Werd I/O

[Erin In The Morning]

While America is destroying the ability for trans people to participate in public life, over in Europe they're (rightly) improving care for trans people.

"In recent years, U.S. politicians have selectively framed European healthcare policies to justify restrictions on transgender care, seizing on a handful of conservative policies to claim that “Europe is pulling back.” The most extreme example, the United Kingdom’s Cass Review, has been wielded to justify a near-total ban on puberty blockers and even cited in U.S. Supreme Court arguments. But new medical guidelines from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland tell a different story. These countries have reaffirmed the importance of gender-affirming care for transgender youth and issued sharp critiques of the Cass Review, calling out its severe methodological flaws and misrepresentations."

They contain this specific recommendation:

“If, in individual cases, the progressive pubertal maturation development creates a time pressure in which health damage would be expected due to longer waiting times to avert irreversible bodily changes (e.g. male voice change), access to child and adolescent psychiatric or psychotherapeutic clarification and medical treatment options should be granted as quickly as possible.”

Once again, a rejection of the Cass Review is good news here: the widely debunked study was essentially propaganda for anti-trans interests and didn't represent broader healthcare perspectives.

But the bigger good news is that Europe is a safer place for trans people to live and be supported. I hope, one day soon, America comes to its senses and puts itself on a more supportive path.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Jake Offenhartz, Cedar Attanasio and Philip Marcelo at The Associated Press]

This seems completely in line with the First Amendment's protections against restrictions on speech and assembly by the US government:

"President Donald Trump warned Monday that the arrest and possible deportation of a Palestinian activist who helped lead protests at Columbia University will be the first “of many to come” as his administration cracks down on campus demonstrations against Israel and the war in Gaza."

Protesting Israel's right-wing government is not in itself anti-semitic. And Mahmoud Khalil's status as a resident student rather than an American citizen does not make him any less subject to constitutional protections.

"Khalil, who was born in Syria to Palestinian parents and has an American citizen wife who is eight months pregnant, emerged as one of the most visible activists in the protests at Columbia.

[...] “The Department of Homeland Security’s lawless decision to arrest him solely because of his peaceful anti-genocide activism represents a blatant attack on the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, immigration laws, and the very humanity of Palestinians,” said the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a national Muslim civil rights advocacy group."

This seems like the very opposite of what America is supposed to be (or at least purports itself to be). Hopefully applied pressure will work - for this particular person, and as a precedent for American civil rights into the future.

#Democracy

[Link]

[A.C. Thompson, ProPublica and FRONTLINE, James Bandler, ProPublica, and Lukáš Diko, Investigative Center of Jan Kuciak]

A tragic story of a teenager recruited by a network of extremists, who ultimately murdered multiple people before taking his own life. It's also an example of why moderation and safety processes on social platforms are so important.

"And so in August 2019, Juraj Krajčík, then a soft-faced 16-year-old with a dense pile of brown hair, immersed himself in a loose collection of extremist chat groups and channels on the massive social media and messaging platform Telegram. This online community, which was dubbed Terrorgram, had a singular focus: inciting acts of white supremacist terrorism."

This is particularly relevant in a world where companies like X and Meta are cutting back on their safety teams and policies. It's not as easy as waving your hands and saying that it should be a matter for the courts; real lives are at stake. And at the same time, there is, of course, a real danger of falling into the trap of building a surveillance network.

The police at the time thought this was the work of a lone gunman rather than the international community of extremists it actually was. Uncovering this is also the kind of story that only investigative newsrooms can do really well:

"ProPublica and the PBS series FRONTLINE, along with the Slovakian newsroom Investigative Center of Jan Kuciak, pieced together the story behind Krajčík’s evolution from a troubled teenager to mass shooter. We identified his user name on Telegram, which allowed us to sift through tens of thousands of now-deleted Telegram posts that had not previously been linked to him."

Hopefully this work can help prevent this and similar networks from operating in the future. Likely a more holistic approach is needed, and if law enforcement, educators, and social workers are more aware of the potential risks and playbooks, hopefully they can be more sophisticated about prevention.

#Technology

[Link]

[Davis Erin Anderson and Dr. Martin Shelton at the Freedom of the Press Foundation]

These security tips are designed for journalists but are good ideas for everyone (and particularly activists or anyone working in a sensitive field):

"In tumultuous times, we believe in being prepared, not scared. Sound digital security practice often involves forming and relying on good habits. Building these reflexes now will help keep you better protected. This is why we’ve distilled advice our trainers have shared with thousands of journalists over the years into the actionable, concrete steps below."

The Freedom of the Press Foundation does great work, and this guide is no exception.

#Technology

[Link]

[Joe Woods]

This is good, actionable advice:

"As an engineering leader, you should be constantly working to reduce the amount of time it takes to complete one cycle of a feedback loop.

What do I mean by feedback loop? This is anything where you do work, and then you need to await a result in order to be able to do more work."

Some of these will be easier than others to obtain: for example, any engineering team can tune up their test suite without the permission of an outside party. What they might have more trouble with is getting an outside stakeholder to commit to just-in-time availability; I imagine that a weekly touch-base meeting might be the norm in many non-engineering-centric organizations. But they're all important, and all very concrete ways to both improve performance on an engineering team and improve the experience of working on one.

#Technology

[Link]

[Kunal Khullar at Tom's Hardware]

Straight into my nightmares:

"Australian biotech company Cortical Labs has introduced what it claims to be "the world’s first code deployable biological computer," which combines human brain cells with traditional silicon-based computing. The system, known as CL1, was presented at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona and is being explored for its potential applications in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning."

Oddly, while it theoretically is suited for certain kinds of novel computing tasks, it just screams and screams.

#Technology

[Link]

[Mike Masnick at Techdirt]

Mike Masnick on why tech journalism has a huge part to play in decoding current events right now:

"We’ve spent decades documenting how technology and entrepreneurship can either strengthen or undermine democratic institutions. We understand the dangers of concentrated power in the digital age. And we’ve watched in real-time as tech leaders who once championed innovation and openness now actively work to consolidate control and dismantle the very systems that enabled their success.

[...] What we’re witnessing isn’t just another political cycle or policy debate — it’s an organized effort to destroy the very systems that have made American innovation possible. Whether this is by design, or by incompetence, doesn’t much matter (though it’s likely a combination of both). Unlike typical policy fights where we can disagree on the details while working within the system, this attack aims to demolish the system itself."

I, for one, am grateful for the coverage in places like TechDirt and Wired (which has been killing it lately). I have to say I'm also proud of my journalist colleagues at ProPublica for going deep. I wish most of the rest of the press would take their lead.

#Media

[Link]

[Gaby Del Valle at The Verge]

This is dystopian:

"The Trump administration may soon demand the social media accounts of people applying for green cards, US citizenship, and asylum or refugee status. US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — the federal agency that oversees legal migration, proposed the new policy in the Federal Register this week — calling this information “necessary for a rigorous vetting and screening” of all people applying for “immigration-related benefits.”"

I'm truly interested to learn how this squares with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which constrains government's ability to restrict speech of anyone on US soil, including immigrants and visitors.

I agree with Beatriz Lopez, the executive director of Catalyze/Citizens, who said:

“Trump is turning online spaces into surveillance traps, where immigrants are forced to watch their every move and censor their speech or risk their futures in this country. Today it’s immigrants, tomorrow it’s U.S. citizens who dissent with Trump and his administration.”

#Democracy

[Link]

[Andy Kroll at ProPublica]

Cutting the IRS has nothing to do with government efficiency:

"Unlike with other federal agencies, cutting the IRS means the government collects less money and finds fewer tax abuses. Economic studies have shown that for every dollar spent by the IRS, the agency returns between $5 and $12, depending on how much income the taxpayer declared. A 2024 report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that the IRS found savings of $13,000 for every additional hour spent auditing the tax returns of very wealthy taxpayers — a return on investment that “would leave Wall Street hedge fund managers drooling,” in the words of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy."

These cuts will particularly curtail audits of wealthy individuals: people who are more likely to be avoiding paying tax to begin with.

As the article points out:

"“When you hamstring the IRS,” Koskinen added. “it’s just a tax cut for tax cheats.”"

So let's not do that?

#Democracy

[Link]

[Andrew Paul at McSweeney's]

"I gotta be honest with you, though. I think the Outer God got the message loud and clear. Our tasteful combination of fashionably coordinated clothes, tiny paper fans with BAD! printed on them, and some of our sternest looks of disapproval to date really drove home the fact that we aren’t jazzed by all this cosmic cruelty. I can’t think of anything we could have done differently to inspire our petrified constituents to rise up and take a stand against Nyarlathotep’s unholy resummoning. Sure, the Dungeon Lich-at-Arms tossed that representative from Texas into a Torment Portal after they booed the President, but there’s no way that will play well to anyone beyond his most devout minions."

It's funny because it's true.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Jean Hsu and Jen Dennard]

This is a good inaugural post from two people who really have lived the startup operations life many times over:

"We think of the operations part of a startup like getting dinner on the table. Sure, some days, you might try a new and involved recipe, but most days, you just need to get something good enough on the table FAST, so that you can devote more time to other family and life priorities.

This is where the concept of minimum viable operations comes in. It’s about finding the right balance: creating systems and practices that are just enough to support the team."

I've seen both the "minimum, but not viable" and "overdoing it" versions of this. Stuff like creating a whole new leveling system for a five person team, or spending months getting to the perfect OKRs, are easy traps for people who don't know the pitfalls to fall into.

And at the same time, winging it with no process and no goals is unbelievably common too. Every startup needs to consider process / people / ops - and most of all, culture - if it wants to succees. These things aren't optional.

I'm excited for future posts.

#Startups

[Link]

[Ghost]

Another really great update from the Ghost team about their progress implementing ActivityPub:

"In our logs, that looks like our average request time dropping from 5+ seconds, to ~50ms:

[...] There are still a few places where we're using the old database architecture that remain slow. We're not out of the woods just yet. Within the next couple of weeks, though, the beta will be open to everyone on Ghost Pro to try out.

[...] Importantly, Ghost's ActivityPub service is already out in the wild, open source, and released under the MIT license. We build in public, and all our work is up on GitHub for anyone to download, fork, run or deploy if they want to."

Exactly the right approach, and so exciting to see. Onwards!

[Link]

[Natalie Alms at Nextgov/FCW]

I'd say this was an unbelievable own-goal. But, unfortunately, it's believable:

"The General Services Administration deleted 18F, a government tech consultancy that helps other agencies with their technology, early Saturday morning.

The office has been deemed “non-critical,” Thomas Shedd, director of GSA’s Technology Transformation Services, emailed staff at 1am. The agency’s acting head, Stephen Ehikian, told GSA staff Monday that the agency, which works across the government on tech, procurement and real estate, would be conducting a reduction in force."

18F has consistently saved other agencies money, and is seen as an example of modern government that other agencies (and governments) should learn from. It's an insane agency to dismantle.

But the way 18F worked - human-centered, in the open, with a real eye for inclusive change that saved real resources - is antithetical to Musk's mindset of believing yourself to be the smartest person in the room and forcing people to use your systems based on your own values.

Likely, Musk believes that these services should be provided by private companies (like his own) that could profit from it. It’s a backwards, profiteering, grifter-first approach to government services.

Of course, 18F is confronting to Musk in another way too: you can't be the smartest person in the room when those people are also in the room.

Yet another loss to hubris.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Mel Leonor Barclay and Jasmine Mithani at The 19th]

The impact of this will be severe:

"Organizations that provide services to LGBTQ+ victims of domestic and intimate partner violence expect much of the federal funding they rely on to dry up as the Trump administration’s executive orders target the work they have been carrying out for years.

[...] Groups that focus specifically on LGBTQ+ victims are part of a broader network of federally funded nonprofits that provide life-saving counseling, housing and legal aid to people experiencing violence from spouses, partners or family members. Some nonprofits also train social workers, therapists and lawyers in how to work sensitively with LGBTQ+ victims of violence."

Protecting vulnerable communities from harm is not on this administration's agenda. Instead, it seeks to pursue a restrictive, theocratic vision of society that punishes people who are already suffering. Hopefully other organizations will step up and provide some of the funding shortfall.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Anna Betts in The Guardian]

He's not wrong:

"Marty Baron, a highly regarded former editor of the Washington Post, has said that Jeff Bezos’s announcement that the newspaper’s opinion section would narrow its editorial focus was a “betrayal of the very idea of free expression” that had left him “appalled”."

"Democracy dies in darkness" indeed:

"“If you’re trying to advance the cause of democracy, then you allow for public debate, which is what democracy is all about,” Baron said, adding that Bezos is sending a message that is “anything but democratic”."

Clearly Bezos's move to only host opinion pieces that further "free markets and individual liberties" is an attempt to curtail pieces that might be critical of Trump - and avoid reprisals for his own businesses. Baron is right to call him out on it.

#Media

[Link]

[Bill Fitzgerald]

What a missed opportunity. As Bill Fitzgerald points out:

"Mozilla has given a masterclass, yet again, in how to erode trust among people who have loved your work."

Mozilla rolled out a new terms of service and privacy policy that rolled back a key promise never to sell user data. And then complained that people were making a big deal of it.

As Bill points out:

"Data brokers and adtech companies are weeds choking the internet. The data theft required to train large language models is a new, more noxious species of the same weed. Mozilla is going deep into AI and adtech, which means they are buying fertilizer for the weeds – and these changes to their terms, which provide Mozilla more rights to the data defining our online interactions and experience, should be understood in this context: Mozilla is building advertising and AI tools, and they need data to do this. Our web browser is right up there with our phone, car, and router with devices that provide a clear view on how we live."

Mozilla always had the potential to demonstrate what a tech company could be, and what the web could be, and it's always found new and interesting ways to fall short of that ideal. This is yet another one.

#Technology

[Link]

[Edwin Wong and Andrew Melnizek at The Verge]

This is much-needed research:

"The Verge partnered with Vox Media’s Insights and Research team, along with Two Cents Insights, to better understand how American consumers are embracing this shift. The goal of the work was to redefine what online communities will be in a post-social media era of emerging AI and Google Zero. And as brands look to hold onto the internet of the past, the term “community” will become a loaded word, with brands and platforms trying to use it more often to reach their ideal consumer."

And the findings are both obvious and highly actionable:

"Our research makes one thing clear: power is shifting back to the consumer (the fediverse signals this). Consumers crave community, but on their own terms — seeking deeper, more meaningful connections with those who truly matter (something we identified in 2014). Authenticity is at the heart of it all, supported by a foundation of safety and security. The future of community is personal, intentional, and built on trust."

Something that's maybe less obvious but still important: social media has often been the domain of editorial teams rather than product teams. There needs to be a strategic shift here: while actual messaging is editorial, the strategy of outreach and adoption for community platforms is a core part of product and needs to be treated that way. Community is a core part of any publication's product offering, and placing it on the editorial side disincentivizes innovation and real change.

Take this finding in particular:

"The desire for smaller, more intimate communities is undeniable. People are abandoning massive platforms in favor of tight-knit groups where trust and shared values flourish and content is at the core. The future of community building is in going back to the basics. Brands and platforms that can foster these personal, human-scale interactions are going to be the winners."

That's not something that an editorial team can provide on its own. It requires taking a step back and completely rethinking how you approach "audience" (that's the wrong word, for a start - community is two-way, whereas audience is one-way). That's not something I see many publishers grappling with.

#Technology

[Link]

[Brad Reed at RawStory]

This is incredibly disappointing to see:

"David Shipley, who has spent the last two-and-a-half years running the Washington Post's editorial page, has stepped down from his position over new demands being made by Post owner Jeff Bezos.

In a letter sent out to staff members obtained by New York Times media reporter Ben Mullin, Bezos said that Shipley stepped down because he could not go along with Bezos's plan to ban editorials in his paper that were critical of "personal liberties and free markets," which he described as "two pillars" of American society."

It's a bizarre change for a few reasons:

1. It's not like opinion columns in favor of "personal liberties and free markets" are in short supply in American media
2. This is exactly the Wall Street Journal's positioning
3. It's likely to further alienate the Post's flailing readership.

American media is already overwhelmingly conservative; another libertarian organ is hardly going to make a difference to American readers. Instead, this likely has more to do with Bezos wanting to win contracts and favor with the current administration. Just like the bad old days.

#Media

[Link]

[Craig Silverman at ProPublica]

Let the attention dollars flow:

"Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg also said in January that the company was removing or dialing back automated systems that reduce the spread of false information. At the same time, Meta is revamping a program that has paid bonuses to creators for content based on views and engagement, potentially pouring accelerant on the kind of false posts it once policed. The new Facebook Content Monetization program is currently invite-only, but Meta plans to make it widely available this year."

This combination very obviously incentivizes bad actors to make the most viral content possible, whether it's truthful or not.

For example:

"“BREAKING — ICE is allegedly offering $750 per illegal immigrant that you turn in through their tip form,” read a post on a page called NO Filter Seeking Truth, adding, “Cash in folks.”"

That post is a hoax, and Facebook's existing fact checking had meant it had been demonetized. The page owner is quoted as being delighted that fact checking is ending. Thousands others like it doubtless agree.

#Technology

[Link]

[Dan Sinker]

This story doesn't feel like it's going to end up inspiring, but bear with it:

"George Dale printed their names in his newspaper, part of his unrelenting, unceasing, and unflinching attack on the Muncie Klan.

[...] When he wrote an editorial accusing circuit court judge Clarence Dearth of being a Klansman and stacking his juries with Klansmen, that judge sent Dale twice to perform hard labor on a penal farm. He later fled to Ohio to avoid arrest. When Dale got home, he picked up right where he left off and he and Judge Dearth fought a long and protracted defamation battle that left Dale broke."

But do stick with it, because not only is the entirety of George Dale and the story of what he did in Muncie, Indiana inspirational from start to finish, but the conclusion might be enough fire to power you through and inspire your own acts of democratic heroism.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Bert Hubert]

A European point of view:

"We now have the bizarre situation that anyone with any sense can see that America is no longer a reliable partner, and that the entire US business world bows to Trump’s dictatorial will, but we STILL are doing everything we can to transfer entire governments and most of our own businesses to their clouds.

Not only is it scary to have all your data available to US spying, it is also a huge risk for your business/government continuity. From now on, all our business processes can be brought to a halt with the push of a button in the US. And not only will everything then stop, will we ever get our data back? Or are we being held hostage? This is not a theoretical scenario, something like this has already happened."

I can understand the risks. What's interesting is that many US companies also feel that way about European cloud services, in an effort to avoid having to adhere to the GDPR. Should every business adhere to strong privacy standards? Absolutely. I'm not defending it or suggesting it's equally justifiable. Regardless, the impulse exists.

These trends ultimately culminate in stratified national internets: technically connected internationally but in effect separated through different legal requirements and jurisdictions. (Some national internets are also separated by firewall or content filters - think China, for example.)

It would be nice to reverse this trend: one of the real benefits of the internet is that everyone is connected to everyone else. But I can also fully understand why Europeans (and particularly European governments) are worried about US policies and want to remain independent from them. There is a security and business continuity issue here, and they're right to de-risk their operations.

#Technology

[Link]

[Lizzie Presser, Andrea Suozzo, Sophie Chou and Kavitha Surana at ProPublica]

My colleagues at ProPublica conducted a first-of-its-kind data analysis on health outcomes after Texas banned abortion in 2021.

Here's what it found:

"The rate of sepsis shot up more than 50% for women hospitalized when they lost their pregnancies in the second trimester, ProPublica found.

The new reporting shows that, after the state banned abortion, dozens more pregnant and postpartum women died in Texas hospitals than had in pre-pandemic years, which ProPublica used as a baseline to avoid COVID-19-related distortions. As the maternal mortality rate dropped nationally, ProPublica found, it rose substantially in Texas."

The abortion ban is leading to dangerous delays in care that is leading to an uptick in maternal death. Which is exactly what patient advocates warned would happen.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Matt Webb]

I love this:

"Slowly, slowly, the web was taken over by platforms. Your feeling of success is based on your platform’s algorithm, which may not have your interests at heart. Feeding your words to a platform is a vote for its values, whether you like it or not. And they roach-motel you by owning your audience, making you feel that it’s a good trade because you get “discovery.” (Though I know that chasing popularity is a fool’s dream.)

Writing a blog on your own site is a way to escape all of that. Plus your words build up over time. That’s unique. Nobody else values your words like you do."

Fun fact: I started my first startup, the open source social networking platform Elgg, after my university employer told me, verbatim, "Blogging is for teenage girls crying in their bedrooms." I've been pro-blogging both long before and long after it was cool.

So sure, blogging might never be mainstream. But it can also be leading edge: a way to demonstrate what ownership can look like. A place to own your words by every definition of the word "own".

Everyone should have a blog. Everyone should write on their own terms. I want to read everyone's reflections; understand their worldviews from their perspectives, from a space that is truly theirs.

As Matt says:

"I evangelise blogging because it has been good to me.

[...] You should start a blog. Why? Because, well, haven’t I just been saying?"

There's no better time to start than now.

#Indieweb

[Link]

[Alissa Quart in Columbia Journalism Review]

This article cuts right to the core of why media is failing to connect with mass audiences in America. It doesn't report from a perspective that they can identify with - largely because it doesn't hire people like them.

What would working-class media look like?

"It would be one where economic reporters are embedded in blue-collar communities and neighborhoods rather than financial districts, and source networks built around people with direct experience instead of outside analysts. Centering inflation coverage around wage stagnation rather than the stock market and written for people who live paycheck to paycheck. Healthcare reporting would be conducted by those who have experienced medical debt. Labor reporting that represents workers not as mute sufferers but as true experts. Housing that is considered from the perspective of the renter, not the landlord or developer."

Because:

"While Americans in polls report historically low levels of trust in the media, it could be in large part because much of the press hasn’t been speaking to the concerns of their everyday lives."

The piece goes on to laud people from working-class backgrounds like Heather Bryant, who I think is a voice that every newsroom needs to be listening to. Instead, journalism is often a very inward-looking, upper middle class endeavor; people who grew up with nannies and went to private school are overrepresented while people who grew up on income support and had a traditional state education are underrepresented. And because richer people are better targets for advertising buys, ad-supported publications chose to chase them.

In this vacuum, another kind of media has erupted to meet the needs of a disconnected audience:

"This brings us to where we are today with faux-prole Republican journalists, a kind of social-class kitsch of Rogan-ish dudes on barstools with podcasts."

Exactly. This moment requires fundamental change that is about reforming every part of journalistic culture - not just to be more focused on who the audience actually is, but to be more representative of them. That means creating the conditions that allow working-class journalists to stick with it, providing support and training structures that don't assume independent wealth, and truly internalizing the industry's shortcomings on this front.

On that last point, I don't know how optimistic I feel that real change is possible. But we should try.

#Media

[Link]

[Allison Hantschel in DAME]

Hand-wringing over people leaving overtly unsafe spaces like X to find communities that are actually enjoyable to hang out in (like Mastodon and BlueSky) is absolute nonsense.

"With that user growth, mostly from liberals disgusted with Musk’s nonstop promotion of conservative disinformation, came criticism that people were merely seeking out an ideological “echo chamber” to reinforce their views.

They’re complaining that Americans are underexposed to fresh new ideas like “non-white races are inferior” and “trans people shouldn’t exist” and “we should hunt the poor for sport” and without algorithmic pressure will suffer without such content. They’re upset that they’re not allowed to promote their toxic work into the eyeballs of people who aren’t looking for it."

Let's put it like this. If you're at a party and it's full of assholes, it's quite reasonable to leave and go to another party. There's no law that says X is the social networking platform for everybody (at least, not yet). There's nothing that says you have to be on Facebook or Instagram. Everyone gets to use the law of two feet to find a community that's comfortable for them.

Hantschel puts it like this:

"There’s no obligation to stay where you find nothing useful or interesting, and there’s no homework assignment that requires you to allow people to ruin your experience. You’re not required to spend a certain number of hours a day engaging with hateful people, or even people you just dislike, in order to accumulate Intellectual Diversity Points."

What these commentators are really complaining about: they spent well over a decade building up followings on these platforms and now people are looking elsewhere, rendering their investment moot. That's just too bad.

#Technology

[Link]