Avatar
Dan Gillmor
012f3e11fdc1546a97c2791662d1ae6ab1a0d3ec3fe3ae31e861e59cfde1e3ed
Bio and disclosures: dangillmor.com/about/ Boosts mean I think you should see this -- usually but not always an endorsement. California, Nara ยท dangillmor.com

Pro Tip:

Headlines that ask, "Is (A) the future of (B)?" always have the same answer:

No.

The fact that the California bar permits John Eastman to retain his law license for even one more day is -- how to put this -- an indictment of the lawyers' professional association and its crappy ethical standards.

As if "Open"AI and its deceitful ways weren't enough for Sam Altman, he's also heading up what looks like the most Orwellian company in history -- and that includes the odious Palintir and others of that ilk.

This disgusting company isn't brand new, but the NYT's latest on its awfulness is definitely worth a read.

This link unlocks the paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/07/technology/worldcoin-iris-scans.html?unlocked_article_code=xymlZ_iLpk9YEiOggef_9vH1qBPMX68gkRMvzcwWe68ahBiH7zGUr2z8NsBh2WF1M_ri9uKjayUq901OhLfVtZmb7R16aQ2rHs9R8ZaqNP2wx60445vWi1iQw7FfZCfswmwlmlS6HKpHIbEW_Efl9pE_qAhQpWcApAarJpjqNYYCs_YJ_TCIJzDY6oxAbMOujOQNwryCiOLxaU3iZGnp5xJpPTYF6vx1ZA5ynGiqTP5VLeSa8R5ZKoHw0Gdb2RO-gXDU8xeTLlCc4OhNLyfzaU4DEFhGd8pL75TSIareUi6hWVJTAzzPK59F1U7iKJqsDxAz57Xc5iqIgRD23XxtlJvp&smid=url-share

nostr:npub1zx6yt2hfwv5tuz998vm6jw5vcr5lrl6frha5uz4ssfnpf7nn2lms03pjhq Talking Points Memo is consistently must-read for context on national politics.

It won't surprise you to learn that lies are Ohio (and national) Republicans' chief weapons as they try to override the Ohio's plain-as-day opposition to the right-wing legislature's evisceration of reproductive rights.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/in-new-multimillion-dollar-disinformation-campaign-anti-abortion-crusaders-seek-to-make-ohios-big-abortion-vote-about-sex-change-operations

Dear journalists: Please please please do not simply quote team Trump's latest lies -- in this case, the fantasy that the latest indictment is a "free speech" issue -- as one side of a dispute.

What will it take for Big Journalism to realize that our democracy is in serious jeopardy? What will it take for the craft to stand up in support of democracy?

At this point it's fair to worry that nothing will get journalists to move very far away from business as usual -- even with so much at stake.

Public library book-lending is heading down an anti-public path. A company owned by financial manipulators has an effective monopoly over e-book lending -- and, of course, abuses that dominance in a great example of nostr:npub1hykucplphuhelaxutcw4jw3vuu7gcg42czhqmk7jhchs8vdga4fsj73p33's #enshittification process..

https://karawynn.substack.com/p/the-coming-enshittification-of-public-libraries

Big Journalism, which you'd hope would care about such things -- is more interested in shiny political objects than the relentless destruction of a crucial public resource.

#journalism

Dear journalism orgs:

When you link to Twitter, you ensure that I won't be able to read what you're pointing to, if I have to log in to see it.

nostr:npub1rxgk8yv4ssyslrdsu8qqqm9tygdvtycecstypxtgyr693m3fmftsaj8w39 Journalists aren't sticking with Twitter because of a few blocks on one server.

Replying to 7b78d417...

nostr:npub1lrvmc88ck63qpt734w85t5pnxchncvam0p9k9mueuezqz0grkn6s8jtth9 okay, so let's agree that this legislation is a bad thing. What's the better solution to getting big tech to share the vast wealth that they are making of ad revenue, backed by content generated by news orgs? I've asked this at least three times in this thread.

nostr:npub15dry225aal6s68pdythghk3f754x3vfcnlu3fyggs79dla8dw3zst2yjyg I don't believe "tech" has an obligation to "share" the wealth, any more than news organizations had that obligation when they were monopolies.

I do believe big tech -- like all monopolies/cartels -- should be sharply constrained in ways that would, among other benefits, help journalism.

Here is a series of pieces from nostr:npub1sqfnxau480pnvm0t258kdrj5u2u72zwm2kh7tk3qf6lxtqkwvlmqgn5skr that offers a way forward: https://www.eff.org/saving-the-news (pdf).

nostr:npub1rxgk8yv4ssyslrdsu8qqqm9tygdvtycecstypxtgyr693m3fmftsaj8w39 If my instance blocked journa.host I'd move elsewhere, but stay in fediverse.

I'd like to know what percentage of Mastodon users are on servers that blocked the site.

nostr:npub1dh3yqkjrapc8eakjl8nltzdfag23ja6anuenwny7gmv8mq8jc46q8zrgvh When it comes to Big Journalism ignoring relevant context, nothing surprises me.

nostr:npub15dry225aal6s68pdythghk3f754x3vfcnlu3fyggs79dla8dw3zst2yjyg Google is "negotiating" at gunpoint. Not a shred of good faith anywhere in this process.

(It's pathetic that Google and FB caved in when Australia pulled this stunt, but I'd hoped they might learn their lesson. Facebook did, apparently.)

nostr:npub15dry225aal6s68pdythghk3f754x3vfcnlu3fyggs79dla8dw3zst2yjyg The fallacy in your argument -- and in Canada's terrible law -- is believing that making money by pointing to someone else's content should oblige someone -- solely two tech companies, for now -- to pay for the privilege.

If they were republishing news content beyond links and sometimes very brief quotes -- well within any definition of fair use -- they'd be liable for copyright violations.

This is a shakedown, and a threat to the open Internet.

The most important thing you'll read about the Trump coup attempt is this, from Josh Marshall, who really should be here, not on Musk's degraded POS: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/john-eastman-comes-clean-hell-yes-we-were-trying-to-overthrow-the-government

nostr:npub15dry225aal6s68pdythghk3f754x3vfcnlu3fyggs79dla8dw3zst2yjyg That is not true. It's a backdoor tax requiring "negotiations" between two tech companies and a select group of news companies. Ordering two companies to pay extortion to other companies is not remotely what I'm talking about.

Replying to 7b78d417...

nostr:npub1lrvmc88ck63qpt734w85t5pnxchncvam0p9k9mueuezqz0grkn6s8jtth9 As was Google and FB promising a revenue model for news orgs to setup on their platforms and then eating their lunch. It's not a great piece of legislation, but can you suggest a better way to make big tech companies revenue share? They're not going to do it on their own

nostr:npub15dry225aal6s68pdythghk3f754x3vfcnlu3fyggs79dla8dw3zst2yjyg They are under no obligation to "share" -- paying extortion is not sharing revenue.

The fact that advertising supported (some) quality journalism -- and became a cartel in its own right -- doesn't mean news organizations have some divine right to ad revenues.

Subsidize if you wish, but do it honestly, by levying taxes and giving the money to the people you want to support.