#adversarial tech

[kenyatta]

Text-to-image generators work by being trained on large datasets that include millions or billions of images. Some generators, like those offered by Adobe or Getty, are only trained with images the generator’s maker owns or has a licence to use.  But other generators have been trained by indiscriminately scraping online images, many of which may be under copyright. This has led to a slew of copyright infringement cases where artists have accused big tech companies of stealing and profiting from their work. This is also where the idea of “poison” comes in. Researchers who want to empower individual artists have recently created a tool named “Nightshade” to fight back against unauthorised image scraping. The tool works by subtly altering an image’s pixels in a way that wreaks havoc to computer vision but leaves the image unaltered to a human’s eyes. If an organisation then scrapes one of these images to train a future AI model, its data pool becomes “poisoned”. This can result in the algorithm mistakenly learning to classify an image as something a human would visually know to be untrue. As a result, the generator can start returning unpredictable and unintended results.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How to design a tech regulation

TONIGHT (June 20) I'm live onstage in LOS ANGELES for a recording of the GO FACT YOURSELF podcast. TOMORROW (June 21) I'm doing an ONLINE READING for the LOCUS AWARDS at 16hPT. On SATURDAY (June 22) I'll be in OAKLAND, CA for a panel (13hPT) and a keynote (18hPT) at the LOCUS AWARDS.

It's not your imagination: tech really is underregulated. There are plenty of avoidable harms that tech visits upon the world, and while some of these harms are mere negligence, others are self-serving, creating shareholder value and widespread public destruction.

Making good tech policy is hard, but not because "tech moves too fast for regulation to keep up with," nor because "lawmakers are clueless about tech." There are plenty of fast-moving areas that lawmakers manage to stay abreast of (think of the rapid, global adoption of masking and social distancing rules in mid-2020). Likewise we generally manage to make good policy in areas that require highly specific technical knowledge (that's why it's noteworthy and awful when, say, people sicken from badly treated tapwater, even though water safety, toxicology and microbiology are highly technical areas outside the background of most elected officials).

That doesn't mean that technical rigor is irrelevant to making good policy. Well-run "expert agencies" include skilled practitioners on their payrolls – think here of large technical staff at the FTC, or the UK Competition and Markets Authority's best-in-the-world Digital Markets Unit:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/13/kitbashed/#app-store-tax

The job of government experts isn't just to research the correct answers. Even more important is experts' role in evaluating conflicting claims from interested parties. When administrative agencies make new rules, they have to collect public comments and counter-comments. The best agencies also hold hearings, and the very best go on "listening tours" where they invite the broad public to weigh in (the FTC has done an awful lot of these during Lina Khan's tenure, to its benefit, and it shows):

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2022/04/ftc-justice-department-listening-forum-firsthand-effects-mergers-acquisitions-health-care

But when an industry dwindles to a handful of companies, the resulting cartel finds it easy to converge on a single talking point and to maintain strict message discipline. This means that the evidentiary record is starved for disconfirming evidence that would give the agencies contrasting perspectives and context for making good policy.

Tech industry shills have a favorite tactic: whenever there's any proposal that would erode the industry's profits, self-serving experts shout that the rule is technically impossible and deride the proposer as "clueless."

This tactic works so well because the proposers sometimes are clueless. Take Europe's on-again/off-again "chat control" proposal to mandate spyware on every digital device that will screen everything you upload for child sex abuse material (CSAM, better known as "child pornography"). This proposal is profoundly dangerous, as it will weaken end-to-end encryption, the key to all secure and private digital communication:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/18/encryption-is-deeply-threatening-to-power-meredith-whittaker-of-messaging-app-signal

It's also an impossible-to-administer mess that incorrectly assumes that killing working encryption in the two mobile app stores run by the mobile duopoly will actually prevent bad actors from accessing private tools:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/09/04/oh-for-fucks-sake-not-this-fucking-bullshit-again-cryptography-edition/

When technologists correctly point out the lack of rigor and catastrophic spillover effects from this kind of crackpot proposal, lawmakers stick their fingers in their ears and shout "NERD HARDER!"

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/01/12/nerd-harder-fbi-director-reiterates-faith-based-belief-in-working-crypto-that-he-can-break/

But this is only half the story. The other half is what happens when tech industry shills want to kill good policy proposals, which is the exact same thing that advocates say about bad ones. When lawmakers demand that tech companies respect our privacy rights – for example, by splitting social media or search off from commercial surveillance, the same people shout that this, too, is technologically impossible.

That's a lie, though. Facebook started out as the anti-surveillance alternative to Myspace. We know it's possible to operate Facebook without surveillance, because Facebook used to operate without surveillance:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3247362

Likewise, Brin and Page's original Pagerank paper, which described Google's architecture, insisted that search was incompatible with surveillance advertising, and Google established itself as a non-spying search tool:

http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf

Even weirder is what happens when there's a proposal to limit a tech company's power to invoke the government's powers to shut down competitors. Take Ethan Zuckerman's lawsuit to strip Facebook of the legal power to sue people who automate their browsers to uncheck the millions of boxes that Facebook requires you to click by hand in order to unfollow everyone:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/02/kaiju-v-kaiju/#cda-230-c-2-b

Facebook's apologists have lost their minds over this, insisting that no one can possibly understand the potential harms of taking away Facebook's legal right to decide how your browser works. They take the position that only Facebook can understand when it's safe and proportional to use Facebook in ways the company didn't explicitly design for, and that they should be able to ask the government to fine or even imprison people who fail to defer to Facebook's decisions about how its users configure their computers.

This is an incredibly convenient position, since it arrogates to Facebook the right to order the rest of us to use our computers in the ways that are most beneficial to its shareholders. But Facebook's apologists insist that they are not motivated by parochial concerns over the value of their stock portfolios; rather, they have objective, technical concerns, that no one except them is qualified to understand or comment on.

There's a great name for this: "scalesplaining." As in "well, actually the platforms are doing an amazing job, but you can't possibly understand that because you don't work for them." It's weird enough when scalesplaining is used to condemn sensible regulation of the platforms; it's even weirder when it's weaponized to defend a system of regulatory protection for the platforms against would-be competitors.

Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no libertarians in government-protected monopolies. Somehow, scalesplaining can be used to condemn governments as incapable of making any tech regulations and to insist that regulations that protect tech monopolies are just perfect and shouldn't ever be weakened. Truly, it's impossible to get someone to understand something when the value of their employee stock options depends on them not understanding it.

None of this is to say that every tech regulation is a good one. Governments often propose bad tech regulations (like chat control), or ones that are technologically impossible (like Article 17 of the EU's 2019 Digital Single Markets Directive, which requires tech companies to detect and block copyright infringements in their users' uploads).

But the fact that scalesplainers use the same argument to criticize both good and bad regulations makes the waters very muddy indeed. Policymakers are rightfully suspicious when they hear "that's not technically possible" because they hear that both for technically impossible proposals and for proposals that scalesplainers just don't like.

After decades of regulations aimed at making platforms behave better, we're finally moving into a new era, where we just make the platforms less important. That is, rather than simply ordering Facebook to block harassment and other bad conduct by its users, laws like the EU's Digital Markets Act will order Facebook and other VLOPs (Very Large Online Platforms, my favorite EU-ism ever) to operate gateways so that users can move to rival services and still communicate with the people who stay behind.

Think of this like number portability, but for digital platforms. Just as you can switch phone companies and keep your number and hear from all the people you spoke to on your old plan, the DMA will make it possible for you to change online services but still exchange messages and data with all the people you're already in touch with.

I love this idea, because it finally grapples with the question we should have been asking all along: why do people stay on platforms where they face harassment and bullying? The answer is simple: because the people – customers, family members, communities – we connect with on the platform are so important to us that we'll tolerate almost anything to avoid losing contact with them:

https://locusmag.com/2023/01/commentary-cory-doctorow-social-quitting/

Platforms deliberately rig the game so that we take each other hostage, locking each other into their badly moderated cesspits by using the love we have for one another as a weapon against us. Interoperability – making platforms connect to each other – shatters those locks and frees the hostages:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/facebooks-secret-war-switching-costs

But there's another reason to love interoperability (making moderation less important) over rules that require platforms to stamp out bad behavior (making moderation better). Interop rules are much easier to administer than content moderation rules, and when it comes to regulation, administratability is everything.

The DMA isn't the EU's only new rule. They've also passed the Digital Services Act, which is a decidedly mixed bag. Among its provisions are a suite of rules requiring companies to monitor their users for harmful behavior and to intervene to block it. Whether or not you think platforms should do this, there's a much more important question: how can we enforce this rule?

Enforcing a rule requiring platforms to prevent harassment is very "fact intensive." First, we have to agree on a definition of "harassment." Then we have to figure out whether something one user did to another satisfies that definition. Finally, we have to determine whether the platform took reasonable steps to detect and prevent the harassment.

Each step of this is a huge lift, especially that last one, since to a first approximation, everyone who understands a given VLOP's server infrastructure is a partisan, scalesplaining engineer on the VLOP's payroll. By the time we find out whether the company broke the rule, years will have gone by, and millions more users will be in line to get justice for themselves.

So allowing users to leave is a much more practical step than making it so that they've got no reason to want to leave. Figuring out whether a platform will continue to forward your messages to and from the people you left there is a much simpler technical matter than agreeing on what harassment is, whether something is harassment by that definition, and whether the company was negligent in permitting harassment.

But as much as I like the DMA's interop rule, I think it is badly incomplete. Given that the tech industry is so concentrated, it's going to be very hard for us to define standard interop interfaces that don't end up advantaging the tech companies. Standards bodies are extremely easy for big industry players to capture:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/30/weak-institutions/

If tech giants refuse to offer access to their gateways to certain rivals because they seem "suspicious," it will be hard to tell whether the companies are just engaged in self-serving smears against a credible rival, or legitimately trying to protect their users from a predator trying to plug into their infrastructure. These fact-intensive questions are the enemy of speedy, responsive, effective policy administration.

But there's more than one way to attain interoperability. Interop doesn't have to come from mandates, interfaces designed and overseen by government agencies. There's a whole other form of interop that's far nimbler than mandates: adversarial interoperability:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability

"Adversarial interoperability" is a catch-all term for all the guerrilla warfare tactics deployed in service to unilaterally changing a technology: reverse engineering, bots, scraping and so on. These tactics have a long and honorable history, but they have been slowly choked out of existence with a thicket of IP rights, like the IP rights that allow Facebook to shut down browser automation tools, which Ethan Zuckerman is suing to nullify:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

Adversarial interop is very flexible. No matter what technological moves a company makes to interfere with interop, there's always a countermove the guerrilla fighter can make – tweak the scraper, decompile the new binary, change the bot's behavior. That's why tech companies use IP rights and courts, not firewall rules, to block adversarial interoperators.

At the same time, adversarial interop is unreliable. The solution that works today can break tomorrow if the company changes its back-end, and it will stay broken until the adversarial interoperator can respond.

But when companies are faced with the prospect of extended asymmetrical war against adversarial interop in the technological trenches, they often surrender. If companies can't sue adversarial interoperators out of existence, they often sue for peace instead. That's because high-tech guerrilla warfare presents unquantifiable risks and resource demands, and, as the scalesplainers never tire of telling us, this can create real operational problems for tech giants.

In other words, if Facebook can't shut down Ethan Zuckerman's browser automation tool in the courts, and if they're sincerely worried that a browser automation tool will uncheck its user interface buttons so quickly that it crashes the server, all it has to do is offer an official "unsubscribe all" button and no one will use Zuckerman's browser automation tool.

We don't have to choose between adversarial interop and interop mandates. The two are better together than they are apart. If companies building and operating DMA-compliant, mandatory gateways know that a failure to make them useful to rivals seeking to help users escape their authority is getting mired in endless hand-to-hand combat with trench-fighting adversarial interoperators, they'll have good reason to cooperate.

And if lawmakers charged with administering the DMA notice that companies are engaging in adversarial interop rather than using the official, reliable gateway they're overseeing, that's a good indicator that the official gateways aren't suitable.

It would be very on-brand for the EU to create the DMA and tell tech companies how they must operate, and for the USA to simply withdraw the state's protection from the Big Tech companies and let smaller companies try their luck at hacking new features into the big companies' servers without the government getting involved.

Indeed, we're seeing some of that today. Oregon just passed the first ever Right to Repair law banning "parts pairing" – basically a way of using IP law to make it illegal to reverse-engineer a device so you can fix it.

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/03/28/oregon-governor-kotek-signs-strong-tech-right-to-repair-bill/

Taken together, the two approaches – mandates and reverse engineering – are stronger than either on their own. Mandates are sturdy and reliable, but slow-moving. Adversarial interop is flexible and nimble, but unreliable. Put 'em together and you get a two-part epoxy, strong and flexible.

Governments can regulate well, with well-funded expert agencies and smart, adminstratable remedies. It's for that reason that the administrative state is under such sustained attack from the GOP and right-wing Dems. The illegitimate Supreme Court is on the verge of gutting expert agencies' power:

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/05/us-supreme-court-may-soon-discard-or-modify-chevron-deference

It's never been more important to craft regulations that go beyond mere good intentions and take account of adminsitratability. The easier we can make our rules to enforce, the less our beleaguered agencies will need to do to protect us from corporate predators.

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/2024/06/20/scalesplaining/#administratability

Image: Noah Wulf (modified) https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thunderbirds_at_Attention_Next_to_Thunderbird_1_-_Aviation_Nation_2019.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[bacchuschucklefuck]

i like that the power scaling in the worse manga AU goes a classmate → a biotech genius with four extra machine arms → a self-engineered "perfect life form" → a circus gymnast → a tour guide → a LARPer

[b3aches]

Here's a source that isn't the New York Post:

And maybe some fashion ideas for you too:

It’s time.

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

national security threat is just tech sector speak for "tiktok is eating our lunch money"

no. it isn't. tiktok is obviously a national security threat. and i don't just mean because they collect our data (though that's part of it) but also because it's essentially an adversary controlled propaganda machine.

[socialistexan]

Some things I think people are overlooking in the tiktok ban bill, because it's not just a tiktok ban:

It gives the US government the ability to ban *any* app, website, or company they believe to be "controlled" by an "adversarial power" which can change whenever they want

It allows the President and the Administrative branch almost unilateral power to designate *any* app, website, or company to be under the control of an "adversarial power" (and just think about how that can be used un the hands of, say, Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis)

They have to offer little to no evidence for this. For example, tiktok - a Singaporean-headquartered and ran company, partially owned by US interests, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, and whose userdata is stored Austin, TX - is apparently controlled by the Chinese government

It also gives the Federal Government the ability to investigate and shut down any provider who gives access to these banned websites or services, including VPN. They will have unilateral power to dismantle VPNs through outrageous fines what will essentially force them to not operate in the US

A lot of the Congressional Representatives who supported this bill have large donors and/or stock in US Tech companies like Meta, Google, or Palantier who would benefit from the downfall of tiktok or the ability to purchase it and monopolize the market

Those same tech companies which sell our data constantly anyway, including to "adversarial powers"

This is so much more than just a tiktok ban.

[river-taxbird]

There is no such thing as AI.

How to help the non technical and less online people in your life navigate the latest techbro grift.

I've seen other people say stuff to this effect but it's worth reiterating. Today in class, my professor was talking about a news article where a celebrity's likeness was used in an ai image without their permission. Then she mentioned a guest lecture about how AI is going to help finance professionals. Then I pointed out, those two things aren't really related.

The term AI is being used to obfuscate details about multiple semi-related technologies.

Traditionally in sci-fi, AI means artificial general intelligence like Data from star trek, or the terminator. This, I shouldn't need to say, doesn't exist. Techbros use the term AI to trick investors into funding their projects. It's largely a grift.

What is the term AI being used to obfuscate?

If you want to help the less online and less tech literate people in your life navigate the hype around AI, the best way to do it is to encourage them to change their language around AI topics.

By calling these technologies what they really are, and encouraging the people around us to know the real names, we can help lift the veil, kill the hype, and keep people safe from scams. Here are some starting points, which I am just pulling from Wikipedia. I'd highly encourage you to do your own research.

Machine learning (ML): is an umbrella term for solving problems for which development of algorithms by human programmers would be cost-prohibitive, and instead the problems are solved by helping machines "discover" their "own" algorithms, without needing to be explicitly told what to do by any human-developed algorithms. (This is the basis of most technologically people call AI)

Language model: (LM or LLM) is a probabilistic model of a natural language that can generate probabilities of a series of words, based on text corpora in one or multiple languages it was trained on. (This would be your ChatGPT.)

Generative adversarial network (GAN): is a class of machine learning framework and a prominent framework for approaching generative AI. In a GAN, two neural networks contest with each other in the form of a zero-sum game, where one agent's gain is another agent's loss. (This is the source of some AI images and deepfakes.)

Diffusion Models: Models that generate the probability distribution of a given dataset. In image generation, a neural network is trained to denoise images with added gaussian noise by learning to remove the noise. After the training is complete, it can then be used for image generation by starting with a random noise image and denoise that. (This is the more common technology behind AI images, including Dall-E and Stable Diffusion. I added this one to the post after as it was brought to my attention it is now more common than GANs.)

I know these terms are more technical, but they are also more accurate, and they can easily be explained in a way non-technical people can understand. The grifters are using language to give this technology its power, so we can use language to take it's power away and let people see it for what it really is.

[fandomnerd9602]

Scarlet Trials

Wanda Maximoff x Spider-Man!Reader

You had it all. The loving witch turned wife. Two beautiful, amazing twin boys. A nice little home in Queens. It was the perfect life.

You and Wanda were just enjoying a nice little date day flying through the New York skyline. The boys were with their Uncle Wong, as you called him.

Wanda couldn’t help but giggle, this life she had with you was absolutely perfect, the best kind of domestic bliss. You found a little nook hidden by the buildings and set up a little web hammock for you and your witch lover. She curled into your side, relaxing.

“Best life” she whispered into your ear before topping it off with a kiss.

“Only life” you whispered back.

And then he appeared. Miguel O’Hara the 2099 version of Spider-Man. He burst through a portal in front of you and Wanda, claws drawn.

You and Wanda quickly evaded him, his claws slashing through the web hammock.

“Detka!” Wanda screamed. Miguel went right for her. He wrapped her in an electrified webbing.

“Wanda Maximoff” he growled, “you are under arrest for crimes against the Web of Life!”

“Back off Cyberpunk!” you screamed as you socked the muscular Spider-person right in the jaw. He stumbled only a little before immediately trying to slash at you.

Wanda broke free and fired off a couple bolts of her own. Boom! Miguel was only knocked back a few feet.

“Who are you? What do you want?!” Wanda growled.

“My name is Miguel O’Hara.” he answered back, “your mere presence here is a threat to the multiverse”

“Back off!” You shout, “your little multiverse hypothesis has no proof!”

“Proof?! You want proof?” O'Hara retorts, "I've seen universe fall to pieces with my own eyes because of the magic that little witch exudes every time she sends out a little blast!"

You and Wanda look to one another, resolute, standing together as one unified team. This was your home, your world, your family. No one was gonna ripped that from either of your hands.

"We won't let you take our home from us, Miguel," you replied, steeling yourself for the battle ahead. Wanda's hands began to shimmer with crimson energy as she prepared to unleash her powers, standing resolutely by your side.

You and Wanda charged at Miguel. He came at the two of you claws drawn and vampiric teeth bared.

The ensuing clash was a whirlwind of webs, magic, and futuristic tech. Miguel's agility and advanced gadgets made him a challenging adversary, but your teamwork with Wanda was unparalleled. As you dodged Miguel's attacks, you coordinated with Wanda, using her telekinetic abilities to create barriers and disarm the cybernetic Spider-Man. The fight raged on, but eventually it reached a stale mate, with buildings around you bearing the scars of the intense confrontation.

In a decisive moment, Wanda conjured an energy blast that momentarily disoriented Miguel. Seizing the opportunity, you ensnared him in a web cocoon, immobilizing him. "This isn't over," Miguel warned, his voice strained. "The multiverse is at stake." Wanda approached, her eyes glowing with determination. "We understand the stakes, but we'll find another way to protect it without destroying our home."

"There's always another way, O'Hara" you stated as you took your favorite witch's hand. He sliced thru the cocoon and pressed a few buttons on his wristwatch. A brilliant orange portal appeared behind him.

"Fine. But don't say I didn't warn you" Miguel intoned before jumping thru the portal, leaving your world for good.

You and Wanda swung home, Wong had long put the twins to sleep. You and your loving witch could only gaze at your sleeping boys with a sense of awe.

"Do you really think we weren't bound to meet?" Wanda asked you as she leaned her head against your shoulder.

"With how perfect we are for each other" you smiled, "and the amazing life that I have with you, I think we were made for one another. In every universe"

You gave her a kiss on the forehead. Your favorite witch couldn't help but giggle.

Tags: @lifespectator @konstantin609 @aloneodi @family-house-of-m @holiday-house-of-m @multi-fandom-enjoyer @moonpheus @iiconicsfan25 @iamnicodemus @deafeningsharkslimeempath @russianredassassin @revanshand @supercorpdanbeau @scarletquake-n7

[izunias-meme-hole]

"A extremely flawed flawed rich guy is spending his days duking it out with a dude who's practically a symbol and easily capable of blending in with the blue collar masses"

Now did I just describe Batman & Jokers dynamic or Lex Luthor & Superman's dynamic?

Hear me out. In one corner we have a mortal man with a bank account that's beyond anything anyones ever known along with weaponry and tech that's built for literal warfare. Then on the other corner there's just a guy that's more on the ground that's meant to embody some type of idea and impacts the environment around them with just their existence. I know the circumstances are different, but their dynamics are almost like inverses of one another.

Both Bruce and Lex are fundamentally extremely flawed rich guys that live in cynical worlds, though Bruce has more of a reason to be an asshole than Lex does. Lex's origin has been revamped a fair amount of times, but his reasoning for being evil basically goes down to his belief that life is a zero sum game where you have to fend for yourself, and the fact that he's always had to kill and steal in order to gain and preserve his status cements this mindset. Bruce on the other hand, despite growing up with more privileges and riches doesn't adhere to this philosophy, and a huge factor of it comes down to the fact that he was at least raised right and that he was directly impacted by a byproduct of corruption. Though his issue is an entirely different one, the struggle to either break down before cynicism or become so engulfed by his mission to change Gotham that he becomes something much darker and malevolent. Either way both are obviously extremely flawed mortal men, and these flaws are highlighted every time they confront their main adversaries.

Clark and Joker are as different as they come, but the one common thing they have is that they're both colorful personifications of two of concepts that impact human behavior who can also easily blend in as normal people. Superman is a a good natured man from the stars who was raised on a farm, works as a journalist, spends his days trying to encourage the best of everyone, and ultimately delivers hope with his powers. Joker in complete and utter contrast is a frail and nihilistic nobody who arose from a vat of acid and spends his days trying to deliver fear, cynicism, insanity, and chaos into the world under the guise of a colorful comedian and artist. Yet despite these massive differences, narratively they both function as personifications of hope and nihilism respectively that brings out the best and worst of others. This includes bringing out the best and worst out of their respective richer adversaries

TL;DR: Clark is evidence of how good Lex could've been while Joker is evidence of the utterly carelessness that Bruce has more of a right to embrace, but actively chooses not to.

[starlightvld]

Bait & Switch, pt. 10 - The END! (almost)

Part 1 // Part 2 // Part 3 // Part 4 // Part 5 // Part 6 // Part 7 // Part 8 // Part 9 // Part 10 // Epilogue

Based on "I wasn't in that tunnel."

Call of Duty, soapghost // CW: Hurt/Comfort, MWIII spoilers

---

Watching Johnny launch himself at Makarov is like staring into the headlights of an oncoming car. The blue of Johnny's eyes through the helmet visor burn with rage, and though the emotion isn't meant for Ghost, he can't help the way his body instinctively tries to dodge the attack.

It doesn't matter. He's too slow. The impact sends them all sprawling across the rooftop, and Johnny scrambles on top of Makarov to smack something out of his hand.

It's not until the small, bright green thing skitters across the roof and cracks against the brick wall of the roof access, bright green seeping out to pool around it, that it finally clicks.

Johnny tackled Makarov to save Ghost.

Makarov screams in frustration... and then grunts in pain as Johnny's fist connects with his face. At the same moment, a bullet punches Ghost's plating into his ribs, and he finally takes his eyes off Johnny long enough to aim his weapon.

The remaining soldier seems to have some back up now — probably people waiting in the wings in case Johnny proved too much for the small team. Johnny is wailing on Makarov, punch after punch accompanied by a growling scream gone tinny from the helmet speakers, but Ghost's heart jumps into his throat as he realizes Johnny is also still in the firing line. Ghost's return fire is keeping their adversaries cautious, and they won't dare take too many shots because of Makarov being in the way. 

But there are already at least two dents in Johnny's helmet. Who knows how many more bullets have hit his armor, leaving vicious bruises at a minimum and possibly causing internal bleeding from the impacts. As high tech as the armor is, Johnny can't survive a full-out onslaught of gunfire.

Another bullet hits Ghost's plating, this time right over his newly-healed bullet would. Ghost growls, dodges behind cover, and sets his sights on the remaining soldiers.

"Johnny! Get to cover!"

The rage dims, and a bit of lucidity seeps back into Johnny's eyes. He doesn't respond, but he rolls both himself and Makarov until they're behind the brick wall of the stairwell entry. Makarov is struggling in earnest now, and Ghost's heart rate ratchets up a few more desperate thumps per minute. He leans out of cover just as one of Makarov's team does and shoots the soldier right between the eyes. He ducks back under the spray of shattering brick where his face used to be. He switches to the broad channel to hear Laswell using her stern voice in the comms.

"Ghost. Soap. This is Watcher-1. Report in now. That's an order. Over."

"Watcher-1, this is Ghost. Makarov is on the roof with me and Johnny. We're under fire. Requestin' immediate backup."

Another soldier pops out from behind an AC unit as Ghost leans around the corner, and Ghost fires. The man drops.

Two down... Three? Or maybe four to go.

"You're on the roof with Soap?" Laswell asks, something incredulous and yet resigned in her tone.

"Affirmative." Ghost glances over, his heart slowing a bit when he sees Johnny has regained his position over Makarov, though he's only getting in a punch every now and then as Makarov fights back. Ghost can't make out much of Makarov's features from all the blood, though. "Better get here fast if you want Makarov alive. Johnny's beatin' his face in."

"And you're not stopping him?" 

"Under fire, remember? Can't get to him."

Which is technically true. If Ghost ran across the open area between them, he'd likely end up with at least one extra hole in his body. The reality, though, is that he wouldn't even if he could. Not unless Makarov somehow got the upper hand and Johnny needed back up.

"Ghost, this is Price. We're on our way in the helo. Sitrep."

Sure enough, the sound of helo blades cuts through the gunfire. Ghost reloads and dips out of cover — only to dodge back at another spray of brick. 

"At least four hostiles are spread across the rooftop. Ductwork and mechanical units givin' 'em lots of cover."

"Roger," Price says, "Safest angle for us to come at you?"

"South. Johnny and I are fully covered from that direction and that's where most of Makarov's people are."

Ghost glances over at Johnny—

—who has a pistol pressed against Makarov's forehead. A pistol that looks a lot like the one that Ghost finds is missing from his thigh holster. Must've snagged it when he knocked them all down.

Ghost switches over to their private channel. "Sitrep, Sergeant."

"Got him," Johnny pants through the comms, his voice too panicked for Ghost's liking. "I got him right where we want him. He moves a millimeter, though, I'm gonna blow his head off."

"Sounds good, Johnny. Take some deep breaths for me, eh? Breathe in..."

The guns around them have gone quiet in direct proportion to the beat of the helo blades, but Ghost focuses on the short, panicky breaths in his ear. Johnny swallows and his breathing changes to one of a measured inhale interrupted by small gasps.

"Now breathe out. Slowly."

The sound changes again to something like a hiss of air through teeth. It's not perfect, but at least Johnny is with it enough to listen to Ghost. He guides him through a couple more breaths even as the helo pops up on the south side to rain gunfire down on the remaining hostiles. An RPG whistles through the air. The helo dodges and aims at the location the grenade came from, destroying the ducts and sending metal and brick flying. 

The broken whisper in Ghost's ear brings all his focus back to Johnny in an instant.

"I can't... Ghost... I can't let him live."

"He talkin' to you?"

"Aye. It's... he..." A harsh growl erupts from Johnny's throat and ebbs into a half whine. Ghost is ready to launch himself across the divide, bullets be damned, when Johnny continues, "I cannae live my life knowing he's out there somewhere. Tha' he might get out again. Tha' you or I or any of the people I care about might be in danger because he's still walking the Earth."

A villa in a rainforest rises up in Ghost's mind, blood spraying from the bullet placed between the eyes of the man who had terrorized him for months followed by fire that consumed everything in its wake. He meets Johnny's eyes across the yawning gap of bullet-riddled roof between them.

"Looks like he's movin' to me," Ghost says in a matter-of-fact tone. "Better put him down."

Johnny's eyes flare as he stares at Ghost before turning his gaze to Makarov. There's a moment of silence except for the helo blades cutting through the air, though Ghost can see Makarov's blood-stained lips moving—

A single gunshot shatters the relative silence.

Makarov's body jerks and then stills as blood begins to pool around his head. Johnny scrambles to his feet, still hovering over the body with his gun pointed at Makarov.

Three more shots ring out, but Makarov doesn't move for those. Ghost hums.

"Good work, Sergeant. Another terrorist down. Switch to the main channel, and we'll wrap this up, alright?"

He watches just long enough to see Johnny's hand move toward his comms and switches over himself in time to hear Price swearing up a storm.

"—amn it, Ghost. If you don't give me a sitrep in two seconds, I'm gonna come down there and kill you myself."

"Ghost 'ere. We're solid." Ghost looks over to meet Johnny's gaze. "Target KIA."

There's a silence on the other end until Laswell's voice comes online.

"Repeat that, Bravo 7-1."

Ghost doesn't look away from Johnny as he says, "Target down. Tried to escape. Was the only way to keep him from gettin' away again."

Laswell doesn't respond. She's probably pissed off, but so is Ghost. She's the one who asked Johnny to put himself in danger by being here at all.

Though it's true that Makarov probably wouldn't have shown himself if Johnny hadn't come.

"Ghost, Soap, you're clear," Price says. "Vaqueros are on the way up to bag and tag. We'll RV by the warehouse."

Ghost is moving before Price finishes, dashing across the space to Johnny, who is now staring down at the mangled, bloody face of his tormentor who he very nearly beat to death. Slowly, Ghost reaches out and presses a hand to Johnny's chest.

"You with me, Johnny?"

"Always."

It sounds like an automatic reply, but when Johnny lifts his head, eyes overflowing with tears, there's no distance or haze clouding his gaze. Ghost reaches up to mute his comms. Johnny does the same before reaching under his chin to unlatch his helmet and pull it off. It falls from his hands, the clatter loud without the helo or gunfire to mute the noise. 

"It's over," Johnny gasps, his voice little more than an incredulous whisper. "He's gone."

"You did good, Johnny."

"Why're ye here? Ye werenae supposed to be on overwatch."

Ghost shrugs. "The Vaquero assigned to overwatch was eager to be part of the action on the ground. I was doin' him a favor." A broken laugh bursts from Johnny's heaving chest, and Ghost slides his gloved hand up to cup Johnny's tear-stained cheek. "Told you I wouldn't let owt happen to you. Not now. Not ever again."

Johnny's face goes soft, and Ghost can't resist any longer. He lifts his mask, leans in, and kisses Johnny the way he's been aching to since that day in the hospital... and all those days before when he thought Johnny was gone from his world.

The distant sound of the stairwell door opening pulls them apart, but only by a few inches. They confirm that their company is, in fact, the Vaqueros before turning back to each other. Johnny is grinning at him, his expression bordering on giddy.

"So all I've gotta do to get ye to kiss me is kill a terrorist in cold blood? Good to know."

"No terrorist murder necessary. Just keep bein' 'ere, Johnny. Just stay with me. 'S'all I need."

"Oh, but..."

Johnny trails off, his brows furrowing so deeply Ghost is compelled to smooth a thumb over the puckered skin. "But what?"

"Ye just never seemed to want" — Johnny looks around them and lowers his voice — "more, ye ken?"

"You mean when I was recoverin' from gettin' shot and you from years of torture?"

Johnny blinks, his mouth opening and closing a few times before he finally stutters out a soft, "Well, when ye put it tha' way, I suppose ye've got a point... but ye should know..."

Johnny grunts when they have to move away from Makarov's body so the Vaqueros can bag it. His gaze is fixed on Makarov's bloody face until the bag zips up over it.

When he doesn't continue his train of thought, Ghost puts a hand on his waist and squeezes to get his attention. Johnny flinches and hisses through his teeth.

"Shit, you broken?"

"Nae. Just bruised to hell and back. I stopped counting after ten hits to the armor."

Ghost blows out a long breath, his spiking heart rate calming with the confirmation Johnny isn't bleeding out, though he still needs medical attention stat. 

"Christ. You're a head case, Johnny."

"Aye, but I'm yer head case," he says, flashing that sudden, broad grin that Ghost hasn't seen in more than three years. "And yer mine," he adds as he curls discreet fingers through Ghost's thigh strap.

Ghost doesn't argue as he directs Johnny to the stairs. They'll have time later to discuss the finer points of their mutual insanity.

They have time. And Ghost will never take a single second of it for granted again.

---

Part 1 // Part 2 // Part 3 // Part 4 // Part 5 // Part 6 // Part 7 // Part 8 // Part 9 // Part 10 // Epilogue

[rubyvroom]

Ed Zitron lays it all out here.

You are the victim of a con — one so pernicious that you’ve likely tuned it out despite the fact it’s part of almost every part of your life. It hurts everybody you know in different ways, and it hurts people more based on their socioeconomic status. It pokes and prods and twists millions of little parts of your life, and it’s everywhere, so you have to ignore it, because complaining about it feels futile, like complaining about the weather.  It isn’t. You’re battered by the Rot Economy, and a tech industry that has become so obsessed with growth that you, the paying customer, are a nuisance to be mitigated far more than a participant in an exchange of value. A death cult has taken over the markets, using software as a mechanism to extract value at scale in the pursuit of growth at the cost of user happiness.  These people want everything from you — to control every moment you spend working with them so that you may provide them with more ways to make money, even if doing so doesn’t involve you getting anything else in return. Meta, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and a majority of tech platforms are at war with the user, and, in the absence of any kind of consistent standards or effective regulations, the entire tech ecosystem has followed suit. A kind of Coalition of the Willing of the worst players in hyper-growth tech capitalism.  Things are being made linearly worse in the pursuit of growth in every aspect of our digital lives, and it’s because everything must grow, at all costs, at all times, unrelentingly, even if it makes the technology we use every day consistently harmful.

What this writer terms the Rot Economy is a larger system that creates the enshittification we know and loathe. It's the constant irrational pursuit of growth. Rot Economy is a great term for a definition that has been slowly coming into focus from one horizon to the other. Not just tech. This essay focuses on Spotify and Meta and speaker software and websites but you could easily extrapolate from here to absolutely everything.

I’m not writing this to complain, but because I believe [sic] that we are in the midst of the largest-scale ecological disaster of our time, because almost every single interaction with technology, which is required to live in modern society, has become actively adversarial to the user. These issues hit everything we do, all the time, a constant onslaught of interference, and I believe it’s so much bigger than just social media and algorithms — though they’re a big part of it, of course.  In plain terms, everybody is being fucked with constantly in tiny little ways by most apps and services, and I believe that billions of people being fucked with at once in all of these ways has profound psychological and social consequences that we’re not meaningfully discussing. 

Not to mention being actively fucked with in every way, in every aspect of our lives, by every company trying to suck the last drops of profit from us every minute of the day. How does that constant frustration contribute to the ways we treat each other as family, friends, neighbors, in politics, in everyday interactions?

Anyway, go and read.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Kickstarting a book to end enshittification, because Amazon will not carry it

My next book is The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation: it’s a Big Tech disassembly manual that explains how to disenshittify the web and bring back the old good internet. The hardcover comes from Verso on Sept 5, but the audiobook comes from me �� because Amazon refuses to sell my audio:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/doctorow/the-internet-con-how-to-seize-the-means-of-computation

Amazon owns Audible, the monopoly audiobook platform that controls >90% of the audio market. They require mandatory DRM for every book sold, locking those books forever to Amazon’s monopoly platform. If you break up with Amazon, you have to throw away your entire audiobook library.

That’s a hell of a lot of leverage to hand to any company, let alone a rapacious monopoly that ran a program targeting small publishers called “Project Gazelle,” where execs were ordered to attack indie publishers “the way a cheetah would pursue a sickly gazelle”:

https://www.businessinsider.com/sadistic-amazon-treated-book-sellers-the-way-a-cheetah-would-pursue-a-sickly-gazelle-2013-10

[Image ID: Journalist and novelist Doctorow (Red Team Blues) details a plan for how to break up Big Tech in this impassioned and perceptive manifesto….Doctorow’s sense of urgency is contagious -Publishers Weekly]

I won’t sell my work with DRM, because DRM is key to the enshittification of the internet. Enshittification is why the old, good internet died and became “five giant websites filled with screenshots of the other four” (h/t Tom Eastman). When a tech company can lock in its users and suppliers, it can drain value from both sides, using DRM and other lock-in gimmicks to keep their business even as they grow ever more miserable on the platform.

Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys

[Image ID: A brilliant barn burner of a book. Cory is one of the sharpest tech critics, and he shows with fierce clarity how our computational future could be otherwise -Kate Crawford, author of The Atlas of AI”]

The Internet Con isn’t just an analysis of where enshittification comes from: it’s a detailed, shovel-ready policy prescription for halting enshittification, throwing it into reverse and bringing back the old, good internet.

How do we do that? With interoperability: the ability to plug new technology into those crapulent, decaying platform. Interop lets you choose which parts of the service you want and block the parts you don’t (think of how an adblocker lets you take the take-it-or-leave “offer” from a website and reply with “How about nah?”):

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/adblocking-how-about-nah

But interop isn’t just about making platforms less terrible — it’s an explosive charge that demolishes walled gardens. With interop, you can leave a social media service, but keep talking to the people who stay. With interop, you can leave your mobile platform, but bring your apps and media with you to a rival’s service. With interop, you can break up with Amazon, and still keep your audiobooks.

So, if interop is so great, why isn’t it everywhere?

Well, it used to be. Interop is how Microsoft became the dominant operating system:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/adversarial-interoperability-reviving-elegant-weapon-more-civilized-age-slay

[Image ID: Nobody gets the internet-both the nuts and bolts that make it hum and the laws that shaped it into the mess it is-quite like Cory, and no one’s better qualified to deliver us a user manual for fixing it. That’s The Internet Con: a rousing, imaginative, and accessible treatise for correcting our curdled online world. If you care about the internet, get ready to dedicate yourself to making interoperability a reality. -Brian Merchant, author of Blood in the Machine]

It’s how Apple saved itself from Microsoft’s vicious campaign to destroy it:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/adversarial-interoperability-reviving-elegant-weapon-more-civilized-age-slay

Every tech giant used interop to grow, and then every tech giant promptly turned around and attacked interoperators. Every pirate wants to be an admiral. When Big Tech did it, that was progress; when you do it back to Big Tech, that’s piracy. The tech giants used their monopoly power to make interop without permission illegal, creating a kind of “felony contempt of business model” (h/t Jay Freeman).

The Internet Con describes how this came to pass, but, more importantly, it tells us how to fix it. It lays out how we can combine different kinds of interop requirements (like the EU’s Digital Markets Act and Massachusetts’s Right to Repair law) with protections for reverse-engineering and other guerrilla tactics to create a system that is strong without being brittle, hard to cheat on and easy to enforce.

What’s more, this book explains how to get these policies: what existing legislative, regulatory and judicial powers can be invoked to make them a reality. Because we are living through the Great Enshittification, and crises erupt every ten seconds, and when those crises occur, the “good ideas lying around” can move from the fringes to the center in an eyeblink:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/12/only-a-crisis/#lets-gooooo

[Image ID: Thoughtfully written and patiently presented, The Internet Con explains how the promise of a free and open internet was lost to predatory business practices and the rush to commodify every aspect of our lives. An essential read for anyone that wants to understand how we lost control of our digital spaces and infrastructure to Silicon Valley’s tech giants, and how we can start fighting to get it back. -Tim Maughan, author of INFINITE DETAIL]

After all, we’ve known Big Tech was rotten for years, but we had no idea what to do about it. Every time a Big Tech colossus did something ghastly to millions or billions of people, we tried to fix the tech company. There’s no fixing the tech companies. They need to burn. The way to make users safe from Big Tech predators isn’t to make those predators behave better — it’s to evacuate those users:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/18/urban-wildlife-interface/#combustible-walled-gardens

I’ve been campaigning for human rights in the digital world for more than 20 years; I’ve been EFF’s European Director, representing the public interest at the EU, the UN, Westminster, Ottawa and DC. This is the subject I’ve devoted my life to, and I live my principles. I won’t let my books be sold with DRM, which means that Audible won’t carry my audiobooks. My agent tells me that this decision has cost me enough money to pay off my mortgage and put my kid through college. That’s a price I’m willing to pay if it means that my books aren’t enshittification bait.

But not selling on Audible has another cost, one that’s more important to me: a lot of readers prefer audiobooks and 9 out of 10 of those readers start and end their searches on Audible. When they don’t find an author there, they assume no audiobook exists, period. It got so bad I put up an audiobook on Amazon — me, reading an essay, explaining how Audible rips off writers and readers. It’s called “Why None of My Audiobooks Are For Sale on Audible”:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/25/can-you-hear-me-now/#acx-ripoff

[Image ID: Doctorow has been thinking longer and smarter than anyone else I know about how we create and exchange value in a digital age. -Douglas Rushkoff, author of Present Shock]

To get my audiobooks into readers’ ears, I pre-sell them on Kickstarter. This has been wildly successful, both financially and as a means of getting other prominent authors to break up with Amazon and use crowdfunding to fill the gap. Writers like Brandon Sanderson are doing heroic work, smashing Amazon’s monopoly:

https://www.brandonsanderson.com/guest-editorial-cory-doctorow-is-a-bestselling-author-but-audible-wont-carry-his-audiobooks/

And to be frank, I love audiobooks, too. I swim every day as physio for a chronic pain condition, and I listen to 2–3 books/month on my underwater MP3 player, disappearing into an imaginary world as I scull back and forth in my public pool. I’m able to get those audiobooks on my MP3 player thanks to Libro.fm, a DRM-free store that supports indie booksellers all over the world:

https://blog.libro.fm/a-qa-with-mark-pearson-libro-fm-ceo-and-co-founder/

Producing my own audiobooks has been a dream. Working with Skyboat Media, I’ve gotten narrators like @wilwheaton​, Amber Benson, @neil-gaiman​ and Stefan Rudnicki for my work:

https://craphound.com/shop/

[Image ID: “This book is the instruction manual Big Tech doesn’t want you to read. It deconstructs their crummy products, undemocratic business models, rigged legal regimes, and lies. Crack this book and help build something better. -Astra Taylor, author of Democracy May Not Exist, but We’ll Miss It When Its Gone”]

But for this title, I decided that I would read it myself. After all, I’ve been podcasting since 2006, reading my own work aloud every week or so, even as I traveled the world and gave thousands of speeches about the subject of this book. I was excited (and a little trepedatious) at the prospect, but how could I pass up a chance to work with director Gabrielle de Cuir, who has directed everyone from Anne Hathaway to LeVar Burton to Eric Idle?

Reader, I fucking nailed it. I went back to those daily recordings fully prepared to hate them, but they were good — even great (especially after my engineer John Taylor Williams mastered them). Listen for yourself!

https://archive.org/details/cory_doctorow_internet_con_chapter_01

I hope you’ll consider backing this Kickstarter. If you’ve ever read my free, open access, CC-licensed blog posts and novels, or listened to my podcasts, or come to one of my talks and wished there was a way to say thank you, this is it. These crowdfunders make my DRM-free publishing program viable, even as audiobooks grow more central to a writer’s income and even as a single company takes over nearly the entire audiobook market.

Backers can choose from the DRM-free audiobook, DRM-free ebook (EPUB and MOBI) and a hardcover — including a signed, personalized option, fulfilled through the great LA indie bookstore Book Soup:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/doctorow/the-internet-con-how-to-seize-the-means-of-computation

What’s more, these ebooks and audiobooks are unlike any you’ll get anywhere else because they are sold without any terms of service or license agreements. As has been the case since time immemorial, when you buy these books, they’re yours, and you are allowed to do anything with them that copyright law permits — give them away, lend them to friends, or simply read them with any technology you choose.

As with my previous Kickstarters, backers can get their audiobooks delivered with an app (from libro.fm) or as a folder of MP3s. That helps people who struggle with “sideloading,” a process that Apple and Google have made progressively harder, even as they force audiobook and ebook sellers to hand over a 30% app tax on every dollar they make:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/doctorow/red-team-blues-another-audiobook-that-amazon-wont-sell/posts/3788112

Enshittification is rotting every layer of the tech stack: mobile, payments, hosting, social, delivery, playback. Every tech company is pulling the rug out from under us, using the chokepoints they built between audiences and speakers, artists and fans, to pick all of our pockets.

The Internet Con isn’t just a lament for the internet we lost — it’s a plan to get it back. I hope you’ll get a copy and share it with the people you love, even as the tech platforms choke off your communities to pad their quarterly numbers.

Next weekend (Aug 4-6), I'll be in Austin for Armadillocon, a science fiction convention, where I'm the Guest of Honor:

https://armadillocon.org/d45/

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

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/31/seize-the-means-of-computation/#the-internet-con

[Image ID: My forthcoming book 'The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation' in various editions: Verso hardcover, audiobook displayed on a phone, and ebook displayed on an e-ink reader.]

[darkcrownninja]

Predator Honor

You can love them, they can be your favorite characters. As they are an incredibly interesting species with tons of deep lore and a rich history but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking their “honor” actually means anything moral and is not purely practical.

They are just like Mandalorians, a bunch of bullies that prey on (mostly) technologically and physically underdeveloped species compared to them. Except the Yatjua are big fish in a small pond, compared to Mandalorians they don’t have as many rivals that can humble them in their universe.

Their so called “honor” is purely practical and born of logic not any actual moral standing. If anything it is a mix between logic and pride.

“They don’t kill pregnant women and unarmed foes” They don’t kill women for the same reasons lobster fishermen don’t kill female lobsters with bellies full of eggs, it is simple -you kill the pregnant female and you’ll get a dramatic decrease in lobsters which leaves nothing to hunt-. It is purely pragmatic. Same with unarmed prey you are just unnecessarily decreasing the numbers of your game and killing off prey who could have mated and produced more prey. The elderly are simply a matter of pride, after all what honor or praise could a hunter gain from killing an elderly lion/elephant that could barely defend itself? None.

“Humans actually provide a challenge, that is why they hunt them.” No, humans don’t actually provide a challenge. Each time a predator comes to earth they end up killing dozens of people just to find 1 worthy adversary, out of the millions of humans on earth only like a 0.1% actually pose a threat. They just come here slaughter a species that has done them no harm. The Yatjua have systematically come through the centuries to slaughter humans just to prove to themselves they can.

“Humans kill humans all the time” Yeah and it is WRONG, I don’t get why this is an argument honestly but people bring it up as if it is a defense of the yatjuas behavior.

“The hunt is instinct to them” No it is a purely cultural thing, the Yatjua are a fully sentient species capable of complex thought, they are not animals driven by instinct.

“They don’t blow themselves up because they lost, they blow themselves so humans don’t get their tech.” Yeah, because they know that if humans got their hands on their tech it would even the playing ground and then the hunt is not so fun anymore, is it?

“Yatjuas have stripped themselves of their tech and fought humans on even ground” No, them taking away their tech to fight a human is in no way “evening the playing field”, that is like saying a 6ft wrestler dropping his gun to fight a 15 year old who does track as part of his school curriculum is a fair fight. Could the 15 year old win? Maybe, if they play it really smart, but that fight is in no way fair. There being a possibility of victory doesn’t make it a fair fight when the odds are 90% to 10% (and that is me being generous).

In conclusion, you can love them but that doesn’t take away the fact that at the end of the day they are bullies. Regardless of the veneer of honor they present it is mostly pragmatism or pride behind these rules not actual morality.

And they are an alien species, they have no reason to abide by earth’s morals, the fact they don’t makes them interesting. They are complex and layered, which makes them incredibly interesting.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jonathan V. Last at The Bulwark:

1. Strategery

We’ll get to the schadenfreude in a minute, but let’s start with two big-picture thoughts:

This could all go away tomorrow. It is possible that by the time you read this, Musk and Trump will have brokered a peace. Then they say, “Ha-ha, you shitlibs fell for it. We were trolling you for the lulz. That was all kayfabe.” There are a lot of stakeholders who desperately need Trump and Musk to end hostilities. Their incentives are strong enough to expend resources making it worth both parties’ whiles to sign a ceasefire.1

If it doesn’t go away tomorrow, the Trump-Musk rift creates peril for both Trump’s authoritarian project and the tech oligarchy.

Let’s walk through the strategic implications for all of the players.

Donald Trump. There is a scenario in which he emerges from this fight stronger than he is now. If Trump is able to break the richest man in the world, he will have demonstrated a new level of power. There are reasons to think Trump will subjugate Musk. For starters, Trump may be addled and doddering, but Musk is a man going through a multi-year, drug-fueled nervous breakdown. He is not a canny adversary. He isn’t even all that smart about power. Musk’s singular genius is for leveraging his public-market chip stack in a ZIRP environment—not an applicable skillset for this battlespace. Also: Trump has tremendous leverage over Musk. Musk made his primary source of wealth—Tesla stock—hostage to Trump by destroying the company as a consumer product brand. If Trump unpersons Musk, the available consumer market for Tesla goes from terrible to zero. Trump also has all of the levers of the federal government at his disposal to hurt Tesla: He can rig tax credits against the company; cancel government contracts; reward competitors. This chart might as well be the battleplan of Operation Barbarossa. [...] There’s more. Musk’s second largest source of wealth is the private market valuation of SpaceX. SpaceX is heavily dependent on state-level international customers. Musk has been using his relationship with Trump to strong-arm governments into contracting with SpaceX. That dynamic could now run in the opposite direction, with Trump threatening countries who do business with SpaceX. Even more dangerous: SpaceX should not be a private company. Under multiple administrations, the U.S. government essentially privatized the aerospace industry, which runs counter to our national interest. A sovereign government cannot allow a private company to own the top of a gravity well.2

[...]

Mind you, Trump has skin in the game, too. His project is supported by the tech oligarchy. He is (theoretically) term limited. He knows he cannot trust anyone outside his own family. If he is unable to subjugate Musk, and Musk succeeds in creating an independent power base around which MAGA can rally, then Trump’s entire project could unravel. And quickly.

[...]

Elon Musk. He has made the mistake of believing that he can target Trump the same way he targeted Joe Biden and Kamala Harris: With utter impunity. He’s a little like John Daggett, thinking that his money gives him control—but not realizing that money only gives him control in a liberal system. In the illiberal context, his money is much less useful than he understands. Musk stands to lose everything in this fight, which is why the rational version of him would sue for peace and eat whatever shit-sandwich was required. But Musk isn’t rational. He’s a middle-aged man with an alleged drug problem and a personal life that has spiraled into depravity.

[...]

JD Vance. No one has more to lose than the VC Hillbilly. Even in the worst-case scenario, Musk is worth a few billi. If Vance falls off the tiger he spends the rest of his days hustling to keep a roof over his head. Vance’s patron has long been Peter Thiel, who made him into the darling of the techno-feudalism set. But today Vance lives in Donald Trump’s house. In order to remain viable after 2028, he has to please not just his president, but Donald Trump Jr., too. Vance will do everything possible to avoid taking sides here, but that won’t be possible in the long run. Which is why Vance is incentivized—more than anyone else—to broker a peace.

The Trump v. Musk feud has escalated all of a sudden, and this has a Celebrity Deathmatch-like feel to it. Who is gonna emerge on top? Or will it be a truce?

Stay tuned.

See Also:

The Guardian: Impeachment, Epstein and bitter acrimony: Trump and Musk joust in astonishing social media duel

HuffPost: Donald Trump Says He’s ‘Very Disappointed’ In Elon Musk As Rift Grows

[wh40kartwork]

Skirmisher Wark

by Jonas Špokas

He believes that Kroot need to evolve with their technology as much as with their bodies, and so he goes against the taboos of the kroot sticking with primitive gear and leans more towards scavenging tech from friends and adversaries alike.

[lifblogs]

Lif's Tech Lives Collection

In honor of Star Wars Day I decided to put my Tech Lives fics all in one place for y'all! Some of the fics feature him alive even if he's not what the fic is about, but he's there, so I'll be sharing those too. Bolded fics are personal favorites of mine. If I had to recommend three one-shots from this list I highly, highly recommend "We Do This Together," "May They Be Remembered," and "Reunion." My rated E fics are well... Hemlock's his own trigger warning--let's just say that.

Rated G

May I Have This Dance? Word count: 1473 Pabu has finished rebuilding after the attack from the Empire, and Clone Force 99 joins in on the celebrations.

Water Gun Fights and Dad Voices Word Count: 1152 On a hot afternoon on Pabu Omega and Hunter decide to have a water gun fight, though their method of doing so is a bit alarming.

Not Just the Braid Word Count: 1068 Omega has a ridiculous request that Crosshair doesn’t know how to fulfill, and does not want to fulfill: braiding Omega’s hair.

Mayday Word Count: 6646 Crosshair falls incredibly ill during a storm, and his family does what they can to help him. Only, there's not much they can do.

After Word Count: 1909 Tech has gone missing on Pabu, and his family tries to find him, helping him away from a dark path.

Alive Word Count: 2025 After Eriadu, Echo leaves messages on Tech's comm channel, feeling like he's talking to his brother again.

Rated T

Better Late Than Dead Word Count: 1268 Tech arrives on Pabu for the first time since he was rescued from Dr. Hemlock, and put his mind back together (mostly). A special someone is there waiting for him.

We Do This Together Word Count: 2599 Tantiss is embroiled in battle. Crosshair has been singled out by CX-2. During the fight, CX-2’s helmet comes free, and Crosshair is met with an all-too familiar face.

CT-9902 Word Count: 1188 Tech wakes up after his Fall.

Imperial Property Word Count: 1453 Tech wakes up from one of the many surgeries he needs after Plan 99, and he is sorely reminded that his body is no longer his own.

Better Than Old Times Word Count: 2055 Crosshair relapsed into the sleeper agent Hemlock made him, and he stunned Omega and attempted to kill Hunter, and Tech. After the incident is over and things have calmed down, Crosshair feels guilty, and tries to make sense of who he is. His family tries to help him.

Waking Up Word Count: 2448 Tech waking up on the Marauder pre-Plan 99 vs. Tech waking up on Pabu post-Plan 99 after being rescued by his family.

And They Would Not Let Him Fall Word Count: 1972 Tech goes on a mission after he's saved from Hemlock by his family. None of them expected heights would be involved.

Home Word Count: 3108 The Bad Batch storm Mt. Tantiss to rescue Omega, the other clones, and Tech. Only problem: Tech doesn't want to go home.

Rated M

A Cup of Caf Word Count: 2337 Tech, post-Tantiss, has yet another nightmare of the horrors he went through after Plan 99. Phee helps him through the mental and physical health concerns that ensue.

Little Secret Word Count: 1215 Hemlock is enjoying turning Tech into CX-2.

May They Be Remembered Word Count: 5936 Emerie is interrogated by Hemlock as he believes she aided in Omega trying to escape Tantiss once again. This leads to Omega being caught and dragged to sub-level containment. She is given a cruel ultimatum. All the while, battle rages outside.

Brother, Hold Me Up Word Count: 60,855 On their quest to find Mount Tantiss, the Bad Batch run into an unexpected adversary who is hunting Omega. During an altercation it is revealed to Hunter that he is none other than Tech, their dead brother. Primary mission: bring him home. Once they do there are excruciating challenges they did not expect. Is Tech just meant to suffer? Can they fix his body and bring his mind home too?

A Man With Scars Word Count: 4023 Hunter is helping Tech recover after getting him back from Hemlock. With the trauma becoming too much in the moment, Tech accidentally reverts back to CX-2 and almost kills Hunter.

No Rest for the Fallen Word Count: 1565 Tech survived Plan 99, but he can't take much more of being Hemlock's plaything.

To Stop Falling Word Count: 4035 CX-2 has been held captive on Pabu after the destruction of Tantiss and death of Hemlock. His mind is a mess as he and Tech fight for control, and his chronic pain from his injuries has been growing. Omega realizes he's hurting, and his family tries to take care of him.

Tell Me Your Name Word Count: 2883 Tech is now stable enough after his fall to withstand interrogation.

Reunion Word Count: 6571 Tech attempts to escape Tantiss with Crosshair.

Rated E

Science Experiment Word Count: 5646 Tech decides he wants to have sex with Phee for the first time. Yet it seems his trauma and what his body has been through wants to get in the way.

Power Word Count: 1959 Hemlock is aggravated by the slow pace of his projects, and he masturbates to thoughts of CX-2 to try and relieve some of his feelings.

First and Last Word Count: 2551 What happens after the first scene of chapter 5 of Brother, Hold Me Up. Hemlock hungers for his creation, CX-2, and CX-2 must earn his pain meds.

Tech's Alive Word Count: 3632 Tech is facing his first mission since Tantiss with trepidation. A word said to him in comfort is enough to bring repressed and forgotten memories to the surface, and he feels like he's being torn apart inside.

Just Another Experiment Word Count: 1786 CX-2 undergoes more experiments to study and aid his nerve functions after his Fall. OR Hemlock has fun with sounding and I want to punch him in the face and hide at the same time.

Welcome to the Re-education Program Word Count: 2234 Hemlock deems Tech has healed enough from his surgeries and can begin the Re-education Program.

In Body and Mind Word Count: 3474 During a training session with CX-2, Hemlock finds himself drawn to him... especially to his lips.

Reasons to Live Word Count: 4636 Struggling with sleep due to his nightmares, Tech decides to take Batcher for a walk, and they run into Phee.