Sven Slootweg @joepie91@pixie.town

About the #xz backdoor: please do *not* assume that if your SSH server is not affected, you are not affected by it at all.

A lot about this situation is still unclear, but what *is* clear is that this wasn't a drive-by attack - this was clearly a well-prepared long-term engagement, across many commits and messages by potentially multiple accounts.

That makes it very plausible that there are other backdoors that haven't been found yet, and that might affect you under different circumstances.

There's not much you can concretely do about that yet, but you should carefully watch developments around this situation.

Not to beat a dead horse, but this situation is exactly why I can't take arguments of "you should always use distro repos, they have been vetted and are safe, and avoid public registries" very seriously

Got routed over a footpath thrice and through a closed dike path once, also for some fucking reason it made me go *around* a perfectly serviceable street

Had to use Google Maps today due to circumstances and yep, their bike routing is still fucking awful

One of the most frequent bits of advice I hear towards radical activist groups, is that they shouldn't be so demanding of people, and they should compromise on their values to have a broader reach.

Let's talk about why that strategy doesn't really make sense, when you think about it.

Now, let's start with the goal of such a movement: it's, usually, to 'shift the frame' in public debate, to change what is considered morally acceptable by a general public. For that, you only usually need a relatively small group of people to start with (think hundreds or thousands).

The unspoken assumption in the advice is that if you don't compromise, then there will simply not be enough people who agree with you, to create that change. But that assumption is not actually true!

So if you have the choice between "sticking with your values and reaching like-minded people", and "compromising on values and reaching people who don't really agree", the former makes a lot more sense.

This then sets into motion a gradual shift of the public opinion, which will slowly grow the group of like-minded people - and with it, the group of people interested in getting involved. All without any compromise on values!

In short: we don't actually *need* to compromise on our values, to reach our goal. That would only be helpful to instantaneously have broad reach while getting little done - but that is the goal of marketing companies, not of activists.

"But it's important to get criticism from people who think differently, or it'll be an echo chamber!"

First off, "echo chambers" in that sense do not exist - they are right-wing rhetoric, not some sort of social-scientific concept. Really. Go look for the origins.

Secondly, the values we're talking about here are values like equality and basic human rights like agency. We generally don't really care about the opinions of people who do not share those values, like transphobes or racists.

"But you might miss out on valuable criticism that way!"

This hides another unspoken assumption - that racists, transphobes, etc. are somehow uniquely qualified to provide criticisms that *nobody else* who isn't a transphobe, racist etc. would come up with.

I would invite you to sit for a bit and think about what you're implying with that, and what that means for your own worldview.

Food brands should be legally required to disclose the manufacturers and suppliers for their products