Even trump is trying to appeal to more voters. At this point I think Biden is gonna loose not even by a small margin. The democrats really fucked this one up (most likely willingly)
They refused for too long to run a younger, more progressive candidate because that would upset the oligarchy, which let to massive disillusionment among the base
It's worse than their other denials. They will definitely enact these extremist plans and try to destroy our democracy, but Trump and his team will pretend otherwise until he's in position. How do we know? They told us. The Heritage Foundation is a terrorist organization.
Trump’s vague disavowal of Project 2025 came a few days after Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, made inflammatory statements about a coming “second American Revolution” that would be “bloodless” “if the left allows it to be.”
One of its two primary editors, Paul Dans, who directs the Heritage Foundation’s 2025 Presidential Transition Project, served as the White House liaison for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management during the Trump administration, among other positions.
Gene Hamilton, who served in the Trump Justice Department and is now the vice president and general counsel of America First Legal, wrote the DOJ chapter.
Similarly, the chapter on the Department of Homeland Security was written by Ken Cuccinelli, who held multiple positions in Trump’s DHS.
People close to Trump also contributed to the Project 2025’s effort to recruit conservatives for administration positions, including appearances in promos and training videos.
Other former Trump administration officials listed on the Project 2025 academy syllabus include Dearborn, Roger Severino, Hugh Fike, and Bethany Kozma.
The original article contains 668 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I know it says the extension is not available from the Firefox addon site if using Russian IPs, but I wonder if they have also gone so far as to make the browser itself not be able to install them in other ways. I would guess they have not, since that would mean a complicated setup in terms of the signatures, like they would have to have a separate FF version and set of signatures per country, or use a central server to authenticate things rather than client validation of signatures. In that case it would be easier to find the addon file somewhere other than the store and install it, since using unsigned addons requires installing a whole separate version of Firefox.
Even if that's how it is this whole thing still illustrates that prohibiting unsigned addons from being installed is user-hostile, because on an ideological level Mozilla probably would use that power to advance state censorship if it came down to it.
Ah yeah, true, getting just the signed XPI should work as well.
And well, it is tricky. The signing requirement allows them to block malicious add-ons, which could also be used for state censorship.
I think, offering a separate path for people to install unsigned extensions, if they need it, while blocking them for the majority and therefore making them inviable for malware to target, that's in principle a smart compromise.
Also, side-note: Folks who are on Linux likely don't need to install a separate version of Firefox. Linux distros tend to compile with the unsigned extension support enabled (just need to toggle the flag in about:config).
I guess in this case the malware angle means it's probably better to require signing, since maybe Russia could successfully distribute malicious fake versions of these extensions otherwise. Still, the centralization here is worrying.
Mozilla is bending the knee to Russia? Is this real life? Have we stepped into an alternate timeline? Whats going to happen to all the psycho FireFox users when they find out this happened, will they stop screaming at everyone to use FireFox?
I'm not sure what you expect to happen. If they don't do this, Russia will ban Firefox. And I do think, it's better for the Russian people to have Firefox available, even if it bends its knee in certain situations. Because I'd wager the alternatives proactively stick their tongue up Putin's.
Stanislav Shakirov, the chief technical officer of Roskomsvoboda, a Russian open internet group, said he hoped it was a rash decision by Mozilla that will be more carefully examined.
“It’s a kind of unpleasant surprise because we thought the values of this corporation were very clear in terms of access to information, and its policy was somewhat different,” Shakirov said.
Developers of digital tools designed to get around censorship began noticing recently that their Firefox add-ons were no longer available in Russia.
Roskomnadzor is responsible for “control and supervision in telecommunications, information technology, and mass communications,” according to the Russia’s federal censorship agency’s English-language page.
In March, the New York Times reported that Roskomnadzor was increasing its operations to restrict access to censorship circumvention technologies such as VPNs.
“For the last few months, Roskomnadzor (after the adoption of the law in Russia that prohibits the promotion of tools for bypassing blockings) has been sending such complaints about content to everyone.”
The original article contains 703 words, the summary contains 160 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The add-ons were blocked at the request of Russia’s federal censorship agency, Roskomnadzor — the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media — according to a statement by Mozilla to The Intercept.
“Following recent regulatory changes in Russia, we received persistent requests from Roskomnadzor demanding that five add-ons be removed from the Mozilla add-on store,” a Mozilla spokesperson told The Intercept in response to a request for comment. “After careful consideration, we’ve temporarily restricted their availability within Russia. Recognizing the implications of these actions, we are closely evaluating our next steps while keeping in mind our local community.”
The Intercept’s reporting reflected perspectives common in media coverage on the left, such as pro-union, pro-progressive, pro-labor, pro-democracy, pro-LGBTQ/social justice, and was sympathetic to Palestine, critical of Israel, and in general critical of figures in power, like the Biden Administration, major corporations, and other key U.S. government officials.
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.
Overall, we rate The Intercept progressive Left Biased based on story selection that routinely favors the left. We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to previous fabricated work and censorship of writers.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
As much as I agree, I am not sure whether this is what they are aiming at.
The law’s provision of civil damages means that private actors — including those with seemingly endless resources — can bog you down in costly and distracting litigation,” Shamas said. “This means that Palestinians and those who support their rights become ‘high risk’ — and those who they rely on — charities, funders, banks or social media companies — are chilled from further engagement. The goal is to isolate Palestinians.”
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
Survivors of the October 7 attacks filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court last week alleging links between Hamas and the pro-Palestinian student groups leading nationwide protests against Israel’s war on Gaza.
It was filed a day after police in New York City deployed militarized forces to remove students from campus encampments protesting the war on Gaza and arrested hundreds.
“Through NSJP, AMP uses propaganda to intimidate, convince, and recruit uninformed, misguided, and impressionable college students to serve as foot soldiers for Hamas on campus and beyond,” the October 7 survivors wrote in their suit.
At the time of their passage, members of Congress who pushed the anti-terror laws linked them directly to crackdowns on pro-Palestine activities, according to a recent white paper from the Center for Constitutional Rights and Palestine Legal.
In March, the same group of nine plus another October 7 survivor sued the U.S. committee of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNWRA, the largest humanitarian organization operating in Gaza.
Greg Abbott issued an executive order targeting campus activism, calling on all the state’s higher education institutions to “review and update free speech policies” to address antisemitism.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
During a hearing premised on the idea that there is rampant antisemitism on Columbia’s campus, Omar also got Shafik to say that there had been no protests targeting specific ethnic or religious groups — Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, or Jews.
Hirsi, who has been an active participant in campus protests over the war and said she hadn’t received any prior disciplinary warning, noted that other factors may have been at play too.
On Thursday morning, Barnard sent interim suspension notices to Hirsi, Maryam Iqbal, and Soph Dinu for participating in an on-campus encampment that has rallied hundreds of students for over 24 hours.
Hirsi noted that the university has been relatively quiet about that investigation, while it has quickly published information about unauthorized events held by students protesting the Gaza war.
One adjunct faculty member found the decision troubling, given that the school has its own public safety department ostensibly trained to help manage student and campus affairs.
“Shouldn’t the cops have been required to disarm before entering campus to avoid possibility of accidental discharge or some other horrible thing?”Update: April 18, 2024, 4:47 pm.
This sounds like the memo is a style guide against biased language which is pretty common.
News is supposed to give you information, not persuade you to take an opinion and normally a style guide helps do that in a consistent voice. I'd be interested in seeing the entire memo.
A style guide is a general guidance regarding grammar, style, common journalistic practice. This refers to a single topic, and it is clearly biased towards the Israeli government's view.
For example (and as the article reads), the memo instructs
to steer clear of the term “refugee camps” to describe areas of Gaza historically settled by displaced Palestinians expelled from other parts of Palestine during previous Israeli–Arab war ...
but the very same areas
are recognized by the United Nations as refugee camps and house hundreds of thousands of registered refugees.
Can't they cite the UN now?
I'm sorry, but this is a first step towards the principle of free journalism and towards autocratic systems. That's not good practice imo.
All of that can absolutely be to reduce bias; there doesn't have to be some sinister motive. FWIW, the publication issuing these criticisms is heavily left-biased. Essentially, The Intercept is criticizing another publication for not putting enough bias into their reporting. I would consider that to not be good practice.
One of the main way biases are determined is by what words are chosen to describe a particular situation. From MBFC: "They [publications] may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion or stereotypes),"
All the memo is doing is setting the tone to keep from introducing strong biases. Again, no sinister motive and just sticking to the facts instead of appealing to emotion.
Can't they cite the UN now?
I'm sure they absolutely can if quoting someone from there; no need to jump to conclusions. Style guides are meant to reduce the amount of author / publication bias or otherwise provide a consistent tone among different authors under a particular publication.
Again, I have not seen this particular memo in whole (just the parts that this article cherry picks to make their own point), but I'm aware such guidelines exist and are common.
theintercept.com
Newest