thenexusofprivacy

These things are basic, but most white people aren't doing them -- even people who think of themselves as staunchly pro Black. And there are multiple examples in the article of how white people might be impacting Black people unintentionally, for example thisiswomanswerk talks about how hand-wringing messages of symptay many times are themselves microaggresive, and suggestions like "Stop asking Black people for evidence of the anti-Blackness" and "Stop telling Black people that they'll experience less racism if they change instances (aka servers)"

No, "color blindness" perpetuates structural racism. Here's one study looking at that. Seeing Race Again Countering Colorblindness across the Disciplines has a lot more, although it's focused on law and academia.

Yeah, the section on "Listen more to Black people" didn't really cover the challenges on Lemmy. I added this:

If you're on a platform like Lemmy which doesn't yet have similar hubs, it's more challenging. One option is to use other social networks, news aggregators, and search engines to find articles, papers, and videos by Black people – and post them yourself to help others listen.

How's that?

Thanks, all good points, I'll try to work them in! The boosting is somewhat tricky, the general guideline is "boost posts tht people want boosted, don't boost posts that they don't want boosted", but it's not always clear which is which (unless they. have "Please boost" in there somewhere)

From the article

Dr. Johnathan Flowers' The Whiteness of Mastodon, Ra’il I'Nasah Kiam and Marcia X's Blackness in the Fediverse, and the links in Dogpiling, weaponized content warning discourse, and a fig leaf for mundane white supremacy have some of the history.

Preemption is bonkers from a privacy perspective, and also flies in the face of the basic principle that the states are "the laboratories of democracy." But from a corporate perspective preemption is wonderful ... it keeps pesky pro-privacy states like California and Washington from ever raising the bar above whatever can get through Congress! So historically privacy advocates and organizations have always opposed preemptive federal legislation. But that wall cracked in 2022, where EPIC Privacy joined pro-industry privacy orgs like Future of Privacy Forum to support a preemptive bill (although EFF and ACLU continued to oppose the preemptive aspects).

The argument for supporting a preemptive bill (not that I agree with it, I'm just relaying it) is that the federal bill is stronger than state privacy bills (California unsurprisingly disagreed), and many states won't pass any privacy bill. Industry hates preemption, industry hates the idea of a private right of action where people can sue companies, most Republicans and corporate Democrats will do what industry wants, so the only way to pass a bill is to include at most one of those. So the only way to get that level of privacy protection for everybody is for people in California, Maine, Illinois, etc, to give up some of their existing protection, and for people in Washington etc to give up the chance of passing stronger consumer privacy laws in the future. California of course didn't like that (neither did other states but California has a lot of votes in Congress), and Cantwell's staffers also told us in Washington that she was opposed to any preemptive bill, so things deadlocked in 2022.

With this bill, I'm not sure why Cantwell's position has changed -- we're trying to set up a meeting with her, if we find out I'll let you know. I'm also not sure whether the changes in this bill are enough to get California on board. So, we shall see.

Great example of how there isn't any one right answer here, it's different for different instances. Can I quote this in the "What will instances do? Opinions differ!" section of https://privacy.thenexus.today/should-the-fediverse-welcome-surveillance-capitalism ?

Agreed that there isn't one particular model that's right or wrong for everybody, and that a split is likely -- a region like today's fedi and that welcomes Threads, and a more safety-focused region (with more blocking, a more consent-based federation).

There have been other waves, it's just that once they get shut down everybody loses interest and moves on. The PR for the one of the changes Mastodon just made was implemented in May 2023 after the Doge spam wave. And here's a June 2019 post talking about exactly the same kind of attack: "The problem we are experiencing is the spammer signing up on random open instances and sending spam remotely."

A very good idea! https://startrek.website/ took this approach, it'd be intersting to check in with them to see what they learned.

I had shared the draft version here a few weeks ago, and this incorporates some of the feedback -- including "This goes against everything the Fediverse stands for" 😎

It's true, but the time pressure is likely to be used to try to get a weak "compromise" bill through.