Het was dan ook pas 300 jaar na de geboortedag van Coen dat er iemand op het idee kwam om voor dit moorddadige type een monument op te richten. Dat kwam namelijk mooi uit om het nationalisme in de relatief nieuwe eenheidsstaat een flinke impuls te geven. https://www.doorbraak.eu/dekoloniale-activisten-tijdens-hoornse-slavernijbijeenkomst-weg-met-coen-standbeeld/
I can never quite tell whether they are ignorant to how exclusionary it is, or whether they are fully aware and that's the point
Extinction Rebellion
In case you missed it: in the Netherlands, XR will start a road blockade in The Hague tomorrow, and they've announced that they will keep returning with a blockade every day from that point on, until their demand of an immediate stop to fossil subsidies has been met: https://a12blokkade.nl/index.en
Request, boost ok: What's a good low/no tech CO2 monitor?
I don't want anything that syncs with my phone, or a touch screen, or batteries, or any electronics preferably.* Just as simple as possible.
* I know that's unrealistic but it's to underline that I want something that wants to be a utility, not a gadget.
Since I've seen a lot of chatter about people switching to #Firefox as Google ramps up the enshitification of #Chrome, let me tell you about a killer feature for people who (a) need multiple accounts on the same websites (eg. devs) or specifically (b) have to use multiple Google accounts.
Firefox has an official addon called Multi Account Containers that lets you trivially set up color coded tabs that have separate sets of cookies. Log into your dev account in one, and your test account in another. Log into your personal #gmail in one and have another tab next to it with your work Gmail. I'm actually not signed in to any Google accounts in most my tabs, I just have containers for the specific tasks I do on Google products.
It'll take you 30 seconds to set up.
Add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/
Mozilla's explanation: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers
NixOS story time (follow-up)
For a self-contained example of the shitshow that was RFC 98, just consider this one singular comment: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98#issuecomment-903167662 -- it was left up, not moderated, not hidden.
The entire process has been like that.
NixOS, the sponsorship thing, fascist
I guess the silver lining is that Palmer Luckey (who runs aforementioned murder machine company) is now crying about censorship on Twitter
NixOS story time, community safety
Two years ago, there was a previous attempt by a couple of folks (I was one of them) to address lingering community safety issues in the #NixOS community. This came in the form of RFC 98: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98
The idea was that the NixOS community hadn't grown that big yet, so there was still a fair amount of room for setting up healthy governance structures.
RFC 98 proposed a participatory moderation model, with a rotating cast of moderators, and a moderation process that was based in consensus seeking and helping people understand the implications of what they say and do, preferring to resolve conflicts through mediation rather than punishment.
A number of privileged white dudes caused a huge fuss over this proposal. Why? Because it didn't specify *exactly* which things were and were not allowed (as this was meant to be a consensus-seeking thing); and they were convinced that it would be used to silence and/or censor people, even though the proposal explicitly stated otherwise.
(Cynically, I would say that they were afraid that there would be consequences for them overstepping their behaviour; something they could previously do with relative impunity, and free of the "risk of getting criticized".)
A competing proposal was put forth by someone else as a result, RFC 114, which introduced a 'traditional' code of conduct with specific disallowed things and no real provisions for problematic behaviour outside of those.
Crucially, whereas RFC 98 sought to *change* the shape of the community, to improve community safety... RFC 114 was meant to enshrine the *current* state of the community, not being particularly offensive to anyone currently involved in the project, and not excluding any of the existing behaviours.
RFC 98 was concern-trolled to death. The authors (very much marginalized folks) burned out. It was never passed, and neither was RFC 114. No formal support from project governance ever materialized.
And now an immigrant murder machine manufacturer has sponsored NixCon (sponsorship since thrown out, after public criticism), and this is being enthusiastically defended by people on the NixOS forums, who seem entirely comfortable in their defense.
Does this mean that the NixOS community is full of fascists? No. And there is a pretty large contingent of marginalized folks within the community!
But the reality is that community safety issues are not a new problem in NixOS, that the Anduril sponsorship was really not a free-standing incident, and that on a governance level, almost nothing is being done about it.
re: fedi admin meta
To pre-empt the "but what would convince you that this model of moderation is bad" question: if someone can credibly argue that the total failures of this model are, on the whole, *worse* than those of a court-level evidence approach
fedi admin meta
I think that the rectification regarding AnarchoNina was too late, and that not enough due diligence was done in this case before publishing the block recommendation. From what I can see, this could have been avoided with more care.
At the same time, if you take this as proof that block recommendations need to follow nation state levels of evidence... wow, you do not understand how this works.
A singular error in judgment does not invalidate a moderation model, and it seems to conveniently disregard that court-level evidence standards have *huge* and well-known issues around dealing with abuse in particular.
This isn't your smoking gun.
🧵
I thought this was very good
"Riding the Roller Coaster of Fluctuating Disability"
https://themighty.com/topic/disability/roller-coaster-of-fluctuating-disability/
"When people think about #disability or #chronicillness, they tend to do so in a very black and white sort of way: Either you are completely #disabled, or you are not — this is your permanent status, and your disability (or lack thereof) will affect you the same way today as it will tomorrow.
Were it only that simple"
@chronicillness @spoonies @disability @mecfs @longcovid
1/
re: NixOS, the sponsorship thing, community safety
There sure is a lot of overlap between "people on this list" and "people who are involved in cryptocurrency stuff"
A problem with Twitter as the Nazi bar
I get it, the Nazi bar analogy for Twitter so incredibly appealing, for white people, and I personally left Twitter over a year ago. However if you use it to kick down? You're part of the fucking problem with this place.
If you can't recognize that the ability to leave Twitter is a Privilege? You're not really doing the work you need to do to understand structures of power and privilege, and how important community is for marginalized groups. And marginalized groups always build these community under fascism and oppression. It's not their fault if you haven't realized the problem until now.
Instead of punishing people who are still requiring to be present on Twitter to pay the bills, help them once they show up here.
Support their calls for help, commission art, etc etc etc.
Help facilitate the move, use your privilege to help people instead of just kicking down.
I just wish people would think more critically when it came to the Voice stuff, instead of pushing points without thinking.
Like, people keep saying that the Voice is an important step in the way to Treaty.. I'd invite you to think about it a little more and consider we have a good reason not to believe that (235 good reasons, tbh..).
Does the Australian government want Treaty?
-- if yes, why aren't they asking a referendum about it?
-- if yes, why aren't they clearly stating that they want Treaty?
-- if no, do you believe that they would institute a Voice as a step towards something they don't want?
-- if no, doesn't it make sense that the Voice is a set up so we stop pushing for Treaty?
It all comes back to what Audre Lorde warned - "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house"
#VoiceToParliament #AusPol #Aboriginal #Indigenous #Decolonise #SovereigntyNeverCeded #Treaty #TreatyBeforeVoice
[If you're a settler, please don't comment. Just shush and have a think about it instead of taking space]
NixOS story time, community safety
Two years ago, there was a previous attempt by a couple of folks (I was one of them) to address lingering community safety issues in the #NixOS community. This came in the form of RFC 98: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98
The idea was that the NixOS community hadn't grown that big yet, so there was still a fair amount of room for setting up healthy governance structures.
RFC 98 proposed a participatory moderation model, with a rotating cast of moderators, and a moderation process that was based in consensus seeking and helping people understand the implications of what they say and do, preferring to resolve conflicts through mediation rather than punishment.
A number of privileged white dudes caused a huge fuss over this proposal. Why? Because it didn't specify *exactly* which things were and were not allowed (as this was meant to be a consensus-seeking thing); and they were convinced that it would be used to silence and/or censor people, even though the proposal explicitly stated otherwise.
(Cynically, I would say that they were afraid that there would be consequences for them overstepping their behaviour; something they could previously do with relative impunity, and free of the "risk of getting criticized".)
A competing proposal was put forth by someone else as a result, RFC 114, which introduced a 'traditional' code of conduct with specific disallowed things and no real provisions for problematic behaviour outside of those.
Crucially, whereas RFC 98 sought to *change* the shape of the community, to improve community safety... RFC 114 was meant to enshrine the *current* state of the community, not being particularly offensive to anyone currently involved in the project, and not excluding any of the existing behaviours.
RFC 98 was concern-trolled to death. The authors (very much marginalized folks) burned out. It was never passed, and neither was RFC 114. No formal support from project governance ever materialized.
And now an immigrant murder machine manufacturer has sponsored NixCon (sponsorship since thrown out, after public criticism), and this is being enthusiastically defended by people on the NixOS forums, who seem entirely comfortable in their defense.
Does this mean that the NixOS community is full of fascists? No. And there is a pretty large contingent of marginalized folks within the community!
But the reality is that community safety issues are not a new problem in NixOS, that the Anduril sponsorship was really not a free-standing incident, and that on a governance level, almost nothing is being done about it.
In the process of moving to @joepie91. This account will stay active for the foreseeable future! But please also follow the other one.
Technical debt collector and general hype-hater. Early 30s, non-binary, ND, poly, relationship anarchist, generally queer.
- No alt text (request) = no boost.
- Boosts OK for all boostable posts.
- DMs are open.
- Flirting welcome, but be explicit if you want something out of it!
- The devil doesn't need an advocate; no combative arguing in my mentions.
Sometimes horny on main (behind CW), very much into kink (bondage, freeuse, CNC, and other stuff), and believe it or not, very much a submissive bottom :p
My spoons are limited, so I may not always have the energy to respond to messages.
Strong views about abolishing oppression, hierarchy, agency, and self-governance - but I also trust people by default and give them room to grow, unless they give me reason not to. That all also applies to technology and how it's built.