#robin farrell

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The disenshittified internet starts with loyal "user agents"

I'm in TARTU, ESTONIA! Overcoming the Enshittocene (TOMORROW, May 8, 6PM, Prima Vista Literary Festival keynote, University of Tartu Library, Struwe 1). AI, copyright and creative workers' labor rights (May 10, 8AM: Science Fiction Research Association talk, Institute of Foreign Languages and Cultures building, Lossi 3, lobby). A talk for hackers on seizing the means of computation (May 10, 3PM, University of Tartu Delta Centre, Narva 18, room 1037).

There's one overwhelmingly common mistake that people make about enshittification: assuming that the contagion is the result of the Great Forces of History, or that it is the inevitable end-point of any kind of for-profit online world.

In other words, they class enshittification as an ideological phenomenon, rather than as a material phenomenon. Corporate leaders have always felt the impulse to enshittify their offerings, shifting value from end users, business customers and their own workers to their shareholders. The decades of largely enshittification-free online services were not the product of corporate leaders with better ideas or purer hearts. Those years were the result of constraints on the mediocre sociopaths who would trade our wellbeing and happiness for their own, constraints that forced them to act better than they do today, even if the were not any better:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/naming-names/#prabhakar-raghavan

Corporate leaders' moments of good leadership didn't come from morals, they came from fear. Fear that a competitor would take away a disgruntled customer or worker. Fear that a regulator would punish the company so severely that all gains from cheating would be wiped out. Fear that a rival technology – alternative clients, tracker blockers, third-party mods and plugins – would emerge that permanently severed the company's relationship with their customers. Fears that key workers in their impossible-to-replace workforce would leave for a job somewhere else rather than participate in the enshittification of the services they worked so hard to build:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/22/kargo-kult-kaptialism/#dont-buy-it

When those constraints melted away – thanks to decades of official tolerance for monopolies, which led to regulatory capture and victory over the tech workforce – the same mediocre sociopaths found themselves able to pursue their most enshittificatory impulses without fear.

The effects of this are all around us. In This Is Your Phone On Feminism, the great Maria Farrell describes how audiences at her lectures profess both love for their smartphones and mistrust for them. Farrell says, "We love our phones, but we do not trust them. And love without trust is the definition of an abusive relationship":

https://conversationalist.org/2019/09/13/feminism-explains-our-toxic-relationships-with-our-smartphones/

I (re)discovered this Farrell quote in a paper by Robin Berjon, who recently co-authored a magnificent paper with Farrell entitled "We Need to Rewild the Internet":

https://www.noemamag.com/we-need-to-rewild-the-internet/

The new Berjon paper is narrower in scope, but still packed with material examples of the way the internet goes wrong and how it can be put right. It's called "The Fiduciary Duties of User Agents":

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3827421

In "Fiduciary Duties," Berjon focuses on the technical term "user agent," which is how web browsers are described in formal standards documents. This notion of a "user agent" is a holdover from a more civilized age, when technologists tried to figure out how to build a new digital space where technology served users.

A web browser that's a "user agent" is a comforting thought. An agent's job is to serve you and your interests. When you tell it to fetch a web-page, your agent should figure out how to get that page, make sense of the code that's embedded in, and render the page in a way that represents its best guess of how you'd like the page seen.

For example, the user agent might judge that you'd like it to block ads. More than half of all web users have installed ad-blockers, constituting the largest consumer boycott in human history:

https://doc.searls.com/2023/11/11/how-is-the-worlds-biggest-boycott-doing/

Your user agent might judge that the colors on the page are outside your visual range. Maybe you're colorblind, in which case, the user agent could shift the gamut of the colors away from the colors chosen by the page's creator and into a set that suits you better:

https://dankaminsky.com/dankam/

Or maybe you (like me) have a low-vision disability that makes low-contrast type difficult to impossible to read, and maybe the page's creator is a thoughtless dolt who's chosen light grey-on-white type, or maybe they've fallen prey to the absurd urban legend that not-quite-black type is somehow more legible than actual black type:

https://uxplanet.org/basicdesign-never-use-pure-black-in-typography-36138a3327a6

The user agent is loyal to you. Even when you want something the page's creator didn't consider – even when you want something the page's creator violently objects to – your user agent acts on your behalf and delivers your desires, as best as it can.

Now – as Berjon points out – you might not know exactly what you want. Like, you know that you want the privacy guarantees of TLS (the difference between "http" and "https") but not really understand the internal cryptographic mysteries involved. Your user agent might detect evidence of shenanigans indicating that your session isn't secure, and choose not to show you the web-page you requested.

This is only superficially paradoxical. Yes, you asked your browser for a web-page. Yes, the browser defied your request and declined to show you that page. But you also asked your browser to protect you from security defects, and your browser made a judgment call and decided that security trumped delivery of the page. No paradox needed.

But of course, the person who designed your user agent/browser can't anticipate all the ways this contradiction might arise. Like, maybe you're trying to access your own website, and you know that the security problem the browser has detected is the result of your own forgetful failure to renew your site's cryptographic certificate. At that point, you can tell your browser, "Thanks for having my back, pal, but actually this time it's fine. Stand down and show me that webpage."

That's your user agent serving you, too.

User agents can be well-designed or they can be poorly made. The fact that a user agent is designed to act in accord with your desires doesn't mean that it always will. A software agent, like a human agent, is not infallible.

However – and this is the key – if a user agent thwarts your desire due to a fault, that is fundamentally different from a user agent that thwarts your desires because it is designed to serve the interests of someone else, even when that is detrimental to your own interests.

A "faithless" user agent is utterly different from a "clumsy" user agent, and faithless user agents have become the norm. Indeed, as crude early internet clients progressed in sophistication, they grew increasingly treacherous. Most non-browser tools are designed for treachery.

A smart speaker or voice assistant routes all your requests through its manufacturer's servers and uses this to build a nonconsensual surveillance dossier on you. Smart speakers and voice assistants even secretly record your speech and route it to the manufacturer's subcontractors, whether or not you're explicitly interacting with them:

https://www.sciencealert.com/creepy-new-amazon-patent-would-mean-alexa-records-everything-you-say-from-now-on

By design, apps and in-app browsers seek to thwart your preferences regarding surveillance and tracking. An app will even try to figure out if you're using a VPN to obscure your location from its maker, and snitch you out with its guess about your true location.

Mobile phones assign persistent tracking IDs to their owners and transmit them without permission (to its credit, Apple recently switch to an opt-in system for transmitting these IDs) (but to its detriment, Apple offers no opt-out from its own tracking, and actively lies about the very existence of this tracking):

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

An Android device running Chrome and sitting inert, with no user interaction, transmits location data to Google every five minutes. This is the "resting heartbeat" of surveillance for an Android device. Ask that device to do any work for you and its pulse quickens, until it is emitting a nearly continuous stream of information about your activities to Google:

https://digitalcontentnext.org/blog/2018/08/21/google-data-collection-research/

These faithless user agents both reflect and enable enshittification. The locked-down nature of the hardware and operating systems for Android and Ios devices means that manufacturers – and their business partners – have an arsenal of legal weapons they can use to block anyone who gives you a tool to modify the device's behavior. These weapons are generically referred to as "IP rights" which are, broadly speaking, the right to control the conduct of a company's critics, customers and competitors:

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

A canny tech company can design their products so that any modification that puts the user's interests above its shareholders is illegal, a violation of its copyright, patent, trademark, trade secrets, contracts, terms of service, nondisclosure, noncompete, most favored nation, or anticircumvention rights. Wrap your product in the right mix of IP, and its faithless betrayals acquire the force of law.

This is – in Jay Freeman's memorable phrase – "felony contempt of business model." While more than half of all web users have installed an ad-blocker, thus overriding the manufacturer's defaults to make their browser a more loyal agent, no app users have modified their apps with ad-blockers.

The first step of making such a blocker, reverse-engineering the app, creates criminal liability under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $500,000 fine. An app is just a web-page skinned in sufficient IP to make it a felony to add an ad-blocker to it (no wonder every company wants to coerce you into using its app, rather than its website).

If you know that increasing the invasiveness of the ads on your web-page could trigger mass installations of ad-blockers by your users, it becomes irrational and self-defeating to ramp up your ads' invasiveness. The possibility of interoperability acts as a constraint on tech bosses' impulse to enshittify their products.

The shift to platforms dominated by treacherous user agents – apps, mobile ecosystems, walled gardens – weakens or removes that constraint. As your ability to discipline your agent so that it serves you wanes, the temptation to turn your user agent against you grows, and enshittification follows.

This has been tacitly understood by technologists since the web's earliest days and has been reaffirmed even as enshittification increased. Berjon quotes extensively from "The Internet Is For End-Users," AKA Internet Architecture Board RFC 8890:

Defining the user agent role in standards also creates a virtuous cycle; it allows multiple implementations, allowing end users to switch between them with relatively low costs (…). This creates an incentive for implementers to consider the users' needs carefully, which are often reflected into the defining standards. The resulting ecosystem has many remaining problems, but a distinguished user agent role provides an opportunity to improve it.

And the W3C's Technical Architecture Group echoes these sentiments in "Web Platform Design Principles," which articulates a "Priority of Constituencies" that is supposed to be central to the W3C's mission:

User needs come before the needs of web page authors, which come before the needs of user agent implementors, which come before the needs of specification writers, which come before theoretical purity.

https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/

But the W3C's commitment to faithful agents is contingent on its own members' commitment to these principles. In 2017, the W3C finalized "EME," a standard for blocking mods that interact with streaming videos. Nominally aimed at preventing copyright infringement, EME also prevents users from choosing to add accessibility add-ons that beyond the ones the streaming service permits. These services may support closed captioning and additional narration of visual elements, but they block tools that adapt video for color-blind users or prevent strobe effects that trigger seizures in users with photosensitive epilepsy.

The fight over EME was the most contentious struggle in the W3C's history, in which the organization's leadership had to decide whether to honor the "priority of constituencies" and make a standard that allowed users to override manufacturers, or whether to facilitate the creation of faithless agents specifically designed to thwart users' desires on behalf of manufacturers:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/open-letter-w3c-director-ceo-team-and-membership

This fight was settled in favor of a handful of extremely large and powerful companies, over the objections of a broad collection of smaller firms, nonprofits representing users, academics and other parties agitating for a web built on faithful agents. This coincided with the W3C's operating budget becoming entirely dependent on the very large sums its largest corporate members paid.

W3C membership is on a sliding scale, based on a member's size. Nominally, the W3C is a one-member, one-vote organization, but when a highly concentrated collection of very high-value members flex their muscles, W3C leadership seemingly perceived an existential risk to the organization, and opted to sacrifice the faithfulness of user agents in service to the anti-user priorities of its largest members.

For W3C's largest corporate members, the fight was absolutely worth it. The W3C's EME standard transformed the web, making it impossible to ship a fully featured web-browser without securing permission – and a paid license – from one of the cartel of companies that dominate the internet. In effect, Big Tech used the W3C to secure the right to decide who would compete with them in future, and how:

https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/the-end-of-indie-web-browsers/

Enshittification arises when the everyday mediocre sociopaths who run tech companies are freed from the constraints that act against them. When the web – and its browsers – were a big, contented, diverse, competitive space, it was harder for tech companies to collude to capture standards bodies like the W3C to secure even more dominance. As the web turned into Tom Eastman's "five giant websites filled with screenshots of text from the other four," that kind of collusion became much easier:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/18/cursed-are-the-sausagemakers/#how-the-parties-get-to-yes

In arguing for faithful agents, Berjon associates himself with the group of scholars, regulators and activists who call for user agents to serve as "information fiduciaries." Mostly, information fiduciaries come up in the context of user privacy, with the idea that entities that hold a user's data would have the obligation to put the user's interests ahead of their own. Think of a lawyer's fiduciary duty in respect of their clients, to give advice that reflects the client's best interests, even when that conflicts with the lawyer's own self-interest. For example, a lawyer who believes that settling a case is the best course of action for a client is required to tell them so, even if keeping the case going would generate more billings for the lawyer and their firm.

For a user agent to be faithful, it must be your fiduciary. It must put your interests ahead of the interests of the entity that made it or operates it. Browsers, email clients, and other internet software that served as a fiduciary would do things like automatically blocking tracking (which most email clients don't do, especially webmail clients made by companies like Google, who also sell advertising and tracking).

Berjon contemplates a legally mandated fiduciary duty, citing Lindsey Barrett's "Confiding in Con Men":

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3354129

He describes a fiduciary duty as a remedy for the enforcement failures of EU's GDPR, a solidly written, and dismally enforced, privacy law. A legally backstopped duty for agents to be fiduciaries would also help us distinguish good and bad forms of "innovation" – innovation in ways of thwarting a user's will are always bad.

Now, the tech giants insist that they are already fiduciaries, and that when they thwart a user's request, that's more like blocking access to a page where the encryption has been compromised than like HAL9000's "I can't let you do that, Dave." For example, when Louis Barclay created "Unfollow Everything," he (and his enthusiastic users) found that automating the process of unfollowing every account on Facebook made their use of the service significantly better:

https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-everything-cease-desist.html

When Facebook shut the service down with blood-curdling legal threats, they insisted that they were simply protecting users from themselves. Sure, this browser automation tool – which just automatically clicked links on Facebook's own settings pages – seemed to do what the users wanted. But what if the user interface changed? What if so many users added this feature to Facebook without Facebook's permission that they overwhelmed Facebook's (presumably tiny and fragile) servers and crashed the system?

These arguments have lately resurfaced with Ethan Zuckerman and Knight First Amendment Institute's lawsuit to clarify that "Unfollow Everything 2.0" is legal and doesn't violate any of those "felony contempt of business model" laws:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/02/kaiju-v-kaiju/

Sure, Zuckerman seems like a good guy, but what if he makes a mistake and his automation tool does something you don't want? You, the Facebook user, are also a nice guy, but let's face it, you're also a naive dolt and you can't be trusted to make decisions for yourself. Those decisions can only be made by Facebook, whom we can rely upon to exercise its authority wisely.

Other versions of this argument surfaced in the debate over the EU's decision to mandate interoperability for end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) messaging through the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which would let you switch from, say, Whatsapp to Signal and still send messages to your Whatsapp contacts.

There are some good arguments that this could go horribly awry. If it is rushed, or internally sabotaged by the EU's state security services who loathe the privacy that comes from encrypted messaging, it could expose billions of people to serious risks.

But that's not the only argument that DMA opponents made: they also argued that even if interoperable messaging worked perfectly and had no security breaches, it would still be bad for users, because this would make it impossible for tech giants like Meta, Google and Apple to spy on message traffic (if not its content) and identify likely coordinated harassment campaigns. This is literally the identical argument the NSA made in support of its "metadata" mass-surveillance program: "Reading your messages might violate your privacy, but watching your messages doesn't."

This is obvious nonsense, so its proponents need an equally obviously intellectually dishonest way to defend it. When called on the absurdity of "protecting" users by spying on them against their will, they simply shake their heads and say, "You just can't understand the burdens of running a service with hundreds of millions or billions of users, and if I even tried to explain these issues to you, I would divulge secrets that I'm legally and ethically bound to keep. And even if I could tell you, you wouldn't understand, because anyone who doesn't work for a Big Tech company is a naive dolt who can't be trusted to understand how the world works (much like our users)."

Not coincidentally, this is also literally the same argument the NSA makes in support of mass surveillance, and there's a very useful name for it: scalesplaining.

Now, it's totally true that every one of us is capable of lapses in judgment that put us, and the people connected to us, at risk (my own parents gave their genome to the pseudoscience genetic surveillance company 23andme, which means they have my genome, too). A true information fiduciary shouldn't automatically deliver everything the user asks for. When the agent perceives that the user is about to put themselves in harm's way, it should throw up a roadblock and explain the risks to the user.

But the system should also let the user override it.

This is a contentious statement in information security circles. Users can be "socially engineered" (tricked), and even the most sophisticated users are vulnerable to this:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/05/cyber-dunning-kruger/#swiss-cheese-security

The only way to be certain a user won't be tricked into taking a course of action is to forbid that course of action under any circumstances. If there is any means by which a user can flip the "are you very sure?" circuit-breaker back on, then the user can be tricked into using that means.

This is absolutely true. As you read these words, all over the world, vulnerable people are being tricked into speaking the very specific set of directives that cause a suspicious bank-teller to authorize a transfer or cash withdrawal that will result in their life's savings being stolen by a scammer:

https://www.thecut.com/article/amazon-scam-call-ftc-arrest-warrants.html

We keep making it harder for bank customers to make large transfers, but so long as it is possible to make such a transfer, the scammers have the means, motive and opportunity to discover how the process works, and they will go on to trick their victims into invoking that process.

Beyond a certain point, making it harder for bank depositors to harm themselves creates a world in which people who aren't being scammed find it nearly impossible to draw out a lot of cash for an emergency and where scam artists know exactly how to manage the trick. After all, non-scammers only rarely experience emergencies and thus have no opportunity to become practiced in navigating all the anti-fraud checks, while the fraudster gets to run through them several times per day, until they know them even better than the bank staff do.

This is broadly true of any system intended to control users at scale – beyond a certain point, additional security measures are trivially surmounted hurdles for dedicated bad actors and as nearly insurmountable hurdles for their victims:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/07/como-is-infosec/

At this point, we've had a couple of decades' worth of experience with technological "walled gardens" in which corporate executives get to override their users' decisions about how the system should work, even when that means reaching into the users' own computer and compelling it to thwart the user's desire. The record is inarguable: while companies often use those walls to lock bad guys out of the system, they also use the walls to lock their users in, so that they'll be easy pickings for the tech company that owns the system:

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

This is neatly predicted by enshittification's theory of constraints: when a company can override your choices, it will be irresistibly tempted to do so for its own benefit, and to your detriment.

What's more, the mere possibility that you can override the way the system works acts as a disciplining force on corporate executives, forcing them to reckon with your priorities even when these are counter to their shareholders' interests. If Facebook is genuinely worried that an "Unfollow Everything" script will break its servers, it can solve that by giving users an unfollow everything button of its own design. But so long as Facebook can sue anyone who makes an "Unfollow Everything" tool, they have no reason to give their users such a button, because it would give them more control over their Facebook experience, including the controls needed to use Facebook less.

It's been more than 20 years since Seth Schoen and I got a demo of Microsoft's first "trusted computing" system, with its "remote attestations," which would let remote servers demand and receive accurate information about what kind of computer you were using and what software was running on it.

This could be beneficial to the user – you could send a "remote attestation" to a third party you trusted and ask, "Hey, do you think my computer is infected with malicious software?" Since the trusted computing system produced its report on your computer using a sealed, separate processor that the user couldn't directly interact with, any malicious code you were infected with would not be able to forge this attestation.

But this remote attestation feature could also be used to allow Microsoft to block you from opening a Word document with Libreoffice, Apple Pages, or Google Docs, or it could be used to allow a website to refuse to send you pages if you were running an ad-blocker. In other words, it could transform your information fiduciary into a faithless agent.

Seth proposed an answer to this: "owner override," a hardware switch that would allow you to force your computer to lie on your behalf, when that was beneficial to you, for example, by insisting that you were using Microsoft Word to open a document when you were really using Apple Pages:

https://web.archive.org/web/20021004125515/http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/2002-07-05.html

Seth wasn't naive. He knew that such a system could be exploited by scammers and used to harm users. But Seth calculated – correctly! – that the risks of having a key to let yourself out of the walled garden were less than being stuck in a walled garden where some corporate executive got to decide whether and when you could leave.

Tech executives never stopped questing after a way to turn your user agent from a fiduciary into a traitor. Last year, Google toyed with the idea of adding remote attestation to web browsers, which would let services refuse to interact with you if they thought you were using an ad blocker:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/02/self-incrimination/#wei-bai-bai

The reasoning for this was incredible: by adding remote attestation to browsers, they'd be creating "feature parity" with apps – that is, they'd be making it as practical for your browser to betray you as it is for your apps to do so (note that this is the same justification that the W3C gave for creating EME, the treacherous user agent in your browser – "streaming services won't allow you to access movies with your browser unless your browser is as enshittifiable and authoritarian as an app").

Technologists who work for giant tech companies can come up with endless scalesplaining explanations for why their bosses, and not you, should decide how your computer works. They're wrong. Your computer should do what you tell it to do:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/your-computer-should-say-what-you-tell-it-say-1

These people can kid themselves that they're only taking away your power and handing it to their boss because they have your best interests at heart. As Upton Sinclair told us, it's impossible to get someone to understand something when their paycheck depends on them not understanding it.

The only way to get a tech boss to consistently treat you well is to ensure that if they stop, you can quit. Anything less is a one-way ticket to enshittification.

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

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/07/treacherous-computing/#rewilding-the-internet

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[loutalks2much]

— HPMA socmed AU! bcs I'm bored (⁠ ⁠ꈍ⁠ᴗ⁠ꈍ⁠)

a/n: a bit of characters x MC in some parts huegegdhs + constant Fischer slander but I love him I swear. also yes hi I know it’s been an eternity. sorry. no I’m not returning to writing yet. okbye 🫡

(bonus: last part in reblog since it couldn't fit)

[crazyeeeeeee]

[crossoverheaven]

[rainysofsunshineao3]

"You don't talk much," Robin notes, eyes scanning the horizon for any sign of those...Things. The sun illuminates most of the dilapidated highway and barren, wilted fields on either side. It would be easy for either of the two to spot one, but then again, that was a double-edged sword, and with how fast those things could move... It was a good chance that if the creatures spotted the trailer-towing van they would tear it to shreds faster than they could escape. Nancy humms in false thought, momentarily bringing Robin's eyes away from the scenery around them.

"Not a fan."

"What, of talking?" Nancy glances away from the road, a look mixed half of genuine questioning and annoyance.

"Not a fan of talking, no." She responds finally, adjusting her grip on the steering wheel, and Robin couldn't help the flutter of relief and something else entirely in her chest when the frizzy-haired brunette finally drew away her gaze.

"You know," Robin wasn't sure where she was going with this. Nancy seems more annoyed than usual, and it wasn't like they hadn't had this conversation before. "You do talk to me. Eventually." She was rewarded with the small chuckle it drew from the woman driving, albeit dry.

"Do I?"

"Oh yeah," Robin smirks. "It's usually around Lyons." She looks down in thought, fiddles with the immense amount of rings on her fingers. "You tell me about the time you went there with your family."

Nancy looks back at her, drawing the taller woman's gaze back up to her crystal eyes.

"Your brother got lost," She continues and Nancy looks away again, biting her lower lip lightly.

"I've never been to Lyons." Oh, the multiple times you've said so would suggest otherwise.

"You tell me your middle name; Danielle." She says it almost like a question, knowing full well that that piece of information had never been disclosed to her. Nancy's answer is harsher than before, quicker, almost like she knows the game Robin's playing.

"That's not my middle name." It's so quiet, almost a whisper, but the murmur carries through the entire van with ease. Robin almost leaves it at that, but something about Nancy's expression makes it impossible to keep her damn mouth shut.

"You find your brother in the arcade, by the way. 'Mike', you said. "

"Maybe I said it all just to keep you quiet."

"But," Robin sighs, "You do talk to me."

"Buckley, I do not need to get to know you." She huffs. "Saving the world doesn't necessarily require deep, personal connection, and," Her eyes darken, brows furrowing in a way that has Robin leaning closer, studying the guise as if it was the last thing she would see on Earth. "And if you knew what was good for you, you wouldn't want to get to know me. It's the only way you get through this...whatever this is."

And because Robin just can't seem to let something go, she whispers again, not meeting Nancy's gaze.

"What about Holland? You get to know him?"

The van screeches to a halt and Nancy whirles around on the soldier.

"How..." Even through the anger, Robin can see the tears filling Nancy's eyes. "How do you know that name?"

She swallows, genuinely wondering if this conversation would lead to another reset.

"You mentioned him."

"That's not possible."

"Then how do I know his name?"

"When..." Nancy pinches the bridge of her nose, closing her eyes. "When did I mention her? Under what circumstance-"

"Her?"

"When, Buckley?" But Robin's brain was still on a continuous loop.

Her. Her. Her.

"Is she the reason you won't talk to me?" She whispers finally, and maybe it was the sincerity in her voice that had Nancy sighing, turning her pricing blue eyes away and back to the road.

"Don't ever mention her name again." Her tone was harsh, but Robin didn't miss the single tear that fell after the shorter woman blinked.

"Why," Her voice cracked. "Are you..." She trails off, because she had originally been going to ask "Are you in love with him?" But...

Her. Her. Her.

"She's dead." Is what she settles on. It's not a soft answer, not a kind one, but she says it without a hint of bitterness.

Nancy only nods.

"I watched her die 300 times over and I remember every single detail." The "I couldn't save her" remains unspoken, but Robin understands.

"I'm sorry," She offers, and Nancy meets her delicate gaze. "You don't, you don't have to talk about it."

"It's fine." The answer is short, clipped. It's said in a way that means finality, but it's Nancy who continues after.

"It's just war."

-Or-

THE EDGE OF TOMORROW - RONANCE AU

Ya'll, should I continue this? I had this thought at 3am and couldn't stop thinking about it.

[itsmyfriendisaac]

A Home At The End Of The World: Michael Cunningham's poignantly written story follows childhood friends that have reconnected in adulthood. Bobby, Jonathan, & Clare ignore traditional romance by nurturing their own unique relationship!

[ecemece]

DEFTONES - No Ordinary Love

(Luxembourg 2006)

ecemece_0172

[vikaq]

RIP Oswald?

[data2364]

Rene Auberjonois as Odo 1993 in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine ”In the Hands of the Prophets“

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/In_the_Hands_of_the_Prophets

[motionpicturelover]

"Hamlet" (1996) - Kenneth Branagh

Films I've watched in 2022 (106/210)

[milliondollarbaby87]

2022 Letterboxd Stats!

[mysterycitrus]

it’s been rumored that dick will appear in the next battinson movie (please matt reeves do it for the people 🛐) but i was wondering magic wand, full creative control ceded to you, what villain(s) would you want to see featured? i love what they did with the riddler in the first, managing to maintain a level of camp and absurdity while still positioning him as a dangerous and serious threat. same with the penguin and falcone. i’ve seen rumors that hush may be the central villain in the sequel? which would not be my first choice, but i’m also not mad at it

obviously (hopefully) if they’re doing dick they’ll include tony zucco but beyond him what would be your dream villain(s) appearance? (and who would you cast! if you have one in mind)

if i had full creative control via magic wand i think there’s only one right answer — an actual batman film where two face is the primary antagonist.

hush super sucks for a lot of reasons, not least because his whole shtick only works if a) tommy elliot is well established in canon prior to faking his death and b) bruce has the sufficient pool of allies to make the story beats work. the batman canon has neither. cringe. get him outta here.

unlike a lot of gotham rogues, harvey dent has a relationship with both batman and bruce wayne. he’s a literal symbol of what bruce is trying to achieve in costume. he represents how a lack of supportive infrastructure can harm anyone, even those trying to do good. his internal morality, his desperate desire for control when he lost everything by another’s actions, is a really really good foil to the batman mythos.

i also think he’d continue the riddlers ideology from the first film — here’s someone who does want to change things for the better, and loses literally everything by doing so. harvey in general is just a really interesting character who’s never gotten proper respect on screen, and i think that’s a shame!! he’s a really fascinating dude!! his relationship with bruce as a civilian might inspire bruce to develop his public persona. so many options!

in an ideal world, dick grayson would feature in the first half of the film, then two face in the second. you’d have to ignore long halloween + dark victory canon to make this work, but that’s fine. maybe harvey would be disfigured while in court with zucco — a fun connection to the acid that snapped the graysons lines. harvey also has an interesting history with robin, and this would be a great start to that too.

idk who id pick to cast — someone who could portray harveys trauma in a way that’s engaging rather than disrespectful. if colin farrell hadn’t already played the penguin id say he’d be a pretty good choice. michael b jordan or daniel kaluuya would also do a phenomenal job, and keep him around the same age as bruce. someone very charismatic and charming. as long as it isn’t jacob elordi or tom holland i think there’s a lot of potential

let bruce have tender moments with gothams district attorney and adopt an orphan!!! that’s all i want!!

[holly-natnicole]

the Bats 'n' Birds in my 'D.C.' (1937) franchise Alternate Multiverse rewrite timeline:

transgender polyamorous homoromantic asexual female Leslie Maurin Thompkins (deadname Samuel Xolani Thompkins) is a(n ethnically mostly white) South African through Mary Thompkins (who has an ethnically black biological father) and Thomas Jameson, her vigilante name (which she uses extremely rarely since Leslie almost never commits vigilantism) being Doctor (often shortened to Doc);

cisgender monogamous panromantic pansexual fem Julia Irene Alice Pennyworth is an Englishwoman through Alfred Thaddeus Crane Pennyworth (who is ethnically white) and Irene Rivers (who is ethnically black), her vigilante name (which she extremely rarely uses since there aren’t many situations where Julia would need to wear a mask to protect her identity) being Agent J;

cis aromantic ace male Alfred Thaddeus Crane Pennyworth is an (ethnically white) Englishman through Alice Pennyworth née Crane and Thaddeus Jarvis Pennyworth, his vigilante name (which he somewhat rarely uses since there aren’t many situations where Alfred would need to wear a mask to protect his identity) being Agent A;

trans mono gay homosexual male Cullen Row (deadname Holly Farrell) is a(n ethnically white) Gothamite through Miranda Farrell née Row and Marcus Farrell, his vigilante names (which he somewhat rarely uses since there aren’t many situations where Cullen would need to wear a mask to protect his identity) being Duckie & Mallard;

cis poly omniromantic omnisexual male Bruce Thomas Wayne is a Gothamite who is Jewish through Martha Wayne née Kane and ethnically white through Thomas Wayne, his vigilante name being Batman;

cis mono gay fem Katherine “Kate” Rebecca Kane is a Jewish Gothamite through Gabriela “Gabi” Kane née García and Jacob Kane, her vigilante name being Batwoman;

trans mono gay fem Mary Elizabeth “Bette” Kane (deadname Matthew Gilbert "Bert" Kane) is a(n ethnically white) Englishwoman through Matthew “Matt” Kane née Benett and Jewish through Miriam Kane, her vigilante names being Batgirl & Flamebird;

cis mono biromantic demisexual fem Barbara Joan Gordon is a(n ethnically mostly white) Gothamite through Barbara Eileen Johannes (named Barbara Eileen Gordon during her marriage to Jim) and James “Jim” Gordon (whose maternal grandfather was an African American), her vigilante names being Batgirl & Oracle;

cis mono gay demi male David Zavimbe is Congolese through Laura Zavimbe née Davids and Isaac Zavimbe, his vigilante name being Batwing;

trans mono bi demi fem Araunya “Anya” Grayson (deadname Richard “Rick” John Grayson) is Romani & Welsh & French through Marie Grayson née Lloyd (who was born in Wales) and Romani & an (ethnically white) Englishwoman through John Grayson (who was born in England), her vigilante names being Robin & Renegade & Nightwing & Batman;

cis mono demiromantic omni fem Jade “Jay” Todd (also known as Jason “Jay” Todd, Jade “Jay” al Ghūl, & Jade “Jay” Head) is a(n ethnically mostly white) Gothamite through Sheila Haywood and Willis Peters (whose bio paternal grandmother was a Chinese American), her vigilante names being Robin & Red Hood;

cis mono gay ace fem Cassandra Wǔ-Sân (formerly Cassandra Cain, originally nameless) is Chinese through Shiva (at birth named Sandra Wǔ-Sân) and a(n ethnically white) Gothamite through David Cain, her vigilante names being Orphan & Batgirl & Black Bat & Batman (Cassandra Wǔ-Sân is written as 擦涩伞得拉 伍 莘 in Chinese);

cis mono bi fem Harper Row (formerly Harper Farrell) is a(n ethnically white) Gothamite through Miranda Farrell née Row and Marcus Farrell, her vigilante name being Bluebird;

mono bi Stephanie Brown (deadname Charles “Chuck” Brown) is a(n ethnically white) Gothamite through Crystal Brown née Lyle and Arthur Brown plus she’s a demigal, their vigilante names being Spoiler & Robin & Batgirl;

cis poly bi male Timothy “Tim” Jackson Drake is a(n ethnically white) Gothamite through Janet Drake née Lynn and Jack Drake, his vigilante names being Robin & Raptor;

agender mono bi Duke Thomas is an African American Gothamite through Eileen Thomas (whose bio mother was also a metahuman) and an African through Gnomon (who is also a metahuman), their vigilante names being Signal & Robin;

agender aro ace Damian al Ghūl (deadname Athanasia al Ghūl, used the name Tallant al Ghūl for several months at age 8 when believing ze’s male before at the end of it realising zir lack of any gender, got often called Ībn al Ḫfāfīš [إِبن الخفافيش] & Ūṭwāṭ [وطواط] by other Shadows in the League of Assassins) is Arab, Chinese, & Pakistani through Talia al Ghūl and Jewish & ethnically white through Bruce Thomas Wayne, zir vigilante names being Robin & Heretic & Redbird (Damian al Ghūl is written as داميان ال عهوول in Arabic, 㙮面 腌乐 乌勒 in Chinese, & ڈیمین الغول in Urdu);

cis mono pan fem Helena Alfreda Kyle is Cuban, Nigerian, Italian, and Somali through Selina Kyle (who is a Gothamite, but gave birth to & for 8 years raised her bio daughter in Metropolis) and Jewish and ethnically white through Bruce Thomas Wayne, her vigilante names being Hunter & Robin;

genderfluid mono bi ace Maxine "Max" Gibson is an African American Gothamite through Sarah Gibson née Edwards and Evan Gibson, his vigilante name being Huginn;

cis mono heteroromantic heterosexual fem Dana Tan is a Chinese American Gothamite through Daiyu Tan née Zhìhuì and Paul Tan (originally named Bao Tan), her vigilante name being Muninn (Dana Tan is written as 丹娜 坛 in Chinese);

trans mono het male Terrence “Terry” McGinnis (deadname Winifred McGinnis) is a Gothamite who is a Korean American through Mary Mun (named Mary McGinnis during her marriage to Warren McGinnis) and Jewish & ethnically white through Bruce Thomas Wayne, his vigilante name being Batman (Terrence McGinnis is written as 테렌스 맥기니스 in Korean);

trans mono het fem Caroline “Carrie” Keene Kelley (deadname Jonathan “John” Keene Kelley) is a(n ethnically white) Gothamite through Lynn Keene and Frank Kelley, her vigilante names being Robin & Batwoman;

cis mono gay male Matthew “Mattie” Mun is a Gothamite who is a Korean American through Mary Mun (named Mary McGinnis during her marriage to Warren McGinnis) and Jewish & ethnically white through Bruce Thomas Wayne, his vigilante name being Robin (Matthew Mun is written as 매튜 문 in Korean).

[ilovewhiteroses]

LOGAN Star Boyd Holbrook Rumored To Be In Talks To Play Two-Face In THE BATMAN - PART II

(source: comicbookmovie.com)

A new rumor doing the rounds online is claiming that Boyd Holbrook (Logan, The Sandman) is in talks to play Harvey Dent/Two-Face in Matt Reeves' The Batman sequel…

Plot details for Matt Reeves' highly-anticipated sequel to The Batman are still under wraps, but several rumors relating to certain characters that could be introduced have been doing the rounds over the past few months. DC Studios co-CEO James Gunn appeared to debunk reports that the likes of Scarecrow, Clayface, Professor Pyg, and Hush, were set to appear in the movie, but we're now hearing that Harvey Dent, aka Two-Face, may have a part to play. According to CanWeGetSomeToast, Boyd Holbrook is in talks to play the classic Batman villain in the upcoming sequel. Holbrook has quite a bit of experience portraying bad guys, having appeared as Donald Pierce in Logan, The Corinthian in Netflix's The Sandman, and more recently, Kaber in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. When the new DCU slate was announced, James Gunn confirmed that Reeves' "BatVerse" will remain separate from the DCU, so this movie, along with Todd Phillips' Joker sequel, will be considered "Elseworlds" tales. A new actor will don the cape and cowl for Batman: The Brave and the Bold, which will also feature a different take on Robin - The Caped Crusader's son, Damian Wayne. Robert Pattinson, Zoë Kravitz, Andy Serkis, Jeffrey Wright, and Colin Farrell are all expected to reprise their respective roles, and characters introduced in the Penguin Max spin-off series are also likely to appear. As far as official info goes, Reeves has stated that his sequel will continue this "epic crime saga," but that's about all we have to go on. One rumor did claim that the story will be at least partially based on Geoff Johns' Batman: Earth One. Of course, the first film took a certain amount of inspiration from Vol. 1, so we assume the sequel would be more influenced by Volumes 2 and 3. For those unfamiliar with the comic, Earth One takes place in the alternate continuity and features an updated and more realistic reinterpretation of the classic Batman origin and characters. Hush does not appear, but the later volumes do feature Clayface, Scarecrow, and a female take on Two-Face in Harvey Dent's twin sister Jessica. What do you make of this casting rumor? Assuming Two-Face will appear, do you think Holbrook would be a good pick for the character?

[vintagetvstars]

Hot Vintage TV Ladies Bracket - Round 1

Round 1 (All polls)

Bea Arthur Vs. Bea Benaderet

Barbara Eden Vs. Kathryn Leigh Scott

Kellye Nakahara Vs. Janine Turner

Betty White Vs. Gracie Allen

Joely Richardson Vs. Miranda Richardson

Holland Taylor Vs. Joan Collins

Joan Chen Vs. Rachel Bilson

Lucille Ball Vs. Suzanne Pleshette

Angela Lansbury Vs. Eartha Kitt

Alex Kingston Vs. Julia Louis-Dreyfus

Gina Torres Vs. Sherilyn Fenn

Katee Sackhoff Vs. Geraldine James

Barbara Feldon Vs. Carol Cleveland

Amanda Tapping Vs. Nana Visitor

Amanda Randolph Vs. Barbara Mullen

Kate Jackson Vs. Kim Cattrall

Emma Thompson Vs. Penelope Keith

Rue McClanahan Vs. Barbara Stanwyck

Thalía Vs. Sheila Kuehl

Joan Bennett Vs. Grayson Hall

Julie Newmar Vs. Lalla Ward

Farrah Fawcett Vs. Catherine Bach

Diahann Carroll Vs. Siân Phillips

Mary Tyler Moore Vs. Jan Smithers

Nichelle Nichols Vs. Yvonne Craig

Carolyn Jones Vs. Lara Parker

Janet Hubert Vs. Marcia Strassman

Jackée Harry Vs. Dawn French

Tina Louise Vs. Linda Cristal

Eva Gabor Vs. Anne Francis

Lynda Carter Vs. Peggy Lipton

Courteney Cox Vs. Mädchen Amick

Vivica A Fox Vs. Julia Duffy

Valerie Harper Vs. Jaclyn Smith

Doris Day Vs. Dawn Wells

Debbie Allen Vs. Elizabeth Montgomery

Karyn Parsons Vs. Katy Manning

Deidre Hall Vs. Phyllis Logan

Jeri Ryan Vs. Mira Furlan

Lucy Lawless Vs. Claudia Black

Morena Baccarin Vs. Shannen Doherty

Jonelle Allen Vs. Francesca Annis

Jane Seymour Vs. Annette Crosbie

Diana Rigg Vs. Joanna Lumley

Melissa Joan Hart Vs. Lisa Robin Kelly

Lisa Bonet / Lilakoi Moon Vs. Lisa Hartman

Eliza Dushku Vs. Chloe Annett

Fran Drescher Vs. Mariska Hargitay

Lauren Graham Vs. Charisma Carpenter

Marlo Thomas Vs. Lily Tomlin

Connie Booth Vs. Barbara Billingsley

Gillian Anderson Vs. Alexandra Paul

Penny Johnson Jerald Vs. Mag Ruffman

Sarah Jessica Parker Vs. Judy Parfitt

Cicely Tyson Vs. Aimi MacDonald

Anna May Wong Vs. Peggy Ashcroft

Carol Burnett Vs. Elisabeth Sladen

Sarah Michelle Gellar Vs. Hattie Hayridge

Pamela Anderson Vs. Loretta Swit

Itatí Cantoral Vs. Audrey Meadows

Jane Krakowski Vs. Jennifer Aniston

Terry Farrell Vs. Nicole de Boer

Carole André Vs. Melissa Leo Vs. Sabrina Lloyd

Eve Arden Vs. Dorothy Provine Vs. Vivian Vance