Werd I/O

[Sara Fischer at Axios]

"Beehiiv, a newsletter startup taking aim at Substack, says it's making a "multi-million dollar investment" to create a new "beehiiv Media Collective" of journalists on its platform."

Beehiiv's new fund for independent journalists will give them a monthly health insurance stipend and pre-publish legal review support. There's also Getty access and deeper business strategy report. It's actually kind of remarkable - and a clear shot across the bow to competitors like Substack.

More competitors to Substack - which famously has supported actual Nazis - can only be a good thing. The real question is how long this fund will last, and whether the journalists who take advantage of it will sink or swim when it inevitably comes to an end. Hopefully everyone who takes part uses the time to become self-sufficient.

#Media

[Link]

[Mathew Ingram at The Torment Nexus]

Mathew wrestles with where Bluesky sits in the future of social media given its connections to venture capital and blockchain supporters:

"I have no doubt that, as Cory says, Graber and the other founders of Bluesky are sincere in their desire to build an open service with a federated protocol, etc. But history has shown time and again that economic interests often interfere with the best efforts of founders."

Here's my slightly controversial take: I think there's something to learn from blockchain and how it developed. We already see that represented in the data structures Bluesky uses behind the scenes, and beyond that, an optimistic cultural take on decentralization. That doesn't mean crypto markets aren't full of scammers - there's certainly more to avoid than to learn from - but blockchain is not an irrelevant pursuit, even if blockchains themselves are not the best route forwards.

This feels right to me:

"In the short term at least, it seems as though we could have three or four competing social networks: one, Twitter/X, is the place for right-wing Musk fans and tech bros and Trump supporters (and journalists and others who need to be there for work); Bluesky is the place for that early Twitter anything-goes vibe plus journalists and real-time news; Mastodon is the place for nerds and geeks and others who like the nuts-and-bolts of social tech; and Threads is... well, Threads is whatever is left over after all of those other things are removed :-)"

Let's see what happens.

#Fediverse

[Link]

[Oliver Darcy at Status]

I literally had to check to see if this was real:

"The Onion has successfully acquired Infowars.

The satirical news outlet purchased Alex Jones' right-wing conspiracy empire at a court-ordered auction, the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting announced Thursday."

I cannot think of a more fitting end for such a toxic, falsehood-filled media outlet. Of course The Onion should own it. Where better than the original home of fake news?

Clearly the Sandy Hook families felt the same way: they actually decided to forgo part of the money owed to them in order to make this happen.

"While Jones will no longer own Infowars, he has indicated that he will continue to broadcast after losing control of the media company."

May he lose that one too.

#Media

[Link]

[The Guardian]

Given the reluctance to leave X among most publishers, the Guardian is taking a big leadership role here by refusing to continue to post to X:

"This is something we have been considering for a while given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism. The US presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: that X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse."

X users will continue to be able to share links to the Guardian, which is simply a property of them being a web platform. The Guardian also reserves the right to embed tweets when they are newsworthy.

I couldn't agree with their reasoning more, and I sincerely hope that more publications follow suit. I also predict that this won't hurt the Guardian's metrics overall, at least in the medium term.

I also appreciate their note at the bottom of the article:

"Thankfully, we can do this because our business model does not rely on viral content tailored to the whims of the social media giants’ algorithms – instead we’re funded directly by our readers."

Yet another reason why patronage models are far better than advertising.

#Media

[Link]

[Michael Kennedy and Isobel Cockerell in Coda Story]

Just one example of many of AI being used to take agency away from ordinary workers:

"The upshot was, it took away our ability to advocate for patients. We couldn’t point to a score and say, ‘This patient is too sick, I need to focus on them alone,’ because the numbers didn’t help us make that case anymore. They didn’t tell us if a patient was low, medium, or high need. They just gave patients a seemingly random score that nobody understood, on a scale of one to infinity.

We felt the system was designed to take decision-making power away from nurses at the bedside. Deny us the power to have a say in how much staffing we need."

The piece goes on to discuss the mass surveillance that AI enables. In a world where a patient's discussions with the healthcare workers attending to them are recorded, to feed an agent or otherwise, all kinds of abuses become possible. Not only does it remove agency from the experts who should be advocating for patients, but consider the effects in a state with adverse reproductive healthcare laws, for example.

This is the salient point:

"The reasoning for bringing in AI tools to monitor patients is always that it will make life easier for us, but in my experience, technology in healthcare rarely makes things better. It usually just speeds up the factory floor, squeezing more out of us, so they can ultimately hire fewer of us."

And this tends to be true regardless of what the original intention might be. If a technology can be used to cut costs or squeeze more productivity out of a worker, absent of any other constraints, it absolutely will be. In healthcare, like many fields that depend on care, attention, and underlying humanity, that's not necessarily a good thing.

#AI

[Link]

[Noah Hurowitz at The Intercept]

This should be a five alarm fire:

"Up for a potential fast-track vote next week in the House of Representatives, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, also known as H.R. 9495, would grant the secretary of the Treasury Department unilateral authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit deemed to be a “terrorist supporting organization.” [...] The law would not require officials to explain the reason for designating a group, nor does it require the Treasury Department to provide evidence."

Unbelievably, this is a bipartisan bill, despite its obviously harmful effects: if any non-profit can be stripped of its status without reason or evidence, the ability for an adverse administration to do harm with it is huge.

Non-profits one can imagine being affected include those reporting the news, providing reproductive healthcare, supporting vulnerable communities, aiding immigrants at risk of deportation, providing aid in places like Gaza, and more. It's a blank check to harm political opponents - and it seems ludicrous that it's on the verge of passing.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Sean Goedecke]

This is very good. It's advertised as a piece about shipping in big tech companies, but honestly, I think it's true of many smaller companies too. It's not true in the smallest startups or for organizations with certain kinds of engineering cultures - but I suspect they may be in the minority.

"What does it mean to ship? It does not mean deploying code or even making a feature available to users. Shipping is a social construct within a company. Concretely, that means that a project is shipped when the important people at your company believe it is shipped."

Software engineering isn't a technology business: it's a people business. You're building tools that solve real problems for real people, and you're doing it inside an organizational structure that is also made of real people. There's no way to get around this: unless the organization is exceptionally organized around engineering needs (which many small and medium tech companies are!), you will have to navigate these sorts of interpersonal dynamics.

This hits the nail on the head for just about everybody:

"I think a lot of engineers hold off on deploys essentially out of fear. If you want to ship, you need to do the exact opposite: you need to deploy as much as you can as early as possible, and you need to do the scariest changes as early as you can possibly do them."

It seems counterintuitive, but again: if your goal is to ship (and it probably should be), you need to focus on doing that.

#Technology

[Link]

[Signal]

Signal has improved its group call functionality pretty significantly:

"If you love group calls on Signal, but don’t want to create a group chat for every combination of your friends or colleagues, you’re in luck. Today we’re launching call links: Share a link with anyone on Signal and in just a tap or click they can join the call. No group chat required."

This is good news, and brings Signal in line with other videoconferencing software. These calls include hand raising, reply emoji, and the other functionality you'd expect to see elsewhere - while being end to end encrypted.

I'm hoping this is a prelude to even more group / workspace functionality. The blog post mentions that Signal's own meetings are Signal-powered (as they should be!), and it's a hop, skip, and a jump from there to powering internal chat with it, too.

This would be a game-changer for any organization that needs to maintain secure comms. It's also a good idea for anyone who conducts regular calls or chats in a group.

Signal is free and open source, is always end-to-end encrypted, and can be downloaded on every major platform.

#Technology

[Link]

[Damon Kiesow in Working Systems]

Damon Kiesow, who is the Knight Chair in Digital Editing and Producing at the Missouri School of Journalism, writes:

"We ourselves have torn down the wall between editorial and business interests if as journalists, our calculation here is not values-based. To wit: “But I have a large following and neither BlueSky or Threads does.” That is the rationalization of a marketer, not a journalist who believes in the SPJ Code of Ethics dictate to “minimize harm.”"

The questions Damon raises in this post are the right ones. It's long past time for journalists to interrogate their uses of social media and whether they're doing harm, and I deeply appreciate the callout to the SPJ Code of Ethics as a core principle here.

Alternatives are available that don't have these toxic traits and are more engaged, less dangerous for your community, and a part of the future of the web rather than a relic of the past. Use them.

#Media

[Link]

[Bill Fitzgerald]

Bill Fitzgerald has updated his open source guide to personal privacy:

"Conversations about privacy and security often focus on technology and give scant attention to the human, non-technological factors that affect personal privacy and security. This post covers a range of concrete steps we can all take to regain control over what, when, and with whom we share."

I really appreciate the straightforwardness of the guide - these are things that everyone can do to help keep themselves safe. And because it's open source, the more eyes there are on it validating the information, the better the guide will get.

Some of the general advice is needfully pessimistic but doesn't always apply. For example, it talks about there not being an expectation of privacy on work devices, or using a work-provided VPN. That probably is generally true, but for example, in my role leading technology at ProPublica, I and others would absolutely flip a table if we decided to surveil our employees. (For one thing, that would be a terrible approach if we cared about keeping sources safe, which we obviously do.) So it's always worth checking in with your IT leadership to understand their concrete policy.

Regardless, I would feel comfortable sharing this verbatim. I'm grateful that Bill has released it under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license, so there are opportunities to create designs for this guide and share them back to the community.

#Technology

[Link]

[Molly White]

Unsure what to do now? Molly White has some solid ways to get started helping:

""Many of us have looked back on historic events where people have bravely stood up against powerful adversaries and wondered, “what would I have done?” Now is your chance to find out. It did not just start with this election; it has been that time for a long time. If you’re just realizing it now, get your ass in gear. Make yourself proud.""

There are compelling suggestions here around protecting yourself; working to support press freedom and access to information; migrant rights; reproductive rights; trans rights. But more than that, the spirit of this post is that we should have a bias towards meaningful action.

#Technology

[Link]

[Heather Bryant]

Some good advice from Heather:

"One practical thing you can do in as much depth as you like, identify a particular area of information that you care about or feel is important and protect it. Whether it's critical public data, old abandoned websites, or niche community content that you think is worth preserving, the information is worth saving."

There is lots of practical advice in her piece: contributing to ArchiveTeam and to the End of Term Web Archive, downloading a copy of Wikipedia, and simply keeping a copy of useful information. I agree - particularly in a world where we're all so dependent on storing things in the cloud. The longevity of all of that information matters.

#Technology

[Link]

[Taylor Lorenz at User Mag]

Gen Z men have lurched to the right, which was one factor behind this month's election result. This is, in part, because they've been inundated with media that speaks to a right-leaning point of view - and there's almost no counterpart on the Left.

"Leftist channels do not receive widespread financial backing from billionaires or large institutional donors, primarily because leftist content creators support policies that are completely at odds with what billionaires want."

There is no progressive answer to Rogan. There could be - there's no shortage of progressive hosts who could fill this role - but as Taylor argues here, and as I've also previously argued, the funding isn't there for it.

As Taylor points out:

"The conservative media landscape in the United States is exceptionally well-funded, meticulously constructed, and highly coordinated. Wealthy donors, PACs, and corporations with a vested interest in preserving or expanding conservative policies strategically invest in right-wing media channels and up and coming content creators."

For progressive causes to win, there must be investment in progressive influencers. Not in a cringe Air America way, but authentic voices who are already out there and need a lift to reach more audiences. So the question becomes: where are those progressive influencers? And who can bankroll them in such a way that they retain their independence and authenticity - but amplified?

#Media

[Link]

[Mathew Ingram at The Torment Nexus]

Mathew Ingram on blaming social media for the stratification of society:

"In the end, that is too simple an explanation, just as blaming the New York Times' coverage of the race is too simple, or accusing more than half of the American electorate of being too stupid to see Trump for what he really is. They saw it, and they voted for him anyway. That's the reality."

This piece does a good job of debunking the lingering idea that "fake news" swings elections, or that social media bubbles are responsible for multiple realities and "alternative facts". In fact, this is a process that has been ongoing since the 1990s, and social media is a mirror of it rather than the cause.

If you're looking for answers, you need to look elsewhere.

#Media

[Link]

[Dick Tofel]

Dick Tofel on where the press should go next:

"We held a free and fair election, and the candidate who hates the press, who makes sport of threatening it physically and with censorship and muzzling, won. The campaign was fought across seven states and he won them all. He got more votes than his opponent."

There's a lot here about how the press could and should respond to the current situation, which I largely agree with. But I particularly agree with this analysis:

"For more than forty years, we have become an ever-more winner-take-all society, one in which the gap between the winners and losers has widened, particularly with respect to income, wealth, education and the advantages that accrue to all three. The Republican Party promoted this; the Democratic Party largely tolerated it. Now tens of millions of those who feel the sting of lower incomes, lesser wealth, inferior education have rebelled.

They have, in one of history’s great ironies, put their faith in, and channeled their rage through one of the winners, one who did almost nothing for them the first time he held power, but who gives voice to their grievances, both legitimate and not, and adroitly vilifies those they most resent."

I think there's a lot to this - and I think the Democrats have unfortunately done a poor job of speaking up for working class people who are really struggling. That's not to say that its messages about inclusion are bad - they're very good - but it's not either / or. There needs to be a strong message about how poor people are going to be better-off, that is clear-eyed about rising prices and unemployment for that demographic in particular. And we need to make the world better for the systemically oppressed. We are all in this together.

#Media

[Link]

[Senator Ron Wyden at MSNBC]

Senator Wyden has long been a loud voice for surveillance reform and stronger data protections, so this op-ed isn't really a surprise - but it's still nice to see him weighing in here:

"Data brokers are selling the ability to track phones that visit abortion clinics and follow them back across state lines, all the way to their owners’ homes. All it takes for this kind of 24-hour surveillance is a credit card. Given the creepy enthusiasm with which MAGA government officials are inserting themselves into women’s health choices, these tracking tools present a pressing danger for women across the country."

As the Senator points out, data brokers are a clear danger to many peoples' safety, including women in a reproductive healthcare context. I think about this a lot in relation to journalists, whose personal information is often made available by these organizations and can be (let's be clear: absolutely is) used to threaten harm in retaliation for reporting on a story. And then, of course, brokers are often used as a way for law enforcement to bypass the need for a warrant: if someone's whereabouts or communications metadata are available to anyone with a credit card, civil rights protections can easily be bypassed.

Californians will have the ability to have their data removed from any broker - as long as that broker actually takes steps to comply with the law - from 2026. This isn't enough; these brokers shouldn't exist to begin with. But at least it's one step in the right direction. Everyone should enjoy the same protections.

#Technology

[Link]