wars when they must be fought and to prevent them when possible. To bear the terrible responsibility of violence when necessary while never losing sight of violence as tragedy, not triumph. To subordinate force to law and military power to civilian democratic control. This is why Mark Kelly—Navy combat pilot, astronaut, Senator who flew combat missions and commanded the Space Shuttle—risked his career to appear in that video reminding service members they have a duty to disobey illegal orders. Not because he’s weak but because he understands what Eisenhower understood: strength without principle isn’t strength at all. It’s just capacity for harm untethered from purpose.

Hegseth’s conception: Strength exists to dominate. The strong should rule the weak. Legal constraints are obstacles imposed by effeminate elites who’ve never seen combat. “White kids” should feel wanted while others shouldn’t. LGBTQ service members accepting who they are constituted betrayal—”our good faith was used against us.” Diversity initiatives are persecution. Efforts to root out actual extremism in the ranks become attacks on “patriots.” The fact that you could “rip arms off and feed them to hogs” makes you strong. The willingness to threaten this proves masculine virtue. “Who cares what other countries think?” The Geneva Conventions are weakness. Restraint is emasculation. Law is for the weak.

This isn’t a “warrior ethos.” It’s nihilism dressed in camouflage. It’s the replacement of virtue with violence, principle with power, strength with brutality. It’s toxic masculinity in its purest distillation—not masculinity itself, which can be virtuous, but its specific corruption that treats dominance as the highest good, kindness as weakness, cruelty as clarity, and legal constraints as emasculation. Eisenhower would have recognized men like Hegseth immediately. Not as warriors but as bullies. Not as strong but as small. Not as masculine but as desperately performing masculinity to cover weakness they can’t acknowledge—the weakness of men who never bore the weight of actual command responsibility, who never had to order young men to their deaths, who never had to live with those deaths afterward, who never had to look into the eyes of mothers who would never see their sons again because of orders you gave.

Just as Halligan couldn’t defend illegal prosecutions coherently and her defenders fractured into incompatible camps, Hegseth cannot defend these positions within existing frameworks. So he redefines the terms until the framework itself dissolves. The Geneva Conventions become “arbitrary rules” imposed to make “international tribunals feel better.” Legal constraints on violence become “fighting with one hand behind our back.” Eisenhower’s defensive military culture becomes “woke” ideology undermining effectiveness. LGBTQ service members accepting who they are becomes betrayal of “good faith.” Diversity becomes discrimination against “white kids.” Countering actual extremism becomes persecution of “patriots.” The legacy of generals who fought to preserve the Union becomes worth abandoning for the legacy of generals who fought to destroy it. Restraint becomes weakness. War crimes become “winning wars according to our own rules.” Cruelty becomes strength. Alliance structures become constraints to ignore.

The Corruption Requires The Stupidity

Two cases. One shows corruption so obvious it requires fracture—conservative intellectuals unable to agree whether to defend, condemn, or ignore illegal prosecutions, splitting between those calling it garbage and those providing blueprints for defying courts entirely. One shows positions so indefensible they require redefining reality itself—war crimes become “warrior ethos,” Geneva Conventions become “arbitrary rules,” Eisenhower’s military culture becomes “woke.” Together they reveal the complete breakdown of conservative intellectual infrastructure. When you cannot defend illegal prosecutions, you fracture into warring camps calling it garbage, defending it tribally, justifying defiance of courts, or making vague gestures. When you cannot defend war crimes, you redefine war crimes as virtue. Both strategies serve the same purpose: avoiding the choice between honesty and exile.

The corruption has destroyed the conditions making thought possible. What remains is strategic silence, tribal defense without legal argument, linguistic manipulation where words mean whatever power declares them to mean, institutional cover for abandoning constitutional constraints, fracture into camps that cannot speak to each other because they no longer share even basic frameworks for evaluating whether something can be defended. Most chose these strategies. Almost none chose intellectual honesty.

And this—not some abstract philosophical crisis but the concrete collapse documented in federal court rulings and $348,000 book advances advocating war crimes and National Review editorials justifying executive defiance of judicial authority—is what the abyss looks like when it stares back at you.

And though the darkness stares, though frameworks collapse, though corruption requires stupidity and stupidity reveals the void—we can still choose to say what is true, defend what is real, and walk the wire together into whatever comes next.

Because the alternative is unthinkable. And we are not done thinking yet.

Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. This is an abridged and modified version of a version originally published at his Notes From the Circus.

06:00 AM

Share-Online Operator Gets Two Years Probation in Landmark ‘Cyberlocker’ Verdict [TorrentFreak]

share online logoIn October 2019, an international police operation brought an abrupt end to Share-Online.biz, the largest file-hosting platform in Germany at the time.

The raids, which targeted data centers in the Netherlands and France as well as residential addresses in Germany, resulted in the seizure of many servers and the shutdown of a platform that served more than a million registered users.

Files stored on Share-Online were typically promoted through third-party sites such as DDL-Warez, Boerse, Movie-Blog, and MyGully. As a host/cyberlocker, Share-Online did not actively promote pirated content to the public.

Suspended Prison Sentence for ‘Neutral’ Host

That seemingly neutral stance did not prevent a criminal investigation or the subsequent prosecution of the site’s operator. This week, the Aachen Regional Court sentenced the defendant to a two-year suspended prison term.

While the suspended sentence means the unnamed defendant will not serve prison time, the legal precedent is significant. Historically, cyberlockers have operated in somewhat of a legal gray area, claiming they are neutral service providers who merely offer storage space.

The Aachen court rejected this defense, FAZ reports, concluding that the operator facilitated copyright infringement with a profit-motive.

Seizure banner(2019)

Details on the ruling are scarce, and we have yet to see a copy of the verdict. However, according to the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), which supported the anti-piracy action, it is a key victory.

“This ruling makes clear that operators of ostensibly neutral platforms cannot rely on liability privileges or professed ignorance. For a platform like Share-Online, it is not sufficient to merely acknowledge abuse notifications from rights holders,” says Geerart Bourlon, MPA’s Vice President of Content Protection and Legal Counsel.

“Anyone whose business model promotes or supports copyright-infringing acts is not only liable for injunctive relief and damages but also commits a criminal offense,” Bourlon adds.

What Happened to the €50 Million?

The MPA/ACE press release specifically credits Gregory Skavron, the prosecutor at the Nordrhein-Westfalen Cybercrime Unit (ZAC NRW). However, there is no mention of the now-bankrupt German anti-piracy outfit GVU, which carried out the investigation of Share-Online.

Similarly, while the press release prominently features the €50 million revenue figure to illustrate the scale of the piracy operation, what happened to this money isn’t made clear. Were any of these funds actually recovered? And if so, were rightsholders compensated?

The absence of any mention concerning damages suggests that, while the “revenue” was massive, the actual recoverable assets may have been much lower or hidden from law enforcement.

The “User” Threat Evaporates

Finally, it is worth mentioning that a spokesperson of the cybercrime police previously suggested that Share-Online users were also at risk, with high-volume uploaders as the prime target.

“If identification is possible, subsequent investigations against the uploaders and possibly also against downloaders are realistic scenarios. For reasons of capacity, we will certainly proceed in a layered manner in the investigations and, in due course, may initially focus on the top uploaders,” the spokesperson said in 2020.

This threat never materialized, as far as we know. This may be in part due to the complex investigation that spanned many terabytes of files. If it takes six years to convict the operator, going after uploaders may have turned out to be too much.

Ultimately, the Share-Online outcome is somewhat of a mixed bag for rightsholders. The movie industry secured a major legal victory and defeated the “neutral host” defense. However, the fact that the site’s operator, who presumably earned millions, can avoid a prison sentence must be seen as a disappointment.

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

05:00 AM

BBC Pre-Edits Lecture Calling Trump ‘Most Openly Corrupt President’ [Techdirt]

The BBC is now voluntarily suppressing criticism of Donald Trump before it airs—and the reason is obvious: Trump threatened to sue them into oblivion, and they blinked.

Historian Rutger Bregman revealed this week that the BBC commissioned a public lecture from him last month, recorded it, then quietly cut a single sentence before broadcast. The deleted line? Calling Trump “the most openly corrupt president in American history.” Bregman posted about the capitulation, noting that the decision came from “the highest levels” of the BBC—meaning the executives dealing with Trump’s threats.

I wish I didn’t have to share this. But the BBC has decided to censor my first Reith Lecture. They deleted the line in which I describe Donald Trump as “the most openly corrupt president in American history.” /1

Rutger Bregman (@rutgerbregman.com) 2025-11-25T09:26:09.067Z

Well, at least we should call out Donald Trump as the most openly censorial president in American history.

This is the payoff from Trump’s censorship campaign against the BBC. Weeks ago, Trump threatened to sue the BBC for a billion dollars over an edit in a program it aired a year ago. The BBC apologized and fired employees associated with the project. That wasn’t enough. Trump’s FCC censorship lackey Brendan Carr launched a bullshit investigation anyway. And now the BBC is preemptively editing out true statements that might anger the thin-skinned man baby who will soon be President again.

Bregman posted the exact line that got cut. Here’s the full paragraph, with the censored sentence in bold:

On one side we had an establishment propping up an elderly man in obvious mental decline. On the other we had a convicted reality star who now rules as the most openly corrupt president in American history. When it comes to staffing his administration, he is a modern day Caligula, the Roman emperor who wanted to make his horse a consul. He surrounds himself with loyalists, grifters, and sycophants.

Gosh, for what reason would the BBC cut that one particular line?

The BBC admitted to this in the most mealy-mouthed way when asked by the New Republic to comment on the situation:

Asked for comment on Bregman’s charge, a spokesperson for the BBC emailed me this: “All of our programmes are required to comply with the BBC’s editorial guidelines, and we made the decision to remove one sentence from the lecture on legal advice.”

“On legal advice.” Translation: Trump’s SLAPP suit threats worked exactly as intended.

Greg Sargent, writing in the New Republic, nails why this matters:

There is something deeply perverse in this outcome. Even if you grant Trump’s criticism of the edit of his January 6 speech—never mind that as the violence raged, Trump essentially sat on his hands for hours and arguably directed the mob to target his vice president—the answer to this can’t be to let Trump bully truth-telling into self-censoring silence.

That’s plainly what happened here.

Exactly. The BBC’s initial capitulation—the apology, the firings, the groveling—was bad enough. But this is worse. This is pre-censorship. The BBC is now editing out true statements about Trump before they air, purely because they’re afraid of how he might react. That’s not “legal advice.” That’s cowardice institutionalized as policy.

Once again, I remind you that Trump’s supporters have, for years, insisted that he was “the free speech president” and have talked about academic freedom and the right to state uncomfortable ideas.

Yet, do we hear any of them complaining about this obvious suppression of speech following a clear and censorial threat from the president? Of course not. Will the media continue to pretend that Donald Trump supports free speech, even as he’s the most openly censorial president in history? Of course.

It would be nice if more people would at least acknowledge what a farce all of this is. And it would also be nice if the BBC didn’t so quickly cave to such bogus threats.

And where are all those self-proclaimed free speech warriors now? The ones who spent years screaming about “cancel culture” and “academic freedom”?

Silent, of course. Because it was never about principles. It was about whose speech gets protected. Trump can threaten to bankrupt a media organization for accurately describing his role in an insurrection, and the same people who lose their minds over a college speaker getting heckled will find a way to justify it or simply look away.

The media will continue this charade too. They’ll keep treating Trump’s “free speech” posturing as if it’s sincere, even as he openly threatens journalists, demands the imprisonment of critics, and bullies foreign and domestic media organizations into self-censorship. We’re watching the most openly censorial president in American history deploy the legal system as a weapon against truthful speech, and the political press mostly covers it as just another controversy, not the authoritarian playbook it actually is.

The BBC made a choice here. Not a good one, not a legally required one, but a choice. They decided that avoiding Trump’s wrath was more important than telling the truth. That calculation might make sense in the short term—legal bills are expensive, and Trump’s vindictiveness is well-documented. But in the long term, this is how authoritarians win. Not by directly seizing control of the press, but by making media organizations internalize the censor, editing themselves before the threats even arrive.

Every institution that caves makes the next capitulation easier. Every truth that gets preemptively deleted because it might anger Trump makes it clearer that speaking truth about Trump comes with consequences that institutions increasingly won’t risk. This is the test, and the BBC is failing it.

Daily Deal: PiCar-X Smart Video Robot Car Kit for Raspberry Pi 4 [Techdirt]

Dive into the world of robotics, programming, and electronics with the PiCar-X, an engaging and versatile smart car designed for learners from elementary school to advanced hobbyists. Combining powerful features, exceptional quality, and a cool design, this robot car kit delivers an engaging learning experience in robotics, AI, and programming. Beyond being an educational tool, its powerful Robot Hat provides abundant resources for you to design and bring to life your projects. Plus, it comes with 15 comprehensive video tutorials, guiding you through each step of discovery and innovation. Embark on a journey of discovery and creativity with Picar-X, where young learners become budding innovators. The Robot Car Kit without a board is on sale for $80. The kit with a Raspberry Pi Zero 2 W board and 32GB SD card is on sale for $110. There’s also the kit with a Raspberry Pi 4 2GB and 32GB SD Card available for $141.

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.

Trump’s Judge Pick Is The Guy Who First Suggested The Administration Start Murdering People In Boats [Techdirt]

This isn’t as surprising as it should be. After all, we’re talking about Emil Bove, who was elevated from being Trump’s personal lawyer to a spot in the Third Circuit Appeals Court for his loyalty to the MAGA Cause.

Emil Bove did at least spend some time as a government prosecutor, which is more than can be said about several other people Trump has turned into administration officials. But he’s also the guy whose first few months as the deputy attorney general doing things like dropping the DOJ’s corruption case against former NYC mayor Eric Adams once Adams made it clear he’d do whatever Trump asked of him.

He’s also the one who told DOJ prosecutors (most of whom have either quit or been fired for refusing to be part of the problem) to say “fuck you” to federal courts if they tried to get in the way of Trump’s mass deportation program.

So, to hear he might have been the first to pitch the extrajudicial killing of brown people doesn’t exactly provoke gasps of disbelief. It probably provokes more “well, of course he did” reactions from anyone who’s been paying attention to Bove’s actions and statements since his return to the [chokes a bit on the phrase] public service.

At a Justice Department conference in February, then-acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove told the department’s top drug prosecutors that the Trump administration wasn’t interested in interdicting suspected drug vessels at sea anymore. Instead, he said, the U.S. should “just sink the boats,” according to three people present for the speech.

That’s from NPR’s reporting on Bove’s comments, which were apparently delivered months before the administration finally got around to “just sinking boats.” Not that Bove’s comments contained any sort of legal guidance or justification for these extrajudicial strikes — the first ever carried out by any presidential administration.

That would arrive much, much later. In fact, it wouldn’t arrive until after the first strikes had already taken place, and they’ve been revised at least once in hopes of dodging judicial review of these actions.

No one’s actually coming forward to dispute Bove made these comments, and that includes Bove himself, as Reuters reports:

Reuters could not determine whether Bove, who left the department in early September to begin serving as a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, was directly involved in discussions with the Pentagon about the plans to strike suspected drug vessels.

Bove declined to comment through a court spokesperson. A Justice Department spokesperson downplayed the recollections of the witnesses, calling them “disgruntled,” but did not dispute their account.

None of this adds up anything approaching the level of decorum — much less legal acumen — we hope would be the minimum expected of judges seated anywhere, but especially in a position where the only people capable of rejecting Bove’s legal opinions seem to be similarly compromised. These strikes are something even the nation’s foremost torture apologist — former DOJ Office of Legal Counsel deputy attorney general John Yoo — has publicly stated are both illegal and unconstitutional.

But this is the guy who sits in the Third Circuit Appeals Court, at least for now. Maybe his brief history of encouraging illegal and unconstitutional actions will catch up to him, as Jay Willis of Balls and Strikes hopefully suggests:

For my money, the most remarkable detail of this story is how unserious a person it shows Bove to be. Based on the timeline, his “just sink the boats” comments were not based on a carefully researched, thoroughly vetted opinion about the legality of using military airstrikes to murder civilians in international waters. Bove was just another sweaty, ladder-climbing try-hard who wormed his way into Trump’s inner circle, jumped at the chance to live out a vigilante justice fantasy, and trusted that actual lawyers would take care of the details for him. 

Bove’s alleged involvement in the airstrikes gives Democrats even more fodder for impeaching and removing him from office next time they control the House and Senate.

That’s a few too many “if’s” for my liking, but it does at least point out there’s a way to remove at least a few of Trump’s appointees, possibly even before Trump himself has exited the Oval Office.

But the bigger point is in the paragraph preceding the path to a forced exit: Bove is emblematic of the people in positions of power in the Trump administration. These are people who don’t care whether or not anything is constitutional or even legally-defensible under the most expansive definitions of executive power. They just do what they want to do and it’s up to the rest of the nation to stop them. And that plan that can’t really even be called a “plan” is working. Installing a murder proponent like Bove in an appellate court is just more grease on the wheels.

03:00 AM

The Prompt Decks are now available [Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect]

We hit 500% of our Kickstarter goal, and they’re now available to the public.

A lot of folks have answers for us about AI, but these decks are designed to help us with the questions. Not just questions about the systems at work, but about how we might use them.

The Infinite Adventure deck puts you into a fan-fiction world–from Alice in Wonderland to a noir mystery.

The Modern Divination deck has 49 modalities of soothsaying, including tarot, numerology and various ancient traditions.

And the Mentor Deck offers fifty different coaches, each trained on ideas from big thinkers through the ages.

In each case, I took the information that was already in Claude and created artifacts that run on your phone or laptop. The cards add an approachable, analog and tactile interaction that makes the entire experience sharable and compelling. Thanks to FX Nine for extra help on the Infinite and Modern decks.

Printed in the USA, the lead time for reprints is several months, so pre-holiday supplies are truly limited.

Here’s a review from an early user.

You can read about how to use them, system compatibility and all the details right here.

      

Pluralistic: O(N^2) nationalism (26 Nov 2025) [Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow]


Today's links



The Earth seen from space. Hovering above it is Uncle Sam, with Trump's hair - his legs are stuck out before him, and they terminate in ray-guns that are shooting red rays over the Earth. The starry sky is punctuated by 'code waterfall' effects, as seen in the credit sequences of the Wachowskis' 'Matrix' movies.

O(N^2) nationalism (permalink)

In their 2023 book Underground Empire, political scientists Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman describe how the modern world runs on US-based systems that other nations treat(ed) as neutral platforms, and how that is collapsing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/10/weaponized-interdependence/#the-other-swifties

Think of the world's fiber optic cables: for most of the internet's history, it was a given that one end of the majority of the world's transoceanic fiber would make landfall on one of the coasts of the USA. US telcos paid to interconnect these fiber head-ends – even ones on opposite coasts – with extremely reliable, high-speed links.

This made a certain kind of sense. Pulling fiber across an ocean is incredibly expensive and difficult. Rather than run cables between each nation in the world, countries could connect to the US, and, in a single hop, connect to anywhere else.

This is a great deal, provided that you trust the USA to serve as an honest broker for the world's internet traffic. Then, in 2013, the Snowden leaks revealed that America's National Security Agency was spying on pretty much everyone in the world.

Since then, the world has undergone a boom in new transoceanic fiber, most of it point-to-point links between two countries. Despite the prodigious logistical advantages of a hub-and-spoke model for ocean-spanning fiber networks, there just isn't any nation on Earth that can be entrusted with the world's information chokepoint, lest they yield to temptation to become the world's gatekeeper.

Don't get me wrong: there are also advantages to decentralized (or even better, distributed) interconnections in the world's data infrastructure. A more dispersed network topology is more resilient against a variety of risks, from political interference to war to meteor strikes.

But connecting every country to every other country is a very expensive proposition. Our planet has 205 sovereign nations, and separately connecting each of them to the rest will require 20,910 links.

In complexity theory, this is an "Order N-squared" ("O(n^2)") problem – every additional item in the problem set squares the number of operations needed to solve it. We aren't anywhere near a world where every country has a link to every other country on Earth. Instead, we're in an unsettled period, where warring theories about how to decentralize, and by how much, have created a weird, lopsided network topology.

Obviously, fiber interconnection isn't the most important "neutral platform" that the US (formerly) provided to the rest of the world. The most important American platform is the US dollar, which most countries in the world use as a reserve currency, and also as a standard for clearing international transactions. If someone in Thailand wants to buy oil from someone in Saudi Arabia, they do so in dollars. This is called "dollar clearing."

The case for dollar clearing is similar to the case for linking all the world's fiber through US data-centers. It's a big lift to ask every seller to price their goods in every potential buyer's currency, and it's a lot to ask every Thai baht holder to race around the world seeking someone who'll sell them Saudi riyals – and then there's the problem of what they do with the change left over from the transaction.

Establishing liquid markets for every pair of every currency has the same kind of complexity as the problem of establishing fiber links between every country.

Since the mid-20th century, we've solved this problem by treating the US dollar as a neutral platform. Countries opened savings accounts at the US Federal Reserve and stashed large numbers of US dollars there (when someone says, "China owns umpty-billion in US debt," they just mean, "There's a bank account in New York at the Fed with China's name on it that has been marked up with lots of US dollars").

Merchants, institutions and individuals that wanted to transact across borders used the SWIFT system, which is nominally international, but which, practically speaking, is extremely deferential to the US government.

Issuing the world's reserve and reference currency was a source of enormous power for the US, but only to the extent that it used that power sparingly, and subtly. The power of dollarization depended on most people believing that the dollar was mostly neutral – that the US wouldn't risk dollar primacy by nakedly weaponizing the dollar. Dollarization was a bet that America First hawks would have the emotional maturity to instrumentalize the dollar in the most sparing and subtle of fashion.

But today, no one believes that the dollar is neutral. First came the Argentine sovereign debt default: in 2001, the government of Argentina wiped out investors who were holding its bonds. In 2005, a group of American vulture capitalists scooped up this worthless paper for pennies, then sued in New York to force Argentina to make good on the bonds, and a US court handed over Argentina's foreign reserves, which were held on US soil.

That was the opening salvo in a series of events showed everyone in the world that the US dollar wasn't a neutral platform, but was, rather, a creature of US policy. This culminated with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which saw the seizure of Russian assets in the USA and a general blockade on Russians using the SWIFT system to transfer money.

Whether or not you like the fact that Russian assets were transferred to Ukraine to aid in its defense against Russian aggression (I like it, for the record), there's no denying that this ended the pretense that the dollar was a neutral platform. It was a signal to every leader in the world that the dollar could only be relied upon for transaction clearing and foreign reserves to the extent that you didn't make the USA angry at you.

Today, Donald Trump has made it clear that the US's default posture to every country in the world is anger. The US no longer has allies, nor does it have trading partners. Today, every country in the world is America's adversary and its rival.

But de-dollarization isn't easy. It presents the same O(n^2) problem as rewiring the world's fiber: creating deep, liquid markets to trade every currency against every other currency is an impossible lift (thus far), and there's no obvious candidate as a replacement for the dollar as a clearing currency.

As with fiber, we are in an unsettled period, with no obvious answer, and lots of chaotic, one-off gestures towards de-dollarization. For example, Ethiopia is re-valuing its foreign debt in Chinese renminbi:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-20/ethiopia-in-talks-with-china-to-convert-dollar-loans-into-yuan

But fiber and dollars aren't the only seemingly neutral platforms that America provided to the world as a way of both facilitating the world's orderly operation and consolidating America's centrality and power on the global stage.

America is also the world's great digital exporter. The world's governments, corporations and households run on American cloud software, like Google Docs and Office365. Their records are held in Oracle databases. Their messages and media run on iPhones. Their cloud compute comes from AWS.

The Snowden revelations shook this arrangement, but it held. The EU extracted a series of (ultimately broken) promises from the US to the effect that America wouldn't spy on Europeans using Big Tech. And now, after a brittle decade of half-measures and uneasy peace with American tech platforms, Trump has made it clear that he will not hesitate to use American tech platforms to pursue his geopolitical goals.

Practically speaking, that means that government officials that make Trump angry can expect to have their cloud access terminated:

https://apnews.com/article/icc-trump-sanctions-karim-khan-court-a4b4c02751ab84c09718b1b95cbd5db3

Trump can – and does – shut down entire international administrative agencies, without notice or appeal, as a means of coercing them into embracing American political goals.

What's more, US tech giants have stopped pretending that they will not share sensitive EU data – even data housed on servers in the EU – with American spy agencies, and will keep any such disclosures a secret from the European governments, companies and individuals who are affected:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2025/07/22/microsoft-cant-keep-eu-data-safe-from-us-authorities/

All this has prompted a rush of interest in the "Eurostack," an effort to replicate the functionality of US tech companies' cloud services:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/10/15/freedom-of-movement/#data-dieselgate

But the Eurostack's proponents are really working on the preliminaries to digital sovereignty. It's not enough to have alternatives to US Big Tech. There also needs to be extensive work on migration tools, to facilitate the move to those alternatives. No one is going to manually copy/paste a million documents out of their ministry or corporation's GSuite repository and into a Eurostack equivalent. There are a few tools that do this today, but they're crude and hard to use, because they are probably illegal under America's widely exported IP laws.

Faithfully transferring those files, permissions, edit histories and metadata to new clouds will require a kind of guerrilla warfare called "adversarial interoperability." Adversarial interoperability is the process of making a new thing work with an existing thing, against the wishes of the existing thing's manufacturer:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability

The problem is that adversarial interoperability has been mostly criminalized in countries all around the world, thanks to IP laws that prohibit study, reverse engineering and modification of software without permission. These laws were spread all over the world at the insistence of the US Trade Representative, who, for 25 years, has made this America's top foreign trade priority.

Countries that balked at enacting laws were threatened with tariffs. Virtually every country in the world fell into line:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/01/15/beauty-eh/#its-the-only-war-the-yankees-lost-except-for-vietnam-and-also-the-alamo-and-the-bay-of-ham

But then Trump happened. The Trump tariffs apply to countries that have voluntarily blocked their own investors and entrepreneurs from making billions by supplying products that unlock and improve America's enshittified tech exports. These blocks also exposed everyone in the world to the data- and cash-plundering scams of US Big Tech, by preventing the creation of privacy blockers, alt clients, jailbreaking kits, and independent app stores for phones, tablets and consoles.

What's more, the laws that block reverse-engineering are also used to block repair, forcing everyone from train operators to hospitals to drivers to everyday individuals to pay a high premium and endure long waits to get their equipment serviced by the manufacturer's authorized representatives:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/24/record-scratch/#autoenshittification

These US-forced IP laws come at a high price. They allow American companies to pick your nation's pockets and steal its data. They interfere with repair and undermine resiliency. They also threaten security researchers who audit critical technologies and identify their dangerous defects:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/30/life-finds-a-way/#ink-stained-wretches

On top of that, they expose your country to a range of devastating geopolitical attacks by the Trump administration, who have made it clear that they will order American tech companies to brick whole governments as punishment for failing to capitulate to US demands. And of course, all of these remote killswitches can be operated by anyone who can hack or trick the manufacturer, including the Chinese state:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/07/foreseeable-outcomes/#calea

Speaking of China, isn't this exactly the kind of thing we were warned would happen if we allowed Chinese technology into western telecommunications systems? The Chinese state would spy on us, and, in times of extremis, could shut down our critical infrastructure with a keystroke.

This is exactly what America is doing now (and has been doing for some time, as Snowden demonstrated). But it's actually pretty reasonable to assume that a regime as competent and ambitious (and ruthless) as Xi Jinping's might make use of this digital power if doing so serves its geopolitical goals.

And there is a hell of a lot of cloud-connected digital infrastructure that Xi does (or could) control, including the solar inverters and batteries that are swiftly replacing fossil fuel in the EU:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/23/our-friend-the-electron/#to-every-man-his-castle

And if you're worried about China shutting down your solar energy, you should also worry about America's hold on the embedded processors in your country's critical systems.

Take tractors. Remember when Putin's thugs looted millions of dollars' worth of tractors from Ukraine and spirited them away to Chechnya? The John Deere company sent a kill command to those tractors and bricked them, rendering them permanently inoperable:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/08/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors/

Sure, there's a certain cyberpunk frisson in this tale of a digital comeuppance for Russian aggressors. But think about this for ten seconds and you'll realize that it means that John Deere can shut down any tractor in the world – including all the tractors in your country, if Donald Trump forces them to:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/10/20/post-american-internet/#huawei-with-american-characteristics

The national security case for digital sovereignty includes people worried about American aggression. It includes people worried about Chinese aggression. It includes people worried about other countries that might infiltrate and make use of these remote kill switches. And it includes people worried about criminals doing the same.

True digital sovereignty requires more than building Eurostack data-centers and the software to run on them. It requires more than repealing the IP laws that block cloud customers from migrating their data to those Eurostack servers. It requires the replacement of the cloud software and embedded code that power our infrastructure and administrative tools.

This is a gigantic task. Ripping out all the proprietary code that powers our cloud software and devices and replacing it with robust, auditable, user-modifiable free/open source software is a massive project.

It's also a project that's long overdue. And crises precipitate change. Putin's invasion of Ukraine vaporized every barrier to Europe's solar conversion, rocketing the bloc from ten years behind schedule to fifteen years ahead of schedule in just a few years.

The fact that changing out all the proprietary, opaque, vulnerable code in our world and replacing it with open, free, reliable code is hard has no bearing on whether it is necessary.

It is necessary. What's more, replacing all the code isn't like replacing the dollar, or replacing the fiber. It isn't hamstrung by the O(n^2) problem.

Because if the Eurostack code is open and free, it can also be the Canadian stack, the Mexican stack, the Ghanaian stack, and the Vietnamese stack. It can be a commons, a set of core technologies that everyone studies for vulnerabilities and improves, that everyone adds features to, that everyone localizes and administers and bears the costs for.

It is a novel and curious form of "international nationalism," a technology that is more like a science. In the same way that the Allies and the Axis both used the same radio technologies to communicate, a common, open digital infrastructure is one that everyone – even adversaries – can rely upon.

This is a move that's long overdue. It's a move that's in the power of every government, because it merely involves changing your own domestic laws to enable adversarial interoperability. Its success doesn't depend on a foreign state forcing Apple or Google or Microsoft or Oracle to do something they don't want to do:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/11/01/redistribution-vs-predistribution/#elbows-up-eurostack

The opportunity and challenge of building the post-American internet is part of the package of global de-Americanization, which includes running new fiber and de-dollarization. But the post-American internet is unique in that it is the only part of this project that can be solved everywhere, all at once, and that gets cheaper and easier as more nations join in.


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 Transformers costumes that turn into cars and jets https://web.archive.org/web/20051127021810/http://www.marksprojects.com/costumestrans.htm

#15yrsago London police brutally kettle children marching for education https://web.archive.org/web/20101126000126/http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/11/children-police-kettle-protest

#15yrsago Kremlinology with Rupert Murdoch: what do the Times paywall numbers mean? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/nov/25/times-paywall-cory-doctorow

#10yrsago Ifixit is the new Justice League of America and Kyle Wiens is its Superman https://web.archive.org/web/20151125125009/https://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-to-fix-everything

#5yrsago Random Penguin to buy Simon & Schuster https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/25/the-peoples-amazon/#merger-to-monopoly

#5yrsago A state-owned Amazon https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/25/the-peoples-amazon/#correo-compras

#5yrsago Office 365 spies on employees for bosses https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/25/the-peoples-amazon/#clippys-revenge

#5yrsago Tech in SF https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/25/the-peoples-amazon/#asl


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)

  • "Unauthorized Bread": a middle-grades graphic novel adapted from my novella about refugees, toasters and DRM, FirstSecond, 2026

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

  • "The Memex Method," Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2026

  • "The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI," a short book about being a better AI critic, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, June 2026



Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing:

  • "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

Wait. There’s Actually A Trump Healthcare Plan? [The Status Kuo]

Photo courtesy of the Wall Street Journal

After years of promising a healthcare plan, even hilariously claiming a “concept of a plan” during the debates, Trump has finally circulated one. But surprise, it looks a lot like what Democrats have been asking for all along. And that has Republicans howling.

Remember when the White House refused to even negotiate over extension of the ACA premium subsidies, extending the government shutdown for more than 40 days? Trump declared he wouldn’t be extorted by Democrats, and it sure looked like he would never agree to their demands, however reasonable.

Now Trump’s proposal calls for extending those same subsidies, with a few tweaks around the edges, by two years. That’s a year longer than Democrats had demanded.

So what gives?

Subscribe now

Political reality check

Despite his best efforts to portray the economy as in a new “Golden Era,” it turns out the laws of political gravity apply to large bodies like Trump, too. And his approval numbers are in freefall over his mishandling of the economy. The latest CBS News/YouGov poll, released just days ago, has him at a new low on the issue, with just 36 percent approving.

The downward drift is fueled in part by soaring ACA premiums. Millions of Americans are currently searching for options on the ACA marketplace during open enrollment, and they are experiencing severe sticker shock. This is happening everywhere, but red states like Florida are particularly hard hit, where nearly five million use the ACA marketplace to buy insurance.

The White House may have finally realized that it can’t puff its way out of this, and that unless those ACA premium subsidies are extended, the President’s popularity will continue to collapse.

What’s in the plan and why do Republicans hate it?

Politico reported Sunday night that the president’s proposal would extend the Obamacare subsidies for two years. But with a nod to conservatives, it would impose some limits on eligibility, including income caps for individuals who qualify for the enhanced tax credits and minimum premium payments.

So basically, as one GOP lawmaker described it, “Obamacare-lite.”

Democrats say the proposal is a move in the right direction. But if you ask Republicans, it might be DOA. Per MS NOW, the White House reportedly didn’t even consult with Congressional Republicans before circulating it,

with Republicans who spoke to MS NOW suggesting that most lawmakers were unaware the administration’s health care proposal would include an extension of the subsidies. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., were expected to be briefed for the first time on the plan Sunday afternoon.

Oh look! It’s another unforced error, borne of the regime’s arrogance and incompetence.

The bottom line is already clear: The proposal likely won’t meet the demands of most in the GOP Congress that there be a big overhaul of the current system. “I’m not putting a Band-Aid on something that’s broken,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin, (R-OK) told reporters.

“I would absolutely NOT be supportive of that,” Rep. Eric Burlison, (R-MO) said when asked about the proposed extension of the subsidies. “Since I last checked, Covid has been over for some time. This is definitely not the DOGE thing to do,” he added.

(Narrator: DOGE disbanded earlier this month, having failed in its declared mission of saving the government billions in alleged “waste, fraud and abuse.”)

Other House members were more succinct.

When MS NOW asked fellow Freedom Caucus member Greg Steube, R-Fla., if he would be supportive of the White House health-care proposal, he had a two-letter response: “No.”

The Senate must vote on a Democratic healthcare proposal in just over two weeks, per the reopening agreement. But over in the House, Speaker Mike Johnson remarked yesterday that there isn’t any appetite in his conference for an ACA subsidies extension, meaning whatever the Senate agrees on might not even get a floor vote.

The Republican healthcare debacle now looks like a trap that the party can’t escape from. The GOP is split, with hardliners insisting that the subsidies must end while moderates in swing districts push for some relief for their hard-hit constituents.

In other words, the party hasn’t even had time to recover from the twin debacles of the Epstein files vote and the split between Trump and the MAGA hardliners when it must deal with healthcare, which poses an existential threat to its members’ electoral prospects.

Why is healthcare so hard for Republicans to handle?

It took decades for Democrats to land on a healthcare plan that they could pass. They did so just barely, creating the system we have today. Despite its flaws, the ACA is extremely popular (and more so if you don’t call it Obamacare).

Republicans have been out to kill the ACA since its passage, but it’s getting harder each year to do so. Now they have an opportunity to cut the legs out from under 22 million Americans who have benefited from Covid-era subsidies, which would drive a stake into the heart of the ACA, but they still can’t quite figure out what to do about all those uninsured millions.

The initial proposals from the White House and the GOP were truly laughable. As Ryan Cooper of The American Prospect colorfully noted,

So far, the genius idea in the lead is Trump’s pitch to reroute subsidies from health insurance companies to the American people, so they can buy health care. (House Republicans have already filed a bill that looks like this.) When asked whether people wouldn’t then just use that money to buy health insurance, Trump replied, “Ahh … some may. I mean, they’ll be negotiating prices.” Congratulations, folks, you now get to be your own private dealmaker with the health care system, and with your purchasing power and risk pool of one household, I’m sure you’ll get the best price!

Healthcare only really works if the risks and costs are spread out. That has to include the people with the highest and most expensive risk factors, i.e., those with preexisting conditions. Republicans keep trying to put these people into separate “risk pools,” but all that really means is that they will be priced out of the marketplace. In the end, that would drive everyone’s costs higher as millions forego seeing a doctor to save on costs, only to wind up in the ER when their health problems have become acute.

The ACA spreads out the cost of insuring tens of millions of Americans who don’t get their insurance through their employer, but that feels to the GOP somehow like socialism—even though the rest of the world already does this with no capitalist skies falling.

Still, the GOP is stuck in this mindset, and we all suffer the consequences. As Jonathan Cohen of The Bulwark observed,

Over and over again, they have promised they have a better alternative. But their plans almost never materialize. And when they do they tend to be deeply unpopular, mainly because they involve rolling back protections for pre-existing conditions and leaving many millions of Americans without insurance. Republicans always find themselves stuck between their instincts to hack away at “Obamacare” and their desire not to incur the voters’ wrath.

And surprise, that is precisely where they now find themselves again. It’s choose your own adventure time, Republicans!

If the plan that Congress ultimately votes on looks a lot like Trump’s current proposal, which effectively keeps the ACA going for another two years, will Republicans break with him (again) in their endless quest to deal a mortal blow to “socialist” healthcare? If they succeed in letting the ACA premium subsidies expire completely, that risks angering millions of voters and would likely mean a crushing loss in the midterms.

We saw this play out before, of course, during 2018 when the party tried unsuccessfully to destroy Obamacare. History does rhyme, and it even helpfully sings itself back to us. But the GOP still can’t seem to remember the tune.

Alternatively, the GOP could work with Democrats to pass an extension, essentially keeping ACA healthcare subsidies in place and preserving the status quo except for a few folks at the edges. Should that happen, once again we would see a hapless GOP House majority led not by its squeaking Speaker Mike Johnson but by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) with his unified Democratic caucus behind him.

This happened multiple times from 2023 to 2024, whenever the GOP-controlled House couldn’t agree on a continuing resolution for the budget. Johnson lost control of the floor, and Democrats had to provide the votes to keep things going. Republicans should be used to this by now and perhaps should just swallow their pride, hold their noses, and let the Democrats set the pace and agenda again.

After all, behind the other door lurks an electoral nightmare that would make the 2018 Blue Wave look like a wade through the kiddie pool.

01:00 AM

Kanji of the Day: 旗 [Kanji of the Day]

✍14

小4

national flag, banner, standard

はた

旗手   (きしゅ)   —   standard-bearer
国旗   (こっき)   —   national flag
優勝旗   (ゆうしょうき)   —   championship pennant
旗揚げ   (はたあげ)   —   raising an army
旗艦   (きかん)   —   flagship
旗印   (はたじるし)   —   design (on a banner)
旗振り   (はたふり)   —   flagwaving
白旗   (しらはた)   —   white flag
反旗   (はんき)   —   standard of revolt
旗頭   (はたがしら)   —   leader

Generated with kanjioftheday by Douglas Perkins.

RSSSiteUpdated
XML About Tagaini Jisho on Tagaini Jisho 2025-11-29 08:00 AM
XML Arch Linux: Releases 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML Carlson Calamities 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML Debian News 2025-11-29 08:00 AM
XML Debian Security 2025-11-29 08:00 AM
XML debito.org 2025-11-29 08:00 AM
XML dperkins 2025-11-29 06:00 AM
XML F-Droid - Free and Open Source Android App Repository 2025-11-28 04:00 PM
XML GIMP 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML Japan Bash 2025-11-29 08:00 AM
XML Japan English Teacher Feed 2025-11-29 08:00 AM
XML Kanji of the Day 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML Kanji of the Day 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML Let's Encrypt 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML Marc Jones 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML Marjorie's Blog 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML OpenStreetMap Japan - 自由な地図をみんなの手で/The Free Wiki World Map 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML OsmAnd Blog 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow 2025-11-29 06:00 AM
XML Popehat 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML Ramen Adventures 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML Release notes from server 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML Seth Godin's Blog on marketing, tribes and respect 2025-11-29 06:00 AM
XML SNA Japan 2025-11-29 06:00 AM
XML Tatoeba Project Blog 2025-11-29 08:00 AM
XML Techdirt 2025-11-29 08:00 AM
XML The Luddite 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML The Popehat Report 2025-11-29 06:00 AM
XML The Status Kuo 2025-11-29 06:00 AM
XML The Stranger 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML Tor Project blog 2025-11-29 08:00 AM
XML TorrentFreak 2025-11-29 08:00 AM
XML what if? 2025-11-29 08:00 AM
XML Wikimedia Commons picture of the day feed 2025-11-24 07:00 PM
XML Write, Publish, and Sell 2025-11-29 02:00 AM
XML xkcd.com 2025-11-29 08:00 AM