#Network Policy Enforcement

[kishorxox]

Intent-based Networking Market to be Worth $8.9 Billion by 2031

Meticulous Research®— a leading global market research company, published a research report titled, 'Intent-based Networking Market by Offering, Deployment Mode, Organization Size, Application (Network Automation & Orchestration, Policy Enforcement & Security, Network Monitoring & Analytics), End User, and Geography - Global Forecast to 2031’.

According to this latest publication from Meticulous Research®, the intent-based networking market is projected to reach $8.9 billion by 2031, at a CAGR of 23.9% from 2024 to 2031. The intent-based networking market's growth is driven by increasing network complexity, the growing demand for network agility and efficiency, and the rising need for Zero-touch Provisioning (ZTP) and unified network visibility. However, the standardization restrains the growth of this market.

The integration of networking with Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Machine Learning (ML) technologies and the increasing adoption of cloud-based networking are expected to generate growth opportunities for the players operating in this market. However, complexities in the deployment & integration of intent-based networking solutions are a major challenge for market growth.

The global intent-based networking market is segmented by offering (solutions and services), deployment mode (on-premise deployment and cloud-based deployment), organization size (large enterprises and small & medium-sized enterprises), application (network automation & orchestration, policy enforcement & security, dynamic network optimization, network monitoring & analytics, and network policy compliance & governance), end user (CSPs, data centers, and enterprises (IT & telecommunications, manufacturing, government & public sector, retail, BFSI, healthcare and life sciences, education, energy and utilities, media & entertainment, and other end-use industries), and geography (Asia-Pacific, Europe, North America, Latin America, and the Middle East & Africa). This study also evaluates industry competitors and analyzes the market at the country and regional levels.

Based on offering, the global intent-based networking market is broadly segmented into solutions and services. In 2024, the solutions segment is expected to account for a larger share of above 60% of the global intent-based networking market. The growth of this segment is attributed to the increasing R&D investments and rising demand for dynamic connectivity among communication service providers.

However, the services segment is anticipated to register the highest CAGR during the forecast period. This segment’s rapid growth is driven by enterprises’ growing requirements for network integration and key market players’ emphasis on providing advanced network automation professional services.

Based on deployment mode, the global intent-based networking market is segmented into on-premise deployment and cloud-based deployment. In 2024, the on-premise deployment segment is expected to account for a larger share of above 64% of the global intent-based networking market. This segment’s growth is attributed to the high acceptance of intent-based networking among large enterprises, the rising demand for comprehensive network security and control, the increasing deployment of network automation solutions across on-premises data centers, and the growing demand for custom configurations to suit organizations’ unique requirements. Benefits of on-premise deployment of intent-based networking include enhanced network visibility, reduced manual configuration efforts, improved network security, better compliance with business objectives, and overall increased network efficiency and reliability.

However, the cloud-based deployment segment is expected to register the highest CAGR during the forecast period. The segment’s growth is driven by enterprises’ surging need to manage complex network requirements and reduce infrastructures’ initial and operating expenses and their increasing investments in network infrastructure expansion with cloud deployment.

Based on organization size, the global intent-based networking market is broadly segmented into large and small & medium-sized enterprises. In 2024, the small & medium-sized enterprises segment is expected to account for the larger share of above 63% of the global intent-based networking market. This segment’s growth is attributed to the SMEs’ rising need to create agile, secure, and efficient work environments and the growing demand for intent-based networking solutions among SMEs operating in the education, retail, healthcare, manufacturing, government, and manufacturing sectors.

Moreover, this segment is also poised to record the highest CAGR during the forecast period.

Based on application, the global intent-based networking market is broadly segmented into network automation & orchestration, policy enforcement & security, dynamic network optimization, network monitoring & analytics, and network policy compliance & governance. In 2024, the network monitoring & analytics segment is expected to account for the largest share of 36% of the global intent-based networking market. This segment’s growth is attributed to the increasing use of network monitoring among organizations to identify and resolve issues promptly, growing demand for network monitoring tools demand for enhanced network security and increasing demand for highly reliable and scalable network monitoring solutions.

Furthermore, the network automation & orchestration segment is anticipated to record the highest CAGR during the forecast period. This segment's growth is driven by the growing demand for safe and smart healthcare systems with intent-based networking technology, the growing need to detect and identify old hardware, compliance issues, and storage issues, and the increasing need for zero-touch provisioning and unified network visibility.

Based on end user, the global intent-based networking market is segmented into CSPs, data centers, and enterprises. In 2024, the data centers segment is expected to account for the largest share of 42% of the global intent-based networking market. This segment’s growth is attributed to the data centers’ growing need to automate routine workflows and processes, reduce repetitive/mundane tasks, speed up processes, and drive down overheads, and the increasing deployment of network automation solutions among data centers. However, the enterprises segment is expected to record the highest CAGR during the forecast period. It is further sub-segmented into IT & telecommunications, manufacturing, government & public sector, retail, BFSI, healthcare & life sciences, education, energy & utilities, media & entertainment, and other end-use industries. This segment’s rapid growth is driven by the rising demand for intent-based networking solutions and increasing deployments of network automation solutions across enterprises.

Based on geography, the intent-based networking market is segmented into North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East & Africa. In 2024, North America is expected to account for the largest share of 37% of the global intent-based networking market. This region’s large market share is attributed to an established sales force for network automation solutions, service providers’ initiatives towards network automation, and increasing demand for data center and IT infrastructure automation.

Moreover, Asia-Pacific is estimated to register the highest CAGR of 11% during the forecast period. The increasing deployment of SDN and NFV by enterprises and rising demand for a broad range of value-added network services are the major factors contributing to the market's growth.

Key Players

The key players operating in the global intent-based networking market are Arista Networks, Inc. (U.S), Cisco Systems, Inc. (U.S.), Juniper Networks, Inc (U.S.), Fortinet, Inc. (U.S.), VMware, Inc. (U.S.), Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (U.S.), Nokia Corporation (Finland), Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (China), IBM Corporation(U.S.), Anuta Networks International LLC (U.S.), NetBrain Technologies, Inc. (U.S.), Forward Networks, Inc. (U.S.), Gluware, Inc. (U.S.), NetYCE BV (Netherlands), AppViewX (U.S.), and Itential (U.S.).

Download Sample Report Here @ https://www.meticulousresearch.com/download-sample-report/cp_id=5593

Key questions answered in the report-

Which are the high-growth market segments in terms of offering, deployment mode, organization size, application, and end user?

What is the historical market for intent-based networking across the globe?

What are the market forecasts and estimates for the period of 2024–2031?

What are the major drivers, restraints, opportunities, challenges, and trends in the global intent-based networking market?

Who are the major players in the global intent-based networking market, and what are their market shares?

How is the competitive landscape?

What are the recent developments in the global intent-based networking market?

What do the major players in the market adopt the different strategies?

What are the geographic trends and high-growth countries? 

Who are the emerging players in the global intent-based networking market, and how do they compete with the other players?

Contact Us: Meticulous Research® Email- sales@meticulousresearch.com Contact Sales- +1-646-781-8004 Connect with us on LinkedIn- https://www.linkedin.com/company/meticulous-research

[devils-yui]

Reposting this from a friend bc I think it is VERY important to know of this, and for immigrants, and other possible victims of the ICE Raids happening right now

Here’s to also a very huge edit, from the list of very helpful people who have been reblogging and providing more info.

I’m not as well informed but I will be relaying the information and tagging each person who added onto this post:

@onthedriftinthetardis -

The phone number in the first photo is ONLY for Orange County, California!

Look up your local ACLU affiliate here

@6feetunderwater -

It always makes me nervous to see a reporting phone number passed around without any links to verify it, so the number in the first pic can be found on the site for the Orange County Rapid Response Network, which is "an interconnected system of non-profit and grassroots organizations, civil rights attorneys, law school clinics, and individuals working together to respond to dehumanizing immigration enforcement activities and policies in Orange County"

@geekerypeekery -

The second warrant is not fake, but is an administrative rather than judicial warrant, and has no constitutional authority to bypass Fourth Amendment protections - in other words, it does not entitle the bearer to enter and search your home. It simply authorizes agents of the issuing department to contact you. Always ask to see the warrant before opening your door!

In addition to the ACLU links, try contacting the National Immigration Law Center https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Warrants-Subpoenas-Facts.pdf

@american-anger -

The phone number listed here is specific to Orange County in California, but you can look up other California counties here:

CALIFORNIA RAPID RESPONSE NETWORKS

@beaniebaneenie -

Unpleasant reminder: within 100 miles of the border (which is home to 200 million people and virtually all major cities in the US), ICE does not need a warrant to enter your home, your car, to search anything, or even to arrest you.

You are not automatically safe just because they don't have a real warrant.

The best and safest thing you can do is learn to have escape routes- quick ways to get out of the house or area you're in if you find out ICE or CBP are around. Those of us who do have documentation? Time for us to step the fuck up.

Film any interaction. Every interaction. If you're able, step into the conversation and be a Karen/Kyle- weaponize your privilege for Good. If you get asked about people? Use positive but vague statements so you a) cannot be caught in a lie, and b) do not give any information away.

"I don't know them that well, but I don't tend to socialize much. They seem great to me."

"I can't remember the last time I saw them."

"Maybe they speak another language, I can't remember details. But I picked up Duolingo during the pandemic and tons of other people did too."

"I'm not sure."

"I'm sorry, I can't help you."

Even if you're somewhere the 100-mile Exception doesn't apply and a warrant is in fact needed? I don't expect ICE and CBP to play by the rules for long, if at all. I fully expect this to get ugly, and fast.

Cheeto has already declared an emergency of national security at the border, and is mobilizing the military to have jurisdiction over a huge swath of the country. It's essentially tantamount to martial law. And it's only been four days.

Gear up for a long, hard fight. This is gonna be a marathon, not a sprint.

— I am leaving all of this as an edit because on the off chance someone does find the posts that have these people specifically reblogging, I don’t want it to be too late. So I’m comprising it all here

Here are a few other people’s reblogs I thought were important:

Thank you @onthedriftinthetardis @6feetunderwater @geekerypeekery @american-anger @beaniebaneenie @bunnychiffon @dubiouslynamed @trisockatops @witchy-disaster for contributing and helping me make this a more well-informed post. Thank you so much

[richardmhicks]

Strong Certificate Mapping Enforcement February 2025

Are you ready? In just a few short weeks(!) Microsoft will release the February 2025 security updates. This is a critical update because Microsoft plans to enable full enforcement of strong certificate mapping on Active Directory Domain Controllers (DCs) with this release. Administrators unprepared for this may incur outages for workloads using certificate-based authentication such as Always On…

[projectchampionz]

THE USE OF POLICE INTELLIGENCE IN DRUG TRAFFICKING CASES

THE USE OF POLICE INTELLIGENCE IN DRUG TRAFFICKING CASES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY 1.1 Introduction Drug trafficking remains a significant global issue, posing threats to public safety, economic stability, and national security. Law enforcement agencies rely heavily on intelligence gathering to combat drug trafficking organizations (DTOs). Police intelligence plays a critical role in identifying…

[ceilidhtransing]

The discussions around whether or not to vote for Kamala keep being dominated by very loud voices shouting that anyone who advocates for her “just doesn't care about Palestine!” and “is willing to overlook genocide!” and “has no moral backbone at all!” And while some of these voices will be bots, trolls, psyops - we know that this happens; we know that trying to persuade progressives to split the vote or not vote at all is a strategy employed by hostile actors - of course many of them won't be. But what this rhetoric does is continually force the “you should vote for her” crowd onto the back foot of having to go to great lengths writing entire essays justifying their choice, while the “don't vote/vote third party” crowd is basically never asked to justify their choice. It frames voting for Kamala as a deeply morally compromised position that requires extensive justification while framing not voting or voting third party as the neutral and morally clean stance.

So here's another way of looking at it. How much are you willing to accept in order to feel like you're not compromising your morals on one issue?

Are you willing to accept the 24% rise in maternal deaths - and 39% increase for Black women - that is expected under a federal abortion ban, according to the Centre for American Progress? Those percentages represent real people who are alive now who would die if the folks behind Project 2025 get their way with reproductive healthcare.

Are you willing to accept the massive acceleration of climate change that would result from the scrapping of all climate legislation? We don't have time to fuck around with the environment. A gutting of climate policy and a prioritisation of fossil fuel profits, which is explicitly promised by Trump, would set the entire world back years - years that we don't have.

Are you willing to accept the classification of transgender visibility as inherently “pornographic” and thus the removal of trans people from public life? Are you willing to accept the total elimination of legal routes for gender-affirming care? The people behind the Trump campaign want to drive queer and trans people back underground, back into the closet, back into “criminality”. This will kill people. And it's maddening that caring about this gets called “prioritising white gays over brown people abroad” as if it's not BIPOC queer and trans Americans who will suffer the most from legislative queer- and transphobia, as they always do.

Are you willing to accept the domestic deployment of the military to crack down on protests and enforce racist immigration policy? I'm sure it's going to be very easy to convince huge numbers of normal people to turn up to protests and get involved in political organising when doing so may well involve facing down an army deployed by a hardcore authoritarian operating under the precedent that nothing he does as president can ever be illegal.

Are you willing to accept a president who openly talks about wanting to be a dictator, plans on massively expanding presidential powers, dehumanises his political enemies and wants the DOJ to “go after them”, and assures his supporters they won't have to vote again? If you can't see the danger of this staring you right in the face, I don't know what to tell you. Allowing a wannabe dictator to take control of the most powerful country on earth would be absolutely disastrous for the entire world.

Are you willing to accept an enormous uptick in fascism and far-right authoritarianism worldwide? The far right in America has huge influence over an entire international network of “anti-globalists”, hardcore anti-immigrant xenophobes, transphobic extremists, and straight-up fascists. Success in America aids and emboldens these people everywhere.

Are you willing to accept an enormous number of preventable deaths if America faces a crisis in the next four years: a public health emergency, a natural disaster, an ecological catastrophe? We all saw how Trump handled Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. We all saw how Trump handled Covid-19. He fanned the flames of disaster with a constant flow of medical misinformation and an unspeakably dangerous undermining of public health experts. It's estimated that 40% of US pandemic deaths could have been avoided if the death rates had corresponded to those in other high-income countries. That amounts to nearly half a million people. One study from January 2021 estimated between around 4,200 and 12,200 preventable deaths attributable purely to Trump's statements about masks. We're highly unlikely to face another global pandemic in the next few years but who knows what crises are coming down the pipeline?

Are you willing to accept the attempted deportation of millions - millions - of undocumented people? This is “rounding people up and throwing them into camps where no one ever hears from them again” territory. That's a blueprint for genocide right there and it's a core tenet of both Trump's personal policy and Project 2025. And of course they wouldn't be going after white people. They most likely wouldn't even restrict their tyranny to people who are actually undocumented. Anyone racially othered as an “immigrant” would be at risk from this.

Are you willing to accept not just the continuation of the current situation in Palestine, but the absolute annihilation of Gaza and the obliteration of any hope for imminent peace? There is no way that Trump and the people behind him would not be catastrophically worse for Gaza than Kamala or even Biden. Only recently he was telling donors behind closed doors that he wanted to “set the [Palestinian] movement back 25 or 30 years” and that “any student that protests, I throw them out of the country”. This is not a man who can be pushed in a direction more conducive to peace and justice. This is a man who listens to his wealthy donors, his Christian nationalist Republican allies, and himself.

Are you willing to accept a much heightened risk of nuclear war? Obviously this is hardly a Trump policy promise. But I can't think of a single president since the Cold War who is more likely to deploy nuclear weapons, given how casually he talks about wanting to use them and how erratic and unstable he can be in his dealings with foreign leaders. To quote Foreign Policy only this year, “Trump told a crowd in January that one of the reasons he needed immunity was so that he couldn’t be indicted for using nuclear weapons on a city.” That's reassuring. I'm not even in the US and I remember four years of constant background low-level terror that Trump would take offence at something some foreign leader said or think that he needs to personally intervene in some military situation to “sort it out” and decide to launch the entire world into nuclear war. No one sane on earth wants the most powerful person on the planet to be as trigger-happy and careless with human life as he is, especially if he's running the White House like a dictator with no one ever telling him no. But depending on what Americans do in November, he may well be inflicted again on all of us, and I guess we'll all just have to hope that he doesn't do the worst thing imaginable.

“But I don't want those things! Stop accusing me of supporting things I don't support!” Yes, of course you don't want those things. None of us does. No one's saying that you actively support them. No one's accusing you of wanting Black women to die from ectopic pregnancies or of wanting to throw Hispanic people in immigrant detention centres or of wanting trans people to be outlawed (unlike, I must point out, the extremely emotive and personal accusations that get thrown around about “wanting Palestinian children to die” if you encourage people to vote for Kamala).

But if you're advocating against voting for Kamala, you are clearly willing to accept them as possible consequences of your actions. That is the deal you're making. If a terrible thing happening is the clear and easily foreseeable outcome of your action (or in the case of not voting, inaction), in a way that could have been prevented by taking a different and just as easy action, you are partly responsible for that consequence. (And no, it's not “a fear campaign” to warn people about things he's said, things he wants to do, and plans drawn up by his close allies. This is not “oooh the Democrats are trying to bully you into voting for them by making him out to be really bad so you'll feel scared and vote for Kamala!” He is really bad, in obvious and documented and irrefutable ways.)

And if you believe that “both parties are the same on Gaza” (which, you know, they really aren't, but let's just pretend that they are) then presumably you accept that the horrors being committed there will continue, in the immediate term anyway, regardless of who wins the presidency. Because there really isn't some third option that will appear and do everything we want. It's going to be one of those two. And we can talk all day about wanting a better system or how unfair it is that every presidential election only ever has two viable candidates and how small the Overton window is and all that but hell, we are less than eighty days out from the election; none of that is going to get fixed between now and November. Electoral reform is a long-term (but important!) goal, not something that can be effected in the span of a couple of months by telling people online to vote third party. There is no “instant ceasefire and peace negotiation” button that we're callously overlooking by encouraging people to vote for Kamala. (My god, if there was, we would all be pressing it.)

If we're suggesting people vote for her, it's not that we “are willing to overlook genocide” or “don't care about sacrificing brown people abroad” or whatever. Nothing is being “overlooked” here. It's that we're simply not willing to accept everything else in this post and more on top of continued atrocities in Gaza. We're not willing to take Trump and his godawful far-right authoritarian agenda as an acceptable consequence of feeling like we have the moral high ground on Palestine. I cannot stress enough that if Kamala doesn't win, we - we all, in the whole world - get Trump. Are you willing to accept that?

And one more point to address: I've seen too many people act frighteningly flippant and naïve about terrible things Trump or his campaign want to do, with the idea that people will simply be able to prevent all these bad things by “organising” and “protesting” and “collective action”. “I'm not willing to accept these things; that's why I'll fight them tooth and nail every day of their administration” - OK but if you're not even willing to cast a vote then I have doubts about your ability to form “the Resistance”, which by the way would have to involve cooperation with people of lots of progressive political stripes in order to have the manpower to be effective, and if you're so committed to political purity that you view temporarily lending your support to Kamala at the ballot box as an untenable betrayal of everything you stand for then forgive me for also doubting your ability to productively cooperate with allies on the ground with whom you don't 100% agree. Plus, if the Trump campaign gets its way, American progressives would be kept so busy trying to put out about twenty different fires at once that you'd be able to accomplish very little. Maybe you get them to soften their stance on trans healthcare but oh shit, the climate policies are still in place. But more importantly, how many people do you think will protest for abortion rights if doing so means staring down a gun? Or organise to protect their neighbours from deportation if doing so means being thrown in prison yourself? And OK, maybe you're sure that you will, but history has shown us time and time again that most people won't. Most people aren't willing to face that kind of personal risk. And a tiny number of lefties willing to risk incarceration or death to protect undocumented people or trans people or whatever other groups are targeted is sadly not enough to prevent the horrors from happening. That is small fry compared to the full might of a determined state. Of course if the worst happens and Trump wins then you should do what you can to mitigate the harm; I'm not saying you shouldn't. But really the time to act is now. You have an opportunity right here to mitigate the harm and it's called “not letting him get elected”. Act now to prevent that kind of horrific authoritarian situation from developing in the first place; don't sit this one out under the naïve belief that “we'll be able to stop it if it happens”. You won't.

[madeleinejubileesaito]

Dictators, fascists, and oligarchs want us to believe that they are all-powerful and that we would be nothing without them. The reality is: They don’t create anything. We, the people, create EVERYTHING!

I made this poster for the Justseeds graphics library and it’s under a creative commons license and free to download and use! More details + download high-res files on my website: here.

Inspired by this passage from the Daniel Hunter article 10 ways to be prepared and grounded now that Trump has won:

“It will be helpful to have a power analysis in our minds, specifically that’s known as the upside-down triangle. This tool was built to explain how power moves even under dictatorships.  The central tenet is that like an upside-down triangle, power can be unstable. It naturally topples over without anything supporting it. To prevent that, power relies on pillars of support to keep it upright. Casually, the left often focuses on pillars of support that include governments, media, corporations, shareholders and policy makers. Describing the pillars of support, Gene Sharp wrote: ‘By themselves, rulers cannot collect taxes, enforce repressive laws and regulations, keep trains running on time, prepare national budgets, direct traffic, manage ports, print money, repair roads, keep markets supplied with food, make steel, build rockets, train the police and army, issue postage stamps or even milk a cow. People provide these services to the ruler though a variety of organizations and institutions. If people would stop providing these skills, the ruler could not rule.’ Removing one pillar of support can often gain major, life-saving concessions. In response to Trump’s 2019 government shutdown, flight attendants prepared a national strike. Such a strike would ground planes across the country and a key transportation network. Within hours of announcing they were “mobilizing immediately” for a strike, Trump capitulated.”

[eugenedebs1920]

Politicians lie to get your vote. They bend the truth. They may even knowingly make a false claim. The Trump administration is the complete distortion of objective reality.

I am perhaps a bit too informed on current events, particularly the fall of American democracy. So far in this second round of Trump, I’m not sure if I’ve heard a single word of truth from him, those around him, or his propaganda networks.

It had been nonstop lies, corruption and criminality. Seriously! Not a single ounce of truth.

First thing he did was pardon the Jan 6th insurrectionist, claiming they had been treated very badly. Many of them beat the crap out of capital police, they stormed the capital looking to sting up Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi. They stole documents, smeared feces all over walls, and defiled our nation’s capital. Many deserved the sentence they received.

Second thing was to blame all of Americas problems on people with brown skin, gay people, trans people, anyone who wasn’t a straight white man. Even when his stupid ass transportation Secretary had the first air crash in over a decade, that was because of minorities somehow. Funny. Pete Buttigieg is gay and not a single plane crashed during his whole time as Transportation Secretary.

Trump brings in the world’s richest man to make government efficient. Yet the first thing he does is dismantle USAID, a program that was less than 1% of the U.S. budget and gave food and medicine to the poorest people across the globe. Think of it! The richest man on the planet, taking food from the most impoverished people on earth. It’s unbelievably messed up.

The guy who spent almost $300 million getting trump elected then starts rummaging through every aspect of the federal government where, ironically, he starts dismantling and picking apart agencies that were investigating his companies. CFPB and SEC were looking into his electronic currency for X, dissolved or defunded. The FDA was looking into the brain chips he was working on, defunded drastically. The FAA was bringing charges against spacex for the rocket explosions that posed numerous dangers, massive funding cuts. You hear very little about this on “legacy” media.

Trump betrays Ukraine, goes so far as to call Zelenskyy a dictator but praises Putin! He has Jerkin Dicks Vance make some ABSURD speech condoning AfT rhetoric and berating our allies, we vote against condemning Putin’s war crimes, along with countries like, North Korea, Belarus, Iran, and of course Russia. WTAF!? And maga is cool with this? We joined the damn axis of evil! The just shameful ambush of Zelenskyy in the White House, it’s one of those things you can’t unseee. Just disgraceful…

The immigration enforcement is fascist to the core! Whatever you think about a country of immigrants immigration policies, a country which committed genocide against the native inhabitants, that made its initial fortune on the backs of enslaved peoples, that nation should have learned 250 years later that all people deserve to be treated with dignity and minimum respect at least. The only lawyer who spoke the truth in court over the administrative error which sent a Maryland man to a supermax prison in El Salvador, got fired by the administration for telling the truth! Lawyers are bound by a code of ethics (believe it or not) and swear an oath to uphold the law.

The tariffs. My god the tariffs. In 100 days America went from the best economic recovery of all developed nations after covid, to the stock market tanking and the contraction of the economy as a whole. Lie after lie about this too. Not simply about inflation or Wall Street, but telling us not to believe our lying eyes and empty wallets with claims that prices are actually down. I CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THEY AREN’T! How dumb do they think we are!?

Then there’s the full on assault to the first amendment. It’s funny because the right has been setting the precedent that liberals have been attacking the first amendment for years now. (a good way to predict what corruption Republicans are planning is to listen to what they are accusing others of. Promise! It works every time) Why!? Because your Facebook post on how ivermectin cures covid was disputed and taken down? Cry me a river. Trump has attempted to dictate what university professors can teach and the curriculum offered. He has sued law firms for defending causes in conflict with his. He has instituted Christian defense orders. Sued and threatened multiple press organizations. We haven’t even seen the response to an enormous protest in DC yet. June 14th. Be there…

There is not enough time in my life to go over every lie that Trump and his administration have perpetuated, but I can tell you this. The proposed budget, the funding cuts, the degradation of constitutional rights, the immigrant hate, the installation of HIGHLY UNQUALIFIED loyalists in intelligence and defense agencies, defying the courts, discrediting the press, politicizing religion, going after universities, eliminating the department of education, using the DOJ as a personal retribution law firm, military parades, accosting our allies, aligning with autocratic regimes, ignoring due process, creating an alternate reality void from facts or data, where nothing one sees is what they’re actually seeing, distorting what’s real, what’s true, what’s objective, and not backing down from that fabricated story.

I could go on.

These are the actions of a dictator. These are the doings of autocrats. What is playing out in front of our faces is the destruction of the American democratic representative constitutional republic, and the inception of a fascist state. It’s been 100 days people!! This much damage has already occurred.

I posed a question the other day that stuck in my mind. Is it that maga believes the lies that are told to them, does nearly half the country lack the critical thinking skills to see past the propaganda? Or is it that their disdain and animosity towards liberals is so great they simply don’t care? The hatred towards their fellow Americans for having opposing political views is so strong, that they’re willing to burn the whole thing down just to “own the libs”?

I can’t answer that with clarity, but either way….

It’s not good

[probablyasocialecologist]

The support from unions is important. The London protest was supported by national unions including the Communication Workers Union CWU, the performing arts and entertainment union Equity and the college and University and College Union. Militant grassroots unions like the IWW, the IWGB, the Sex Workers Union and UTAW also backed the action along with community groups like London Renters Union, queer and trans organisations and leftist groups. Other unions – such as the bakers of BFAWU and the train drivers of ASLEF – have also made statements in support. Union support matters because of numbers – there are over 6 million trade union members in Britain, and these are organisations with LGBT networks and pro-trans policies. But it also matters because new legal guidance from the EHRC will impact staff in the NHS, schools and colleges, as well as patients and students. Workplaces will be some of the front lines in the battle over how any ‘new normal’ is enforced. A collective response from unions and their members will be vital – and is one of our places where we are most powerful.

20 April 2025

[kishorxox]

Intent-based Networking Market Size, Share, Forecast, & Trends Analysis 

Meticulous Research®— a leading global market research company, published a research report titled, 'Intent-based Networking Market by Offering, Deployment Mode, Organization Size, Application (Network Automation & Orchestration, Policy Enforcement & Security, Network Monitoring & Analytics), End User, and Geography - Global Forecast to 2031’.

According to this latest publication from Meticulous Research®, the intent-based networking market is projected to reach $8.9 billion by 2031, at a CAGR of 23.9% from 2024 to 2031. The intent-based networking market's growth is driven by increasing network complexity, the growing demand for network agility and efficiency, and the rising need for Zero-touch Provisioning (ZTP) and unified network visibility. However, the standardization restrains the growth of this market.

The integration of networking with Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Machine Learning (ML) technologies and the increasing adoption of cloud-based networking are expected to generate growth opportunities for the players operating in this market. However, complexities in the deployment & integration of intent-based networking solutions are a major challenge for market growth.

The global intent-based networking market is segmented by offering (solutions and services), deployment mode (on-premise deployment and cloud-based deployment), organization size (large enterprises and small & medium-sized enterprises), application (network automation & orchestration, policy enforcement & security, dynamic network optimization, network monitoring & analytics, and network policy compliance & governance), end user (CSPs, data centers, and enterprises (IT & telecommunications, manufacturing, government & public sector, retail, BFSI, healthcare and life sciences, education, energy and utilities, media & entertainment, and other end-use industries), and geography (Asia-Pacific, Europe, North America, Latin America, and the Middle East & Africa). This study also evaluates industry competitors and analyzes the market at the country and regional levels.

Based on offering, the global intent-based networking market is broadly segmented into solutions and services. In 2024, the solutions segment is expected to account for a larger share of above 60% of the global intent-based networking market. The growth of this segment is attributed to the increasing R&D investments and rising demand for dynamic connectivity among communication service providers.

However, the services segment is anticipated to register the highest CAGR during the forecast period. This segment’s rapid growth is driven by enterprises’ growing requirements for network integration and key market players’ emphasis on providing advanced network automation professional services.

Based on deployment mode, the global intent-based networking market is segmented into on-premise deployment and cloud-based deployment. In 2024, the on-premise deployment segment is expected to account for a larger share of above 64% of the global intent-based networking market. This segment’s growth is attributed to the high acceptance of intent-based networking among large enterprises, the rising demand for comprehensive network security and control, the increasing deployment of network automation solutions across on-premises data centers, and the growing demand for custom configurations to suit organizations’ unique requirements. Benefits of on-premise deployment of intent-based networking include enhanced network visibility, reduced manual configuration efforts, improved network security, better compliance with business objectives, and overall increased network efficiency and reliability.

However, the cloud-based deployment segment is expected to register the highest CAGR during the forecast period. The segment’s growth is driven by enterprises’ surging need to manage complex network requirements and reduce infrastructures’ initial and operating expenses and their increasing investments in network infrastructure expansion with cloud deployment.

Based on organization size, the global intent-based networking market is broadly segmented into large and small & medium-sized enterprises. In 2024, the small & medium-sized enterprises segment is expected to account for the larger share of above 63% of the global intent-based networking market. This segment’s growth is attributed to the SMEs’ rising need to create agile, secure, and efficient work environments and the growing demand for intent-based networking solutions among SMEs operating in the education, retail, healthcare, manufacturing, government, and manufacturing sectors.

Moreover, this segment is also poised to record the highest CAGR during the forecast period.

Based on application, the global intent-based networking market is broadly segmented into network automation & orchestration, policy enforcement & security, dynamic network optimization, network monitoring & analytics, and network policy compliance & governance. In 2024, the network monitoring & analytics segment is expected to account for the largest share of 36% of the global intent-based networking market. This segment’s growth is attributed to the increasing use of network monitoring among organizations to identify and resolve issues promptly, growing demand for network monitoring tools demand for enhanced network security and increasing demand for highly reliable and scalable network monitoring solutions.

Furthermore, the network automation & orchestration segment is anticipated to record the highest CAGR during the forecast period. This segment's growth is driven by the growing demand for safe and smart healthcare systems with intent-based networking technology, the growing need to detect and identify old hardware, compliance issues, and storage issues, and the increasing need for zero-touch provisioning and unified network visibility.

Based on end user, the global intent-based networking market is segmented into CSPs, data centers, and enterprises. In 2024, the data centers segment is expected to account for the largest share of 42% of the global intent-based networking market. This segment’s growth is attributed to the data centers’ growing need to automate routine workflows and processes, reduce repetitive/mundane tasks, speed up processes, and drive down overheads, and the increasing deployment of network automation solutions among data centers. However, the enterprises segment is expected to record the highest CAGR during the forecast period. It is further sub-segmented into IT & telecommunications, manufacturing, government & public sector, retail, BFSI, healthcare & life sciences, education, energy & utilities, media & entertainment, and other end-use industries. This segment’s rapid growth is driven by the rising demand for intent-based networking solutions and increasing deployments of network automation solutions across enterprises.

Based on geography, the intent-based networking market is segmented into North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East & Africa. In 2024, North America is expected to account for the largest share of 37% of the global intent-based networking market. This region’s large market share is attributed to an established sales force for network automation solutions, service providers’ initiatives towards network automation, and increasing demand for data center and IT infrastructure automation.

Moreover, Asia-Pacific is estimated to register the highest CAGR of 11% during the forecast period. The increasing deployment of SDN and NFV by enterprises and rising demand for a broad range of value-added network services are the major factors contributing to the market's growth.

Key Players

The key players operating in the global intent-based networking market are Arista Networks, Inc. (U.S), Cisco Systems, Inc. (U.S.), Juniper Networks, Inc (U.S.), Fortinet, Inc. (U.S.), VMware, Inc. (U.S.), Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (U.S.), Nokia Corporation (Finland), Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (China), IBM Corporation(U.S.), Anuta Networks International LLC (U.S.), NetBrain Technologies, Inc. (U.S.), Forward Networks, Inc. (U.S.), Gluware, Inc. (U.S.), NetYCE BV (Netherlands), AppViewX (U.S.), and Itential (U.S.).

Download Sample Report Here @ https://www.meticulousresearch.com/download-sample-report/cp_id=5593

Key questions answered in the report-

Which are the high-growth market segments in terms of offering, deployment mode, organization size, application, and end user?

What is the historical market for intent-based networking across the globe?

What are the market forecasts and estimates for the period of 2024–2031?

What are the major drivers, restraints, opportunities, challenges, and trends in the global intent-based networking market?

Who are the major players in the global intent-based networking market, and what are their market shares?

How is the competitive landscape?

What are the recent developments in the global intent-based networking market?

What do the major players in the market adopt the different strategies?

What are the geographic trends and high-growth countries? 

Who are the emerging players in the global intent-based networking market, and how do they compete with the other players?

Contact Us: Meticulous Research® Email- sales@meticulousresearch.com Contact Sales- +1-646-781-8004 Connect with us on LinkedIn- https://www.linkedin.com/company/meticulous-research

[redgoldsparks]

California Rapid Response Networks

These graphics are from the California Immigrant Policy Center instagram but you can find the same information with hyperlinks on their website (copied as a transcript below the cut).

California Rapid Response Networks

Northern California

Central del Pueblo Rapid Response Network (Humboldt County) – 707-200-8091

Sacramento Rapid Response Network – Hotline: 916-382-0256

Bay Area

​Alameda County Immigration Legal and Education Partnership (ACILEP) – Hotline: 510-241-4011

Marin Rapid Response Network – Hotline: 415-991-4545

North Bay Rapid Response Network (Sonoma, Napa & Solano Counties) – Hotline: 707- 800-4544

San Francisco Rapid Response Network – Hotline: 415-200-1548

San Mateo County Rapid Response Network – Hotline: 203-666-4472

Santa Clara County Rapid Response Network – Hotline: 408-290-1144

Stand Together Contra Costa – Hotline: 925-900-5151

Central Coast & Central Valley

Kern County Rapid Response Network – Hotline: 661-432-2230

Monterey County Solidarity Network  – Hotline: 831-204-8082

Santa Cruz County Your Allied Rapid Response Network – Hotline: 831-239-4289

805 Immigrant Rapid Response Network (Santa Barbara, Ventura & San Luis Obispo Counties) – Hotline:  (805) 870-8855

Valley Watch Rapid Response Network (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Tulare, Kings, Kern) – 559-206-0151

​​Southern California

Long Beach Community Defense Network  – Hotline: 562-245-9575

Los Angeles Rapid Response Network – Hotline: 888-624-4752

Orange County Rapid Response Network – Hotline: 714-881-1558, Email:  casereferral@ocrapidresponse.org

(San Bernardino & Riverside Counties)​ Inland Coalition For Immigrant Justice’s Resource – Hotline: 909-361-4588

Southern California Bilingual Rapid Response Legal Resource Hotline (if detained by ICE) – Hotline: 213-833-8283

San Diego

(North County San Diego) Alianza Comunitaria – Text Alerts for Checkpoints: Envía “Alianza” al 33733 para español / Send “Alianza2” to 33733 for English

San Diego Rapid Response Network – Hotline: 619-536-0823

Additional Resources:

Videos: We Have Rights (English, Spanish, Arabic, Mandarin, Haitian Creole, Russian, Urdu)

Referrals: Deportation Defense Legal Services –

Referrals: Immigration Legal Services (DACA, TPS, Citizenship, etc.)

Know Your Rights Resources

Know Your Rights Materials

Know Your Rights Under the US Constitution – No Matter Who is President (NILC) 

A know-your-rights handout in eight languages to help families prepare for a possible interaction with ICE  

A  Know Your Rights Toolkit by ILRC includes handouts, family preparedness plans and a train-the-trainer toolkit 

Printable ILRC red cards in to distribute to community members (Spanish here)

Know-Your-Rights tutorial videos in 7 languages to help prepare individuals for encounters with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) (Spanish here) 

CLINIC Know Your Rights flyers

WeHaveRights – Creating an Emergency Plan 

Noncitizen Protest Protection: 10 Things Noncitizen Protestors Need to Know 

KYR / Community Education Preparedness Resources (NIPNLG)

Know Your Rights and Creating Safe Spaces Resource List (NILC) 

Know Your Rights Resources (NIJC)

KYR Community Education Materials:

KYR / Community Education Preparedness – Curated Resources (NIPNLG)

KYR Flyer – English (NPNA)

KYR Graphics – English (NPNA)

KYR Community Education Presentation – English 

KYR Community Education Presentation – Spanish

Train the Trainer KYR Presentation Outline (1 Hour) – English

Train the Trainer KYR Presentation Outline (1 Hour) – Spanish

ILRC Know Your Rights Train the Trainer Toolkit

TRP Immigrant Justice KYR Resources

NAKASEC Resources & Know Your Rights App

Family Preparedness

ILRC Family Preparedness Plan (English / Spanish)

Family Preparedness Plan (TIRRC)

Appleseed Manual on Protecting Assets 

Family Preparedness 2 Pager (NPNA)

Family Preparedness 2 Pager – Spanish (NPNA)

Family Preparedness Graphic Carousel (NPNA)

Deportation & Removal Defense

Building Community-Driven Legal Services to Empower, Protect, and Defend Our Communities: Field Guide for Deportation Defense

Deportation Defense Manual (Make the Road NY)

Community FAQ: What Do We Expect at the Beginning of Trump 2.0 & How You Can Get Prepared (NIPNLG)

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Working class Dems who campaign on economics beat Trumpists in elections

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me FRIDAY NIGHT (Mar 22) in TORONTO, then SUNDAY (Mar 24) with LAURA POITRAS in NYC, then Anaheim, and more!

The Democratic Party Pizzaburger Theory of Electioneering is: half the electorate wants a pizza, the other half wants a burger, so we'll give them all a pizzaburger and make them all equally dissatisfied, thus winning the election:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/16/that-boy-aint-right/#dinos-rinos-and-dunnos

But no one wants a pizzaburger. The Biden administration's approach of letting the Warren/Sanders wing pick the antitrust enforcers while keeping judicial appointments in the Manchin-Synematic universe is a catastrophe in which progressive Dem regulators (who serve one term) are thwarted by corporatist Dem judges (who serve for life):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/14/making-good-trouble/#the-peoples-champion

The Democrats – like all parties in two-party systems – are a coalition; in this case, a "progressive" liberal-left coalition with liberals serving as senior partners, steering the party and setting its policies. These corporate dems like to color themselves as "neutral" technocrats with "realistic, apolitical" policies that represent what's best for the country:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/05/not-that-naomi/#if-the-naomi-be-klein-youre-doing-just-fine

This sets up the left wing of the party as the starry-eyed, unrealistic radicals whose policies are unpopular and will lose elections. But for a decade, grassroots-funded primary challenges have made it possible to test this theory, by putting leftist politicians on the ballot in front of voters, especially in tight races with far-right Republicans (that is, exactly the kinds of races that the corporate wing of the party says we can't afford to take chances on).

The 2022 midterms included enough races to start testing these theories – and, unlike traditional midterms, these races enjoyed high voter turnout, thanks to the unpopularity of GOP positions like abortion bans, book bans and anti-trans laws. Jacobin teamed up with the Center for Working-Class Politics, Yougov and the Center for Work and Democracy at ASU and analyzed those races:

https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/11134429/CWCP-Report-2024.pdf

Their conclusion: candidates from working-class backgrounds who campaigned on economic policies like high-quality jobs, higher minimum wages, a jobs guarantee, ending offshoring and outsourcing, building infrastructure and bringing manufacturing back to the US won with a 50% share of the vote in rural and working-class districts. Dems who didn't lost with a 35% share of the vote:

https://prospect.org/politics/2024-03-18-how-actually-existing-democrats-run-for-office/

In other words, in the kinds of districts where Trumpist politicians are beating Democrats, running on "left populist" policies beats Trumpist politicians.

That's the good news: if Dems recruit leftist, working class politicians and put them up for office on policies that address the material reality of voters' lives, they can beat fascist GOP candidates.

Now for the bad news: the Democratic establishment has no interest in getting these candidates onto the ballot. Working-class candidates, by definition, lack the networks of deep-pocketed cronies who can fund their primary campaigns. Only 2.3% of Dem candidates come from blue-collar backgrounds (if you include "pink-collar" professions like nursing and teaching, the number goes up to 5.9%):

https://jacobin.com/2024/03/left-populists-working-class-voters

All of this confirms the findings of Trump's Kryoptonite, an earlier Jacobin/CWCP research project that polled working-class voters on preferences for hypothetical candidates, finding that working-class candidates with economically progressive policies handily beat out Republicans, including MAGA Republicans:

https://images.jacobinmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/08125102/TrumpsKryptonite_Final_June2023.pdf

Since the Clinton-Blair years, "progressives" have abandoned economic populism ("It's not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money" -T. Blair) and pursued a "third way" that seeks to replace half the world's of supply white, male oligarchs with diverse oligarchs from a variety of backgrounds and genders. We were told that this was done in the name of winning elections with "modern" policies that replaced old-fashioned ideas about decent pay, decent jobs, and worker power.

These policies have delivered a genocide-riven world on the brink of several kinds of existential catastrophe. They're a failure. The pizzaburger party didn't deliver safety, nor prosperity – and it also can't deliver elections.

Name your price for 18 of my DRM-free ebooks and support the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the Humble Cory Doctorow Bundle.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/20/actual-material-conditions/#bread-and-butter

[steelbluehome]

From Fear and Loathing: Closer to the Edge on Facebook

Heading to a “Hands Off!” protest this Saturday? Here’s everything you need to know — your rights, safety tips, and what to do if arrested.

On Saturday, April 5, people across the United States will gather for a coordinated day of resistance. From major cities to small towns, the “Hands Off!” protests are about drawing a hard line — against political overreach, creeping authoritarianism, and policies that strip away our rights and dignity.

Whether you’re marching in New York City, Dallas, Chicago, or a rural square in Nebraska, your presence matters. So does your preparation.

Here’s your nationwide guide to showing up — and staying safe while doing it.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS (AND WRITE THEM ON YOUR ARM)

Before you arrive: Write the local legal support hotline number on your arm in permanent marker. In many cities, National Lawyers Guild (NLG) chapters will operate hotlines and send legal observers.

Say: “I am exercising my right to remain silent. I want a lawyer.”

Ask: “Am I being detained or am I free to go?”

If detained, remain silent.

If not, walk away calmly.

Legal observers (often in green hats/vests) are there to document police behavior — not to represent you legally. You can notify them if you witness abuse or misconduct.

WHAT TO BRING

Pack like you’re staying awhile and planning for anything:

Water and snacks

Face mask, hand sanitizer, and sunscreen

Phone with passcode lock (NOT Face ID/fingerprint)

External battery pack

Cash (for food, transit, emergencies)

Printed emergency contacts

Comfortable shoes, weather-appropriate clothing

Goggles or saline drops (in case of tear gas, depending on region)

Don’t bring:

Weapons (or anything that could be construed as one)

Illegal substances

Anything you wouldn’t want seized or photographed by law enforcement

STAY SAFE, STAY CALM, STAY NON-VIOLENT

Stick together. Stay with your group. Have a plan if separated.

Avoid confrontation. Ignore counter-protesters and agitators.

Film what matters. You have the legal right to record public events, including police activity — but don’t interfere.

De-escalate when possible. Your goal is to be heard, not baited.

Watch your surroundings. Know where you are and how to exit if needed.

If arrested:

Don’t resist.

Don’t talk beyond name and birthdate.

Wait for a lawyer.

Don’t sign anything without legal counsel.

PROTECT YOUR DATA

Phones are tools — and vulnerabilities.

Turn off Face ID and fingerprint unlock. Use a passcode.

Consider airplane mode during risky moments.

Back up photos/videos or use live stream apps like Instagram or Twitch to preserve footage.

Use encrypted messaging apps like Signal.

RESOURCES BY REGION

While every city differs, these national orgs often have local chapters or partners at major protests:

National Lawyers Guild: nlg.org

ACLU: aclu.org/know-your-rights

Mutual Aid Networks: Search “[Your City] Mutual Aid”

Bail Funds Directory: bailfunds.github.io

Legal Hotlines: Often listed on local protest pages or announced by organizers day-of

TRANSPORT + ACCESSIBILITY

Plan ahead: Some roads and transit lines may close or reroute.

Carpool or take transit when possible.

If you need ADA accommodations, contact local organizers in advance or ask staff at arrival points.

THIS IS BIGGER THAN A MARCH

This isn’t just a protest. It’s a warning flare — and a promise. That we won’t stand by while our rights are stripped. That we won’t let apathy win. That we see what’s happening — and we’re not afraid to raise hell, peacefully and powerfully.

So come prepared.

Come together.

And don’t let them scare you into silence.

Stay safe. Stay loud.

[gansey-like]

Hey so this is super scary

Meta on Tuesday announced a set of changes to its content moderation practices that would effectively put an end to its longstanding fact-checking program, a policy instituted to curtail the spread of misinformation across its social media apps.

The reversal of the years-old policy is a stark sign of how the company is repositioning itself for the Trump era. Meta described the changes with the language of a mea culpa, saying that the company had strayed too far from its values over the prior decade.

“We want to undo the mission creep that has made our rules too restrictive and too prone to over-enforcement,” Joel Kaplan, Meta’s newly installed global policy chief, said in a statement.

Instead of using news organizations and other third-party groups, Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, will rely on users to add notes or corrections to posts that may contain false or misleading information.

Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, said in a video that the new protocol, which will begin in the United States in the coming months, is similar to the one used by X, called Community Notes.

“It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression,” Mr. Zuckerberg said. The company’s current fact-checking system, he added, had “reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.”

Mr. Zuckerberg conceded that there would be more “bad stuff” on the platform as a result of the decision. “The reality is that this is a trade-off,” he said. “It means that we’re going to catch less bad stuff, but we’ll also reduce the number of innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally take down."

Elon Musk has relied on Community Notes to flag misleading posts on X. Since taking over the social network, Mr. Musk, a major Trump donor, has increasingly positioned X as the platform behind the new Trump presidency.

Meta’s move is likely to please the administration of President-elect Donald J. Trump and its conservative allies, many of whom have disliked Meta’s practice of adding disclaimers or warnings to questionable or false posts. Mr. Trump has long railed against Mr. Zuckerberg, claiming the fact-checking feature treated posts by conservative users unfairly.

Since Mr. Trump won a second term in November, Meta has moved swiftly to try to repair the strained relationships he and his company have with conservatives.

Mr. Zuckerberg noted that “recent elections” felt like a “cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech.”

In late November, Mr. Zuckerberg dined with Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago, where he also met with his secretary of state pick, Marco Rubio. Meta donated $1 million to support Mr. Trump’s inauguration in December. Last week, Mr. Zuckerberg elevated Mr. Kaplan, a longtime conservative and the highest-ranking Meta executive closest to the Republican Party, to the company’s most senior policy role. And on Monday, Mr. Zuckerberg announced that Dana White, the head of the Ultimate Fighting Championship and a close ally of Mr. Trump’s, would join Meta’s board.

Meta executives recently gave a heads-up to Trump officials about the change in policy, according to a person with knowledge of the conversations who spoke on condition of anonymity. The fact-checking announcement coincided with an appearance by Mr. Kaplan on “Fox & Friends,” a favorite show of Mr. Trump. He told the hosts of the morning show popular with conservatives that there was “too much political bias” in the fact-checking program.

The change brings an end to a practice the company started eight years ago, in the weeks after Mr. Trump’s election in 2016. At the time, Facebook was under fire for the unchecked dissemination of misinformation spread across its network, including posts from foreign governments angling to sow discord among the American public.

As a result of enormous public pressure, Mr. Zuckerberg turned to outside organizations like The Associated Press, ABC News and the fact-checking site Snopes, along with other global organizations vetted by the International Fact-Checking Network, to comb over potentially false or misleading posts on Facebook and Instagram and rule whether they needed to be annotated or removed.

Among the changes, Mr. Zuckerberg said, will be to “remove restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are out of touch with mainstream discourse.” He also said that the trust and safety and content moderation teams would be moved from California, with the U.S. content review shifting to Texas. That would “help remove the concern than biased employees are overly censoring content,” he added.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Oliver Willis at Daily Kos:

Vice President JD Vance secretly met with the owners of the right-wing Fox News channel on Tuesday, right as the network has been pushing lies and propaganda about the protests against abusive immigration raids in Los Angeles. The Associated Press reports that Vance flew to Montana and met with media mogul Rupert Murdoch, his son Lachlan Murdoch (who runs Fox News and the Fox Corporation media empire day-to-day), and other Fox News executives. The meeting was not on a publicly released schedule for Vance, and his office did not give the press advance notice that the meeting would occur. The White House hasn’t acknowledged the meeting, let alone revealed what was discussed, such as whether the Trump administration is coordinating messaging and talking points, but history shows that has long been the trend.

Rupert Murdoch founded and launched Fox News in 1996 alongside Republican operative and sexual predator Roger Ailes. For the entirety of its existence Fox has attacked Democrats and the left, regularly promoting racism, homophobia, misogyny, and outright lies and misinformation. The meeting with Vance occurred while President Donald Trump has deployed military forces to Los Angeles in an attempt to silence protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The administration ratcheted up those raids after senior officials like Stephen Miller reportedly expressed outrage that mass deportation efforts are failing to find massive quantities of criminal undocumented immigrants that Trump promoted during the 2024 election.

[...] From time to time, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal has offered slight criticisms of Trump, particularly in relation to his destructive tariff policies. In response, he called the paper “rotten” and “China-oriented,” and even called for the editorial staff to be replaced. But the meeting with Vance shows that there are still close bonds at the highest levels between the two camps. Fox has shown time and time again that it is willing to go to bat for Trump, and Trump rewards the network with his attention and praise—a testimony to how intertwined they both are.

VP JD Vance meets with Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, the owners of Fox “News” and the WSJ, in Montana in secret, even as the channel continues to spread gullible lies about the LA protests to its viewers.

[fans4wga]

Writers Guild West Official: Era of Hollywood Mergers Hastened the Strike

August 10, 2023

Laura Blum-Smith, the Writers Guild of America West’s director of research and public policy, considers the strike a result of a tsunami of Hollywood mergers that has handed studios and streamers the power to its exploit workers.

“Harmful mergers and attempts to monopolize markets are a recurring theme in the history of media and entertainment, and they are a key part of what led 11,500 writers to go on strike more than 100 days ago against their employers,” Blum-Smith said on Thursday at an event with the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice over new merger guidelines unveiled in July.

She pointed to Disney, Amazon and Netflix as companies that “gained power through anticompetitive consolidation and vertical integration,” allowing them to impose “more and more precarious working conditions, increasingly short term employment and lower pay for writers and other workers across the industry.” But she sees revisions to the merger guidelines that address labor concerns a key part of the solution to prevent further mergers in the entertainment industry moving forward.

“The FTC and DOJ’s new draft merger guidelines are part of a deeply necessary effort to revive antitrust enforcement,” she added. “Compared with earlier guidelines, the new ones are much more skeptical of the idea that mergers are the natural way for companies to grow. And they focus more on the various ways mergers hurt competition, including how mergers impact workers.”

In July, the FTC and DOJ jointly released a new road map for regulatory review of mergers. They require companies to consider the impact of proposed transactions on labor, signaling that the agencies intend to review whether mergers could negatively impact wages and working conditions. FTC commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, who was joined by agency chair Lina Khan, said in a statement about the guidelines that “a merger that may substantially lessen competition for workers will not be immunized by a prediction that predicted savings from a merger will be passed on to consumers.” Historically, transactions have been considered mostly through the lens of benefits to consumers.

The guidelines lack the force of law but influence the way in which judges consider lawsuits to block proposed transactions. They also tell the public how competition enforcers will assess the potential for a merger’s harm to competition.

Antitrust enforcers have steadily been taking notice of negative impacts to labor as a result of industry consolidation. “We’ve heard concerns that a handful of companies may now again be controlling the bulk of the entertainment supply chain from content creation to distribution,” Khan said last year during a listening forum over revisions to the guidelines, in a nod to anticompetitive conduct by studios that led to the Paramount Decrees. “We’ve heard concerns that this type of consolidation and integration can enable firms to exert market power over creators and workers alike.”

Adam Conover, writer and WGA board member, said in that April 2022 forum that his show Adam Ruins Everything was killed by AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner in 2018 when TruTV’s parent company forced the network to cut costs. He stressed that a handful of companies “now control the production and distribution of almost all entertainment content available to the American public,” allowing them to “more easily hold down our wages and set onerous terms for our employment.” It’s not just writers that are impacted by an overly consolidated Hollywood either, he explained. After Disney acquired 21st Century Fox in 2019, he said that the studios pushed the industry into ending backend participation and trapping actors in exclusive contracts preventing them from pursuing other work.

Blum-Smith said that aggressive competition enforcement is necessary as “Wall Street continues to push for more consolidation among our employers despite the industry’s history of mergers that failed to deliver any of the consumer benefits they’ve claimed that left writers and audiences worse off with less diversity of content and fewer choices.”

“More mergers will leave writers with even fewer places to sell their work and tell their stories and the remaining companies will have even more power to lower pay and worsen working conditions,” she warned. “Strong enforcement against mergers is essential to protect workers in media and workers across the country and these guidelines are an important step in the right direction.”

[mariacallous]

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has canceled plans to introduce new rules designed to limit the ability of US data brokers to sell sensitive information about Americans, including financial data, credit history, and Social Security numbers.

The CFPB proposed the new rule in early December under former director Rohit Chopra, who said the changes were necessary to combat commercial surveillance practices that “threaten our personal safety and undermine America’s national security.”

The agency quietly withdrew the proposal on Tuesday morning, publishing a notice in the Federal Register declaring the rule no longer “necessary or appropriate.”

The CFPB received more than 600 comments from the public this year concerning the proposal, titled Protecting Americans from Harmful Data Broker Practices. The rule was crafted to ensure that data brokers obtain Americans’ consent before selling or sharing sensitive personal information, including financial data such as income. US credit agencies are already required to abide by such regulations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, one of the nation’s oldest privacy laws.

In its notice, the CFPB’s acting director, Russell Vought, wrote that he was withdrawing the proposal “in light of updates to Bureau policies,” and that it did not align with the agency’s “current interpretation of the FCRA,” which he added the CFPB is “in the process of revising.”

The CFPB did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Data brokers operate within a multibillion-dollar industry built on the collection and sale of detailed personal information—often without individuals’ knowledge or consent. These companies create extensive profiles on nearly every American, including highly sensitive data such as precise location history, political affiliations, and religious beliefs. This information is frequently resold for purposes ranging from marketing to law enforcement surveillance.

Many people are unaware that data brokers even exist, let alone that their personal information is being traded. In January, the Texas Attorney General’s Office, led by attorney general Ken Paxton, accused Arity—a data broker owned by Allstate—of unlawfully collecting, using, and selling driving data from over 45 million Americans to insurance companies without their consent.

The harms from data brokers can be severe–even violent. The Safety Net Project, part of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, warns that people-search websites, which compile information from data brokers, can serve as tools for abusers to track down information about their victims.

Last year, Gravy Analytics—which processes billions of location signals daily—suffered a data breach that may have exposed the movements of millions of individuals, including politicians and military personnel.

“Russell Vought is undoing years of painstaking, bipartisan work in order to prop up data brokers’ predatory, and profitable, surveillance of Americans,” says Sean Vitka, executive director of Demand Progress, a nonprofit that supported the rule. Added Vitka: “By withdrawing the CFPB’s data broker rulemaking, the Trump administration is ensuring that Americans will continue to be bombarded by scam texts, calls and emails, and that military members and their families can be targeted by spies and blackmailers.”

Vought, who also serves as director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, received a letter on Monday from the Financial Technology Association (FTA) calling for the rule to be withdrawn, claiming the rules exceed the agency’s statutory mandate and would be “harmful to financial institutions’ efforts to detect and prevent fraud.” The FTA is a US-based trade organization that represents the interests of banks, lenders, payment platforms, and their executives.

Privacy advocates have long pressed regulators to use the Fair Credit Reporting Act to crack down on the data broker industry. Common Defense, a veteran-led nonprofit, urged the CFPB to take action in November, blaming data brokers for recklessly exposing sensitive information about US service members that placed them at “substantial risk” of being blackmailed, scammed, or targeted by hostile foreign actors.

A 2023 study cited by the group—funded by the US Military Academy at West Point—concluded that the current data broker ecosystem is a threat to US national security, permitting the sale of sensitive personal data that can be used not only to identify service members and “other politically sensitive targets,” but also to offer details about medical conditions, financial problems, and political and religious beliefs. “Foreign and malign actors with access to these datasets could uncover information about high-level targets, such as military service members, that could be used for coercion, reputational damage, and blackmail,” the authors report.

Common Defense political director Naveed Shah, an Iraq War veteran, condemned the move to spike the proposed changes, accusing Vought of putting the profits of data brokers before the safety of millions of service members. "For the sake of military families and our national security, the administration must reverse course and ensure that these critical privacy protections are enacted," Shah says.

Investigations by WIRED have shown that data brokers have collected and made cheaply available information that can be used to reliably track the locations of American military and intelligence personnel overseas, including in and around sensitive installations where US nuclear weapons are reportedly stored.

WIRED reported in February that US data brokers were using Google's ad-tech tools to sell access to information about devices linked to military service members and national security decisionmakers, as well as federal contractors that manufacture and export classified defense-related technologies. Experts say it proves trivial for foreign adversaries to de-anonymize the data.

"Data brokers inflict severe harm on individuals by degrading privacy, threatening national security, enabling scams and fraud, endangering public officials and survivors of domestic violence, and putting immigrant populations at risk,” says Caroline Kraczon, law fellow at the Electronic Privacy Information Center focused on consumer protection.

“The CFPB had a critical opportunity to address these harms by clarifying that data brokers must follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act,” adds Kraczon. “This withdrawal is deeply disappointing and another attack in the administration’s war against consumers on behalf of corporate interests."

Last month, more than 1,400 CFPB employees had their positions at the agency terminated, leaving the agency with a staff of around 300 people. Elon Musk, whose so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has spearheaded the White House's efforts to radically restructure the federal government by slashing the size of its workforce, last November called on President Donald Trump to “delete” the CFPB, whose job includes shielding Americans from predatory lending practices.