#manchester unity | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mostlysignssomeportents · 2 months ago

Text

Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

I'm on a 20+ city book tour for my new novel PICKS AND SHOVELS. Catch me at NEW ZEALAND'S UNITY BOOKS in AUCKLAND on May 2, and in WELLINGTON on May 3. More tour dates (Pittsburgh, PDX, London, Manchester) here.

It's damned hard to prove an antitrust case: so often, the prosecution has to prove that the company intended to crush competition, and/or that they raised prices or reduced quality because they knew they didn't have to fear competitors.

It's a lot easier to prove what a corporation did than it is to prove why they did it. What am I, a mind-reader? But imagine for a second that the corporation in the dock is a global multinational. Now, imagine that the majority of the voting shares in that company are held by one man, who has served as the company's CEO since the day he founded it, personally calling every important shot in the company's history.

Now imagine that this founder/CEO, this accused monopolist, was an incorrigible blabbermouth, who communicated with his underlings almost exclusively in writing, and thus did he commit to immortal digital storage a stream – a torrent – of memos in which he explicitly confessed his guilt.

Ladies and gentlepersons, I give you Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Meta (nee Facebook), an accused monopolist who cannot keep his big dumb fucking mouth shut.

At long, long last, the FTC's antitrust trial against Meta is underway, and this week, Zuck himself took the stand, in agonizing sessions during which FTC lawyers brandished printouts of Zuck's own words before him, asking him to explain away his naked confessions of guilt. It did not go well for Zuck.

In a breakdown of the case for The American Prospect, editor-in-chief David Dayen opines that "The Government Has Already Won the Meta Case," having hanged Zuck on his own words:

https://prospect.org/power/2025-04-16-government-already-won-meta-case-tiktok-ftc-zuckerberg/

The government is attempting to prove that Zuck bought Instagram and Whatsapp in order to extinguish competitors (and not, for example, because he thought they were good businesses that complemented Facebook's core product offerings).

This case starts by proving how Zuck felt about Insta and WA before the acquisitions. On Insta, Zuck circulated memos warning about Insta's growth trajectory:

they appear to be reaching critical mass as a place you go to share photos

and how that could turn them into a future competitor:

[Instagram could] copy what we’re doing now … I view this as a big strategic risk for us if we don’t completely own the photos space.

These are not the words of a CEO who thinks another company is making a business that complements his own – they're confessions that he is worried that they will compete with Facebook. Facebook tried to clone Insta (Remember Facebook Camera? Don't feel bad – neither does anyone else). When that failed, Zuck emailed Facebook execs, writing:

[Instagram's growth is] really scary and why we might want to consider paying a lot of money for this.

At this point, Zuck's CFO – one of the adults in the room, attempting to keep the boy king from tripping over his own dick – wrote to Zuck warning him that it was illegal to buy Insta in order to "neutralize a potential competitor."

Zuck replied that he was, indeed, solely contemplating buying Insta in order to neutralize a potential competitor. It's like this guy kept picking up his dictaphone, hitting "record," and barking, "Hey Bob, I am in receipt of your memo of the 25th, regarding the potential killing of Fred. You raise some interesting points, but I wanted to reiterate that this killing is to be a murder, and it must be as premeditated as possible. Yours very truly, Zuck."

Did Zuck buy Insta to neutralize a competitor? Sure seems like it! For one thing, Zuck cancelled all work on Facebook Camera "since we're acquiring Instagram."

But what about after the purchase. Did Zuck reduce quality and/or raise costs? Well, according to the company, it enacted an "explicit policy of not prioritizing Instagram’s growth" (a tactic called "buy or bury"). At this juncture, Zuckerberg once again put fingers to keyboard in order to create an immortal record of his intentions:

By not killing their products we prevent everyone from hating us and we make sure we don’t immediately create a hole in the market for someone else to fill.

And if someone did enter the market with a cool new gimmick (like, say, Snapchat with its disappearing messages)?

Even if some new competitors spring up, if we incorporate the social mechanics they were using, these new products won’t get much traction since we’ll already have their mechanics deployed at scale.

Remember, the Insta acquisition is only illegal if Zuck bought them to prevent competition in the marketplace (rather than, say, to make a better product). It's hard to prove why a company does anything, unless its CEO, founder, and holder of the majority of its voting stock explicitly states that his strategy is to create a system to ensure that innovating new products "won't get much traction" because he'll be able to quickly copy them.

So we have Zuck starving Insta of development except when he needs to neutralize a competitor, which is just another way of saying he set out to reduce the quality of the product after acquisition, a thing that is statutorily prohibited, but hard to prove (again, unless you confess to it in writing, herp derp).

But what about prices? Well, obviously, Insta doesn't charge its end-users in cash, but they do charge in attention. If you want to see the things you've explicitly asked for – posts from accounts you follow – you have to tolerate a certain amount of "boosted content" and ads, that is, stuff that Facebook's business customers will pay to nonconsensually cram into your eyeballs.

Did that price go up? Any Insta user knows the answer: hell yes. Instagram is such a cesspit of boosted content and ads that it's almost impossible to find stuff you actually asked to see. Indeed, when a couple of teenagers hacked together an alternative Insta client called OG App that only showed you posts from accounts you followed, it was instantly the most popular app on Google Play and Apple's App Store (and then Google and Apple killed it, at Meta's request):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/05/battery-vampire/#drained

But why did the price go up? Did it go up because Facebook had neutralized a competitor by purchasing it, and thus felt that it could raise prices without losing customers? Again, a hard thing to prove…unless Zuck happened to put it in writing. Which he did, as Brendan Benedict explains in Big Tech On Trial:

I think we’re badly mismanaging this right now. There’s absolutely no reason why IG ad load should be lower than FB at a time when . . . we’re having engagement issues in FB. If we were managing our company correctly, then at a minimum we’d immediately balance IG and FB ad load . . . But it’s possible we should even have a higher ad load on IG while we have this challenge so we can replace some ads with [People You May Know] on FB to turn around the issues we’re seeing.

https://www.bigtechontrial.com/p/zuckerberg-v-zuckerberg-will-the

So there you have it: Zuck bought Insta to neutralize a competitor, and after he did, he lowered its quality and raised its prices, because he knew that he was operating without significant competitors thanks to his acquisition of that key competitor. Zuck's motivations – as explained by Zuck himself – were in direct contravention of antitrust law, a thing he knew (because his execs explained it to him). That's a pretty good case.

But what about Whatsapp? How did Zuck feel about it? Well, he told his board that Whatsapp was Facebook's greatest "consumer risk," fretting that "Messenger isn’t beating WhatsApp." He blocked Whatsapp ads on Facebook, telling his team that it was "trying to build social networks and replace us." Sure, they'd lose money by turning away that business, but the "revenue is immaterial to us compared to any risk." Sure seems like Zuck saw Whatsapp as a competitor.

Meta's final line of defense in this case is that even if they did some crummy, illegal things, they still didn't manage to put together a monopoly. According to Meta's lawyers – who're billing the company more than $1m/day! – Meta is a tiny fish in a vast ocean that has many competitors, like Tiktok:

https://www.levernews.com/mr-zuckerbergs-very-expensive-day-in-court/

There's only one problem with this "market definition" argument, and that problem's name is Chatty Mark Zuckerberg. On the question of market definition, FTC lawyers once again raised Zuckerberg's own statements and those of his top lieutenants to show that Zuckerberg viewed his companies as "Personal Social Networks" (PSNs) and not as just generic sites full of stuff, competing with Youtube, Tiktok, and everyone else who lets users post things to the internet.

Take Instagram boss Adam Mosseri, who explained that:

Instagram will always need to focus on friends and can never exclusively be for public figures or will cease to be a social product.

And then there was Zuck's memo explaining why he offered $6b for Snapchat:

Snap Stories serves the exact same use case of sharing and consuming feeds of content that News Feed and Instagram deliver. We need to take this new dynamic seriously—both as a competitive risk and as a product opportunity to add functionality that many people clearly love and want to use daily.

And an internal strategy document that explained the competitive risks to Facebook:

Social networks have two stable equilibria: either everyone uses them, or no-one uses them. In contrast, nonsocial apps (e.g. weather apps, exercise apps) can exist [somewhere] along a continuum of adoption. The binary nature of social networks implies that there should exist a tipping point, ie some critical mass of adoption, above which a network will organically grow, and below which it will shrink.

Sure sounds like Facebook sees itself as a "social network," and not a "nonsocial app." And of course – as Dayen points out – when Tiktok (a company Meta claims as a competitor) went up for sale, Meta did not enter a bid, despite being awash in free cash flow.

In Zuckerberg's defense, he's not the only tech CEO who confesses his guilt in writing (recall that FTX planned its crimes in a groupchat called WIREFRAUD). Partly that's because these firms are run by arrogant twits, but partly it's because digital culture is a written culture, where big, dispersed teams expected to work long hours from offices all over the world as well as from their phones every hour of day and night have to rely on memos to coordinate:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/03/big-tech-cant-stop-telling-on-itself/

When Dayen claims that "the government has won the Meta case," he doesn't mean the judge will rule in the FTC's favor (though there's a high likelihood that this will happen). Rather, he means that the case has been proven beyond any kind of reasonable doubt, in public, in a way that has historically caused other monopolists to lose their nerve, even if they won their cases. Take Microsoft and IBM – though both companies managed to draw out their cases until a new Republican administration (Reagan for IBM, GWB for Microsoft) took office and let them off the hook, both companies were profoundly transformed by the process.

IBM created the market for a generic, multivendor PC whose OS came from outside the company:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/ibm-pc-compatible-how-adversarial-interoperability-saved-pcs-monopolization

And Microsoft spared Google the same treatment it had meted out to Netscape, allowing the company to grow and thrive:

https://apnews.com/article/google-apple-microsoft-antitrust-technology-cases-1e0c510088825745a6e74ba3b81b44c6

Trump being Trump, it's not inconceivable that he will attempt to intervene to get the judge to exonerate Meta. After all, Zuck did pay him a $1m bribe and then beg him to do just that:

https://gizmodo.com/zuckerberg-really-thought-trump-would-make-metas-legal-problems-go-away-2000589897

But as Dayen writes, the ire against Meta's monopolistic conduct is thoroughly bipartisan, and if Trump was being strategic here (a very, very big "if"), he would keep his powder dry here. After all, if the judge doesn't convict Meta, Trump won't have wasted any political capital. And if Meta is convicted, Trump could solicit more bribes and favors at the "remedy" stage, when a court will decide how to punish Meta, which could be anything from a fine to a breakup order, to a nothingburger of vague orders to clean up its act.

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/2025/04/18/chatty-zucky/#is-you-taking-notes-on-a-criminal-fucking-conspiracy

#pluralistic #zuck #mark zuckerberg #antitrust #trustbusting #self-incriminating #facebook #meta #trumpism #boss politics #boss politics antitrust #david dayen #petard

3K notes · View notes

blackstarlineage · 3 months ago

Text

The 1945 Pan-African Congress: A Garveyite Perspective on Black Unity, Anti-Colonial Struggle, and African Self-Determination

The Fifth Pan-African Congress (1945), held in Manchester, England, was a critical turning point in the global fight against colonial rule and a major moment in the history of Black resistance, Pan-Africanism, and the call for African self-determination. Unlike previous Pan-African Congresses, which were largely dominated by elite intellectuals, the 1945 Congress brought together workers, trade unionists, and revolutionary African nationalists, who were not just debating ideas but actively organizing for African liberation.

From a Garveyite perspective, the Manchester Congress was a necessary step forward in the fight against colonialism, but it also lacked the full economic and political vision of Garveyism, which emphasized not just political independence but Black economic self-reliance, industrial power, and global Pan-African unity under an independent African state.

This analysis will explore:

The historical context leading up to the 1945 Pan-African Congress.

The key figures and their contributions to anti-colonial struggle.

The successes and limitations of the Congress from a Garveyite perspective.

How Garveyism provides a more complete roadmap for African self-determination.

1. The Context: Why Was the 1945 Pan-African Congress Necessary?

By 1945, Africa and the African diaspora had been suffering under centuries of colonial exploitation, land theft, racial oppression, and economic strangulation. However, World War II (1939–1945) created conditions that made African liberation inevitable.

A. The Global Impact of WWII on African Colonies

European powers were weakened by the war, making them more vulnerable to anti-colonial movements.

African soldiers who fought in the war returned radicalized, refusing to accept colonial rule anymore.

The war exposed the hypocrisy of Western “democracies”, which claimed to fight against fascism while oppressing African and Caribbean peoples.

Example: Thousands of African soldiers from Nigeria, Kenya, Senegal, and Ghana fought for Britain and France but were still treated as second-class citizens.

B. Growing Anti-Colonial Movements Across Africa and the Caribbean

By 1945, anti-colonial resistance was already spreading across the African world:

The Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya was brewing against British settlers.

Kwame Nkrumah and other young revolutionaries were organizing in West Africa.

Haitians and Caribbean intellectuals were demanding an end to French colonial rule.

Example: The 1944 West African Railway Strike in Senegal showed that workers were beginning to resist European exploitation.

Key Takeaway: African people were no longer just resisting in theory—they were actively organizing for revolution.

2. Key Figures and Their Revolutionary Contributions

The 1945 Pan-African Congress was led by some of the most important anti-colonial thinkers of the 20th century, including:

A. Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana) – The Future Leader of African Independence

Promoted immediate self-government and rejected slow colonial reforms.

Called for mass mobilization of workers, farmers, and students to fight colonial rule.

Later became the first president of Ghana (1957) and a leader of the Pan-African movement.

Garveyite Perspective: Nkrumah embodied Garvey’s vision but failed to implement full economic independence, leading to his downfall.

B. Jomo Kenyatta (Kenya) – The Face of the Mau Mau Resistance

Advocated for land reform and the return of stolen land to Africans.

Became the first president of Kenya (1963) after years of struggle against British rule.

Was later accused of betraying the Mau Mau fighters by making deals with former colonizers.

Garveyite Perspective: Kenyatta’s failure to redistribute land after independence shows why political freedom is useless without economic control.

C. W.E.B. Du Bois (USA) – The Intellectual Strategist of the Movement

Used academic and political strategies to push for African liberation.

Called for global Black solidarity and unity between African nations and the diaspora.

Later exiled to Ghana, where he worked for African unity until his death.

Garveyite Perspective: Du Bois, despite his Pan-Africanism, initially rejected Garvey’s mass movement approach, which proved to be a mistake.

Key Takeaway: These leaders helped lay the foundation for African independence, but only Nkrumah fully attempted to implement Pan-Africanism as Garvey envisioned.

3. The Successes of the 1945 Pan-African Congress

The Congress was a turning point in the anti-colonial struggle for three main reasons:

A. Declaring War on Colonialism and White Supremacy

For the first time, the Congress openly called for the complete end of colonial rule, rather than slow reforms.

It declared that Africans would use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to win their freedom.

Example: The Congress issued a resolution demanding full independence for all African nations—a radical step compared to previous conferences.

B. The Rise of Grassroots, Working-Class Activism

Unlike previous Pan-African meetings, which were led by elites, this Congress included workers, farmers, and everyday Africans.

Trade unions and student organizations were key participants, showing that the movement had real grassroots support.

Example: African workers in the Caribbean and West Africa launched major strikes and boycotts after the Congress, proving its impact.

C. Creating the Blueprint for African Independence

Many of the leaders at this Congress went on to lead their nations to independence in the 1950s and 60s.

The Congress connected African struggles with Caribbean and Black American struggles, proving that Pan-Africanism was a global fight.

Example: Kwame Nkrumah took the ideas from the Congress and used them to lead Ghana to independence in 1957.

Key Takeaway: The Congress helped turn Pan-Africanism into an active revolutionary movement rather than just an intellectual debate.

4. The Garveyite Critique: Why the 1945 Pan-African Congress Was Not Enough

While the Congress was a major step forward, it failed in key areas that Garveyism had already identified as essential for real liberation.

A. No Economic Plan for True Independence

The Congress focused on political freedom but ignored economic self-reliance.

Garvey emphasized building Black industries, businesses, and financial institutions, but this was not prioritized.

As a result, many African nations won independence but remained economically controlled by Europe.

Example: Many former colonies remained dependent on European banks, currencies, and trade policies, making them neo-colonies rather than free nations.

B. Lack of a Unified Pan-African Government

The Congress did not create a plan for a United States of Africa, as Garvey had envisioned.

This failure allowed European powers to keep African nations divided and weak.

Example: African leaders after independence often competed against each other rather than uniting, which made them vulnerable to Western control.

Key Takeaway: Garvey understood that political independence without economic and military strength is a trap.

5. The Garveyite Solution: Completing the Pan-African Revolution

To finish the work of the 1945 Pan-African Congress, Black people must:

Take full control of African economies, land, and industries.

Establish a unified African government and military.

End European economic control and create a Black-centered financial system.

Strengthen global Black trade between Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

Final Takeaway: The 1945 Pan-African Congress was a major step toward independence, but true liberation requires Garvey’s vision of a powerful, self-sufficient Black world.

78 notes · View notes

seasurfacefullofclouds1 · 7 months ago

Note

I’m an OG fan. I ship L/H but how ships are meant to be - your fave pairing, fun, fantasy, fandom activity, not something to discuss publicly much less with the celebs - but I never interacted much in fandom bc I disliked the bizarre obsession with ships being “real”. The “truth” of their sex/love lives is none of our business & was never their value to me. (i’d be much more interested in the truth about their friendships/coworker dynamics but we’ll never get it.) I drifted from the fandom when they went solo bc I saw how Harry was “Timberlake’ing”. No one seemed to see how calculated & ruthlessly ambitious he is, vapid, & fame obsessed. how he only befriends/dates rich, well-connected people. It’s refreshing to learn that blogs like yours exist - that people see him & see what he did to the other guys. Zayn, Louis, Liam - were all at times villainized and scapegoated while he’s treated like a naive princess who can do no wrong. His interviews are so pointless bc he never answers anything honestly. he’d never admit to being a cokehead who purposely deceived & fucked over the others to make sure he could launch his solo career without competition. Zayn tried to outmaneuver him but didn’t have the powerful team behind him & has too much integrity to ever be the kind of “star” Harry is. tbh I enjoy how much it irks harry that Zayn sees through him. It’s wild how sincere the others stayed, how they matured, how they have bigger priorities than money or fame. Harry mimicked Louis’ personality when they were younger, pretending he couldn’t wait to have kids & marry - when really he just wanted to be as rich, promiscuous, and famous as humanly possible. He bootlicks anyone in showbiz, so he has a glowing reputation in the industry - it’s laughable. “TPWK” unless it’s your bandmates who you can’t deign to acknowledge unless it benefits you - hosting SNL or winning an award? ok, mention the band so you get headlines. But like one of their promo posts or even follow them back on IG? heaven forbid, bc that won’t benefit him more than them. It shows his true character that he’s SO successful but still won’t be openly supportive or even seen with them. I don’t think he’s evil but I do think he’s lost to the industry… which is sad, bc there’s once a lot of sweetness there. His eyes have lost their sparkle; he traded it for “success”.

Hi anon,

I was reading this ask and nodding my head right along each sentence. A lot to unpack here, but mostly you’ve said everything I’ve tried to say. I’m not sure if anyone is listening, to be honest! Like you wrote, blogs who don’t worship Harry never become popular. So here I am talking to the air lol. Insanity.

I don’t think Harry is evil either. I think he realizes the trade-offs now, watching his ex-bandmates’ careers slowly build with intentions very different from his, their old ties fading to nothing except when tragedy yokes them back together. He has gazillions in wealth, industry kissing his feet, a lot of women (+ a few men) fantasizing about him, but nothing inside, the lights gone from his eyes years ago. It must feel awkward to stand next to his bandmates again?

Here’s the thing. I’m sure in every circumstance, forever for the foreseeable future, Louis is always going to be the bigger man and speak well of Harry. No matter how many times Louis refutes the idea of Larry, Louis has always said he’s proud of Harry, and I am sure he means it. 100%. No matter what Harry says or does, Louis considers him part of One Direction, his band, and that concept is sacrosanct to him. “We move as one.”

What Louis has in his heart is worth a million Manchester Co-ops. It is priceless. No one can take it away— no Kardashian money, no Rolling Stone cover, no Anna Wintour, no A-list actress or acting role. Nothing. What Louis has is the feeling of loyalty and unity that is the epitome of the song he wrote, Strong. “I don’t care, I’m not scared of love.” It’s not romantic love, at least not anymore, but what Louis describes in Only The Brave— the love that comes from the deepest pain, from uncomfortable truths, alienation, grief— broken beaks and dead birds— the love that requires moral courage. “Because love is only for the brave.” Louis earned it by going through fire, the love that endures because he chose to respect it, intentionally, over all the other things.

Last, Zayn’s intentionality is also transparent for those who open their eyes and see. I’m glad to see that Zayn is touring, and choosing to play the same smaller venues as Louis when he first started his tour. I’m also glad to see Louis communicating via social media. It’s not actual friendship, but a step! It means so much.

Louis and Zayn aren’t perfect people— far from it— but they chose to stay grounded and chose to preserve some part of their humanity. I know they haven’t always been their best selves. But who they are, especially who Louis is, is so endearing, and so inspiring.

#one direction #louis tomlinson #zayn malik #liam payne #harry styles #niall horan #thank you anon for this ask!

52 notes · View notes

frenchcurious · 4 months ago

Text

Bâtiment Manchester Unity Building à Melbourne, Australie. Construit en 1932. Architecte Marcus Barlow (1890-1954). - source Dhona.

#melbourne #australie #marcus barlow

42 notes · View notes

timefadesaway · 10 months ago

Text

stop the far right – national day of protest today (august 10th)

here is the list of current demonstrations taking place today nationally

London - Reform UK HQ, 83 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0HW – 2:30pm

Colchester - Colchester War Memorial, High Street 1pm

Taunton - Town Centre, Market House – 2.30pm

Southall - Unity Hall, Southall Town Hall UB1 3HA – 12pm

Nottingham - Brian Clough Statute, Nottingham city centre – 1pm

Southampton - Bargate - 12pm

Hull - Queen Victoria Square – 10am

Norwich - Gentleman’s Walk - 12pm

Chorley - Union Street, Chorley PR7 1AE - 1pm

Preston - Friargate Pedestrian Area – 2pm

Sheffield - Sheffield City Hall – 12pm

Hackney - St Augustines Tower, Narrow Way, Hackney Central E8 1HR – 12pm

Leicester - Meet outside HSBC Bank, Humberstone Gate - 12pm

Shrewsbury - The Square - 12.30pm

Weymouth - Meet outside The Range, New Bond Street – 11am

Lancaster - Town Hall steps – 12pm

Stratford - Stratford Bus Station (old shopping centre side), E20 1EH – 11am

Derby - Meet Council House, marching to The Spot – 11am

Liverpool - Pier Head - 12pm

Coventry - Millennium Place, CV1 1JD – 1pm

Brixton - Windrush Square SW2 1JQ – 1pm

Abergavenny - Opposite Waterstones – 11am

Dumfries & Galloway - Planestanes - 11am

Wakefield - Cedar Court Hotel, Denby Dale Road, Wakefield, WF4 3QZ - 12pm

York - St Helen’s Square – 4pm

Cardiff - Nye Bevan statue - 1pm

Newcastle - Grey’s Monument – 9:30am

Calderdale - Outside Wilko’s, 2 Southgate, HX1 IDR - 12pm

Portsmouth - Guildhall Square - 1pm

Eastbourne - Outside Barclays Bank, Terminus Road - 1pm

Tower Hamlets - Altab Ali Park, Alder Street - 5pm

Islington & Haringey - Finsbury Park Mosque St Thomas’s Road N4 2QH – 2pm

Dundee - City Square, Dundee – 12:30pm

Hastings - Hastings Town Centre Robertson St, outside Owens - 12pm

Oxford - Bonn Square - 11am

Lincoln - Lincoln High Street, Speakers Corner - 2pm

Edinburgh - outside Scottish Parliament - 11am

Stoke - Hanley Town Hall, Stoke-on-Trent - 12pm

Manchester - Piccadilly Gardens - 11am

Harlow - The Obelisk, Broadwalk - 1:30pm

Birmingham - Outside Waterstones, Birmingham City Centre - 12:30pm

more information here, not necessarily comprehensive, so explore local organisers and groups if your area doesn't have anything! list may expand so check the link for updates.

#um im not usually the person to do this but please share ^ i just havent seen anything about it and i usually do with things like this so...#and nobody come and tell me that sutr suck or whatever i think this takes priority over whatever we're arguing about the swp etc

23 notes · View notes

wisteria-tarot · 3 months ago

Note

Can you do a reading on Manchester City’s Ruben Dias? What type is he attracted to and not attracted to? What type will he actually end up with? What’s he like in private and what are his fears/worries about his career, personal life, etc? Thank you in advance!

Disclaimer: This reading is only for entertainment. Take it with a grain of salt. These are my personal interpretations of the cards with a sprinkle of intuition. Tarot is not set in stone it is not the end all be all of someones life.

What is he attracted to in a partner?

knight of pentacles, 5 of cups (rx), the hanged man, temperance, 2 of cups:

He values hard work and loyalty, and is likely attracted to someone who takes a patient and methodical approach to life and relationships. He may be drawn to someone who is open-minded, reflective, and capable of seeing life and relationships from different perspectives. He is attracted to balance and emotional harmony. A partner who has a calm, composed nature and can handle conflicts with patience and understanding is important to him. He’s looking for someone with whom he can share a meaningful bond, someone who complements him and with whom he feels a sense of unity and understanding.

What is he not attracted to in a partner?

6 of cups, judgement, page of pentacles (rx), the empress, 9 of swords:

He would likely find someone who is stuck in the past or who romanticizes it a bit too much, unappealing. He may be turned off by someone who is overly judgmental or who makes hasty or unfair conclusions about others. He’s not attracted to someone who is immature, lazy, or who does not take their goals and responsibilities seriously. He may not be interested in a partner who is too fixated on luxury, appearance, or who leans too much on others for emotional or financial support. He would likely find a partner who is constantly worried or unable to manage their own emotional or mental health burdens unappealing.

What type will he actually end up with?

the magician (rx), justice (rx), the tower, strength (rx), the sun (rx):

This person might have difficulties manifesting their desires or struggles with self-sabotage. The person they end up with might be someone who is not straightforward, and there may be hidden agendas or an ongoing sense of disharmony. The person they end up with might bring about significant transformation, and the relationship may start with some sort of shocking revelation or crisis. The person may be someone who struggles with their own vulnerability, might be emotionally weak, or prone to insecurity. The person may not bring out the best in them at first.

What’s he like in private?

death, the moon, the chariot, the world (rx), the empress:

In private, they could be letting go of past issues, identities, or relationships in order to reinvent themselves. They might not always be clear about their own desires or feelings and may sometimes feel lost or unsure. They likely have a strong inner resolve and may use their private time to strategize, work on personal goals, or cultivate inner strength. In private, this person may feel as though they have not yet reached their full potential or may feel as though they are still striving for something they haven't achieved. They could be someone who cares deeply for others, may enjoy creating or cultivating beauty in their surroundings, and might be emotionally supportive in a quiet, private way.

What are his fears/worries about his career?

9 of pentacles, 3 of cups, wheel of fortune, the sun, the tower (rx):

His career fears seem to revolve around concerns of maintaining success and independence, fitting in with others or finding joy and fulfillment in his work relationships, dealing with unpredictable external forces or changes in circumstances, not achieving the level of recognition or success he desires, and a fear of sudden disruption or upheaval. These fears point to a combination of anxieties about stability, achieving true fulfillment, and managing the unpredictable nature of career progression.

What are his fears/worries about in his personal life?

justice, knight of pentacles, 4 of pentacles, ace of cups (rx), the world (rx):

His personal life fears seem to revolve around emotional imbalance, the pressure of maintaining responsibilities or not measuring up, a fear of instability or holding on too tightly, emotional blockages or rejection, and feeling incomplete or stagnant in his personal growth. He might be dealing with insecurities around emotional vulnerability, the fear of not reaching emotional fulfillment, or feeling like he's not progressing toward the type of personal life he desires.

Will his new relationship with Maya Jama last?

the high priestess, the lovers (rx), temperance, the magician, strength:

The relationship with Maya Jama has the potential to last, but it will require effort and a willingness to overcome challenges. There are hidden aspects of things that need to be revealed, potential misalignments or struggles with commitment, and the need for patience and balance. With effort and emotional resilience, there’s a strong possibility that the relationship could endure and develop into something meaningful and lasting, provided both parties work through the difficulties that may arise.

#tarot readings #celeb tarot readings #manchester city #ruben dias

9 notes · View notes

csmeatonimages · 1 year ago

Text

Manchester Unity Building, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

#Manchester Unity Building #Melbourne #Victoria #Australia #EndOfRoll #Holga120N #6x6 #120 #120film #Kodak #Portra #400ASA #toycamera #film #colour #3000

5 notes · View notes

goalhofer · 7 months ago

Text

2024-25 Vancouver Canucks roster

Wingers

#6 Brock Boeser (Burnsville, Minnesota)

#8 Conor Garland (Scituate, Massachusetts)

#9 J.T. Miller (Unity Township, Ohio) A

#20 Danton Heinen (Langley, British Columbia)*

#21 Nils Höglander (Sorsele Kommun, Sweden)

#23 Jonathan Lekkerimäki (Huddinge Kommun, Sweden)**

#44 Kiefer Sherwood (Columbus, Ohio)*

#74 Jake DeBrusk (Edmonton, Alberta)*

Centers

#24 Pius Suter (Wallisellen, Switzerland)

#40 Fredrik Pettersson (Sundsvall Stad, Sweden) A

#53 Teddy Bļugers (Riga, Latvia)

#54 Aatu Räty (Oulu, Finland)**

#81 Dakota Joshua (Dearborn, Michigan)

Defensemen

#7 Carson Soucy (Wainwright Municipality, Alberta)

#17 Filip Hronek (Hradec Králové, Czech Republic)

#26 Erik Brännström (Eksjö Stad, Sweden)*

#27 Derek Forbort (Duluth, Minnesota)*

#43 Quinn Hughes (Manchester, New Hampshire) C

#47 Noah Juulsen (Abbotsford, British Columbia)

#57 Tyler Myers (Calgary, Alberta)

#73 Vincent Desharnais (Laval, Quebec)*

Goalies

#31 Artūrs Šilovs (Ventspils, Latvia)

#32 Kevin Lankinen (Helsinki, Finland)*

#35 Thatcher Demko (San Diego, California)

8 notes · View notes

insectculture · 2 days ago

Text

Unity Mill in Stockport, Greater Manchester

#photography #urbex #derelict #abandoned #building #factory #concrete

3 notes · View notes

lenbryant · 15 days ago

Text

(NYT) Bruce Springsteen Will Never Surrender to Donald Trump

By Eric Alterman

Mr. Alterman is the author of “It Ain’t No Sin to Be Glad You’re Alive: The Promise of Bruce Springsteen.”

Since the 1980s Bruce Springsteen has been writing songs that emphasized, even romanticized, a polyglot vision of America and what it means to be an American. That vision is, broadly speaking, an updated version of New Deal America: one that recognizes not only the dignity and pride of honest labor but also the importance of respecting our differences, whether they are based on culture, gender, ethnicity or race. It’s a vision of unity summed up in the phrase that in past concert tours Mr. Springsteen has used to close out the show: “Nobody wins unless everybody wins.” And when Mr. Springsteen says “everybody,” he means everybody — including undocumented migrants and border patrol agents, unwed mothers, distant and irresponsible fathers, Black victims of police brutality and the cops who (regret) shooting them, emotionally scarred Vietnam vets and Southeast Asian war refugees trying to make America their new home.

The 1980s also saw the rise of an alternative vision of America: one that sought to tear down what was left of the New Deal. Its exemplar was Donald Trump, then a tacky developer and a tabloid fixture. It was based on the idea that could be summarized as: I win only if everybody else loses. Today Mr. Trump is president, and full of petty rage at Mr. Springsteen for daring to criticize him at the opening show on his current European tour.

Nothing irks Mr. Trump quite as much as the disrespect of a fellow celebrity. But it’s more than that. Mr. Springsteen, 75, and Mr. Trump, 78, are in many respects two opposing faces of modern America as it was built and performed by their generation. They offer their fan bases a promise of entirely different futures.

Just as Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign sought to make (his) America great again, Mr. Springsteen’s current Land of Hope and Dreams Tour is a nod to his idea of another, more generous vision. The lyrics to the song of the same name offer up an idealistic vision of inclusion with a train packed with “saints and sinners,” “losers and winners,” “whores and gamblers” and “lost souls.” It promises, “Dreams will not be thwarted” and “faith will be rewarded” with “bells of freedom ringing.” It may also be a reference to Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration celebration, where he sang the same tune.

Introducing “Land of Hope and Dreams” as the first song on the tour’s opening night in Manchester, England, Mr. Springsteen told the crowd that the United States was “currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration” that has “no concern or idea of what it means to be deeply American.”

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning.

Mr. Trump heard this as a challenge. The president threatened an “investigation” into Mr. Springsteen’s support for Kamala Harris and blustered on Truth Social that this “Highly Overrated … not a talented guy” was “Just a pushy, obnoxious JERK.” Later he put out a fake video in which he hits Mr. Springsteen with a golf ball.

Perhaps Mr. Trump worried that a simple, uncompromised patriotic message on offer from a man who is arguably the nation’s most beloved male rock star would break through to his fans. The appeal of both men is clear. Mr. Trump and Mr. Springsteen were born three years apart and felt, in their way, like they were outsiders. Both are now very wealthy while credibly professing to speak to and for the denizens of America’s working class who live paycheck to paycheck. They reach people who could never in a lifetime earn enough to purchase a membership to Mar-a-Lago (much less buy enough $TRUMP memecoins to have dinner with the president) and may not have been able to see “Springsteen on Broadway” or in concert (where Ticketmaster’s “dynamic pricing” process sent some of the best tickets of a recent tour into the mid-four-figure range) and still pay that month’s rent. Most important, however, each man embodies a competing vision of the much-maligned American dream.

Raised working class, Mr. Springsteen started out as a punkish prowler of the mean streets of the late-night, low-rent Jersey Shore but has since evolved into an icon who has come to symbolize an imagined alternative America, one that simultaneously evokes Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass,” Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” speech and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” prophecy. It’s an imagined country that much of the world would like to believe really exists beneath the belligerent bravado of Mr. Trump and his MAGA fans.

Mr. Trump’s successful businessman act has almost always been based on smoke, mirrors, his daddy’s millions and, these days, an elaborate, family-enriching crypto scheme. Ditto his career as a television star, which was based on artifice on the one hand, behind the scenes, and performative sadism in front of the camera. Mr. Trump’s political ideology is similarly a sham: exploiting racism, resentment and a need for dominance. Mr. Springsteen is his foil, the counter to his idea that to lift up, one must leave out.

Mr. Springsteen, to his credit, regularly shows up at food banks, veterans centers, political rallies and even hospitals. In Manchester, Mr. Springsteen waxed on about “the America I love, the America I’ve written about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years.” It’s a country, he insisted, that “regardless of its faults is a great country with a great people” but is today threatened, as “a majority of our elected representatives have failed to protect the American people from the abuses of an unfit president and a rogue government.”

Years ago, Mr. Springsteen explained his own political coming of age. “My idea in the early and mid-1980s was to put forth an alternate vision of the America that was being put forth by the Reagan-era Republicans. They basically tried to co-opt every image that was American, including me. I wanted to stake my own claim to those images, and put forth my own ideas about them.” These days, of course, Mr. Trump’s MAGA movement has been built upon the idea of doing that once more, but without even the Reagan-era optimism.

The Tulane University American studies scholar Joel Dinerstein observed a turn in Mr. Springsteen’s concert rhetoric in this period, “away from his youthful reproduction of the individualistic American dream of material wealth” and toward one that envisions “a collective American dream of self-actualization within a supportive community.” This alternative American dream is “of a rejuvenated democracy reclaimed by fighting for social justice,” he said.

Mr. Trump’s deepfake golf ball assault did not deter Mr. Springsteen. On subsequent nights, Mr. Springsteen changed his set list: The show opened with “No Surrender.” He not only repeated the same speeches but also released a live recording from that night of the tour, where he could be heard saying: “Tonight we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experiment to rise with us, raise your voices against authoritarianism and let freedom ring!”

#long post #refrigerator magnet #bruce springsteen #politics #maga me sick #music #born in the usa

3 notes · View notes

patricialegdin · 19 days ago

Text

8 years ago today. 22 lives were taken in the Manchester Arena attack. Children, Parents, Friends and Loved ones lost in an act of unimaginable cruelty.

Today we remember them. We hold space for the families who still grieve. We honor the survivors whose lives were changed forever.

We thank the first responders who showed courage in chaos.

But most of all, We remember how Manchester stood together.

In the face of pain, there was music

In the face of fear, there was love

In the face of hate, there was unity

Let today be more than remembrance. Let it be a reminder: We rise by standing together. We heal by holding each other close. We fight hate by compassion.

We remember. We will never forget

#we stand together #MachesterRemembers #InOurHearts

4 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 2 months ago

Text

Tesla accused of hacking odometers to weasel out of warranty repairs

A lawsuit filed in February accuses Tesla of remotely altering odometer values on failure-prone cars, in a bid to push these lemons beyond the 50,000 mile warranty limit:

https://www.thestreet.com/automotive/tesla-accused-of-using-sneaky-tactic-to-dodge-car-repairs

The suit was filed by a California driver who bought a used Tesla with 36,772 miles on it. The car's suspension kept failing, necessitating multiple servicings, and that was when the plaintiff noticed that the odometer readings for his identical daily drive were going up by ever-larger increments. This wasn't exactly subtle: he was driving 20 miles per day, but the odometer was clocking 72.35 miles/day. Still, how many of us monitor our daily odometer readings?

In short order, his car's odometer had rolled over the 50k mark and Tesla informed him that they would no longer perform warranty service on his lemon. Right after this happened, the new mileage clocked by his odometer returned to normal. This isn't the only Tesla owner who's noticed this behavior: Tesla subreddits are full of similar complaints:

https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/1ca92nk/is_tesla_inflating_odometer_to_show_more_range/

This isn't Tesla's first dieselgate scandal. In the summer of 2023, the company was caught lying to drivers about its cars' range:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/28/edison-not-tesla/#demon-haunted-world

Drivers noticed that they were getting far fewer miles out of their batteries than Tesla had advertised. Naturally, they contacted the company for service on their faulty cars. Tesla then set up an entire fake service operation in Nevada that these calls would be diverted to, called the "diversion team." Drivers with range complaints were put through to the "diverters" who would claim to run "remote diagnostics" on their cars and then assure them the cars were fine. They even installed a special xylophone in the diversion team office that diverters would ring every time they successfully deceived a driver.

These customers were then put in an invisible Tesla service jail. Their Tesla apps were silently altered so that they could no longer book service for their cars for any reason – instead, they'd have to leave a message and wait several days for a callback. The diversion center racked up 2,000 calls/week and diverters were under strict instructions to keep calls under five minutes. Eventually, these diverters were told that they should stop actually performing remote diagnostics on the cars of callers – instead, they'd just pretend to have run the diagnostics and claim no problems were found (so if your car had a potentially dangerous fault, they would falsely claim that it was safe to drive).

Most modern cars have some kind of internet connection, but Tesla goes much further. By design, its cars receive "over-the-air" updates, including updates that are adverse to drivers' interests. For example, if you stop paying the monthly subscription fee that entitles you to use your battery's whole charge, Tesla will send a wireless internet command to your car to restrict your driving to only half of your battery's charge.

This means that your Tesla is designed to follow instructions that you don't want it to follow, and, by design, those instructions can fundamentally alter your car's operating characteristics. For example, if you miss a payment on your Tesla, it can lock its doors and immobilize itself, then, when the repo man arrives, it will honk its horn, flash its lights, back out of its parking spot, and unlock itself so that it can be driven away:

https://tiremeetsroad.com/2021/03/18/tesla-allegedly-remotely-unlocks-model-3-owners-car-uses-smart-summon-to-help-repo-agent/

Some of the ways that your Tesla can be wirelessly downgraded (like disabling your battery) are disclosed at the time of purchase. Others (like locking you out and summoning a repo man) are secret. But whether disclosed or secret, both kinds of downgrade depend on the genuinely bizarre idea that a computer that you own, that is in your possession, can be relied upon to follow orders from the internet even when you don't want it to. This is weird enough when we're talking about a set-top box that won't let you record a TV show – but when we're talking about a computer that you put your body into and race down the road at 80mph inside of, it's frankly terrifying.

Obviously, most people would prefer to have the final say over how their computers work. I mean, maybe you trust the manufacturer's instructions and give your computer blanket permission to obey them, but if the manufacturer (or a hacker pretending to be the manufacturer, or a government who is issuing orders to the manufacturer) starts to do things that are harmful to you (or just piss you off), you want to be able to say to your computer, "OK, from now on, you take orders from me, not them."

In a state of nature, this is how computers work. To make a computer ignore its owner in favor of internet randos, the manufacturer has to build in a bunch of software countermeasures to stop you from reconfiguring or installing software of your choosing on it. And sure, that software might be able to withstand the attempts of normies like you and me to bypass it, but given that we'd all rather have the final say over how our computers work, someone is gonna figure out how to get around that software. I mean, show me a 10-foot fence and I'll show you an 11-foot ladder, right?

To stop that from happening, Congress passed the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Despite the word "copyright" appearing in the name of the law, it's not really about defending copyright, it's about defending business models. Under Section 1201 of the DMCA, helping someone bypass a software lock is a felony punishable by a five-year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine (for a first offense). That's true whether or not any copyright infringement takes place.

So if you want to modify your Tesla – say, to prevent the company from cheating your odometer – you have to get around a software lock, and that's a felony. Indeed, if any manufacturer puts a software lock on its product, then any changes that require disabling or bypassing that lock become illegal. That's why you can't just buy reliable third-party printer ink – reverse-engineering the "is this an original HP ink cartridge?" program is a literal crime, even though using non-HP ink in your printer is absolutely not a copyright violation. Jay Freeman calls this effect "felony contempt of business model."

Thus we arrive at this juncture, where every time you use a product or device or service, it might behave in a way that is totally unlike the last time you used it. This is true whether you own, lease or merely interact with a product. The changes can be obvious, or they can be subtle to the point of invisibility. And while manufacturers can confine their "updates" to things that make the product better (for example, patching security vulnerabilities), there's nothing to stop them from using this uninspectable, non-countermandable veto over your devices' functionality to do things that harm you – like fucking with your odometer.

Or, you know, bricking your car. The defunct EV maker Fisker – who boasted that it made "software-based cars" – went bankrupt last year and bricked the entire fleet of unsold cars:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/10/software-based-car/#based

I call this ability to modify the underlying functionality of a product or service for every user, every time they use it, "twiddling," and it's a major contributor to enshittification:

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

Enshittification's observable symptoms follow a predictable pattern: first, a company makes things good for its users, while finding ways to lock them in. Then, once it knows the users can't easily leave, the company makes things worse for end-users in order to deliver value to business customers. Once these businesses are locked in, the company siphons value away from them, too, until the product or service is a pile of shit, that we still can't leave:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/26/ursula-franklin/#franklinite

Twiddling is key to enshittification: it's the method by which value is shifted from end-users to business customers, and from business customers to the platform. Twiddling is the "switch" in enshittification's series of minute, continuous bait-and-switches. The fact that DMCA 1201 makes it a crime to investigate systems with digital locks makes the modern computerized device a twiddler's playground. Sure, a driver might claim that their odometer is showing bad readings, but they can't dump their car's software and identify the code that is changing the odometer.

This is what I mean by "demon-haunted computers": a computer is "demon-haunted" if it is designed to detect when it is under scrutiny, and, when it senses a hostile observer, it changes its behavior to the innocuous, publicly claimed factory defaults:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/18/descartes-delenda-est/#self-destruct-sequence-initiated

But as soon as the observer goes away, the computer returns to its nefarious ways. This is exactly what happened with Dieselgate, when VW used software that detected the test-suite run by government emissions inspectors, and changed the engine's characteristics when it was under their observation. But once the car was back on the road, it once again began emitting toxic gas at levels that killed killed dozens of people and sickened thousands more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/upshot/how-many-deaths-did-volkswagens-deception-cause-in-us.html

Cars are among the most demon-haunted products we use on a daily basis. They are designed from the chassis up to do things that are harmful to their owners, from stealing our location data so it can be sold to data-brokers, to immobilizing themselves if you miss a payment, to downgrading themselves if you stop paying for a "subscription," to ratting out your driving habits to your insurer:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon

These are the "legitimate" ways that cars are computers that ignore their owners' orders in favor of instructions they get from the internet. But once a manufacturer arrogates that power to itself, it is confronted with a tempting smorgasbord of enshittificatory gambits to defraud you, control you, and gaslight you. Now, perhaps you could wield this power wisely, because you are in possession of the normal human ration of moral consideration for others, to say nothing of a sense of shame and a sense of honor.

But while corporations are (legally) people, they are decidedly not human. They are artificial lifeforms, "intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic" (as HG Wells said of the marauding aliens in War of the Worlds):

https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/14/timmy-share/#a-superior-moral-justification-for-selfishness

These alien invaders are busily xenoforming the planet, rendering it unfit for human habitation. Laws that ban reverse-engineering are a devastating weapon that corporations get to use in their bid to subjugate and devour the human race.

The US isn't the only country with a law like Section 1201 of the DMCA. Over the past 25 years, the US Trade Representative has arm-twisted nearly every country in the world into passing laws that are nearly identical to America's own disastrous DMCA. Why did countries agree to pass these laws? Well, because they had to, or the US would impose tariffs on them:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/03/03/friedmanite/#oil-crisis-two-point-oh

The Trump tariffs change everything, including this thing. There is no reason for America's (former) trading partners to continue to enforce the laws it passed to protect Big Tech's right to twiddle their citizens. That goes double for Tesla: rather than merely complaining about Musk's Nazi salutes, countries targeted by the regime he serves could retaliate against him, in a devastating fashion. By abolishing their anticircuvmention laws, countries around the world would legalize jailbreaking Teslas, allowing mechanics to unlock all the subscription features and software upgrades for every Tesla driver, as well as offering their own software mods. Not only would this tank Tesla stock and force Musk to pay back the loans he collateralized with his shares (loans he used to buy Twitter and the US predidency), it would also abolish sleazy gimmicks like hacking drivers' odometers to get out of paying for warranty service:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/03/08/turnabout/#is-fair-play

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/2025/04/15/musklemons/#more-like-edison-amirite

Image: Steve Jurvetson (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tesla_Model_S_Indoors.jpg

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

#pluralistic #tesla #demon-haunted cars #autoenshittification #fraud #odomoter fraud #automotive #dieselgate #elon musk #musk #enshittification #1201 #dmca 1201 #felony contempt of business model #repair #right to repair

3K notes · View notes