[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 3 months ago

Reparations aren't just a cash payment -- the article lists five different aspects of reparations, and it's very compatible with investing in Black communities. There's debate iover who should be eligible but it's not an unsolvable problem. And sure some people will use it as an excuse to declare racism's over, but the same was true when Obama got elected ... so that's not a reason not to do it!

In terms of support in general, do you support the 1988 decision by the US to pay reparations to Japanese-Americans who had been sent to internment camps?

21
24

It’s still not clear just what will get voted on. So, if you're in the US, now's a great time to contact Congress. EFF’s action Tell Congress: Absent Major Changes, 702 Should Not be Renewed has as a form that will connect you nd provides talking points. Or if you’d rather contact them directly, here’s a short script:

“Stop the FBI from spying on innocent Americans. Please fight for a vote to reform FISA’s Section 702 with warrant requirements, both for Section 702 data and for our sensitive, personal information sold to the government by data brokers. And please oppose any attempt to reauthorize FISA Section 702 that doesn’t include both of these critical reforms.”

You can either call the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or use the House directory to look up your legislators’ contact info.

25
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/privacyguides@lemmy.one

It’s still not clear just what will get voted on. So, if you're in the US, now's a great time to contact Congress. EFF’s action Tell Congress: Absent Major Changes, 702 Should Not be Renewed has as a form that will connect you nd provides talking points. Or if you’d rather contact them directly, here’s a short script:

“Stop the FBI from spying on innocent Americans. Please fight for a vote to reform FISA’s Section 702 with warrant requirements, both for Section 702 data and for our sensitive, personal information sold to the government by data brokers. And please oppose any attempt to reauthorize FISA Section 702 that doesn’t include both of these critical reforms.”

You can either call the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or use the House directory to look up your legislators’ contact info.

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 11 months ago

Totally agree. Back in June I wrote about the reasons the FediPact was good strategy and started it with

Most importantly, it counters the gaslighting that resistance is futile. The segment of the fediverse that wants to reject Meta is clearly large enough that it will survive no matter what the big Mastodon instances and pundits do.

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 11 months ago

Agreed that figuring out the right action is important! It's clear from the conversation so far that a lot of instances are going to defederate, and a lot of instances are going to federate, so any strategy needs to take that into account.

I talked with a lot of people about this when I wrote Should the Fediverse welcome its new surveillance-capitalism overlords? Opinions differ! and don't think it's the case that we share the same goals. Some people see increasing the size of the ActivityPub network as a goal in and of itself (and generally support federation); others are in the fediverse because they want nothing to do with Facebook or Meta (so unsurprisingly support defederation). And some people have a goal of communicating with people on Threads -- friends, relatives, celebrities, etc; others don't. So again, these different goals are something to take into account.

Wanting to stay federated DOES NOT mean the user wants to help Meta or thinks that Meta is here for our benefit.

That's correct, but many of the people I've seen arguing in favor of federation do seem to think Meta's looking for a win/win situation where the fediverse benefits as much or more than Meta. And conversely many would argue that wanting to stay federated means the user is helping Meta whether they want to or not.

218
55

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/6414337

The Judiciary bill has significant reforms, including a warrant requirement. The Intelligence bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing -- it would significantly expand warrantless surveillance. If you're in the US, now's a key time to contact Congress! EFF's got a form that makes it easy, or see Get FISA Right's post for phone numbers and a short script.

15
submitted 11 months ago by jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/politics@beehaw.org

The Judiciary bill has significant reforms, including a warrant requirement. The Intelligence bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing -- it would significantly expand warrantless surveillance. If you're in the US, now's a key time to contact Congress! EFF's got a form that makes it easy, or see Get FISA Right's post for phone numbers and a short script.

79
submitted 11 months ago by jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/9011376

Congress is expected to vote this week on various bills to reauthorise FISA Section 702 warrantless wiretapping. The House Intelligence committee's bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing -- it would significantly expand warrantless surveillance. If you're in the US, now's a key time to contact Congress! EFF's got a form that makes it easy, or see the article for phone numbers and a short script.

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 year ago

Yes, followers-only posts are public -- upvote if you agree!

19

On Mastodon, Followers-only posts are only visible to your followers -- and to admins of any instances your followers on. But if you haven't turned on "approve followes", anybody who's logged in to an instance you haven't blocked can follow you and get access to your followers-only posts.

In your view, are followers-only posts public?

The linked post is a Mastodon poll, and I'll also put in replies here so that you can just upvote the ones you agree with!

62

In a video recently published by the conservative group Family Policy Alliance, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said “protecting minor children from the transgender in this culture” should be among the top priorities of conservative lawmakers....

In the same minute-and-a-half video, Blackburn lauded the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, a bipartisan bill introduced in May that would allow parents to sue social media companies and other online platforms if they do not sufficiently shield children under the age of 13 from harmful content on their platforms. The measure was introduced by Blackburn and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and has been endorsed by President Joe Biden.

https://www.stopkosa.com/ makes it easy to contact your lawmakers if you're in the US. It's not too late to stop KOSS -- but we're going to have to make some noise!

31

Evan Greer of Fight for the Future:

"If KOSA were actually a privacy bill as its supporters claim, we would be all about it," Greer told Ars. "We support cracking down on tech companies harvesting of data, we support an end to manipulative business practices like autoplay, infinite scroll, intrusive notifications, and algorithmic recommendations powered by commercial surveillance. What we don't support is a bill that gives state attorneys general the power to dictate what content younger people can see on social media. That's where KOSA goes off the rails and becomes a censorship bill, rather than a privacy bill."

If you're in the US, you can contact Congress using https://www.stopkosa.com/

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago

yeah it's really disappointing.

89

The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is a bipartisan bill that lawmakers say is intended to stop online platforms from targeting and recommending harmful content to minors. It sounds good but it's supported by a slew of far-right, anti-LGBTQ organizations, and opponents are warning it will enable states to censor LGBTQ content by claiming it leads kids to depression, anxiety, and eating disorders.

If you're in the US, EFF has a page that makes it easy to Tell Congress: KOSA Will Censor the Internet But Won't Help Kids

And once you've done that, please consider calling your Senators and tell them to oppose the Kids Online Safety Act because it won't help keep kids safe and it'll harm LGBTQ teens. Here's a list of Senators' phone numbers.

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 year ago

Yeah really. Think of the children!!!!

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 year ago

It's all true. WTF indeed. Here's a letter from over 90 LGBTQ and human rights organizations with more detail. EFF's article from in May, which is the one they linked to in the original article, has good info to.

69
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/lgbtq_plus@beehaw.org

KOSA, the "Kids Online Safety Act", sounds good. Who doesn't want to keep kids safe? But as over 90 LGBTQ and human rights organizations said last year, KOSA would harm LGBTQ+ youth especially, and could be weaponized by Attorneys General to censor online resources and information for queer and trans youth, people seeking reproductive healthcare, and more.

And it's not just a hypothetical concern! This article from a couple months ago includes a screenshot of a Heritage Foundation tweet talking about how they'll KOSA to attack trans-related content -- because after all, they think that censoring trans-related content is "protecting kids".

So if you're in the US, please contact your Senators and ask them to oppose KOSA.

  • EFF has a handy web form

  • if you prefer the phone, you can call the US Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. The bill number is S. 1409. Your message doesn't have to be fancy: "KOSA won't keep kids safe" is enough if they're Republicans; if they're Democrats you can add "and it will harm LGBTQ+ teens".

  • or, https://resist.bot/ lets you contact your legislators by texting or using Messenger, Apple Messages, WhatsApp .

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago

Agreed, other laws are needed as well as this. The ADPPA consumer privacy bill is likely to get reintroduced later this session; last year's version had some good features but also a lot of weaknesses, and big tech companies and data brokes are pushing to further weaken it. So it'll be a battle to strengthen and pass it.

But ADPPA doesn't apply to government agencies (and that's not likely to change) so bills like Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale are important complements!

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We'll see. Cynicism is certainly justified -- it's very hard to pass a good privacy bill, and last year even though everybody supported it, it died in committee. On the other hand, it really does have bipartisan support, and there Congress is deadlocked in so many areas that they have an incentive to pass something.

Also, people I've talked to at EFF, ACLU, and Free Press all think that grassroots activism can help make a difference, and that right now is a key time ... so it's worth a try.

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago

That just shows how little Eugen understands the privacy risks. Why just blocking Meta's Threads won't be enough to protect your privacy once they join the fediverse has an example of how federating with Meta can expose private data. And, data can be public but hard to discover (a profile for somebody who only makes followers-only and local-only posts); federating with Threads adds exposure.

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago

Not at all. I talked about this in In chaos there is opportunity! Meta's potential arrival is a likely to be a good thing for the fediverse no matter whether or not they actually go forward with it.

[-] jdp23@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago

Yep. Federation could conceivably respond to the EU's requirement for interoperability -- and they could do it in a way that puts a lot of barriers to people actually moving, so works well for them. Of course the EU would say that didn't meet the requirement, which would lead to a multi-year legal battle and eventually Meta would probably pay a billion dollar fine (as they routinely do -- it's just a cost of doing business) and promise to remove the barriers (which they wouldn't, and then there would be another multi-year legal battle).

But none of that works if the EU won't allow Threads for some other reason!

Still, my guess is that they'll figure out a way around the EU's objections to Threads ... we shall see ...

view more: next ›

jdp23

joined 1 year ago