Werd I/O

[A.R. Moxon at The Reframe]

An interesting election mortem and post-mortem, from an arguably refreshing perspective:

"Here's what I think is going on: Our system is foundationally built to devour human beings in order to enrich the already wealthy, and it's moved so far down that road that a critical mass of people now understand this, for the very good reason that they are now being devoured."

"[...] We're in a time when most people understand we are in a systemic fight, and so most people want a fighter—and, to the perceptions of most people, Trump and the Republicans are fighting, and Democrats are not."

Perhaps I'm including this link here because it's cathartic, or because it's because I happen to agree with the premise that the Democrats are trying to be centrists again even though being centrists doesn't at all work for them and shouldn't work for them. I don't think it'll change anything; I don't think I'll be anything but disappointed. But, anyway, here this piece is. It would be nice to not be in the position we're in, and it would be nice to have politicians who will genuinely make this a more progressive country that will fight for the people who really need it. I'm not holding my breath.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Joshua Kaplan at ProPublica]

This ought to be a movie:

"Posing as an ideological compatriot, Williams had penetrated the top ranks of two of the most prominent right-wing militias in the country. He’d slept in the home of the man who claims to be the new head of the Oath Keepers, rifling through his files in the middle of the night. He’d devised elaborate ruses to gather evidence of militias’ ties to high-ranking law enforcement officials. He’d uncovered secret operations like the surveillance of a young journalist, then improvised ways to sabotage the militants’ schemes. In one group, his ploys were so successful that he became the militia’s top commander in the state of Utah."

This long-read about John Williams's work to infiltrate right wing militias is vividly told. It's inspired other reporting at ProPublica, but now it's time to tell the story of the mole who brought the information forward.

It's also a good reminder that many of the people who participated in the Capitol riot weren't just misled civilians: they were members of dangerous, armed, right-wing militias. These are the people that Trump would like to pardon:

"Now President-elect Donald Trump has promised to pardon Jan. 6 rioters when he returns to the White House. Experts warn that such a move could trigger a renaissance for militant extremists, sending them an unprecedented message of protection and support — and making it all the more urgent to understand them."

That understanding is important. This is a good piece to get started with.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Joseph Cox at 404 Media]

The contracts and relationships that seemingly allow law enforcement and federal agencies to use private services and data brokers to monitor the activities of American citizens without obtaining a warrant seem to be based on a nudge and a wink. 404 Media obtained an email which admitted that the Secret Service never checked to make sure users had consented to tracking:

"The email undermines the Secret Service’s and other U.S. federal agencies' justification that monitoring the movements of phones with commercially available location data without a warrant is possible because people allegedly agreed to the terms of services of ordinary apps that may collect it."

Even if users had consented to tracking by the app, it's highly unlikely that they consented to tracking by the Secret Service. Regardless of whether they checked or not, I have questions about whether this should be allowable: we have an expectation of privacy, particularly given our Constitutional rights, and using private services to obtain this information has always felt like a dirty loophole. Those services, of course, should also not be performing this kind of tracking.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had effective privacy protections that upheld our rights according to their spirit rather than our current cynically-interpreted letter of the law?

#Democracy

[Link]

[Aishvarya Kavi]

President Biden commuted the sentences of all but three prisoners on federal death row. (He doesn't have the power to pardon or commute the sentences of people held on state charges.)

This is also good:

"The president campaigned in 2020 on ending the federal death penalty. Although proposed legislation to that effect failed to advance in Congress during his administration, Mr. Biden directed the Justice Department to issue a moratorium on federal executions. Thirteen prisoners on federal death row were put to death during Mr. Trump’s first term."

The death penalty is a barbaric practice that has no place in the 21st century, just as it had no place in the 20th century. It needs to be abolished everywhere, for any reason. But this is at least a humane one-time action.

I unfortunately don't see Trump, who seems to be more on the traditional American "the government should murder people" train, taking any steps to correct the country's horrendous system. And it's a sign of how backwards and cruel we are that Biden couldn't advance legislation to end it once and for all.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Paul Kiel at ProPublica]

If we're going to improve on Medicare, we have to fund it - and it turns out that even today's Medicare taxes are being skipped out on by some of the wealthiest citizens in America, thanks to a legal loophole that the IRS has not adequately addressed.

"The trove of tax records behind ProPublica’s “Secret IRS Files” series contains plenty of examples of billionaire financiers who avoided Medicare tax despite earning huge amounts from their companies. In 2016, Steve Cohen, the owner of the New York Mets, paid $0. So did Stephen Schwarzman, head of the investment behemoth Blackstone. Bill Ackman, the headline-grabbing hedge fund manager, was able to shield almost all his income from the tax."

Tax advisers have found a way to funnel income - including at very high levels - in such a way that it avoids Medicare taxes, allowing these high net worth individuals to profit while ensuring that some of our most vulnerable people's healthcare is underfunded.

Will this loophole be closed in the next administration? I'll leave that thought exercise up to the reader.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Ricardo Mendes]

Ricardo argues that Twitter's sale to Elon Musk was one major factor that led to the rise of extremism worldwide, and that it should never have been allowed:

The sale of Twitter to Musk should never have been allowed to proceed without serious scrutiny, oversight, or regulation. It handed control of a vital part of the global information ecosystem to a tech mogul whose priorities are clearly out of step with the principles of democracy. The risks were evident from the outset: toxicity, polarization, disinformation, and the undermining of democratic institutions. This is yet another example of how democracies are left vulnerable to the whims of billionaires whose agendas often run counter to the public good."

I have questions about how media ownership rules (for broadcast, newspapers, etc) could be adapted for our monopoly-first internet world. Musk didn't own any other media properties, so he couldn't have been restricted on those grounds, but there's something about the way he intentionally turned the dial to favor conservative speech that feels like it should have been illegal on a platform over a certain size.

Probably, as Ricardo notes, this comes down to anti-trust: no platform with a single owner should be allowed to be this big and this influential to begin with. I'd love to see a world where we keep networks (and services) small and manageable in order to dilute the influence any one person can have over our discourse and our elections. This seems to be a lesson we need to learn again and again - and, of course, there are plenty of forces that are against exactly this from happening, because they're trying to achieve exactly this level of power, influence, and financial value.

I don't know what the solution is, but I'm excited about the growth of Mastodon and Bluesky for this reason. Enough is enough, please.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Melissa Sanchez and Mica Rosenberg at ProPublica]

Important resentments coming to the surface here:

"Her anger is largely directed at President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party for failing to produce meaningful reforms to the immigration system that could benefit people like her. In our reporting on the new effects of immigration, ProPublica interviewed dozens of long-established Latino immigrants and their U.S.-born relatives in cities like Denver and Chicago and in small towns along the Texas border. Over and over, they spoke of feeling resentment as they watched the government ease the transition of large numbers of asylum-seekers into the U.S. by giving them access to work permits and IDs, and in some cities spending millions of dollars to provide them with food and shelter."

The issue is not so much with asylum seekers as such - it's that asylum makers could make progress while immigration reforms that could help people who were already here stalled. These resentments mirror other complaints about the struggles of working class people who saw other groups receive what they perceived as preferential treatment.

What's particularly sad is the idea that Trump will help immigrants (or working people) in any meaningful way. He's been very clear that he wants to conduct unprecedented mass deportations - not just for criminals, but potentially for tens of millions of people.

"But the Democrats “promised and they never delivered,” Garza Castillo said. “They didn’t normalize the status of the people who were already here, but instead they let in many migrants who didn’t come in the correct way.” He believes asylum-seekers should have to wait outside the country like he did."

And of course, the challenge is that these reforms were blocked by Republicans - it's not that Democrats didn't want them (although it must be said that Democrats have not done a stellar job of backing the kinds of grassroots reforms that are really needed). There's a whole base of people out there who simply don't like immigrants. I find that point of view repellant - but it's prevalent, and it doesn't seem to be going away soon. Certainly not over the next four years.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Mike Masnick at MSNBC]

As Mike Masnick points out here, the hypocrisy from Elon Musk about collusion between tech and government is staggering:

"Before, we were told that White House officials’ merely reaching out to social media companies about election misinformation was a democracy-ending threat. Now, the world’s richest man has openly used his platform to boost one candidate, ridden that campaign’s success into the White House himself, and ... crickets. The silence is deafening."

There never was an anti-conservative bias on social media - but now there's active collusion between the owner of X and the Trump administration, to the extent that he's actually got a formal role in it. X is a clear threat to democratic values; further to that, it's an obvious warning against any centralized social media site of its magnitude. No one person should have control over how so many people learn from the world and communicate with each other. And yet, here we are.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Timothy Graham and Mark Andrejevic]

Elon Musk didn't just endorse Trump with his words - according to this pre-print research paper, he gave Republicans an algorithmic boost on X, too:

"The analysis reveals a structural engagement shift around mid-July 2024, suggesting platform-level changes that influenced engagement metrics for all accounts under examination. The date at which the structural break (spike) in engagement occurs coincides with Elon Musk’s formal endorsement of Donald Trump on 13th July 2024."

Despite big words about "free speech", Musk seems to be hell-bent on using the platform he acquired as a megaphone for his own interests, in the same way that Rupert Murdoch has used Fox News. To me, this points to the need for media regulation, and for anyone using the platform to approach it with caution. It's not an even playing field - not even close.

#Democracy

[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]

[ProPublica]

"With just days to go before Election Day, political coverage is everywhere. At ProPublica, we avoid horse race reporting and focus on telling stories about deeper issues and trends affecting the country.

Here are some stories from the last year about issues that are important to voters."

Some selected stories from my colleagues at ProPublica.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Versha Sharma in Teen Vogue]

This is a remarkable kind-of-sort-of-endorsement from Teen Vogue.

"As the head of this publication, dedicated to young readers, I have been closely following younger generations’ collective disbelief at the Biden administration’s support of the Israeli government during its all-out assault on Gaza, following the brutal terror attack from Hamas last Oct. 7 — including the horrific killing of civilians in Gaza, the targeting of journalists and aid workers, and the reports of children being shot in the head.

The Democrats’ policy on Israel has been disastrous. What is also true: Trump would, somehow, be even worse."

I was once in a private meeting of journalism professionals where someone described Teen Vogue's leadership as "some very left-wing women". I'm not sure how, exactly, Teen Vogue came to be such a blazing voice for progressive values, but - contrary, I think, to what that person intended with their remarks - it's been incredibly impressive to see.

This magazine for teenagers makes point after point about our culpability as Americans in human suffering and how that might be affected by the two candidates in play. It's hardly a surprise how that nets out:

"We would be constrained in even expressing dissent in a Trump administration. He has talked about shooting protesters, jailing his opponents and critics, and taking action against media who dare to report honestly on him, including revoking licenses for broadcast news he disagrees with. Teen Vogue itself could be held liable under a Trump administration — there is a world where we could face punishment for publishing something like this."

Which is why, Sharma argues, everyone should vote. Only overwhelming numbers will shut this conversation down: in safe states and swing states and deeply red states.

"If you’ve got any anxiety or concern about this election, I urge you to channel that into action. There’s no more putting it off or tuning it out. This is it."

This magazine for people who are still in the early stages of figuring out who they are in the world doesn't pull any punches. If Teen Vogue is any indication, the kids are alright.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Craig Silverman at ProPublica and Priyanjana Bengani at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism]

"The network, which uses the name Patriot Democracy on many of its ad accounts, is one of eight deceptive Meta advertising operations identified by ProPublica and Tow. These networks have collectively controlled more than 340 Facebook pages, as well as associated Instagram and Messenger accounts. Most were created by the advertising networks, with some pages masquerading as government entities."

Despite Meta's claims that they were cracking down - which were likely backed up with real efforts - ProPublica ad Tow have discovered that there are plenty of ad networks out there spreading misleading election information.

The issue is likely not to do with Meta itself but the way these targeted ad networks work to begin with. The fact that a company as large as Meta, which is absolutely incentivized to stop these ads from spreading, effectively can't, is an indictment of the model. There's no way that they can proactively approve ads before they run at the scale their business operates, so some will always get through.

That said, there are some serious policy failures here, too:

"Meta removed some of the ads after initially approving them, the investigation found, but it failed to catch thousands of others with similar or even identical content. In many cases, even after removing the violating ads, it allowed the associated Facebook pages and accounts to continue operating, enabling the parent networks to spawn new pages and ads. [...] Our analysis showed that while Meta had removed some pages and ads, its enforcement often lagged or was haphazard. Prior to being contacted by ProPublica and Tow, Meta had taken action against roughly 140 pages affiliated with these eight networks, representing less than half of the total identified in the investigation."

Cracking down on these networks too forcefully could also create a chilling effect throughout the network of potential advertisers, making a real impact on Meta's bottom line. And, of course, that's not something that any product manager watching their progress towards their quarterly OKRs wants to do.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Cassandra Jaramillo and Kavitha Surana at ProPublica]

The deeply tragic stories of how abortion bans lead to preventable deaths continue.

"The fetus was on the verge of coming out, its head pressed against her dilated cervix; she was 17 weeks pregnant and a miscarriage was “in progress,” doctors noted in hospital records. At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.

But when Barnica’s husband rushed to her side from his job on a construction site, she relayed what she said the medical team had told her: “They had to wait until there was no heartbeat,” he told ProPublica in Spanish. “It would be a crime to give her an abortion.”"

This is another look at how "pro life" policies are not necessarily pro life at all. As the piece notes, some Republican representatives have begun muting their anti-abortion stances after realizing how unpopular and damaging it actually is. Still, plenty more continue to fight for what amounts to a nationwide ban.

And then there's this:

"Abortion bans put doctors in an impossible position, she said, forcing them to decide whether to risk malpractice or a felony charge. After her state enacted one of the strictest bans in the country, she also waited to offer interventions in cases like Barnica’s until the fetal heartbeat stopped or patients showed signs of infection, praying every time that nothing would go wrong. It’s why she ultimately moved to Colorado."

If were of child-bearing age and you had the ability to move, why would you stay in a state that threatened your life like this? Why would you practice medicine in a place that put you in such a position? The knock-on effects of these policies will continue to be felt for a long time to come.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Nilay Patel at The Verge]

This is, uh, the opposite of this year's trend of a bunch of newspapers refusing to endorse anyone:

"Donald Trump is a dangerous maniac who can barely complete a sentence, and it is lunacy to believe he can even recognize the existentially threatening collective action problems facing our nation, let alone actually solve them."

It's odd that a tech publication like The Verge is coming out so strong here, but it's hard to disagree. I particularly like that the bulk of the piece is about the collective action problem - not just individual policies, but the actual difference in philosophy between a conservative and more progressive approach.

This is good:

"It is extremely frustrating that the Harris campaign keeps going on about Trump being a danger to democracy without explaining why his whole deal is so deeply incompatible with America, so here’s the short version: the radical founding principle of the United States of America is the idea that the government’s authority to make laws and solve collective action problems comes from the consent of the governed."

Right. Exactly. It was a (relatively) clean break from the divine right of kings and the tendrils of monarchy in favor of a more democratic approach. It has problems, it's messy, and it turns out not to be as independent from the influence of generational wealth (those pesky kings again) as we would like it to be, but it was something different.

The naked self-servingness of the Trump / Vance campaign is laid out here. It's a world where school shootings are "a fact of life" and vaccines, a medical technology that has saved the lives of hundreds of millions of people, are not to be trusted.

I agree with this too:

"The list of massive collective action problems facing our nation is almost overwhelming to consider, and they threaten to tear us apart: our population is getting older, with a looming healthcare crisis to come. Education. Housing. Income inequality. There are so many more."

The piece goes on to call out climate change as perhaps the biggest, alongside anti-trust and a host more. It's time to actually consider those problems as communities - democratic races like this one, where we're forced to talk about the dumbest possible stuff at the hands of a barely-coherent candidate, rob us of the ability to have those really substantive conversations. I'm excited for us to put this one to bed and go back to the business of actually dealing with the hard stuff.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Molly Redden and Andy Kroll, ProPublica, and Nick Surgey, Documented]

"A key ally to former President Donald Trump detailed plans to deploy the military in response to domestic unrest, defund the Environmental Protection Agency and put career civil servants “in trauma” in a series of previously unreported speeches that provide a sweeping vision for a second Trump term."

Russell Vought directed the Office of Management and Budget in the first Trump administration, and is likely to be back again for the next one. The rhetoric here dovetails with Trump's own and paints a bleak picture of what the future might hold.

As always, I'm grateful to my colleagues at ProPublica who have been bringing these topics to light.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Jan Diehm and Michelle Pera-McGhee at The Pudding]

"To illustrate how difficult it is to get abortion care, we built a maze for each state where the difficulty is calculated by the state’s abortion policies."

What an incredible use of the web as a platform. These stories - even in more progressive, pro-human states like California - reveal that the process is harder and trap-filled than it should be. Of course, in anti-human states like Texas, it's significantly harder to the point of impossibility.

The Pudding is killing it. Just absolutely A-plus work for story after story. This one is a particular highlight.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Joseph Cox at 404 Media]

Without needing a warrant, police can track ordinary peoples' smartphone locations - including people who travel out of state to get abortion procedures. The implications are troubling:

"“Warrantless law enforcement access to digital information related to reproductive health care, including location data, threatens reproductive freedom,” Ashley Emery, senior policy analyst, reproductive health and rights at the non-profit the National Partnership for Women & Families, told 404 Media. “If law enforcement can bypass court approval needed to obtain sensitive data and instead use this new surveillance tool to track pregnant people and build cases against them, the implications for abortion and pregnancy criminalization are alarming. This risk is especially salient for Black women, brown women, and low-income women, who are already over-surveilled and over-policed.”"

The tracking crosses states and is made possible by the cellphone networks themselves as part of what are shockingly lenient data sharing policies overall. Because of the jurisdiction, and the complicated way this data becomes available, the only surefire way to solve this problem is with a federal privacy law that protects our data.

At the very least it should need a warrant - but really, this sort of tracking shouldn't be possible at all. Without strong technical and legal protections against sharing, all our cellphones (this problem is not limited to smartphones) can be used as tracking devices to understand our whereabouts, who we're gathering with, and potentially more. We're all highly-dependent on them at this stage, but it's worth questioning whether we should be.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Blake Ellis, Melanie Hicken, Yahya Abou-Ghazala, Audrey Ash, Kyung Lah, Anna-Maja Rappard, Casey Tolan, Lou Robinson and Byron Manley at CNN]

"More than 1,000 reports filed with government agencies and consumer advocacy groups reviewed by CNN, along with an analysis of campaign finance data and interviews with dozens of contributors and their family members, show how deceptive political fundraisers have victimized hundreds of elderly Americans and misled those battling dementia or other cognitive impairments into giving away millions of dollars — far more than they ever intended."

Some of these are for Democrats, but most are for Republicans, who use an array of dark patterns including pre-selected checkboxes and misleading UI elements to convince donors to pay far more than originally intended.

The problem is most acute for elderly donors, and particularly for those with dementia, but there are plenty of other people who have been misled. It's a giant problem that stems from something everyone who's worked in tech will be familiar with: a focus on pushing success metrics up and to the right above all else.

There needs to be stronger regulation here, but of course, politicians aren't necessarily incentivized to push it. The best option would likely be for dark patterns overall to be more highly-regulated - after all, these same techniques are often used by lenders, insurance providers, subscription services, and more.

There's an even sadder story lurking here, too, which is more to do with a lack of the support and infrastructure for elder-care that these politicians should be providing:

"Forensic geriatrician Kathryn Locatell said what Richard Benjamin felt each time he received a “thank you” message or made a donation is the same “dopamine hit” a lot of elderly Americans are seeking. And the solicitations are crafted in a way that intentionally suck elderly donors into their web, providing “a feeling of belonging to a thrilling, special club.”"

In other words, if these people weren't so lonely and isolated to begin with, they might be less susceptible to this and other scams. That feels like an important problem worth solving, too, and one that should be tackled universally, for every person who needs it, regardless of means. Instead, the people who claim to want to help them end up persuading them to part with sometimes tens of thousands of dollars they can't afford to spend. It's nothing short of an abuse of power.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Timothy Snyder]

Timothy Snyder on the seriousness of the Trump-Vance deportation plans and their implications:

"Such an enormous deportation will requires an army of informers. People who denounce their neighbors or coworkers will be presented as positive examples. Denunciation then becomes a culture. If you are Latino, expect to be denounced at some point, and expect special attention from a government that will demand your help to find people who are not documented. This is especially true if you are a local civic or business leader."

The proposal itself has echoes in some of the worst policies of the worst governments of the past. To see arenas of people giddily waving "mass deportations now" signs is genuinely chilling, and it's not reasonable to dismiss this as electioneering. (Even as electioneering, it establishes a despicable us-and-them division that is unabashedly fascist.)

But Timothy Snyder is right here to go a get step further and ask what the impact would be on communities. Some people will inevitably be willing collaborators; others will not want to make a scene or hurt their own community standing and will become de facto collaborators. And the effect will be to establish a new normal that will be incredibly difficult culturally to turn back from.

"The deep purpose of a mass deportation is to establish a new sort of politics, a politics of us-and-them, which means (at first) everyone else against the Latinos. In this new regime, the government just stokes the fears and encourages the denunciations, and we expect little more of it."

It's sickening to think that this is an America that some people actively, intentionally want. If they win, I genuinely don't know what happens next.

Personally, I can't wait for an election that's fought on tax policy or infrastructure or the nuances of government. Right now, here in 2024, it seems like a big ask.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Charles Duhigg at the New Yorker]

"As the tech industry has become the planet’s dominant economic force, a coterie of specialists—led, in part, by the political operative who introduced the idea of “a vast right-wing conspiracy” decades ago—have taught Silicon Valley how to play the game of politics. Their aim is to help tech leaders become as powerful in Washington, D.C., and in state legislatures as they are on Wall Street."

This is a major change - it wasn't so long ago that journalists were remarking that tech was hopeless at influencing Washington.

That's not always a bad thing, but it sometimes very much is - for example when Silicon Valley lobbies politicians against crypto protections, or against privacy legislation, or prevent rideshare drivers from receiving standard workplace benefits.

What is certainly true, which this article takes pains to point out, is that tech is now one of the most powerful cohorts in politics. Future Presidencies - perhaps including this next one - will be chosen in large part based on tech's agenda. That's a new normal we need to get used to, and tech workers who care about equity need to deeply understand.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Kavitha Surana at ProPublica]

"When the mother of three realized she had unintentionally gotten pregnant in the fall of 2022, Georgia’s new abortion ban gave her no choice. Although it made exceptions for acute, life-threatening emergencies, it didn’t account for chronic conditions, even those known to present lethal risks later in pregnancy."

This story - alongside Amber Nicole Thurman's - shows that the abortion bans really are leading to preventable deaths.

"Miller ordered abortion pills online, but she did not expel all the fetal tissue and would need a dilation and curettage procedure to clear it from her uterus and stave off sepsis, a grave and painful infection. In many states, this care, known as a D&C, is routine for both abortions and miscarriages. In Georgia, performing it had recently been made a felony, with few exceptions."

As Kavitha Surana points out, abortion bans haven't actually led to a decrease in abortions. Instead, they've made them harder and significantly riskier. It's a worse situation all round. Deaths like these are senseless: a tragedy at the hands of a fundamentalist ideology with no basis in science.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Brett Wilkins at Common Dreams]

"After years of working with Iraqis whose relatives were killed by U.S. Marines in the 2005 Haditha massacre, American journalists finally obtained and released photos showing the grisly aftermath of the bloody rampage—whose perpetrators never spent a day behind bars."

These pictures, now published by the New Yorker, were covered up and obstructed for almost 20 years, presumably in an effort to present an image of America as a benevolent intervener. They are graphic and disturbing in themselves, and revealing of the real impact of America's impact overseas.

As Common Dreams notes:

"The Haditha massacre was part of countless U.S. war crimes and atrocities committed during the ongoing so-called War on Terror, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of civilian lives in at least half a dozen countries since 2001. One of the reasons why the Haditha massacre is relatively unknown compared with the torture and killings at the U.S. military prison in Abu Ghraib, Iraq is that photos of the former crime have been kept hidden for decades."

One of the reasons this kind of sunlight is important is so that Americans can be aware of what its military foreign policy is truly enabling in the rest of the world. I hope we can change tacks and become a genuine force for peace and international democracy, but I don't believe that's where we are or where we have been.

As always, I recommend Vincent Bevins's excellent book The Jakarta Method to help understand what has been done in our name. I wish it could be taught to every American citizen.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Aaron Ross Powell]

""First, there’s what I’ve referred to in the past as the “Quillette Effect.” Because we believe our own ideas are correct (or else we wouldn’t believe them), we tend to think that people who share our ideas are correct, as well." This whole piece is worth your time."

This whole piece is worth your time: a dive into why some of Silicon Valley's leaders seem to be disappearing down an ideological morass, using AI model collapse as an analogy. These are ideas that turn to themselves again and again to infinity.

There's a lot to be said for getting out of Silicon Valley and seeing the bubble from the outside. But you've really got to do that for yourself - or have something really catastrophic do it for you.

"The problem with model collapse is, once it goes too far, it’s difficult to correct. The solution to model collapse is to train on better data. But accomplishing that, and undoing the rapidly radicalizing right-wing ideology of these titans of the Valley, means undoing the structural causes of that self-referential and self-reinforcing cascade. And that’s no easy task."

I have no idea what would bring that about.

#Democracy

[Link]

[The 19th]

"To understand how the anti-trans agenda could reshape all of our lives, The 19th set out to examine how the laws and rhetoric behind it are impacting Americans."

My friends at The 19th dive into how the wave of anti-trans legislation and rhetoric is impacting American life.

This is a vital conversation: 177 anti-transgender bills have become law since 2021. The country has been swept into a red wave of bigotry.

These laws have implications for everyone. As The 19th describes its rationale behind this series:

"To understand how the anti-trans agenda could reshape all of our lives, our reporters have set out to examine how anti-trans laws are impacting the lives of Americans, whether or not they are trans. The goal is to connect the dots that will show how these laws, intended to target a small minority, are rewriting the future for all of us, and for generations to come. This is the Toll of America’s Anti-Trans War."

#Democracy

[Link]