Werd I/O

[Damon Kiesow in Working Systems]

Damon Kiesow, who is the Knight Chair in Digital Editing and Producing at the Missouri School of Journalism, writes:

"We ourselves have torn down the wall between editorial and business interests if as journalists, our calculation here is not values-based. To wit: “But I have a large following and neither BlueSky or Threads does.” That is the rationalization of a marketer, not a journalist who believes in the SPJ Code of Ethics dictate to “minimize harm.”"

The questions Damon raises in this post are the right ones. It's long past time for journalists to interrogate their uses of social media and whether they're doing harm, and I deeply appreciate the callout to the SPJ Code of Ethics as a core principle here.

Alternatives are available that don't have these toxic traits and are more engaged, less dangerous for your community, and a part of the future of the web rather than a relic of the past. Use them.

#Media

[Link]

[Bill Fitzgerald]

Bill Fitzgerald has updated his open source guide to personal privacy:

"Conversations about privacy and security often focus on technology and give scant attention to the human, non-technological factors that affect personal privacy and security. This post covers a range of concrete steps we can all take to regain control over what, when, and with whom we share."

I really appreciate the straightforwardness of the guide - these are things that everyone can do to help keep themselves safe. And because it's open source, the more eyes there are on it validating the information, the better the guide will get.

Some of the general advice is needfully pessimistic but doesn't always apply. For example, it talks about there not being an expectation of privacy on work devices, or using a work-provided VPN. That probably is generally true, but for example, in my role leading technology at ProPublica, I and others would absolutely flip a table if we decided to surveil our employees. (For one thing, that would be a terrible approach if we cared about keeping sources safe, which we obviously do.) So it's always worth checking in with your IT leadership to understand their concrete policy.

Regardless, I would feel comfortable sharing this verbatim. I'm grateful that Bill has released it under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license, so there are opportunities to create designs for this guide and share them back to the community.

#Technology

[Link]

[Molly White]

Unsure what to do now? Molly White has some solid ways to get started helping:

""Many of us have looked back on historic events where people have bravely stood up against powerful adversaries and wondered, “what would I have done?” Now is your chance to find out. It did not just start with this election; it has been that time for a long time. If you’re just realizing it now, get your ass in gear. Make yourself proud.""

There are compelling suggestions here around protecting yourself; working to support press freedom and access to information; migrant rights; reproductive rights; trans rights. But more than that, the spirit of this post is that we should have a bias towards meaningful action.

#Technology

[Link]

[Heather Bryant]

Some good advice from Heather:

"One practical thing you can do in as much depth as you like, identify a particular area of information that you care about or feel is important and protect it. Whether it's critical public data, old abandoned websites, or niche community content that you think is worth preserving, the information is worth saving."

There is lots of practical advice in her piece: contributing to ArchiveTeam and to the End of Term Web Archive, downloading a copy of Wikipedia, and simply keeping a copy of useful information. I agree - particularly in a world where we're all so dependent on storing things in the cloud. The longevity of all of that information matters.

#Technology

[Link]

[Taylor Lorenz at User Mag]

Gen Z men have lurched to the right, which was one factor behind this month's election result. This is, in part, because they've been inundated with media that speaks to a right-leaning point of view - and there's almost no counterpart on the Left.

"Leftist channels do not receive widespread financial backing from billionaires or large institutional donors, primarily because leftist content creators support policies that are completely at odds with what billionaires want."

There is no progressive answer to Rogan. There could be - there's no shortage of progressive hosts who could fill this role - but as Taylor argues here, and as I've also previously argued, the funding isn't there for it.

As Taylor points out:

"The conservative media landscape in the United States is exceptionally well-funded, meticulously constructed, and highly coordinated. Wealthy donors, PACs, and corporations with a vested interest in preserving or expanding conservative policies strategically invest in right-wing media channels and up and coming content creators."

For progressive causes to win, there must be investment in progressive influencers. Not in a cringe Air America way, but authentic voices who are already out there and need a lift to reach more audiences. So the question becomes: where are those progressive influencers? And who can bankroll them in such a way that they retain their independence and authenticity - but amplified?

#Media

[Link]

[Mathew Ingram at The Torment Nexus]

Mathew Ingram on blaming social media for the stratification of society:

"In the end, that is too simple an explanation, just as blaming the New York Times' coverage of the race is too simple, or accusing more than half of the American electorate of being too stupid to see Trump for what he really is. They saw it, and they voted for him anyway. That's the reality."

This piece does a good job of debunking the lingering idea that "fake news" swings elections, or that social media bubbles are responsible for multiple realities and "alternative facts". In fact, this is a process that has been ongoing since the 1990s, and social media is a mirror of it rather than the cause.

If you're looking for answers, you need to look elsewhere.

#Media

[Link]

[Dick Tofel]

Dick Tofel on where the press should go next:

"We held a free and fair election, and the candidate who hates the press, who makes sport of threatening it physically and with censorship and muzzling, won. The campaign was fought across seven states and he won them all. He got more votes than his opponent."

There's a lot here about how the press could and should respond to the current situation, which I largely agree with. But I particularly agree with this analysis:

"For more than forty years, we have become an ever-more winner-take-all society, one in which the gap between the winners and losers has widened, particularly with respect to income, wealth, education and the advantages that accrue to all three. The Republican Party promoted this; the Democratic Party largely tolerated it. Now tens of millions of those who feel the sting of lower incomes, lesser wealth, inferior education have rebelled.

They have, in one of history’s great ironies, put their faith in, and channeled their rage through one of the winners, one who did almost nothing for them the first time he held power, but who gives voice to their grievances, both legitimate and not, and adroitly vilifies those they most resent."

I think there's a lot to this - and I think the Democrats have unfortunately done a poor job of speaking up for working class people who are really struggling. That's not to say that its messages about inclusion are bad - they're very good - but it's not either / or. There needs to be a strong message about how poor people are going to be better-off, that is clear-eyed about rising prices and unemployment for that demographic in particular. And we need to make the world better for the systemically oppressed. We are all in this together.

#Media

[Link]

[Senator Ron Wyden at MSNBC]

Senator Wyden has long been a loud voice for surveillance reform and stronger data protections, so this op-ed isn't really a surprise - but it's still nice to see him weighing in here:

"Data brokers are selling the ability to track phones that visit abortion clinics and follow them back across state lines, all the way to their owners’ homes. All it takes for this kind of 24-hour surveillance is a credit card. Given the creepy enthusiasm with which MAGA government officials are inserting themselves into women’s health choices, these tracking tools present a pressing danger for women across the country."

As the Senator points out, data brokers are a clear danger to many peoples' safety, including women in a reproductive healthcare context. I think about this a lot in relation to journalists, whose personal information is often made available by these organizations and can be (let's be clear: absolutely is) used to threaten harm in retaliation for reporting on a story. And then, of course, brokers are often used as a way for law enforcement to bypass the need for a warrant: if someone's whereabouts or communications metadata are available to anyone with a credit card, civil rights protections can easily be bypassed.

Californians will have the ability to have their data removed from any broker - as long as that broker actually takes steps to comply with the law - from 2026. This isn't enough; these brokers shouldn't exist to begin with. But at least it's one step in the right direction. Everyone should enjoy the same protections.

#Technology

[Link]

[ProPublica]

"With just days to go before Election Day, political coverage is everywhere. At ProPublica, we avoid horse race reporting and focus on telling stories about deeper issues and trends affecting the country.

Here are some stories from the last year about issues that are important to voters."

Some selected stories from my colleagues at ProPublica.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Versha Sharma in Teen Vogue]

This is a remarkable kind-of-sort-of-endorsement from Teen Vogue.

"As the head of this publication, dedicated to young readers, I have been closely following younger generations’ collective disbelief at the Biden administration’s support of the Israeli government during its all-out assault on Gaza, following the brutal terror attack from Hamas last Oct. 7 — including the horrific killing of civilians in Gaza, the targeting of journalists and aid workers, and the reports of children being shot in the head.

The Democrats’ policy on Israel has been disastrous. What is also true: Trump would, somehow, be even worse."

I was once in a private meeting of journalism professionals where someone described Teen Vogue's leadership as "some very left-wing women". I'm not sure how, exactly, Teen Vogue came to be such a blazing voice for progressive values, but - contrary, I think, to what that person intended with their remarks - it's been incredibly impressive to see.

This magazine for teenagers makes point after point about our culpability as Americans in human suffering and how that might be affected by the two candidates in play. It's hardly a surprise how that nets out:

"We would be constrained in even expressing dissent in a Trump administration. He has talked about shooting protesters, jailing his opponents and critics, and taking action against media who dare to report honestly on him, including revoking licenses for broadcast news he disagrees with. Teen Vogue itself could be held liable under a Trump administration — there is a world where we could face punishment for publishing something like this."

Which is why, Sharma argues, everyone should vote. Only overwhelming numbers will shut this conversation down: in safe states and swing states and deeply red states.

"If you’ve got any anxiety or concern about this election, I urge you to channel that into action. There’s no more putting it off or tuning it out. This is it."

This magazine for people who are still in the early stages of figuring out who they are in the world doesn't pull any punches. If Teen Vogue is any indication, the kids are alright.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Craig Silverman at ProPublica and Priyanjana Bengani at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism]

"The network, which uses the name Patriot Democracy on many of its ad accounts, is one of eight deceptive Meta advertising operations identified by ProPublica and Tow. These networks have collectively controlled more than 340 Facebook pages, as well as associated Instagram and Messenger accounts. Most were created by the advertising networks, with some pages masquerading as government entities."

Despite Meta's claims that they were cracking down - which were likely backed up with real efforts - ProPublica ad Tow have discovered that there are plenty of ad networks out there spreading misleading election information.

The issue is likely not to do with Meta itself but the way these targeted ad networks work to begin with. The fact that a company as large as Meta, which is absolutely incentivized to stop these ads from spreading, effectively can't, is an indictment of the model. There's no way that they can proactively approve ads before they run at the scale their business operates, so some will always get through.

That said, there are some serious policy failures here, too:

"Meta removed some of the ads after initially approving them, the investigation found, but it failed to catch thousands of others with similar or even identical content. In many cases, even after removing the violating ads, it allowed the associated Facebook pages and accounts to continue operating, enabling the parent networks to spawn new pages and ads. [...] Our analysis showed that while Meta had removed some pages and ads, its enforcement often lagged or was haphazard. Prior to being contacted by ProPublica and Tow, Meta had taken action against roughly 140 pages affiliated with these eight networks, representing less than half of the total identified in the investigation."

Cracking down on these networks too forcefully could also create a chilling effect throughout the network of potential advertisers, making a real impact on Meta's bottom line. And, of course, that's not something that any product manager watching their progress towards their quarterly OKRs wants to do.

#Democracy

[Link]

[John O'Nolan]

This is a genuinely inspiring post from John O'Nolan about the foundation behind Ghost and how it operates. It feels like a blueprint for so many open source projects.

"The business model was simple: We would make a great open source product that people wanted to use. Those people would need a server to use the product, so we would also sell web hosting. The revenue from our hosting would fund further development of the open source product."

This sounds simpler than it is. I tried it and failed - but John, Hannah, and team have made it work well, growing a dedicated community around a high-quality, well-designed product that serves a specific set of needs really well.

This will be interesting to watch:

"So, as we reach our headcount limit of 50 people — which is likely to happen in the next couple of years — our intention is to expand the seats on Ghost's board of trustees beyond myself and Hannah."

John describes it as part of building "a more diverse and representative governance structure" for Ghost. There are lots of ways to cut that, but he paints a strong picture that includes bringing in the community and upholding transparency.

What also blew me away here was that Ghost was profitable eleven days after launching its hosted service, which in turn was released not long after the initial Kickstarter campaign was closed. I'd love to hear more about how much of the platform was already built and how they pulled that together.

#Technology

[Link]

[Cassandra Jaramillo and Kavitha Surana at ProPublica]

The deeply tragic stories of how abortion bans lead to preventable deaths continue.

"The fetus was on the verge of coming out, its head pressed against her dilated cervix; she was 17 weeks pregnant and a miscarriage was “in progress,” doctors noted in hospital records. At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica.

But when Barnica’s husband rushed to her side from his job on a construction site, she relayed what she said the medical team had told her: “They had to wait until there was no heartbeat,” he told ProPublica in Spanish. “It would be a crime to give her an abortion.”"

This is another look at how "pro life" policies are not necessarily pro life at all. As the piece notes, some Republican representatives have begun muting their anti-abortion stances after realizing how unpopular and damaging it actually is. Still, plenty more continue to fight for what amounts to a nationwide ban.

And then there's this:

"Abortion bans put doctors in an impossible position, she said, forcing them to decide whether to risk malpractice or a felony charge. After her state enacted one of the strictest bans in the country, she also waited to offer interventions in cases like Barnica’s until the fetal heartbeat stopped or patients showed signs of infection, praying every time that nothing would go wrong. It’s why she ultimately moved to Colorado."

If were of child-bearing age and you had the ability to move, why would you stay in a state that threatened your life like this? Why would you practice medicine in a place that put you in such a position? The knock-on effects of these policies will continue to be felt for a long time to come.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Nilay Patel at The Verge]

This is, uh, the opposite of this year's trend of a bunch of newspapers refusing to endorse anyone:

"Donald Trump is a dangerous maniac who can barely complete a sentence, and it is lunacy to believe he can even recognize the existentially threatening collective action problems facing our nation, let alone actually solve them."

It's odd that a tech publication like The Verge is coming out so strong here, but it's hard to disagree. I particularly like that the bulk of the piece is about the collective action problem - not just individual policies, but the actual difference in philosophy between a conservative and more progressive approach.

This is good:

"It is extremely frustrating that the Harris campaign keeps going on about Trump being a danger to democracy without explaining why his whole deal is so deeply incompatible with America, so here’s the short version: the radical founding principle of the United States of America is the idea that the government’s authority to make laws and solve collective action problems comes from the consent of the governed."

Right. Exactly. It was a (relatively) clean break from the divine right of kings and the tendrils of monarchy in favor of a more democratic approach. It has problems, it's messy, and it turns out not to be as independent from the influence of generational wealth (those pesky kings again) as we would like it to be, but it was something different.

The naked self-servingness of the Trump / Vance campaign is laid out here. It's a world where school shootings are "a fact of life" and vaccines, a medical technology that has saved the lives of hundreds of millions of people, are not to be trusted.

I agree with this too:

"The list of massive collective action problems facing our nation is almost overwhelming to consider, and they threaten to tear us apart: our population is getting older, with a looming healthcare crisis to come. Education. Housing. Income inequality. There are so many more."

The piece goes on to call out climate change as perhaps the biggest, alongside anti-trust and a host more. It's time to actually consider those problems as communities - democratic races like this one, where we're forced to talk about the dumbest possible stuff at the hands of a barely-coherent candidate, rob us of the ability to have those really substantive conversations. I'm excited for us to put this one to bed and go back to the business of actually dealing with the hard stuff.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Molly Redden and Andy Kroll, ProPublica, and Nick Surgey, Documented]

"A key ally to former President Donald Trump detailed plans to deploy the military in response to domestic unrest, defund the Environmental Protection Agency and put career civil servants “in trauma” in a series of previously unreported speeches that provide a sweeping vision for a second Trump term."

Russell Vought directed the Office of Management and Budget in the first Trump administration, and is likely to be back again for the next one. The rhetoric here dovetails with Trump's own and paints a bleak picture of what the future might hold.

As always, I'm grateful to my colleagues at ProPublica who have been bringing these topics to light.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Heather Bryant]

A characteristically sharp piece on the Washington Post's spiked Presidential endorsement and ensuing fallout from Heather Bryant:

"Good journalism is not unique to the Washington Post. Or the L.A. Times. Or the New York Times. Or any other specific organization. Their historical reach and influence is unique, but not necessarily the quality of their work. [...] If you venerate an institution to the point where you refrain from holding it accountable, what are you teaching it but that it can do what it wants without consequence?"

I strongly agree with this message. News is an industry in trouble, but we must not confuse ourselves: the thing we need to protect is speaking truth to power and an informed voting population - the act of journalism itself - and not necessarily the incumbent institutions themselves. The latter must be held accountable, and canceling subscriptions is one of the few levers we have.

I canceled my subscription. If you're still a subscriber, you should make your own mind up - but bear in mind that it is a way to take action and be noticed in the face of a pretty appalling publisher decision.

#Media

[Link]

[Ghost]

"Last week we officially started the ActivityPub private beta and sent invitations to our first 3 publishers to start testing things out. This was the first big milestone we've been working toward for months, and it felt great to get there! 🚀"

The Ghost team continues to build their ActivityPub integration in the open. It's really fun to see.

This update goes into the kinds of bugs you discover when you start showing your work to early adopters, and I love the joyul attitude here. I also particularly love the animated preview of the ActivityPub-aware profile viewer.

It's all coming together nicely - and it looks like it'll be one of the slickest Fediverse apps out there. I can't wait.

#Fediverse

[Link]