#also please actually read theory

[eclipsedsuns]

real-life activism is so much more enjoyable than internet activism btw. if you’ve only ever engaged in political/social activism online, i really recommend trying to find a real organization and getting involved in-person if you can

[genderkoolaid]

Lmao your lil freaks in the notes of both of my asks calling me "transphobic" or "*insert sexuality/gender identity here*-exclusionary" gives me life. Do you not realize you're literally harming trans people with that rhetoric? I wasn't going to insert my own identity into this but I'm a demi-girl and people like you make us (and gnc people) look fucking ridiculous. Read the lesbian masterdoc <3

oh this just keeps getting better and better

[hayaku14]

kuroba toichi you need to stay dead or im going to fucking kill you myself

[theygender]

Does anyone have any good book recommendations that talk about transmisogyny in a way that would be entry level to like. A 50 year old cis lesbian

[throwing-roses-into-the-abyss]

the way in which this team of apparently highly trained police officers goes about researching their cases is so frustrating. like what do you mean you're only checking whether kao used his phone after he left art's place after you found out he left at all. why did you just. assume. kao died there at the studio. and why has it taken you literal days of thinking of 'hey maybe we should find out if kao has anyone he trusts he can stay with while hiding'. all of these things should be at the top of the list. full phone records, lists of family and friends. you've got a missing person who may or may not be dead and you're just kind of winging the case as you go???

[time-is-restored]

73 yards thoughts

now that ive had a night to sleep on it, and read everyone's thoughts, im rewatching the episode to see if i can come to a more definite opinion about the episode (though that's perhaps against the spirit of the thing, lol!)

so a few moments that stood out for me that i don't think have already been talked about a lot:

when mrs twist shows up on the mountain, and ruby is giving her messages to pass along to the woman, she wants to say sorry. when mrs twist asks 'what for?' ruby looks genuinely thrown + upset, and eventually says '...i don't know.' since the woman/curse that haunts ruby is functionally an externalisation of ruby's deep seated sense that there is something fundamentally wrong with her, i think this interaction was super poignant. ruby 'knows' that she's done something that she needs to apologise for in the same way that she 'knows' there is something wrong with her that will make people react with fear + anger. there's no proof, no clear flaw or mistake that she can point to, because that's the point. the woman isn't saying anything specific -- there's nothing to say. noticing her (noticing a part of ruby that has a perception filter on it -- that is hard to see until you get close) just means that you see in ruby what ruby sees in herself. she is afraid that people will 'discover' whatever is wrong with her, and she'll lose them forever.

relevant to this is the fact that ruby didn't actually break the circle. if reading the messages is what summoned the woman in universe, then sure, she has culpability for that. but if it was breaking the circle, she had to live with the consequences of someone else's actions, and feeling guilt for something she didn't do. while im less confident with this reading, you could argue this is an allegory for her being given away. ultimately, that decision had nothing to do with her. she was literally a baby lmao. the idea that there's something wrong with her bc of her mother's decision is illogical -- doesn't follow reality, just like magic. she's spending her life trying to make up for a mistake she hasn't made (and, honestly, probably wasn't made. we don't know anything about her birth mother -- its more than likely that she wasn't fit to be a parent to ruby, no matter how human or supernatural the reasons for that were. but the facts of the situation don't matter here, in this liminal space. guilt and fear and shame bleed through the gaps. ruby could arguably be 'the spiteful one' the pub laugh about. she thinks she needs to be punished for something, and so the woman punishes her.)

following along this line, we know that ruby genuinely doesn't know what might have caused the woman to appear. she suggests trespassing, or breaking the circle, and gets the idea that reading the notes might have been wrong from the pub, but she never finds out for sure. unit doesn't know, or at least doesn't have the chance to tell her. the lack of closure ties in really well -- ruby has to carry a trauma that, even as she comes to terms with it, she can never truly explain or understand. even the partial amnesia at the end of the episode can be read as a sort of 'the body remembers what the mind forgets'. some part of her knows something terrible has happened, something that scarred her and left her alone for an immense amount of time (even if that time, in a literal sense, was undone), but she won't be able to put words to it. it seems that self acceptance - literally opening her arms to this *thing* that has haunted her her whole life,

now for some more rambly thoughts/things im still confused about

i genuinely think if not for the single shot of the episode reversing and old ruby now standing with her arms out on the cliff, i would have no problems with the themes of this episode. it was a powerful representation of rejection and fear that genuinely freaked me out (ruby running after her stone-faced mother while crying BROKE me), and i think it was a great character study of ruby. like others have said -- how many people would have stuck it out for that long? how many people would have never resented/blamed the doctor (or anyone, really) for leaving? and how many of THEM would've come to find a sense of companionship with their spectre?. ...however.

i can not wrap my head around the shot where time reverses and old ruby is looking out from the pov of the woman. it completely breaks my brain. i know at a certain point i should just accept that the woman can do whatever the story needs her to do, but there was nothing about time travel up to that point. it was all about physical and psychological boundaries. more than that, there was no indication that ruby was trying to make up for what had gone wrong. she didn't try and fix the circle, she didn't try and communicate with the woman at all beyond her first failed apology. on its own, i like this -- ruby becomes resentful of the woman quite quickly, which tracks as an expression of her poor self esteem. why would she try and get in the good graces of someone she rejects + dislikes? and again, i LIKE that she eventually treats her as a companion. all ruby has is herself, and she can never leave herself. getting to a point where she doesn't want the woman to go away, where she doesn't feel lonely while alone -- it makes sense that that is what heals the riff. i can write all that out in a way that makes sense to me. ruby makes a mistake (or witnesses a mistake) that makes the doctor disappear. she rejects herself, and in this liminal space, the part that she rejects manifests into reality. it haunts her for the rest of her life, even as she begins to wield what she thinks it says about her (that she's unloveable) to her advantage. when she accepts it, and integrates it back into herself, she is able to speak clearly to herself -- what she is thinking makes it across to young!ruby. when ruby thinks about the situation without the influence of self hate, she realises that the problem was the doctor's actions, not her own. she gets the message across, the doctor doesn't disappear, and the cycle never starts. the loop closes.

but. she wasn't one with the woman the whole time! if she was, the doctor would have never stepped on the circle -- the loop couldn't start, and so it wouldn't need to be closed. like, i know that we do a lot of paradoxes in this show and sometimes things are just gonna be Weird. but to me it's like if, in turn left, donna died in an unrelated car crash, then ended up back in time anyway. so why, if ruby has apparently accepted the woman by the time she visits the tardis for the last time, does the show bother with taking us back to the hospital and seeing old!ruby flatline? why doesn't the old woman come to her there, in that moment, so old!ruby is reaching across time but not space? if i squint, i could make an argument for the death. ruby's understanding of herself dies so a new, more accepting one can be born -- and obviously the timeline would fade away in the moment the loop is closed. but that's not what happens. old!ruby chooses hope and accepts herself, THEN goes back to the hospital, dies, then travels back to the past through time AND space (somehow, sure, i'll just accept the woman can do that), then communicates the message, then fades away. what changed between the visit to the tardis and her death? what do those few minutes possibly add other than the 'ive never been alone' line, which could've easily been written into the talk on the cliff? hell, she could've passed away right there on the cliff, if that needed to happen! but no matter how i twist it i can't understand why the old woman looked the same as it did before old!ruby merged with her, behaved + moved the same, and physically manifested when none of the criteria for its appearance had yet been met. im almost certainly overthinking it -- i can map everything else from this episode onto a psychological exploration of ruby and her fear. maybe the episode is saying that the woman was always there (at least to ruby), and old!ruby's self acceptance is what let the message get through??? but fuck i hate that she looks the same!!!! aghghhhghg! what changed! what changed! it looks like nothing changeddddd!!!!! <- deranged. they merged, there should be a sign of that beyond her hands being mirrored with ruby's.

tldr. if i could change anything about the ending of the episode, i'd take it in one of two ways. either have ruby merge with the woman while on the cliff and have ruby say something like 'now, what were you (or i) trying to tell me?' before cutting to the new timeline, or have the woman post merge look like old (or young!) ruby. she couldn't be seen because she was unknowable and (bc of ruby's schema) unloveable, so ruby conjured a generic older woman (possibly drawing from mother issues -- had to be someone at minimum old enough to be her bio mum). if she now looked like something specific, wouldn't that show old!ruby knew that what she feared was all bc she rejected herself? young!ruby could even have a line to go along with 'she looked like she was looking for someone', maybe 'i wanted to talk to her' -- just something small indicating that old!ruby's acceptance of herself was passed down in some small way, even if it certainly hasn't cured ruby of anything.

now for other theme/focus mutterings. i could spin something here about the fact that the doctor says the fairy circle 'is' charms and spells and hopes and dreams. ruby hopes and dreams that she can be accepted, and later, that she can bring the doctor back/undo the moment where it all went wrong. but the doctor also says that they should 'rest in piece'. so they're dead hopes and dreams, aka fears + regrets? so breaking it unleashed both the doctor and her greatest fears - the doctor of complete helplessness + impotence, and ruby of abandonment + rejection. because those fears stay buried in this timeline, ruby + the doctor's hopes (which in many ways are embodied in each other) can continue to live and be 'here', not drowned in the past.

also, the doctor implies the woman is 'resting in piece', out of nowhere, which i think is another indication of both ruby AND the doctor having knowledge from the split timeline. after all, old!ruby did die. so did the timeline where all that happened, i suppose. maybe that's the other angle for the fairy circle - it represents the fragility of a load bearing timeline. the hundreds of dead paradoxes and dead universes that spin off from time being written and unwritten as the doctor (and his companions) fixes whatever he can. let them rest in piece. forget what could've happened. forget what just did happen.

now for my other critique. i think the sexual harassment sub plot was cheap and shitty, and only served to be an incredibly lazy 'kick the puppy' moment to show that the prime minister was Evil™ levels of bad. in the process it showed no respect or care to victims of abuse, and pretty heavily implied that ruby had done nothing in the face of her peer being abused, because 'she had to make sure'. of what? that mad jack was a bad guy? watching him heavily imply he wanted to fire nukes wasn't enough to confirm anything? 'he's a monster' wasn't enough? why? what metric was she using, then? if she was waiting for him to be prime minister, why did she wait an unspecified amount of time AFTER he was elected, where he's clearly still abusing marti, to act? presumably the audience was already on team 'oh this guy sucks' by the nuke interview at the VERY latest, where it was also made clear that the guy was fearmongering about borders and all sorts of right wing bullshit. like, those are just the problems with it off the top of my head -- it fucking sucks, basically.

that all being said, i think ruby convincing herself that she only has 'one chance' works super well into the overall theme of ruby's understanding of the monster + her situation being tied to arbitrary rules she's decided help make the woman make sense. since this terrible thing happened when life was previously going fine, there must be a way to undo it and go back to the love and acceptance she had before. but there is no monster to slay that will trigger the end credits. there's just ordinary, shitty humans, and ruby herself. she can't uncross the boundary of pre-and-post trauma. and as long as she thinks there is something she has to make up for, the world where she is being punished will keep ticking along. i just wish it had been communicated in a different context!!!

side note. does anyone else want to come live with me in a world where 'it never snowed again' means that snow never occured again anywhere in the world. yes its way more likely to think that ruby's referring to instances of spontaneous snow linked to her emotions. but can you IMAGINE hardening your heart so entirely after being rejected by your mother that you change the climate of planet earth?? holy shit!

[thestrangestwatermelonofall]

So I was literally just telling my friends about how excited I was for this newsletter that I assumed was going to drop tomorrow morning, and when I got home an hour later and refreshed my email I saw the newsletter and I got to hyped. OMG. the world is wonderful

[viulus]

Endgame spoilers for AITSF I guess but how is Date still in that body in the second game? The little quiz that you do at the start of AINI mentions Mizuki getting shot and Saito being the Cyclops Serial Killer, so that to me suggests that AINI is set after the events of the Resolution route (instead of, say, the Mizuki route). We literally saw Saito's head get blown clean off his body on-screen how the fuck do they explain Date being back in that body in the second game

[bubbloquacious]

I've been curious for a while what area of math you're studying? You're very knowledgeable about point set topology and talk about a bunch of very cool topics (locales come to mind) but I can't piece them together into a cohesive sense of what you could be studying?? This is surely because I'm not knowledgeable enough, to be clear, not because your math posts are inherently too scattered.

This is a rather funny ask. If I were to be only slightly unfair to myself the joke could easily be made that it is in fact the reality of the situation that my posts are scattered in a kaleidoscopic spectrum covering all areas of mathematics. I wouldn't go that far, but I do have pretty broad interests.

One cause of this symptom is the fact that I'm working on getting my bachelor's degree. There's simply not enough courses available at my uni to take only those that align with my passions. For example, this semester I took a course on algebraic curves, intro to dynamical systems, and a course on discrete decision theory. I'm also writing my bachelor's thesis on the geometric subject of scissors congruence. This makes for quite an eclectic posting pattern. If I was doing a master's program or doctorate I'm sure it'd be much more focused/monotonous.

I'd say my mathematical joie de vivre lies broadly in the areas adjacent to analysis, which I usually describe as 'spatial and algebraic reasoning'. They're often opposed, but they really are quite similar. It's all about creating your funny little structures to describe phenomena, whether those phenomena be in real world situations or in funny little structures you've created earlier.

Take the phenomenon of non-measurable sets. The problem of, say, Vitali sets is that they are of full measure in their interval, but they just so happen to be disjoint, so the additivity of measures dictates that the unit interval should have infinite measure. The usual solution to this is to say that, well, the measure of such sets does not play nice with disjoint union additivity, so we throw them out of the toy box and continue on our merry way with measure theory. Locale theory, on the other hand, poses that they are just as measurable as any other set, and indeed they have full measure. Additivity is saved by the fact that, localically, they are not disjoint. They are just too entangled with each other to be disjoint, even though they might not share any 'elements', as if those are important 🙄. To me, this is a solution that aligns much more with what the answer should be. This is one of the great joys of mathematics to me: finding the formal way of expressing what should be obviously true in the first place, and then exploring what consequences your way of expressing that have.

[oblako]

caught up on the ily fp and god this episode filled me with so much dread......

[sternbilder]

ok so today I had one of the most fascinating and enlightening discussions maybe of my life and I need to share bc it blew my MIND (warning: long)

here's the context. there is a friend I have. they are a pretty good friend of mine that I've known for many years now and I appreciate them as a person very much. lately I have noticed that they've been texting me fairly frequently. which, from my point of view, is once every couple of days. not because they had something specific to say, but just saying hello or asking how my day was.

I'm sure this was well-intentioned, but this was starting to get a tiny bit grating for me. we just met up in person literally two days ago! and you had texted me not long before that, too! nothing new has happened since then! my day has been quite boring, actually! I thought, in my mind, as I swiped away the notification—and immediately felt like an awful friend.

I knew from past experience that responding to the message would invite an immediate and not easily escapable conversation that, due to my poor multitasking skills, would distract me from work or require me to context switch away from whatever else it was I was doing at the moment—cooking, doing chores, watching TV—and worse, amount to little more than idle chit-chat about the same boring quotidian complaints as usual. I am not one of those people who thinks they're above small talk or don't see its social value, but I found myself thinking, am I the one who is being not normal here in not enjoying having this specific kind of interaction MULTIPLE times a week with the SAME person?

so recently, I've been finding myself routinely avoiding opening this particular friend's messages for fear of hurting their feelings if they saw that I had left them on read for a prolonged period of time. I had even gone so far as to avoid posting in a group chat in which we're both participants so that they don't realize that I have, in fact, been online, just not responding to them, specifically. my hope was that after enough slow responses, this friend would eventually get the hint and give up on trying to maintain a steady steam of conversation, but somehow this has not worked so far.

this was starting to weigh on my conscience. I realized that I will have to eventually fight my conflict-avoidant tendencies and just confront this friend directly, for the sake of both my sanity and our friendship. but how to do this gently? tactfully? without implying that I don't value their friendship or that I perceive them as needy or annoying? that was the tricky question. because I know that my friend isn't doing anything wrong! if anything it is probably me that is weird and antisocial and I probably just need to work on my social skills!

but not wanting to feel like a total asshole and hoping to go in with an informed and reasonable mindset (knowing full well that my understanding of social norms isn't always the keenest), I asked a different group chat for their opinion, hoping to gain some perspective on what boundaries they generally considered normal and acceptable to exercise. I phrased my question thusly:

how many friends* would you say you have where you text on a regular basis (say, multiple times a week) 1:1 just to say hi, about nothing in particular *explicitly a friend, not a family member or SO

y'all. the responses were eye-opening.

there were four people who participated in this discussion, all four of whom were in different camps and had wildly different experiences:

0, and assumed most others were the same

0, but assumed most others were not the same

multiple, and assumed most others were the same

multiple, but assumed most others were not the same

1 was me; in retrospect, I am realizing that because I had assumed that these kinds of interactions were not typical, I had interpreted my friend's gesture as something much more significant than it probably was in their mind, which is to say something that they just happen to do with everyone they know and like—which created a sort of pressure in my mind not to let them down and caused a sense of intense anxiety when I found myself struggling to reciprocate. I am absolutely floored at the revelation that it is apparently normal and common for people to have MULTIPLE friends (not even partners!!! or family!!!) that they are talking to on a constant ongoing basis at any given time, and at the possibility that I was treating my friend's feelings with kid gloves when it REALLY wasn't that hashtag deep for them.

2 clarified that they never initiate these kinds of chats, but when others initiate with them, they're fairly comfortable with simply letting these kinds of pings go unanswered, assuming the other person will just move on to someone else without taking it personally.

3 confessed to me that they once tried to do something similar with me, and eventually gave up, but had felt a bit hurt and rejected at my lack of enthusiasm, because they assumed that I was doing this with other people, just not them specifically. they sympathized very strongly with my friend.

4 also recalled that they had at one point tried something similar with me, but sort of got that I wasn't one of those people who would be receptive to this style of communication and wasn't particularly bothered by this, agreeing with 2 that the expectation is not that the recipient HAS to respond, and that my friend should probably pay closer attention to the face-saving social cues I was sending by not responding or responding slowly.

but yeah, the takeaway from this conversation is that people's preferences and experiences and expectations when it comes to digital communication are WILDLY varied, and because both communication technology and the social conventions surrounding them are changing CONSTANTLY (just a few examples: are read receipts good or bad? what about typing indicators? online status? are emoji reacts or gifs/stickers an acceptable substitute for an actual reply? group chats vs. 1:1 DMs? synchronicity and formality of various communication methods like email and chat and video? are phone calls are still socially acceptable?) there are either no agreed-on norms or different camps of people have vastly different understandings of what the norms are

among the other highlights/a-ha moments of this discussion:

Friend 4 asked another friend who is even MORE extraverted than they are what their # was and they reported somewhere in the ballpark of 20-40 people in any given week which is absolutely buckwild to me (importantly, all four of us in the original group happen to be software engineers, a class of people notorious for their lack of sociability, so I have no confidence that I have captured a representative sample size even within this particular group—the numbers both 3 and 4 gave were still both in the single digits, though they are definitely the warmest and friendliest of the bunch)

I realized that one difference between me and 3/4 was that we fulfill our social needs quite differently? specifically, I mostly connect with friends over group chats, of which I have a handful that are quite chatty and at least one or two that I'm actively posting in on any given day. I also typically have at least one, often multiple, real-life social plans every week! I am, in fact, very satisfied with my social life, to the point where it is almost maxing out my social quota (especially recently now that I've started dating someone)! but anyway—I find group chats to be my ideal form of day-to-day communication because there's less urgency and pressure for any individual person to contribute if they're not feeling up for it, and ALSO in the case of group chats where at least one member is a straight man (which is the majority of them for me, and I call out straight men only because they are the only demographic I have historically had this issue with) there is less room for platonic interactions to be undesirably misinterpreted as romantic

3/4 expressed that they prefer 1:1 conversations because they feel more personal and they can be more vulnerable about sensitive topics, which I would generally agree with—though in several of my group chats, I personally do feel comfortable enough with all the members to share things about myself with the entire group just by virtue of having known everyone for a long time and having built group camaraderie, but they seemed to not be comfortable with this without having previously established a consistent 1:1 pattern of day-to-day communication (or maybe they meant they were uncomfortable with the group forum itself, even if they were cool with sharing with everyone individually)?

they also expressed that for them, frequent unsolicited checkins and 1:1 attention from a friend would feel exciting/flattering/validating for them, whereas for me it would feel overwhelming, especially if we weren't THAT close

I do use 1:1 DMs also, but for a very different set of use cases: 1) if I haven't caught up with someone in a while (read: weeks or months), in which case we'll often just not text super long and make plans to call or meet in person instead, or 2) if I have something specific to say, like "here's this meme/song/piece of news I think you'd like to see" or "I need advice on X" or "guess what happened that made me think of you" or "I heard X happened, are you OK?"

I found that whereas I have a very clear distinction between communication preferences with a friend (someone I talk to on a regular basis but don't have a constant line of individual communication with) vs. a significant other (more or less willing to do this, unless they preferred not to), such a boundary between a platonic and romantic relationship does NOT exist for all people which boggled my mind

but yes anyway. I am learning so much about the way people view socializing in the digital age and I am so curious to know more and I kind of wish more people talked about this more openly (specifically among friends! because in my experience this is something that is fairly common to sort out explicitly in a romantic context) because I think this is probably the kind of thing that no one talks about because people are either afraid of potentially hurting feelings or everyone is just kind of assuming by default that their takes are universal without realizing that no actually, many people have strong opinions on this that are the polar opposite of theirs

but my gut feeling is that there is a lot of completely unnecessary friction that could just be resolved if only we could agree that it's cool to be more upfront about what our communication preferences are without worrying about that being taken extremely personally by the other party? bc idk, every single person I talked to about this today was like holy shit this was a whole fucking revelation actually, I can't believe I hadn't thought about this before thank you for bringing this up

[viiridiangreen]

sure it’s a lil awkward for me to have Gone Off abt brachyocephalic breeds being inhumane next to my partner’s cousin’s girlfriend who is A Pug Person & bought a puppy sometime last year

but in my defense my partner started it & neither they nor i remembered the existence of their pets at the time

& it’s also True so....

[blueish-bird]

new jjk chapter is… uh…

[tardis--dreams]

I am once again signing up for way too many seminars knowing fully well I've never managed more than 27 points since starting university and yet aiming for 50

[ghostighostly]

School is just torture made specifically for autistics by the government im convinced

[hamadisthings]

HELP US STOP CHAT CONTROL!

If you live in the EU, you absolutely need to pay attention to what's to come. What is Chat Control, you may ask? In a (failed) attempt to combat child abuse online the EU made Chat Control, Chat Control will result in getting your private messages and emails to be scanned by artificial intelligence aka AI to search for CSAM pictures or discussion that might have grooming in there. And on top of having your private conversations handed to AI or the police to snoop in, like your family pictures, selfies, or more sensitive pics, like the medical kind, only meant to be seen by your doctors, or the "flirtatious" kind you send to your partner, you either have to ACCEPT to be scanned...or else you will be forbidden from sending pictures, videos, or even links, as said here.

Kids should absolutely be protected online, without question, but the things that Chat Control gets wrong is that this is a blatant violation of privacy, without even considering the fact that AI WILL create tons of false positives, this is not a theory, this is a fact. And for all the false positives that will be detected, all of them will be sent to the police, which will just flood their system with useless junk instead of efficiently putting resources to actual protect kids from predators.

It also does not help that politicians, police officers, soldiers etc will be exempt from Chat Control if it passes. If it's for the sake of protection, shouldn't everyone get the same treatment? Which further prove that Chat Control would NOT keep your data of private life safe. Plus, bad actors will simply stop using messenger apps as soon as they know they're being tracked, using more obscure means, meanwhile innocent people will be punished by using those services On top of this, the EU also plans on reintroducing Data retention called "EU Going Dark". Both Chat Control and EU Going Dark are clear violation of the GDPR, and even if they shouldn't stand a chance in court, its not going to prevent politicians from trying to ram these through as an excuse to mass surveil European citizens, using kids as a shield. Even teenagers sending pictures to each other won't be exempt, which entirely goes against the purpose of protecting kids by retaining their private photos instead. Furthermore, once messaging apps are forced to comply with Chat Control, the president of Signal, a secured messaging app with encryption, have confirmed that they will be forced to leave the EU if this is enforced against them.

If Chat Control also ends up targeting any websites with the option of private messages, you better expect Europe to be geo-blocked by any websites offering such function. I would also like to add that EU citizens were very vocal in the fight against KOSA, an equally bad internet bill from the US-- and it showed! Which is why we heavily need the help of our fellow US peers to fight against Chat Control too, so please, because we all know if it passes, the US government will take a look at this and conclude "Ooh, a way to force mass surveillance on citizens even more than before? don't mind if I do!" It's always a snowball effect.

KEEP IN MIND THE EUROPE COUNCIL WILL LIKELY VOTE ON CHAT CONTROL THIS 19 JUNE OF NEXT WEEK TO SEE IF IT WILL ENTER TRILOGIES OR NOT. Even if it does enter Trilogues, the fight will only be beginning. Absentees may not count as a no, so it is crucial that you contact your MEPs HERE, as well as HERE, and you can also show your support for Edri's campaign against Chat Control HERE.

You can read more on Chat Control here as well, and you can find useful information as to which arguments to use when politely contacting your MEP (calling is better than email) here, and beneath you will find graphics you can use to spread the word!

YOU CAN ALSO JOIN OUR DISCORD SERVER (linked here) TO HELP ORGANIZE AGAINST CHAT CONTROL NON EU PEOPLE ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO JOIN TOO!

https://discord.gg/FPDJYkUujM

PLEASE REBLOG ! NON EU PEOPLE ARE ENCOURAGED TO REBLOG AS WELL CONTACT YOUTUBERS, CONTENT CREATORS, ANYONE YOU KNOW THAT MAY HELP GET THE WORD OUT ! Let's fight for our Internet and actually keep kids safe online! Because Chat Control and EU Going Dark will only endanger kids.

PLEASE REBLOG! NON EU PEOPLE ARE ENCOURAGED TO REBLOG AS WELL CONTACT YOUTUBERS, CONTENT CREATORS, ANYONE YOU KNOW THAT MAY HELP GET THE WORD OUT !

Let's fight for our Internet and actually keep kids safe online! Because Chat Control and EU Going Dark will only endanger kids.