Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

Nieuwsgierig: waarom kiezen politieke partijen een publieke non-EU cloud om hun partijprogramma te publiceren en schrijven ze daarin op dat we teveel van Amerikaanse providers afhankelijk zijn?

Anonimiteit op sociale media staat ter discussie. In verkiezingsprogramma's bijvoorbeeld. Daar krijg ik soms buikpijn van. Daarover schreef ik een nieuwe blog 👇

https://www.ronroozendaal.nl/blog/2023/10/anonimiteit-op-sociale-media-moeten-we-koesteren

i swear i'm not just thinking about https://maya.land/vampire-the-metasquerade/#virtuality again but i have this sense that there might be this genre of social tech use that will be parasitic on a pre-existing platform. like a totally bot-mediated discord server that reimposes restrictions on how people can interact – like https://slowsocial.us/ or maybe more complicated or weird...

If the Linux accessibility stack was just a little bit better I'd have switched. Probably yesterday. But honestly from my limited experience, I've had many random screen reader crashes for absolutely no reason among other random things.

If I could, I would love to fund some people who are a lot better at programming than I to make this thing happen. Perhaps someday...

i highly recommend against using PIA's InBrowser "incognito" mobile browser, since it ironically makes fingerprinting a childs play

all requests sent by InBrowser set the referrer header to "inbrowserapp.com" (even while navigating inside a page) rather than emptying it and given their extremely small userbase this parameter alone (or combined with really basic info) lets you conclusively identify and track a user, despite the browser not even identifying itself via useragent

this is comically bad

you're telling me that that relationship, the only one of its kind[^1] that you allow yourself to have, the one to which you restrict a slew of kinds of interaction and experience

now you're just going to pretend it didn't happen?

i talk about my exes all the time.[^2] didn't you learn anything from them? didn't the time you spent with them shape who you are as a creature? was there no exploring or learning or growing at all that happened? you're just going to shut that all away?

[^1]: according to some arbitrary and often demonstrably harmful drawn lines
[^2]: not, like, on a daily basis; but it's not /rare/ that something will come up as relevant to a conversation

@joepie91 yes. I think that the world offers many valid approaches to any problem. And for actions against large organizations, change is often catalyzed and enacted by multiple actors, synchronous and asynchronous, inside and outside, working to advocate, for change, in policy and practice, in a sustained effort. Very rarely will one solitary, particularly meaningful action effect change. But I believe for lasting change, all or most approaches should be utilized and involved.

In case you want to have a better web on your machine: https://consentomatic.au.dk #Consentomatic is a browser plugin/extension that does all the clicks on these annoying consent popups for you. Not by simply clicking "accept" — by doing the opposite. Automated opt-out :)

P.S. yes, there's an argument to be made for joining a coalition partly to try to change it from the inside, but that doesn't always work or work for the better.

IMO, it's disruptive and unwelcome for too great a change to be made from the inside and if you're too absolutist, the place for you is not in my coalition. I would rather see you work independently than have you working with me, shitting up my spots.

Sometimes some of us just don't get along. Sometimes someone more oriented towards confrontation and advocacy burns bridges with someone working in the background by being very confrontational and absolutist about a difficult topic. And sometimes that's okay. And often it is not okay.

Sometimes the coalition revolves around some tacit compromises that the confrontationalist is simply not comfortable with tacitly supporting.

Sometimes the inevitable call out is valued and supported, and being responsive to it is a valuable community growth moment.

And other times it threatens the collective's solidarity.

In most cases, the confrontationalist can be talked down, amends and apologies made, and the coalition will heal. But in other cases they cannot and must be ejected. After which, the standard play is for them to martyr themselves and talk about how unfair the ejection was.

As a community/organization manager, I can tell you. It was not unfair. You got boundary checked and focused on your passion instead of on the good of the coalition. Which is a choice, for sure. But while the coalition does try to prioritize everyone's feelings, you forced a choice and you lost out. That's solely on you.

2/2

In large organizations and governments, there are different roles for different stages in conflict, handled by entirely different departments and teams, entirely different people.

I'm talking about, here, how for example in a nation, there's the military, the diplomatic corps, medical services, aid organizations, etc. Different people, different organizations, all with different parts to play in an international conflict.

But in activism and advocacy, often a very few volunteers are called to do all of these roles, and we're not all equally talented at, nor can some of us even see the use of some of these capabilities and functions.

Taking me for example, I'm by nature sort of a warrior-scholar. But I've also been around the block, am 55, and I have developed other skills, like diplomat, teacher, essayist, organization manager. And for me, part of the vital work I do is build coalitions. Gather together the right people, get them all to work together for a common goal, keep them working together, get the things they need to do it, buffer them from the things they don't.

1/