[Judd Legum and Rebecca Crosby in Popular Information]
The removal of banned terms on both internal and external government websites is going more stupidly than one might have expected:
"One example included a job listing page for the Department of Homeland Security that removed language about maintaining an “inclusive environment.” The Post also found examples of words being removed that had nothing to do with DEI, such as a page on the Department of the Interior’s website that boasted of its museums' “diverse collections,” removing the word “diverse.”"
And:
"The memo acknowledges that the list includes many terms that are used by the NSA in contexts that have nothing to do with DEI. For example, the term "privilege" is used by the NSA in the context of "privilege escalation." In the intelligence world, privilege escalation refers to "techniques that adversaries use to gain higher-level permissions on a system or network.""
The whole enterprise is silly, of course, but this is an incredibly bad way to go about it. Words have meaning, and sometimes you need to use them. A global search and replace isn't a perfect way to revamp the whole apparatus of federal government.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
[Iker Seisdedos interviewing Judith Butler in EL PAÍS English]
Judith Butler is as on-point as ever:
"Q. It wasn’t just Trumpism. Some Democratic voices say it’s time to move beyond the issue of trans rights in areas like sports, which affect very few people.
A. You could say that about the Jews, Black people or Haitians, or any very vulnerable minority. Once you decide that a single vulnerable minority can be sacrificed, you’re operating within a fascist logic, because that means there might be a second one you’re willing to sacrifice, and a third, a fourth, and then what happens?"
This is exactly it. I've also heard voices say that there should have been less discussion of racial equity: less Black Lives Matter, less 1619 Project, less discussion of systemic inequality. It's nonsense, and as Butler says, it's a road that leads us down an inevitably fascist path.
The whole interview is very much worth your time: nuanced and well-considered.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
USAID's defunding will lead directly to women's deaths:
"As of 2023, 67 percent of contraceptives supplied through USAID went to Africa, where some of the leading causes of death for girls and women are related to pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections like HIV. According to an analysis by the Guttmacher Institute, if no contraceptive care is provided by USAID in 2025, that will lead to about 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and over 8,000 deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth complications."
The article goes on to detail efforts in countries like Afghanistan, Senegal, India, and Nigeria. The idea that we should simply rug-pull these efforts is ludicrous: it sends a clear message that we no longer care about the well-being of people overseas, and that we don't think their quality of life is important to us or affects us. This is an obvious, profound mistake.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
[Mica Rosenberg, Perla Trevizo, and Zisiga Mukulu in ProPublica, co-published with The Texas Tribune]
This is a beautifully-designed co-production between ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, illustrating the immigration policies that Donald Trump enacted on day one. These encompassed dozens of policies that were revived from his first term, as well as seven new ones that hadn't been tried before.
"In order to provide a glimpse of the enormity of the changes that are underway, ProPublica and the Tribune identified nearly three dozen of the most impactful policy changes set in motion by the orders signed on the first day. Most were pulled from the playbook of Trump’s previous presidency. Others are unprecedented."
The new ones are pretty stark, including:
"Ending and clawing back funding from organizations that support migrants: Seeks to stop or limit money to nongovernmental organizations that provide shelter and services to migrants released at the border, as well as legal orientation programs for people in immigration proceedings."
And, of course much has been written about the unconstitutionality of:
"Seeks to end birthright citizenship: Attempts to end birthright citizenship of children born to parents either illegally in the United States or under a temporary legal status, something Trump had only said he wanted to do in his first term."
It's useful to have these written in one place, in an easy-to-digest form, together with updates on what's happened since. The news can feel like a deluge, and aggregating the updates into something parseable is important.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
[Natalia Antelava in Coda Story]
This is a useful framework for thinking about ongoing harm.
"It was 2014, and I was standing in the ruins of Donetsk airport, when a Russian-backed rebel commander launched into what seemed like an oddly academic lecture. Between bursts of artillery fire, he explained an American political science concept: the Overton Window – a theory that describes the range of policies and ideas a society considers acceptable at any given time. Politicians can’t successfully propose anything outside this “window” of acceptability without risking their careers. “The West uses this window,” he said, smoke from his cigarette blowing into my face, “to destroy our traditional values by telling us it’s okay for me to marry a man and for you to marry a woman. But we won’t let them.”"
And that's the real, lasting impact of Trump and his worldview:
"As transactional relationships replace values-based alliances, as oligarchic control displaces democratic institutions, as the unthinkable becomes routine – the transformation of our societies isn’t happening by accident."
What will undoing this take? How can we shift the Overton Window back towards inclusion, communities, and compassion? How can we get to the mutualistic, integrated society we need to reach, and say goodbye to this disgustingly retrograde conservatism for good?
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
[Dan Hon in MIT Technology Review]
The always-brilliant Dan Hon on DOGE:
"We’re seeing in real time that there are no practical technical measures preventing someone from taking a spanner to the technology that keeps our government stable, that keeps society running every day—despite the very real consequences.
So we should plan for the worst, even if the likelihood of the worst is low."
The suggestions that follow - identifying risks, working together, standing up and saying "no" - are all sensible and needed.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
Curtis Yarvin's influence is felt again:
" In an essay on his paywalled Substack, he imagined a second Trump presidency in which Trump would enable a radical government transformation. The proposal will sound familiar to anyone who has watched Musk wreak havoc on the United States Government (USG) over the past three weeks."
As Duran points out, none of what's happening right now is exactly new or a surprise:
"What surprises me most is how the political press generally fails to inform the public that Musk is taking a systematic approach, one that has been outlined in public forums for years. (Some press outlets, like the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, are owned by billionaires keenly interested in kowtowing to Musk and Trump.)"
For many people, the myth of American exceptionalism may be so deeply in their bloodstream that they simply can't imagine our institutions falling to this. But of course they can: this is the country that gave us McCarthyism and Jim Crow. it's happening in plain sight.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
My colleagues at ProPublica have published the largest list yet of who is actually involved in DOGE:
"While some have been public about their involvement, others have attempted to keep their roles secret, scrubbing LinkedIn pages and other sources of data. With little information from the White House, ProPublica is attempting to document who is involved and what they are doing."
This is a living document: ProPublica is still reporting. As the article points out:
"We are still reporting. Do you have information about any of the people listed below? Do you know of any other Musk associates who have entered the federal government? You can reach our tip line. Please be as specific, detailed and clear as you can."
The whole list is worth reviewing.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
[Caralee Adams at the Internet Archive]
The Internet Archive is always a gem, but it's been particularly important this year.
"With two-thirds of the process complete, the 2024/2025 EOT crawl has collected more than 500 terabytes of material, including more than 100 million unique web pages. All this information, produced by the U.S. government—the largest publisher in the world—is preserved and available for public access at the Internet Archive.
[...] As an added layer of preservation, the 2024/2025 EOT Web Archive will be uploaded to the Filecoin network for long-term storage, where previous term archives are already stored. While separate from the EOT collaboration, this effort is part of the Internet Archive’s Democracy’s Library project. Filecoin Foundation (FF) and Filecoin Foundation for the Decentralized Web (FFDW) support Democracy’s Library to ensure public access to government research and publications worldwide."
This is important on multiple levels: most importantly, it means that even if the Internet Archive is attacked or shut down for any reason, these archived versions of government websites and data will remain online and accessible.
As it happens, the current administration has been pulling down datasets and redacting websites with wild abandon, so although this is a routine activity for the Archive whenever there's a change in administration, it provides a vital historical record this year. Good news for researchers, future historians, journalists, and anyone who depended on this data.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
This is an important but hard pill to swallow:
"“The reality is you are oxygenating the things these people are saying even as you purport to debunk them,” Katherine Cross, a sociologist and author of Log Off: Why Posting and Politics (Almost) Never Mix, told 404 Media. “Whether it’s [New York Times columnist] Ross Douthat providing a sane-washing gloss on Trump’s mania or people on social media vehemently disagreeing and dunking on it, they’re legitimizing it as part of the discourse.”"
Posting is not activism. But it's both easy and cathartic to take the bait and run with it - and get approving clicks and likes in return. In sharing outrage rather than concrete real-world steps, we end up just amplifying the message.
As Janus Rose points out:
"Under this status quo, everything becomes a myopic contest of who can best exploit peoples’ anxieties to command their attention and energy. If we don’t learn how to extract ourselves from this loop, none of the information we gain will manifest as tangible action—and the people in charge prefer it that way."
Instead, co-ordinate online but manifest in the real world. Join protests, call your representatives, work for organizations that seek to uncover truth and take steps forward. Fewer hot takes; more collective action.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
And so begin the knock-on effects on companies across America:
"In a Wednesday memo to employees that I obtained (and you can read below), Google’s head of HR, Fiona Cicconi, said there will no longer be DEI hiring targets due to the company’s status as a federal contractor and recent “court decisions and US Executive Orders on this topic.” As The Wall Street Journal notes, Google also removed a line included in previous annual SEC reports saying that it’s “committed to making diversity, equity, and inclusion part of everything we do.”"
In other words, because DEI initiatives are now banned within the federal government, and because Google wants that sweet federal contractor money, it's ending the practice of overtly being inclusive as a company.
This is cowardice - and it's exactly what the Trump administration is going for. Its retrograde goals aren't simply for government; the idea is to remake the entire United States, and through changes to international relationships and the simple truth of America's global influence, the world.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
[Eoin Higgins, excerpted in Lit Hub]
This is a neat encapsulation of Musk’s rightward turn, and everything that happened next:
“By this point, Musk believed that part of the business problem of Twitter was that, somehow, the right wing was “suppressed.” As such, “woke culture” needed to be destroyed for Twitter the business—and democracy itself—to survive. In many ways this belief was a natural outgrowth of the Silicon Valley mythos of meritocracy and the tech industry’s opposition to diversity; a politics based on destroying wokeness was not far from the supremacist ideology he grew up with in South Africa.”
If you take a step back, it’s remarkable that the weirdest guy from PayPal has evolved into the world’s richest and most dangerous man. This serves as a reminder of what happened.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
I know "don't be evil" is from another era of Google, but still, this rankles:
"Google removed a pledge to not build AI for weapons or surveillance from its website this week. The change was first spotted by Bloomberg. The company appears to have updated its public AI principles page, erasing a section titled “applications we will not pursue,” which was still included as recently as last week."
This dovetails with a piece from earlier this year about how AI is speeding up the military's kill chain:
"The “kill chain” refers to the military’s process of identifying, tracking, and eliminating threats, involving a complex system of sensors, platforms, and weapons. Generative AI is proving helpful during the planning and strategizing phases of the kill chain, according to [the Pentagon's Chief Digital and AI Officer]."
So AI might not be used to pull the trigger, but it is being used to identify who should be in the crosshairs. All our concerns about AI hallucinations, and particularly about bias inherent in training data and therefore outcomes, apply.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
[Jodi S. Cohen and Jennifer Smith Richards at ProPublica]
From my colleagues at ProPublica:
"Citing an urgency to protect students’ civil rights in a second Trump administration, Illinois lawmakers filed a new bill Monday that would explicitly prevent school police from ticketing and fining students for misbehavior."
This follows an investigation into how Illinois schools call on the police for infractions and - surprise, surprise - penalize Black students twice as often.
The police shouldn't get involved in troublesome kid stuff like truancy or vaping. That should be obvious. And, yet, here we are. This kind of police state nonsense absolutely paved the road towards where we are today.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
The Guardian editorial board isn't mincing words:
"Donald Trump is provoking a US constitutional crisis, claiming sweeping powers to override or bypass Congress’s control over spending in a brazen attempt to centralise financial power in the executive branch. If he succeeds, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman warns, it would be a 21st-century coup – with power slipping from elected officials’ hands. The real story hidden behind the president’s trade war, he says, is the hijacking of government. And Mr Krugman’s right."
The board is clear-eyed in this piece about the harms committed under Trump's first Presidency, both to the economy and the American people. And then comes to this critical conclusion:
"Mr Trump’s chaos isn’t confidence – it’s desperation. He’s trying to conjure power he doesn’t actually have. He is manufacturing a perception of dominance in the hope that Americans will simply accept it. The real danger is letting his illusion of power become reality."
The trick is to cut through the shock and awe.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
[Jameel Jaffer in The New York Times]
Jameel Jaffer is the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University:
"The spectacle of powerful media organizations debasing themselves before Mr. Trump has become so familiar that it is beginning to feel like scheduled programming.
[...] Mr. Trump captured the spirit of our times when he observed in December that, “In the first term, everyone was fighting me,” but “in this term, everybody wants to be my friend.” Certainly, some of the nation’s most powerful media institutions seem to have concluded that it is simply not in their commercial interests to inconvenience the president, even if sparing him inconvenience means abandoning their own First Amendment rights."
As Jaffer argues, the cases being settled by ABC News, Meta, and CBS are not slam dunks for Trump. This isn't about legal details; it's about capitulating to the new President and kissing the ring. That leaves us without an effective free press to hold truth to power.
The conclusion here is on point:
"The First Amendment is just words on a page. Giving those words meaning — sustaining their promise, generation after generation — depends on a civic courage that seems, right now, to be in ominously short supply."
And that, to be honest, is terrifying.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
On point:
"So that Elon Musk and his minions have managed to walk right into government offices to take over computer systems where they had no legitimate authorization or entitlement needs to be understood as a cyberattack by a rogue actor. And every ounce of outrage we ever would have had if any other rogue actor had taken over critical government infrastructure needs to be mustered here, because it is just as outrageous, and as dangerous, if not more so on both fronts, because this time the threat to America’s security came from within.
[...] Meanwhile, we know little to nothing about his team. Even some names are unknown, let alone the full range of their affiliations, which we usually ask about before giving anyone access to the country’s most sensitive information. They have had zero vetting and in many cases no known security clearance (and, in the case of Musk, there were limits to his, which was already in jeopardy).
[...] They are a bunch of strangers who have essentially busted into government offices and strong-armed the career staff there into giving them access to all these systems with all this critical function and data. Systems that it has heretofore been the priority of the United States government to protect because of their sensitivity and how vulnerable the nation would be if an adversary could access them."
This is a dangerous situation and it's evolving quickly. Who knows what it will look like tomorrow, or this time next week. But it doesn't look good.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
I really like the way this guide to Signal lays it all out. As Matt Haughey explains:
"A friend of mine works in the federal government and wrote a guide for their fellow federal workers on how to use Signal. There are lots of good reasons for switching to Signal for messaging, and this does a great job of laying it all out. This friend doesn't currently have a blog, so they asked me to post it for them, and I obliged since I think it's a straightforward introduction to protecting yourself when communicating with others."
This doesn't just go into the what - it talks a little about the why for Signal, including some of the protections you'll get on Signal that you won't get anywhere else.
Take a look - and then start using it.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
[Naseem S. Miller at the Journalist's Resource]
A massive, last-minute data preservation effort was undertaken this week as important federal datasets were taken offline:
"The new Trump administration has at least temporality halted most communications from the Department of Health and Human Services and has begun taking down government websites, including many pages that include DEI initiatives. CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey site, which monitors health behaviors of high-school students, including sexual behavior, mental health and tobacco use, is no longer available."
This is another reason why the Internet Archive is vitally important infrastructure: websites and datasets were saved, among other places, to the Wayback Machine. Teams including at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health raced to capture the data before it went dark.
These datasets include important information about health (including vaccine information); gender; climate; mortality. They enable reporting and allow us to have a clearer picture of how well our democracy is functioning. At least for now, they're now historical datasets: it's not clear that any further data will be published. Researchers, journalists, medical professionals and more will need to look elsewhere for important information that helps them do their jobs and keep us safe.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
I recognize a lot of the sentiment here. Twenty years ago, I ran an open source social networking startup and tried to differentiate ourselves by saying many of these same things.
"Bear won't sell. I'm not building this to flip it to the highest bidder. No VC funding, no external pressures, no "exit strategy." Bear is independent and will stay that way."
In practice, I don't know how much that means to very many people. For a comparable example, take a look at Mastodon vs Bluesky (not, by the way, that this is a binary choice); the latter has taken on at least thirty million dollars in VC funding but is currently thriving.
Trust is something you earn over time through your actions and decisions, and isn't a direct outcome of your funding choices. There certainly are bootstrapped companies that have stood the test of time - Esri comes to mind, among others - but there are also VC-funded companies that have proven to have longevity and have done okay by their users. (This will alienate some of my readers, but I don't think VC is inherently bad; it only becomes so when it is considered to be the only funding option and non-VC businesses are shoehorned into that structure and strategy.)
Herman effectively comes to this conclusion in the piece too:
"I've recently chatted to a few bloggers and legal professionals on what a good structure looks like for a project like this. And the common theme was that the legal structure didn't matter nearly as much as the intentions of the people running things. We've seen our fair share of open-source projects become sour (see the recent Wordpress drama) or abandoned entirely. We've seen OpenAI become ClosedAI. There's a common thread here. Trust isn't just a legal structure, but a social contract."
Additionally, I think the conclusion that small, sometimes family-owned businesses last longer is not wrong, but context is important. For a local business? Absolutely. To what extent does this make sense on a global web where every service can be available to everyone? I really badly want this to be true here too, but it's not a given that it is.
Anyway. I really love what Herman is doing with Bear, and this piece isn't a criticism of him or his service in any way. It's fantastic that he's out there doing this. My feelings are more: this is a hard road, and the answers aren't yet clear. But it's a journey that I'm very glad people are on.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
I was today years old when I learned the original meaning of an "adventure playground":
"The post-war period saw “junk playgrounds” flourish as a kind of reparations for the trauma of war. They gave children the freedom to build, explore, experiment, and role play – and in doing so, inoculate them against fascism. For a while it seemed like they were the future."
This conception of an anarchic (in the best possible way) creative space is in stark contrast to today's very controlled, very sterile spaces for children:
"Proponents of experimental playgrounds believe they can be more than spaces of vertiginous, physical fun. They should be spaces of concentrated creativity, where children can visit their own make-believe worlds. Instead, the modern world has commercialised play and made boring, insurance-friendly playgrounds."
What must this do to childrens' imaginations, and their horizons? How can it create anything other than cautious rule-followers?
Adrian argues that software like Minecraft and Roblox are the natural heirs to these real-world spaces: while we don't seem to be able to foster this level of uninhibited creativity for children in the real world anymore, there are no insurance worries or complaints about unsightly play structures in virtual space. It's not perfect, but it's something.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
[Ross Douthat and Marc Andreessen in The New York Times]
This podcast conversation with Marc Andreessen is very revealing. It's particularly fascinating to me that what I experienced as "America finally having a much-needed moral awakening" presented to people like Andreessen as "radical Marxism". If nothing else, that shows he's never actually met a radical Marxist, and doesn't have a solid take on what that really means. Bernie Sanders ain't it; that guy just wants universal healthcare and well-enforced antitrust rules.
"It turned out to be a coalition of economic radicals, and this was the rise of Bernie Sanders, but the kids turned on capitalism in a very fundamental way. They came out as some version of radical Marxist, and the fundamental valence went from “Capitalism is good and an enabler of the good society” to “Capitalism is evil and should be torn down.”
And then the other part was social revolution and the social revolution, of course, was the Great Awokening, and then those conjoined. And there was a point where the median, newly arrived Harvard kid in 2006 was a career obsessed striver and their conversation with you was: “When do I get promoted, and how much do I get paid, and when do I end up running the company?” And that was the thing.
By 2013, the median newly arrived Harvard kid was like: “[expletive] it. We’re burning the system down. You are all evil. White people are evil. All men are evil. Capitalism is evil. Tech is evil.”"
I think that's a little bit overblown - after all, the tech industry was still booming and still swimming with engineers, designers, product managers, and the like. But also, it represented a class of workers (not just young people, as Andreessen falsely asserts) who were coming to terms with the impact their industry was having in the world politically, environmentally, and socially. The internet is a core part of society now, unlike the hyper-growth years of a decade or two prior, so of course people have more nuanced opinions about it and are reckoning with its impacts. You can't turn back the clock on human perception.
Still, I find that understanding - a gap between my experience and theirs - to be very useful. That's something we can work with, and maybe, just maybe, we can find a bridge.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
This is like something from a cyberpunk novel:
"The phrase “cute winter boots” is not about footwear. It's a code phrase being used to discuss resistance to Trump and how to fight back against the draconian immigration policies his administration is enacting. Users talking about “cute winter boots” keeping people safe from "ice," are referencing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "Cute winter boots" is just the latest example of algospeak, coded phrases and words aimed at subverting algorithmic filters."
The reason is a perceived idea - which may well have basis in fact - that actual discussion of how to combat ICE raids and so on will be demoted by the platform's content algorithm. It's also clearly a way of trying to avoid scrutiny from authorities. But it also reveals a strong knowledge of what the TikTok algorithm likes to promote:
"The videos discussing "cute winter boots" leverage the TikTok algorithm's preference for product-focused content to amplify their reach. "What the algorithm likes is products," said Diana, the admin of @/citiesbydiana, a TikTok account about urban planning. "It’s a way to talk about resisting the federal government in a way that will actually reach people.""
This is absolutely dystopian police state stuff, but at the same time, it shows a ton of initiative, and illustrates that people aren't going to take any of this lying down. Power to them.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
On Zuckerberg's claims about why he's changing Meta's fact-changing policy:
"If you only remember two things about the government pressure campaign to influence Mark Zuckerberg’s content moderation decisions, make it these: Donald Trump directly threatened to throw Zuck in prison for the rest of his life, and just a couple months ago FCC Commissioner (soon to be FCC chair) Brendan Carr threatened Meta that if it kept on fact-checking stories in a way Carr didn’t like, he would try to remove Meta’s Section 230 protections in response.
Two months later — what do you know? — Zuckerberg ended all fact-checking on Meta."
His appearance on Joe Rogan's show served as a way to whitewash this argument. I don't doubt that the government placed pressure on him to enact certain kinds of community moderation policies, but the timing makes the underlying reasons clear.
This is a long piece that goes into Zuckerberg's claims and debunks them soundly. Here's what you really need to know: it's a PR move to placate the incoming administration, and that Zuckerberg capitulated so soundly and so quickly is a very bad sign.
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post
[Ethan Zuckerman in The Atlantic]
I completely agree with the points Ethan makes here. The TikTok ban was a spectacular own-goal for all kinds of reasons. In particular:
"[...] This is a depressing moment for anyone who cherishes American protections for speech and access to information. In 1965, while the Cold War shaped the U.S. national-security environment, the Supreme Court, in Lamont v. Postmaster General, determined that the post office had to send people publications that the government claimed were “communist political propaganda,” rather than force recipients to first declare in writing that they wanted to receive this mail. The decision was unanimous, and established the idea that Americans had the right to discover whatever they wanted within “a marketplace of ideas.”"
Truly, so much for the country that is allegedly about freedom of speech. There's something particularly messed-up and McCarthyist about how this ban came about, not least because some representatives have admitted that the ban is partially because of the availability of pro-Palestinian content on the platform. If we endorse this ban, do we also need to revisit the rightly widely-derided un-American-activities policies of the past? I'd rather we leave them in the dustbin of history.
But luckily, the kids are alright. This is also true:
"Although I don’t think this specific rebellion can last, I’m encouraged that American TikTok users realize that banning the popular platform directly contradicts America’s values. If only America’s leaders were so wise."
[Link]
·
Links
·
Share this post