Notable links: July 31, 2026

Most Fridays, I share a handful of pieces that caught my eye at the intersection of technology, media, and society.

Did someone forward this to you? Subscribe for free.

Leaders are Leverage

I’ve often shared Corey Ford’s pieces. I find his frameworks and thinking genuinely useful, and he’s been a friend and mentor to me for well over a decade.

This piece outlines his underlying thinking, and why he’s focused where he has:

“When I work with one leader, I'm not working with one person. I'm working with every person on their team, every meeting they'll ever run, every piece of feedback they'll ever give, every subculture they'll ever build. A leader is not a single node in an organization. A leader is a multiplier. Change how one leader leads, and you change what work feels like for everyone around them, and everyone around the people they develop, for years.”

It’s all about seeding culture. I see a lot of similarities in the underlying ideas in Corey’s work and the intention behind culture change manifestos like Emergent Strategy. Change is fractal, bubbling up from one person to affect a whole system.

I was involved in Matter, the accelerator Corey founded, in two ways: first as an entrepreneur, receiving an earlier version of the ideas he continues to teach, and then as a member of the team, helping to deliver them to cohorts of entrepreneurs. It changed my life, and I watched it change the way other participants think about building teams, products, and cultures.

Those ideas are now part of the Sulzberger Executive Leadership Program at Columbia University. If you’re a newsroom leader, I believe you should strongly consider it. And even if you’re not, I recommend that you follow Corey and his work. I guarantee he’ll change your thinking.

Fed up with Big Tech, communities turn to data collectives for control

It’s interesting to contrast the current moment to the “information wants to be free” era of Web 2.0, twenty or so years ago. Back then, everyone was talking about open APIs and open data. Now, it’s become clearer that communities need to control the terms of their data if they’re going to avoid being strip-mined for somebody else’s profit.

“Workers, producers, consumers, and others have been establishing cooperatives and other community-led associations to pool resources, share benefits, and address socioeconomic challenges for centuries. The United Nations marked 2025 as the year of cooperatives, positioning them as “essential solutions to today’s global problems,” kindling renewed interest in data collectives and cooperatives.”

While there’s certainly an argument to be made that communities tend to over-estimate the value of their own data (looking at you, news), some of these datasets may be truly unique in ways that would add value to an AI service or model. As this article points out, collectively-owned data includes creative works in more than 20 African languages that aren’t recognized in mainstream linguistic frameworks.

The danger, of course, is that putting these kinds of gates in front of underrepresented cultures just works to further marginalize them: in that potential future, if everyone’s using a model where those languages are missing, they become irrelevant. But there’s another one where data collectives can pull the levers they have to bring about the world they want to see. That’s exactly what the Nwulite Obodo Open Data License aims to do: data rights holders can negotiate to share their work and cultural heritage without losing their right to benefit from it. (Nwulite Obodo is Igbo for raising, reviving, and building the community.)

In one model, vendors building non-extractive and responsibly trained models for public interest purposes get to use their data for free, but the closed-model big tech vendors have to pay. That’s what Meesum Alam did with voice data for 39 at-risk languages in Pakistan: the communities he worked with determined that the data was free for research and non-commercial purposes, but for-profit tech companies would need to negotiate terms (which Meta did).

That potentially becomes more interesting: either OpenAI et al negotiate to license the data, or they lose functionality to their public interest competitors. There’s also a world where some communities proactively document their cultures and make them available specifically so that models, whoever they’re built by, won’t omit them. Either the world has more equitable AI or the communities financially benefit from their cultural heritage.

Whatever happens, these communities certainly have the right to control their data however they see fit. What vendors do about it is the open question. But initiatives like Mozilla Data Collective make it more possible to have more substantive conversations about how data is provided and used, and that can only be a good thing.

US government targets Cop City protester over phone operating system

This is worth knowing about and is concerning — but not necessarily for the main reason that’s being reported.

The Department of Justice is trying to prosecute Sam Tunick, an Atlanta-based activist, for allegedly using a duress password on his GrapheneOS phone when he crossed the border in January 2025.

“Agent Findley and several others repeatedly asked Tunick to open his phone during the interrogation, telling him they would seize it if he did not. When he finally provided a passcode, “the screen went blank, flashed several times and the phone appeared to restart”, according to the motion.”

The phone was wiped. According to the Department of Justice, rather than the usual unlock password, the one Tunick had provided was a signal that GrapheneOS should reset the device to factory settings. That’s the core issue: it’s not that he was using GrapheneOS or had set up a duress password, but he was accused of using it to reset his device rather than give his data to law enforcement when asked.

At the point where law enforcement or border protection are asking you for data, it’s your right to refuse a search, but you typically can’t actively destroy it. I’ve always understood that the police can’t compel you to unlock your phone without a warrant, although, unfortunately, Customs and Border Protection has an exemption around the border. If there is a warrant, or if CBP asks you in a border zone, you may still refuse to unlock it, but the device may be seized and held. The trick here, which Tunick’s lawyers are arguing, is that the request was unlawful to begin with.

Because Tunick was a part of Atlanta’s Stop Cop City protests, he had been put on a terrorist watchlist; that fact was circulated just three hours prior. That flagged him for the secondary inspection that led to him being asked to unlock his phone. Protest is protected by the first amendment and a core component of democratic speech; putting protesters on a watchlist designed to protect the public against violent extremism is undemocratic. That’s even more affronting when you consider that the protest was against a police training center: the message it sends is nakedly authoritarian. Finally, and most egregiously, the questioning was about child exploitation imagery, which they had no reason to suspect him of holding. As a result, the search may not have been legal.

While a duress password is a deliberate act of destruction, the better path when crossing the border is to not have data to seize to begin with. Anyone who deals with sensitive information should consider that their phone might be taken at the border. Customs and Border Protection policy even allows agents to clone it, giving them permanent access to your data even after they hand your device back to you. They’re only supposed to do this when there’s a national security concern or reasonable suspicion of a crime — but if activists are being targeted as terrorists, that policy threshold doesn’t feel like a solid protection.

So: log out of your email, calendar, and file sharing before you embark upon your travels. Delete Signal entirely (but back it up). Consider which photos you want to travel with. Don’t travel with a stock phone — that can lead to more questions — but intentionally cut down your information footprint. That way, even if you are stopped, you won’t compromise sources (if you’re a journalist) or your compatriots (if you’re an activist). And you’re not forced to delete data in the moment in a way that could leave you vulnerable.