[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 days ago

Well said, thanks!

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 days ago

Thanks very much for excerpting that!

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 6 days ago

Reparations aren't just a cash payment -- the article lists five different aspects of reparations, and it's very compatible with investing in Black communities. There's debate iover who should be eligible but it's not an unsolvable problem. And sure some people will use it as an excuse to declare racism's over, but the same was true when Obama got elected ... so that's not a reason not to do it!

In terms of support in general, do you support the 1988 decision by the US to pay reparations to Japanese-Americans who had been sent to internment camps?

22
23

It’s still not clear just what will get voted on. So, if you're in the US, now's a great time to contact Congress. EFF’s action Tell Congress: Absent Major Changes, 702 Should Not be Renewed has as a form that will connect you nd provides talking points. Or if you’d rather contact them directly, here’s a short script:

“Stop the FBI from spying on innocent Americans. Please fight for a vote to reform FISA’s Section 702 with warrant requirements, both for Section 702 data and for our sensitive, personal information sold to the government by data brokers. And please oppose any attempt to reauthorize FISA Section 702 that doesn’t include both of these critical reforms.”

You can either call the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or use the House directory to look up your legislators’ contact info.

25
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/privacyguides@lemmy.one

It’s still not clear just what will get voted on. So, if you're in the US, now's a great time to contact Congress. EFF’s action Tell Congress: Absent Major Changes, 702 Should Not be Renewed has as a form that will connect you nd provides talking points. Or if you’d rather contact them directly, here’s a short script:

“Stop the FBI from spying on innocent Americans. Please fight for a vote to reform FISA’s Section 702 with warrant requirements, both for Section 702 data and for our sensitive, personal information sold to the government by data brokers. And please oppose any attempt to reauthorize FISA Section 702 that doesn’t include both of these critical reforms.”

You can either call the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or use the House directory to look up your legislators’ contact info.

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 7 months ago

Happy cake day -- congrats, and thanks for all you and Kaity do!

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 8 months ago

Totally agree. Back in June I wrote about the reasons the FediPact was good strategy and started it with

Most importantly, it counters the gaslighting that resistance is futile. The segment of the fediverse that wants to reject Meta is clearly large enough that it will survive no matter what the big Mastodon instances and pundits do.

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 8 months ago

Agreed that figuring out the right action is important! It's clear from the conversation so far that a lot of instances are going to defederate, and a lot of instances are going to federate, so any strategy needs to take that into account.

I talked with a lot of people about this when I wrote Should the Fediverse welcome its new surveillance-capitalism overlords? Opinions differ! and don't think it's the case that we share the same goals. Some people see increasing the size of the ActivityPub network as a goal in and of itself (and generally support federation); others are in the fediverse because they want nothing to do with Facebook or Meta (so unsurprisingly support defederation). And some people have a goal of communicating with people on Threads -- friends, relatives, celebrities, etc; others don't. So again, these different goals are something to take into account.

Wanting to stay federated DOES NOT mean the user wants to help Meta or thinks that Meta is here for our benefit.

That's correct, but many of the people I've seen arguing in favor of federation do seem to think Meta's looking for a win/win situation where the fediverse benefits as much or more than Meta. And conversely many would argue that wanting to stay federated means the user is helping Meta whether they want to or not.

222
53

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/6414337

The Judiciary bill has significant reforms, including a warrant requirement. The Intelligence bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing -- it would significantly expand warrantless surveillance. If you're in the US, now's a key time to contact Congress! EFF's got a form that makes it easy, or see Get FISA Right's post for phone numbers and a short script.

15

The Judiciary bill has significant reforms, including a warrant requirement. The Intelligence bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing -- it would significantly expand warrantless surveillance. If you're in the US, now's a key time to contact Congress! EFF's got a form that makes it easy, or see Get FISA Right's post for phone numbers and a short script.

77
submitted 8 months ago by jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/9011376

Congress is expected to vote this week on various bills to reauthorise FISA Section 702 warrantless wiretapping. The House Intelligence committee's bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing -- it would significantly expand warrantless surveillance. If you're in the US, now's a key time to contact Congress! EFF's got a form that makes it easy, or see the article for phone numbers and a short script.

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 9 months ago

Yes, followers-only posts are public -- upvote if you agree!

19
submitted 9 months ago by jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/fediverse@lemmy.ml

On Mastodon, Followers-only posts are only visible to your followers -- and to admins of any instances your followers on. But if you haven't turned on "approve followes", anybody who's logged in to an instance you haven't blocked can follow you and get access to your followers-only posts.

In your view, are followers-only posts public?

The linked post is a Mastodon poll, and I'll also put in replies here so that you can just upvote the ones you agree with!

62

In a video recently published by the conservative group Family Policy Alliance, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said “protecting minor children from the transgender in this culture” should be among the top priorities of conservative lawmakers....

In the same minute-and-a-half video, Blackburn lauded the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, a bipartisan bill introduced in May that would allow parents to sue social media companies and other online platforms if they do not sufficiently shield children under the age of 13 from harmful content on their platforms. The measure was introduced by Blackburn and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and has been endorsed by President Joe Biden.

https://www.stopkosa.com/ makes it easy to contact your lawmakers if you're in the US. It's not too late to stop KOSS -- but we're going to have to make some noise!

1

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/4403827

Senator Admits "Kids Online Safety Act" Will Target Trans Content Online.::The lead sponsor of the "Kids Online Safety Act," otherwise known as KOSA, has stated over the weekend that it will be used to "protect minor children from the transgender in our culture."

1

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/1835889

Evan Greer of Fight for the Future:

"If KOSA were actually a privacy bill as its supporters claim, we would be all about it," Greer told Ars. "We support cracking down on tech companies harvesting of data, we support an end to manipulative business practices like autoplay, infinite scroll, intrusive notifications, and algorithmic recommendations powered by commercial surveillance. What we don't support is a bill that gives state attorneys general the power to dictate what content younger people can see on social media. That's where KOSA goes off the rails and becomes a censorship bill, rather than a privacy bill."

If you're in the US, you can contact Congress using https://www.stopkosa.com/

31

Evan Greer of Fight for the Future:

"If KOSA were actually a privacy bill as its supporters claim, we would be all about it," Greer told Ars. "We support cracking down on tech companies harvesting of data, we support an end to manipulative business practices like autoplay, infinite scroll, intrusive notifications, and algorithmic recommendations powered by commercial surveillance. What we don't support is a bill that gives state attorneys general the power to dictate what content younger people can see on social media. That's where KOSA goes off the rails and becomes a censorship bill, rather than a privacy bill."

If you're in the US, you can contact Congress using https://www.stopkosa.com/

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago

yeah it's really disappointing.

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 year ago

Yeah really. Think of the children!!!!

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 year ago

It's all true. WTF indeed. Here's a letter from over 90 LGBTQ and human rights organizations with more detail. EFF's article from in May, which is the one they linked to in the original article, has good info to.

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago

That just shows how little Eugen understands the privacy risks. Why just blocking Meta's Threads won't be enough to protect your privacy once they join the fediverse has an example of how federating with Meta can expose private data. And, data can be public but hard to discover (a profile for somebody who only makes followers-only and local-only posts); federating with Threads adds exposure.

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago

Yep. Federation could conceivably respond to the EU's requirement for interoperability -- and they could do it in a way that puts a lot of barriers to people actually moving, so works well for them. Of course the EU would say that didn't meet the requirement, which would lead to a multi-year legal battle and eventually Meta would probably pay a billion dollar fine (as they routinely do -- it's just a cost of doing business) and promise to remove the barriers (which they wouldn't, and then there would be another multi-year legal battle).

But none of that works if the EU won't allow Threads for some other reason!

Still, my guess is that they'll figure out a way around the EU's objections to Threads ... we shall see ...

view more: next ›

jdp23

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF