#freedom good

[bigfrood]

so this is about the hozier statement please help me understand why his statement was so bad both herw and om twitter people are dissapointed but like .?!?! Isnt his statement rational and well thought out and balanced given that life has been lost on both sides yes the isralie government has been awfully unfair with palestinians for years almost 75? I think but hammas killed children and civilians took them hostages isralie government bombed hospitals and schools and churches two wrongs dont make a right an immediate cease fire with diplomatic talks is a good way to go and to call for that is a good statement so i dont get why people are so up in arms about this ? Please help me understand youre take if is different

Please check out these videos, they are about 8 minutes long in total and they worded what I wanna say better than I could ever hope to word it:

https://twitter.com/Hakeemfederer/status/1714734864086261838?t=lJARc717B09mqwfZmtF9tg&s=19

https://twitter.com/_TheRockII/status/1713975193339605115?t=9gKHtgV1f5T_heX6Xto2Bg&s=19

(This one is an Irish person, like Hozier who should know better)

One of my main problems with Hozier's statement is that it IS balanced like you're saying, because here's the thing:

The situation in Palestine isn't balanced.

To be neutral in a situation where there is an oppressive party and an oppressed party is necessarily in favour of oppression.

I don't disagree with most of his statement, my main problem with his take is also my main problem with yours, except you're saying "Israel has been awfully unfair with Palestinians" and he used language that was slightly stronger but still doesn't begin to cover the situation.

There is no place for "both sides" in this narrative. It is not a war or a conflict, but an occupation, where the apartheid state that has been committing war crimes for decades is now also committing genocide in front of the whole world with video! evidence! And no one is stopping it, countries and individuals are actually supporting it, even!

I can't believe that in the year of our lord 2023 I have to bring up the point that genocide, apartheid and settler colonialism are a big deal, and aren't just Israel "being unfair".

But the fact that you're willing to ask and understand makes me think that you are a good person who's trying to do what's right, so that's why I'm responding.

It's not fair to describe what Hamas did as equal to what Israel did in any capacity, starting from the very root of the problem, I'm asking you this:

If Israel hadn't STOLEN and COLONISED Palestinian land and occupied Palestine, do you think there would even be Hamas??

In Arabic we have an addition to the famous "an eye for an eye" line: ".. and whoever started is more unjust".

It's true that Hamas killed civilians, but what exactly do you think Israel has been doing in Palestine for almost 8 decades?? Hamas was formed in the late 80s. It has existed for less than half the duration of the occupation, with a vast inequality in resources in favour of Israel, yet one is considered a terrorist organisation and the other a country!!

Also, Hamas isn't every Palestinian, but every Palestinian is suffering at the hands of Israel. Israel is using Hamas as an excuse for their crimes.

Even the human cost is unequal, so many more Palestinian lives were lost!

Like any human being I am deeply affected by the loss of lives, however, anyone who blames any party involved other than Israel and by extension any international force that has the ability to stop it but hasn't for killing Palestinians and putting Israeli "civilians" in harm's way is being awfully unfair. Uninformed at best, and malicious with an agenda at worst.

I don't think the Irish or the Algerians or us Egyptians or any people in history who has been occupied got their freedom through peace talks.

But I don't mind an immediate cease fire and diplomatic talks, anything that would stop this genocide, really.

To answer your question directly now that I've made the previous points: what he's suggesting should happen isn't what bothers me. It's how he's describing the current situation.

I can't agree with a statement that's condemning resistance for RESISTING while also not coming close to properly condemning the genocidal occupation that started it all and keeps the violence going.

I can't agree that he's calling this genocide a "response" when what's happening now has been happening decades before Hamas even existed. The situation did NOT start 2 weeks ago or when Hamas was formed, but it started with the occupation and will only end when that occupation is gone.

I can't possibly agree when he calls what's happening a cycle of violence implying that there is anyone to blame but Israel, when it's a cycle of violence in the sense that Israel commits war crimes regularly and quite often, doesn't face consequences from any international organisation, or anyone really, which allows it to continue committing even worse war crimes.

I hope this helps you understand, and I hope you do the right thing and stand with Palestine.

[chongoblog]

Being in America is super fun because you get to see Trump going up against Biden in a presidential election with both of them being dogshit options, mass protests against what should very obviously be seen as an injustice that spits in the face of what you were told your country stands for, except the government disagrees, using the power of the militarized state to brutalize protestors, all the while people spread malicious lies regularly with millions believing their every word(a lot of it being thanks to some rich freak on Twitter). Also, the economy is doing pretty damn poor and you see media sources tell you to sacrifice your well-being all while the ultra rich get richer and richer.

And then after you're done with 2020, you get to do it again four years later

[holistichealingg]

[reasonsforhope]

"France became the first country in the world to make abortion a constitutional right Monday [March 4, 2024], with French lawmakers adopting the bill in a 780-72 vote in a move inspired by the U.S. reversal of Roe vs. Wade.

The law gives women a "guaranteed freedom" to choose for themselves if an abortion is the right choice to make.

The amendment won the support of the three-fifths of the 925 National Assembly and Senate members required to pass in an extraordinary afternoon session at the Palace of Versailles just outside Paris in a move that was overwhelmingly supported by the public.

Prime Minister Gabriel Attal said to those assembled in Congress Hall that "we owe a moral debt" to the women who had to suffer through illegal abortions in the past.

After the vote to approve the constitutional change, Paris' Eiffel Tower was lit with the words in French "my body my choice" in the country where abortion was first legalized in 1975, two years after the United States' first ruling on Roe vs. Wade...

While limiting abortion ranked very low on France's political agenda, lawmakers were prompted to take action to protect abortion rights in 2022 following the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of the 1973 Roe ruling that legalized abortion. Subsequently, several American states have passed laws to restrict or outlaw the procedure.

"I say to all women within our borders and beyond, that today, the era of a world of hope begins," said Attal, who at 34 became the country's youngest prime minister.

This was the first time since 2008 that France took steps to change its constitution. There will be a ceremony to finalize the amendment on Friday [March 8, 2024], which is also International Women's Day."

-via UPI (United Press International), March 4, 2024

--

Note: It may be the first, but I am confident that it will not be the last!

[awesomecooperlove]

🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻STRAIGHT UP TRUTH IN FOUR MINUTES 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[ky-landfill]

If you would be so inclined, I'd really love to see Damian with sheep or goats.

I have in my head a little AU where Jason takes Damian from the league, and they live nomadically for a while in Central Asia. But also, just any context of sheep or goats and Damian would make my day, but also no pressure, just if this happens to vibe with you, too. I absolutely love your art, even when it's fandoms I don't even know anything about.

[hajihiko]

gang💅

[swampthingking]

andrew’s definitely gotten in trouble with his pr manager for tweeting things along the lines of:

“no mania inducing medication will compare to the euphoria i will feel the day donald trump drops dead”

[dykealloy]

the catholic rejection of it all

[from-the-dead]

Red Death has come to take what is rightfully his own.

Version without wings under the cut:

[hypewinter]

Here's a little double the trauma for the price of one story for you folks.

So basically Danny got captured by the GIW and was experimented on / tortured until he died and was reincarnated as Danyal Al Ghul. He attempts to adapt to his grandfather's teachings but just can't get behind them unlike his older brother. This culminates in Danny getting caught trying to help an injured animal.

When he refuses to kill it, Ra's decides he's had enough and strikes Danny down then and there. Damian, who was watching all of this go down, disobeys his grandfather for the first time and attempts to resurrect Danny using the Lazarus pits. But Danny's body sinks to the bottom and doesn't return. This devastates Damian and Talia when she gets back.

Meanwhile Danny opens his eyes to find himself in the one place he never wanted to be again, the GIW research facility. The Lazarus pits had responded to the traces of ectoplasm within his body and opened up a portal back to his home dimension. All across the spider verse style you could say. Anyways Danny spends the next decade being experimented on while Damian spends it pretty close to canon albeit with a little more resentment towards Ra's and a little more grief towards the batfam (he feels like he's somehow replacing his little brother by hanging out with them).

Eventually a prison break happens within the GIW facility. Whether because they captured a powerful ghost like Pandora or something or because Clockwork did something, it doesn't matter. What matters is that Danny takes advantage of the chaos to go back through the very portal he got spit out of all those years ago.

Imagine the league's surprise when their youngest heir suddenly comes crawling out of the pits without looking even a day older than when he was first thrown in. The reason for this is because the scientists at the facility thought that Danny was growing in order to simulate being human and gain sympathy. He was always severely punished for this until the remaining ghost part of him eventually adapted to stop his human half from growing. He's now pretty much stuck at the age of 5 or so. Don't worry as he eventually heals from his trauma, he'll start growing again.

Anyways the league, especially Talia is trying to keep it on the downlow that Danny is back. She knows that if Damian finds out, he'll immediately come and try to take back his little brother. Unfortunately for them, they were a little too quiet and Damian gets hella suspicious. So he goes on a solo mission to see what they're up to. He sneaks into Nanda Parbat in the middle of the night and finds a sleeping boy in his baby brother's old room. At first Damian thinks that the league cloned his brother. But when Danny wakes up and stares at him with those big blue eyes he just knows.

So Damian takes Danny with him back home where the batfam is absolutely baffled about where he got this kid from. They're also flabbergasted when Damian speaks to the boy in soft Arabic and has the most gentle and loving expression on his face. This can't be the same demon brat right?

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Pluralistic: Leaving Twitter had no effect on NPR's traffic

I'm coming to Minneapolis! This Sunday (Oct 15): Presenting The Internet Con at Moon Palace Books. Monday (Oct 16): Keynoting the 26th ACM Conference On Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing.

Enshittification is the process by which a platform lures in and then captures end users (stage one), who serve as bait for business customers, who are also captured (stage two), whereupon the platform rug-pulls both groups and allocates all the value they generate and exchange to itself (stage three):

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

Enshittification isn't merely a form of rent-seeking – it is a uniquely digital phenomenon, because it relies on the inherent flexibility of digital systems. There are lots of intermediaries that want to extract surpluses from customers and suppliers – everyone from grocers to oil companies – but these can't be reconfigured in an eyeblink the that that purely digital services can.

A sleazy boss can hide their wage-theft with a bunch of confusing deductions to your paycheck. But when your boss is an app, it can engage in algorithmic wage discrimination, where your pay declines minutely every time you accept a job, but if you start to decline jobs, the app can raise the offer:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/12/algorithmic-wage-discrimination/#fishers-of-men

I call this process "twiddling": tech platforms are equipped with a million knobs on their back-ends, and platform operators can endlessly twiddle those knobs, altering the business logic from moment to moment, turning the system into an endlessly shifting quagmire where neither users nor business customers can ever be sure whether they're getting a fair deal:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/19/twiddler/

Social media platforms are compulsive twiddlers. They use endless variation to lure in – and then lock in – publishers, with the goal of converting these standalone businesses into commodity suppliers who are dependent on the platform, who can then be charged rent to reach the users who asked to hear from them.

Facebook designed this playbook. First, it lured in end-users by promising them a good deal: "Unlike Myspace, which spies on you from asshole to appetite, Facebook is a privacy-respecting site that will never, ever spy on you. Simply sign up, tell us everyone who matters to you, and we'll populate a feed with everything they post for public consumption":

https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1128876

The users came, and locked themselves in: when people gather in social spaces, they inadvertently take one another hostage. You joined Facebook because you liked the people who were there, then others joined because they liked you. Facebook can now make life worse for all of you without losing your business. You might hate Facebook, but you like each other, and the collective action problem of deciding when and whether to go, and where you should go next, is so difficult to overcome, that you all stay in a place that's getting progressively worse.

Once its users were locked in, Facebook turned to advertisers and said, "Remember when we told these rubes we'd never spy on them? It was a lie. We spy on them with every hour that God sends, and we'll sell you access to that data in the form of dirt-cheap targeted ads."

Then Facebook went to the publishers and said, "Remember when we told these suckers that we'd only show them the things they asked to see? Total lie. Post short excerpts from your content and links back to your websites and we'll nonconsensually cram them into the eyeballs of people who never asked to see them. It's a free, high-value traffic funnel for your own site, bringing monetizable users right to your door."

Now, Facebook had to find a way to lock in those publishers. To do this, it had to twiddle. By tiny increments, Facebook deprioritized publishers' content, forcing them to make their excerpts grew progressively longer. As with gig workers, the digital flexibility of Facebook gave it lots of leeway here. Some publishers sensed the excerpts they were being asked to post were a substitute for visiting their sites – and not an enticement – and drew down their posting to Facebook.

When that happened, Facebook could twiddle in the publisher's favor, giving them broader distribution for shorter excerpts, then, once the publisher returned to the platform, Facebook drew down their traffic unless they started posting longer pieces. Twiddling lets platforms play users and business-customers like a fish on a line, giving them slack when they fight, then reeling them in when they tire.

Once Facebook converted a publisher to a commodity supplier to the platform, it reeled the publishers in. First, it deprioritized publishers' posts when they had links back to the publisher's site (under the pretext of policing "clickbait" and "malicious links"). Then, it stopped showing publishers' content to their own subscribers, extorting them to pay to "boost" their posts in order to reach people who had explicitly asked to hear from them.

For users, this meant that their feeds were increasingly populated with payola-boosted content from advertisers and pay-to-play publishers who paid Facebook's Danegeld to reach them. A user will only spend so much time on Facebook, and every post that Facebook feeds that user from someone they want to hear from is a missed opportunity to show them a post from someone who'll pay to reach them.

Here, too, twiddling lets Facebook fine-tune its approach. If a user starts to wean themself off Facebook, the algorithm (TM) can put more content the user has asked to see in the feed. When the user's participation returns to higher levels, Facebook can draw down the share of desirable content again, replacing it with monetizable content. This is done minutely, behind the scenes, automatically, and quickly. In any shell game, the quickness of the hand deceives the eye.

This is the final stage of enshittification: withdrawing surpluses from end-users and business customers, leaving behind the minimum homeopathic quantum of value for each needed to keep them locked to the platform, generating value that can be extracted and diverted to platform shareholders.

But this is a brittle equilibrium to maintain. The difference between "God, I hate this place but I just can't leave it" and "Holy shit, this sucks, I'm outta here" is razor-thin. All it takes is one privacy scandal, one livestreamed mass-shooting, one whistleblower dump, and people bolt for the exits. This kicks off a death-spiral: as users and business customers leave, the platform's shareholders demand that they squeeze the remaining population harder to make up for the loss.

One reason this gambit worked so well is that it was a long con. Platform operators and their investors have been willing to throw away billions convincing end-users and business customers to lock themselves in until it was time for the pig-butchering to begin. They financed expensive forays into additional features and complementary products meant to increase user lock-in, raising the switching costs for users who were tempted to leave.

For example, Facebook's product manager for its "photos" product wrote to Mark Zuckerberg to lay out a strategy of enticing users into uploading valuable family photos to the platform in order to "make switching costs very high for users," who would have to throw away their precious memories as the price for leaving Facebook:

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

The platforms' patience paid off. Their slow ratchets operated so subtly that we barely noticed the squeeze, and when we did, they relaxed the pressure until we were lulled back into complacency. Long cons require a lot of prefrontal cortex, the executive function to exercise patience and restraint.

Which brings me to Elon Musk, a man who seems to have been born without a prefrontal cortex, who has repeatedly and publicly demonstrated that he lacks any restraint, patience or planning. Elon Musk's prefrontal cortical deficit resulted in his being forced to buy Twitter, and his every action since has betrayed an even graver inability to stop tripping over his own dick.

Where Zuckerberg played enshittification as a long game, Musk is bent on speedrunning it. He doesn't slice his users up with a subtle scalpel, he hacks away at them with a hatchet.

Musk inaugurated his reign by nonconsensually flipping every user to an algorithmic feed which was crammed with ads and posts from "verified" users whose blue ticks verified solely that they had $8 ($11 for iOS users). Where Facebook deployed substantial effort to enticing users who tired of eyeball-cramming feed decay by temporarily improving their feeds, Musk's Twitter actually overrode users' choice to switch back to a chronological feed by repeatedly flipping them back to more monetizable, algorithmic feeds.

Then came the squeeze on publishers. Musk's Twitter rolled out a bewildering array of "verification" ticks, each priced higher than the last, and publishers who refused to pay found their subscribers taken hostage, with Twitter downranking or shadowbanning their content unless they paid.

(Musk also squeezed advertisers, keeping the same high prices but reducing the quality of the offer by killing programs that kept advertisers' content from being published along Holocaust denial and open calls for genocide.)

Today, Musk continues to squeeze advertisers, publishers and users, and his hamfisted enticements to make up for these depredations are spectacularly bad, and even illegal, like offering advertisers a new kind of ad that isn't associated with any Twitter account, can't be blocked, and is not labeled as an ad:

https://www.wired.com/story/xs-sneaky-new-ads-might-be-illegal/

Of course, Musk has a compulsive bullshitter's contempt for the press, so he has far fewer enticements for them to stay. Quite the reverse: first, Musk removed headlines from link previews, rendering posts by publishers that went to their own sites into stock-art enigmas that generated no traffic:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/oct/05/x-twitter-strips-headlines-new-links-why-elon-musk

Then he jumped straight to the end-stage of enshittification by announcing that he would shadowban any newsmedia posts with links to sites other than Twitter, "because there is less time spent if people click away." Publishers were advised to "post content in long form on this platform":

https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic/111183068362793821

Where a canny enshittifier would have gestured at a gaslighting explanation ("we're shadowbanning posts with links because they might be malicious"), Musk busts out the motto of the Darth Vader MBA: "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further."

All this has the effect of highlighting just how little residual value there is on the platform for publishers, and tempts them to bolt for the exits. Six months ago, NPR lost all patience with Musk's shenanigans, and quit the service. Half a year later, they've revealed how low the switching cost for a major news outlet that leaves Twitter really are: NPR's traffic, post-Twitter, has declined by less than a single percentage point:

https://niemanreports.org/articles/npr-twitter-musk/

NPR's Twitter accounts had 8.7 million followers, but even six months ago, Musk's enshittification speedrun had drawn down NPR's ability to reach those users to a negligible level. The 8.7 million number was an illusion, a shell game Musk played on publishers like NPR in a bid to get them to buy a five-figure iridium checkmark or even a six-figure titanium one.

On Twitter, the true number of followers you have is effectively zero – not because Twitter users haven't explicitly instructed the service to show them your posts, but because every post in their feeds that they want to see is a post that no one can be charged to show them.

I've experienced this myself. Three and a half years ago, I left Boing Boing and started pluralistic.net, my cross-platform, open access, surveillance-free, daily newsletter and blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/19/drei-drei-drei/#now-we-are-three

Boing Boing had the good fortune to have attracted a sizable audience before the advent of siloed platforms, and a large portion of that audience came to the site directly, rather than following us on social media. I knew that, starting a new platform from scratch, I wouldn't have that luxury. My audience would come from social media, and it would be up to me to convert readers into people who followed me on platforms I controlled – where neither they nor I could be held to ransom.

I embraced a strategy called POSSE: Post Own Site, Syndicate Everywhere. With POSSE, the permalink and native habitat for your material is a site you control (in my case, a WordPress blog with all the telemetry, logging and surveillance disabled). Then you repost that content to other platforms – mostly social media – with links back to your own site:

https://indieweb.org/POSSE

There are a lot of automated tools to help you with this, but the platforms have gone to great lengths to break or neuter them. Musk's attack on Twitter's legendarily flexible and powerful API killed every automation tool that might help with this. I was lucky enough to have a reader – Loren Kohnfelder – who coded me some python scripts that automate much of the process, but POSSE remains a very labor-intensive and error-prone methodology:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/13/two-decades/#hfbd

And of all the feeds I produce – email, RSS, Discourse, Medium, Tumblr, Mastodon – none is as labor-intensive as Twitter's. It is an unforgiving medium to begin with, and Musk's drawdown of engineering support has made it wildly unreliable. Many's the time I've set up 20+ posts in a thread, only to have the browser tab reload itself and wipe out all my work.

But I stuck with Twitter, because I have a half-million followers, and to the extent that I reach them there, I can hope that they will follow the permalinks to Pluralistic proper and switch over to RSS, or email, or a daily visit to the blog.

But with each day, the case for using Twitter grows weaker. I get ten times as many replies and reposts on Mastodon, though my Mastodon follower count is a tenth the size of my (increasingly hypothetical) Twitter audience.

All this raises the question of what can or should be done about Twitter. One possible regulatory response would be to impose an "End-To-End" rule on the service, requiring that Twitter deliver posts from willing senders to willing receivers without interfering in them. End-To-end is the bedrock of the internet (one of its incarnations is Net Neutrality) and it's a proven counterenshittificatory force:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/save-news-we-need-end-end-web

Despite what you may have heard, "freedom of reach" is freedom of speech: when a platform interposes itself between willing speakers and their willing audiences, it arrogates to itself the power to control what we're allowed to say and who is allowed to hear us:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/10/e2e/#the-censors-pen

We have a wide variety of tools to make a rule like this stick. For one thing, Musk's Twitter has violated innumerable laws and consent decrees in the US, Canada and the EU, which creates a space for regulators to impose "conduct remedies" on the company.

But there's also existing regulatory authorities, like the FTC's Section Five powers, which enable the agency to act against companies that engage in "unfair and deceptive" acts. When Twitter asks you who you want to hear from, then refuses to deliver their posts to you unless they pay a bribe, that's both "unfair and deceptive":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

But that's only a stopgap. The problem with Twitter isn't that this important service is run by the wrong mercurial, mediocre billionaire: it's that hundreds of millions of people are at the mercy of any foolish corporate leader. While there's a short-term case for improving the platforms, our long-term strategy should be evacuating them:

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

To make that a reality, we could also impose a "Right To Exit" on the platforms. This would be an interoperability rule that would require Twitter to adopt Mastodon's approach to server-hopping: click a link to export the list of everyone who follows you on one server, click another link to upload that file to another server, and all your followers and followees are relocated to your new digs:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/23/semipermeable-membranes/#free-as-in-puppies

A Twitter with the Right To Exit would exert a powerful discipline even on the stunted self-regulatory centers of Elon Musk's brain. If he banned a reporter for publishing truthful coverage that cast him in a bad light, that reporter would have the legal right to move to another platform, and continue to reach the people who follow them on Twitter. Publishers aghast at having the headlines removed from their Twitter posts could go somewhere less slipshod and still reach the people who want to hear from them on Twitter.

And both Right To Exit and End-To-End satisfy the two prime tests for sound internet regulation: first, they are easy to administer. If you want to know whether Musk is permitting harassment on his platform, you have to agree on a definition of harassment, determine whether a given act meets that definition, and then investigate whether Twitter took reasonable steps to prevent it.

By contrast, administering End-To-End merely requires that you post something and see if your followers receive it. Administering Right To Exit is as simple as saying, "OK, Twitter, I know you say you gave Cory his follower and followee file, but he says he never got it. Just send him another copy, and this time, CC the regulator so we can verify that it arrived."

Beyond administration, there's the cost of compliance. Requiring Twitter to police its users' conduct also requires it to hire an army of moderators – something that Elon Musk might be able to afford, but community-supported, small federated servers couldn't. A tech regulation can easily become a barrier to entry, blocking better competitors who might replace the company whose conduct spurred the regulation in the first place.

End-to-End does not present this kind of barrier. The default state for a social media platform is to deliver posts from accounts to their followers. Interfering with End-To-End costs more than delivering the messages users want to have. Likewise, a Right To Exit is a solved problem, built into the open Mastodon protocol, itself built atop the open ActivityPub standard.

It's not just Twitter. Every platform is consuming itself in an orgy of enshittification. This is the Great Enshittening, a moment of universal, end-stage platform decay. As the platforms burn, calls to address the fires grow louder and harder for policymakers to resist. But not all solutions to platform decay are created equal. Some solutions will perversely enshrine the dominance of platforms, help make them both too big to fail and too big to jail.

Musk has flagrantly violated so many rules, laws and consent decrees that he has accidentally turned Twitter into the perfect starting point for a program of platform reform and platform evacuation.

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/2023/10/14/freedom-of-reach/#ex

My next novel is The Lost Cause, a hopeful novel of the climate emergency. Amazon won't sell the audiobook, so I made my own and I'm pre-selling it on Kickstarter!

Image: JD Lasica (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elon_Musk_%283018710552%29.jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

[birdperselias]

working on something soooo diabolical n twisted rn

unknown/nth by hozier x birdrick save me

[remindertoclick]

Reminder to Click for Palestine today!

Thank you~ ✨

[mattodore]

playing with dionte's hair bc i'm procrastinating

[cringefail-clown]

Ultkriiiii for doodle request

He has consumed my head thanks to you

No mercy for you.