Lemm.ee va a cerrar.

c/Mexico va a migrar a otra instancia?

Looks like another community moderated by a missing person that might disappear when lemm.ee shuts down.

Anyone thinking of / inclined to migrate it to another instance?

> Free software plays a critical role in science, both in research and in disseminating it. Aspects of software freedom are directly relevant to simulation, analysis, document preparation and preservation, security, reproducibility, and usability. Free software brings practical and specific advantages, beyond just its ideological roots, to science, while proprietary software comes with equally specific risks. As a practicing scientist, I would like to help others—scientists or not—see the benefits from free software in science.

--- > One sad but common situation is that of a graduate student who becomes accustomed to a piece of expensive commercial analytical software (such as a symbolic-mathematics program), enjoying it either through a generous student discount or because it's paid for by the department. Then the freshly-minted PhD discovers the real price of the software, and can't afford it on their postdoc salary. They have to learn new ways of doing things, and have probably lost access to their past work, which is locked up in proprietary binary files.

> Haiti’s first commercial flight in seven months took off has taken off from the capital, going to the northern city of Cap-Haitien, where excited passengers hope to reunite with friends, relatives and business associates

> As of Thursday morning, Aftermath was not able to access the game on the US Google Play Store; according to Bloomberg, it was removed from the Google Play Store in May for issues unrelated to the current ban. We’ve reached out to Google for comment.

I cannot find it in the Google Play Store here in Mexico.

But it is available as an .APK (861MB) from the game homepage:

• https://www.reversedfront.tw/pages/en_pv

The genius Trump gifts another victory to Zhongnanhai.

Bassline sounds a lot like the one in Inner City Blues by Marvin Gaye...but it is slightly different. Sampled from the Reuben Wilson cover.

China has outlined a string of reforms to accelerate the development of hi-tech emerging industries in the city of Shenzhen, as the tech hub in southern China grapples with a barrage of US trade restrictions.

The plan focuses on boosting Shenzhen’s ability to create scalable business models in industries such as artificial intelligence and aviation that can be replicated across China, by helping the city cultivate a larger talent pool, expand local companies’ access to financing, and speed up the deployment of cutting-edge technologies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Smith_(politician)

Former Arizona state Rep. Austin Smith, a leader of advocacy group Turning Point Action, was indicted on charges that he forged voter signatures on the nomination petitions he submitted for his re-election campaign last year.

How a student fought to do their degree without submitting to proprietary (Microsoft, Google, Oracle etc) software and services that lecturers & admins demanded, and only use free software instead (like Jami, Jitsi Meet, PostgreSQL etc).

How a student fought to do their degree without submitting to proprietary (Microsoft, Google, Oracle etc) software and services that lecturers & admins demanded, and only use free software instead (like Jami, Jitsi Meet, PostgreSQL etc).

How a European student fought to do their degree without submitting to proprietary, US (Microsoft, Google, Oracle etc) software and services that lecturers & admins demanded, and only use free software instead (like Jami, Jitsi Meet, PostgreSQL etc).

From 2021.

For those having trouble loading the article, I'll paste it below (it's licensed CC-0).

---

How I Fought To Graduate Without Using Nonfree Software

by Wojciech Kosior [1]

As a university student, I have struggled during the pandemic like everyone else. Many have experienced deaths in their families, or have lost their jobs. While studying informatics at the AGH University of Science and Technology in Kraków, Poland, I have been fighting another, seemingly less important battle, but one I passionately feel is vital to our future freedoms. I describe my fight below, so as to encourage and inspire others.

Unethical platforms

Software freedom is a huge but hidden issue in our time. Digital communications technologies such as videoconferencing have taken center stage in our lives, and for many the use of these has been a savior. They do not notice the danger concealed in the way it works: whoever controls this technology controls our lives. Recently we have seen the power of Big Tech to subvert democracy, control speech, exclude groups, and invade our privacy.

Software freedom is a fight to return control to people. It is a fight against “nonfree” software, also called proprietary software, which imposes unjust and invasive harms on its users. In pursuit of our liberating mission, advocates of software freedom like myself insist on using libre software.

It is especially important to spread these ideals to new generations. Unfortunately, we often see the opposite trend. The default operating system found in most computer classrooms of my country is proprietary Microsoft Windows, with some universities even providing students licenses for it. At some point I came to realize this practice really only benefits the proprietary operating system vendor. Similarly terrifying is the level of dependence of course organization on nonfree Google Sheets and Google Forms.

During the pandemic we saw educational facilities hastily embrace proprietary tools such as Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and WhatsApp, pressured by the network they generate. Schools and universities then tried to impose them on students, who subsequently suffered the loss of freedom from using programs that users don't control, as well as bad security and violations of privacy.

Because I refuse to use unethical software, the complete reliance on proprietary platforms has created an ethical conflict. My aim has been to complete my university degree without surrendering to the imposed nonfree services, by convincing my professors[2] to allow me to use only free-software replacements to proprietary applications. I didn't expect to win a fight against such power, but now, through polite but firm action, I think I may have prevailed. Hopefully this story will help you resist too.

Ethical studying

Over time I've become more and more determined to avoid nonfree software. Among other challenges, that meant getting a Libreboot'ed ThinkPad and switching to GNU/Linux distros that include only libre packages. One might ask:

> What about studies? Weren't you required to use Windows? Or MS Office? Or some other proprietary tools?

Actually, a majority of classroom assignments could be completed with free software. Today we have the luxury of excellent libre operating systems and libre tools for most tasks. Most popular programming languages have free software implementations. On those few occasions when some nonfree tool was strictly required, I was able either to convince the professor to let me make a substitution—for example, to complete the exercises with a PostgreSQL database instead of Oracle—or to do the assignment on a university computer in the lab. I admit, running nonfree software on a computer other than one's own doesn't fully solve the ethical problem. It just seemed fair, but it is not something I'm proud of.

I also take the issue of in-browser JavaScript (js) more seriously now. Web js runs in an isolated sandbox, which leads many to believe it's acceptable, even though it's nonfree. Sandboxing might indeed solve security issues, but the true problem with proprietary programs lies elsewhere, in its denial of letting users have control. Currently, maintaining one's software freedom in the field of web browsing is not easy. Sites frequently malfunction when js is disabled. I have had to ask colleagues to help me enter study-related data into a Google Sheet because I couldn't do that without js enabled. In addition, js code is used to implement browser fingerprinting which is used to track users.

Gentle persuasion

Without serious problems, I completed the fifth semester of my studies. At the beginning of the sixth semester, the pandemic began. Universities closed their physical facilities, so most students returned home and professors started organizing remote classes. Unsurprisingly, they all chose proprietary platforms. Cisco WebEx, Microsoft Teams, ClickMeeting, and Skype were popular choices. I could not find a free software client for any of those. Also, not realizing the problem of nonfree js, professors expected everyone to be able to easily join the video sessions using any web interface.

How did I handle these requirements? I would very politely email every single professor who announced something would be done using a problematic platform, explaining the lack of a suitable free software client. I often included a link to a popular online explanation of the issues of software freedom and universities, the “Costumed Heroes” video created by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), along with some other links to free videoconferencing programs like Jami and Jitsi Meet.

Although there are many documented surveillance and security issues on these centralized platforms, I explained that, for me, software freedom was the troubling factor. Replies urging me to “run the program in a virtual machine” or saying that I “don't need the source code to use the service,” made it clear that some of my professors didn't understand, or understood only part of the issues. Had I been studying anything other than informatics, I suspect the fraction of those who understood the problem would be far smaller.

Missing out

There were two distinct areas of concern. The first was with accessing and participating in the teaching materials; for example, in a Machine Learning class I found someone to forward on to me what the professor had said. The second was around registration and assessment. For some remote classes, presence was not checked. I skipped those. Uploading my homework to Moodle also didn't pose any issues.

The first real problem arose with the Artificial Intelligence (AI) course. It was taught by rotation. The first professor gave homework requiring the proprietary Framsticks application, but allowed me to do a neural networks exercise instead. Another professor agreed I could use Webots instead of Choreographe for a simulation exercise. Yet another one asked us to complete an online NVIDIA course that required nonfree js. That professor did not respond to my email.

One Distributed Systems homework was supposed to be submitted via WebEx, but that professor agreed to let me use Jami instead.

Uncertainty and doubt

Another issue that arose was gnawing uncertainty in the absence of a clear policy. Not knowing whether the university would recognize my principles was a cause of ongoing stress. Despite my small early victory, other rotational courses meant that three more professors would each need to agree if I were to pass, so until June I could not be sure I would succeed. In March, System Programming classes started. The professor, who didn't want to lose time connecting to a libre platform to rate my homework, gave me little hope, so again I was to live in uncertainty through the Easter and beyond.

I believe every class should at minimum be offered ways to interoperate with libre tools so that students can at least read class assignments on free platforms, and upload their answers from them. Unless universities offer interoperability, the reliance on proprietary software costs both students and professors time and headaches. At one point I emailed two professors about the use of nonfree platforms for lectures. One didn't respond and the other replied rudely. They seemed not to understand, but I suspect they were avoiding any extra work. This had a corrosive impact on my engagement and I stopped caring about lectures. Avoiding a language-specific package manager that I felt put me at risk of security and freedom issues cost me considerable time and delayed my studies. Time is precious for us all.

Friction over freedom

Although stressful, thus far things had gone fairly smoothly. But after Easter, a Software Engineering course presented the first big problem. This professor first ignored my emails, but eventually wrote a long reply and threatened to fail me if I missed one more meeting. That email's tone showed great annoyance, perhaps anger. It was suggested that I use a colleague's help to participate in the meeting. Another classmate and I connected through Mumble, through which the professor was also intermediated—not perfect, but it worked!

The issues of software freedom, which are ethical, must be separated from other concerns to which open source supporters often give priority. For example, advocates of open source refrain from bringing those important freedom issues to the table and only say that software with source code publicly available is going to achieve higher quality with the help of the community. Meanwhile, our opponents claim proprietary software can bring higher revenue, allowing the hiring of more developers to work on improving it.

The Compilers course exam was to be conducted through Microsoft Teams. Again, sticking to my principles, I thought I would fail. Funnily enough, it was Teams that failed. It could not handle dozens of students connecting, so instead the exam was conducted via email. On the other hand, during contact with my thesis supervisor in July, Jami broke during the meeting. No software is perfect. But with libre software you at least get to keep both pieces when it breaks.

It is not necessarily the functional aspects of the software that creates friction around lack of software freedom. During the summer I had to do an internship. I backed out of a paid offer after learning that the employer would make my code nonfree. I eventually did another, unpaid internship.

So after all my struggles, I finally passed the summer semester and even had decent grades. What at some point seemed almost impossible, was now a reality.

Proprietary imposed at all levels

Before the winter semester, a list of allowed videoconferencing platforms that comply with the data protection law was given to professors. It contained Microsoft Teams, Cisco WebEx, ClickMeeting, and Google Meet. You will surely see the irony here!

One professor agreed to use Jitsi Meet for all his classes and suggested that I ask the student council to recommend it to the Dean, but the council never responded to my emails. High quality software offering better data protection capabilities was deliberately sidelined in favor of commercial nonfree solutions in what seems like a case of corrupt corporate capture of an educational institution. The libre software didn't get approved and the professor kept communicating with other students via WebEx.

Misconceptions

As I mentioned earlier, despite being highly knowledgeable computer scientists and experienced in informatics, many academics demonstrated a generally poor understanding of the politics and ethics around software.

The professor giving the seminar claimed that because a libre platform also runs on someone else's server, “it cannot be safer.” I responded that Jitsi Meet allows for independent instances to be created, which eliminates the need to rely on a single company. I also noted that the lack of libre clients is the main problem with other services. It is a shame that professors at this level, who fully grasp the difference between intermediated encryption and end-to-end encryption, will teach it in their classes but not practice it in their daily profession.

On another occasion, I objected to using a Windows VM for a penetration testing exercise. The professor remarked that one would not be a good penetration tester if restricted to testing only libre servers. I gave up on responding to him, but I think proprietary platforms should be considered insecure by default due to, for instance, possible backdoors they may have.

Having resolve

At some point I had an argument with my supervisor, who gave me an ultimatum that I must use Microsoft Teams. I didn't agree and my supervisor was supposed to inform the Dean about withdrawing from supervising me. Perhaps the Dean didn't read that email? I'm just guessing. Anyway, a few weeks later I even borrowed some electronics from my supervisor—almost as if the argument had never happened.

Later, one professor who didn't agree to let me pass a course without using Teams wanted to fail me for my “absences,” despite my uploading homework throughout the semester. After a protracted argument, I was offered an option to meet online on January 8th… on Teams! I politely refused again, and reiterated my points. The professor eventually CC'd the Associate Dean in an email. In the meantime, the deadline to upload my thesis for a January defense expired. After many reminder emails, a response finally came, and through the Dean's intercession I got a grade, passed my seventh semester and successfully defended my thesis in March.

Conclusions

Looking back, I'm proud of my actions. I took the risk of failing my studies, and I would end up with lower final grade than if I had submitted to the use of unethical and insecure software products. But I am content with this. I don't think surrendering to nonfree platforms would bring any long-term benefits—only more compromises.

We can see some people are intolerant to software freedom principles, but in the end those were few and most university staff at the AGH were actually kind to me. Thanks to them I now have a proof that it is possible to study, graduate… indeed to live without relying on proprietary software. After all this hard experience, I feel more independent than ever, and I even received appreciation from the well-known RMS [3]. Hopefully, my story will help more students get to where I am.

Struggling to run only libre programs forced, and continues to force me, to gain new skills. I now know enough about web technologies to make several sites function without JavaScript. But what is best about my experience is that I will be able to share my fixes with others and eventually make a subset of the World Wide Web usable in freedom.

Not strictly about buying European, but about how a European student fought to do their degree without submitting to proprietary, US software and services.

From 2021.

For those having trouble loading the article, I'll paste it below (it's licensed CC-0).

---

How I Fought To Graduate Without Using Nonfree Software

by Wojciech Kosior [1]

As a university student, I have struggled during the pandemic like everyone else. Many have experienced deaths in their families, or have lost their jobs. While studying informatics at the AGH University of Science and Technology in Kraków, Poland, I have been fighting another, seemingly less important battle, but one I passionately feel is vital to our future freedoms. I describe my fight below, so as to encourage and inspire others.

Unethical platforms

Software freedom is a huge but hidden issue in our time. Digital communications technologies such as videoconferencing have taken center stage in our lives, and for many the use of these has been a savior. They do not notice the danger concealed in the way it works: whoever controls this technology controls our lives. Recently we have seen the power of Big Tech to subvert democracy, control speech, exclude groups, and invade our privacy.

Software freedom is a fight to return control to people. It is a fight against “nonfree” software, also called proprietary software, which imposes unjust and invasive harms on its users. In pursuit of our liberating mission, advocates of software freedom like myself insist on using libre software.

It is especially important to spread these ideals to new generations. Unfortunately, we often see the opposite trend. The default operating system found in most computer classrooms of my country is proprietary Microsoft Windows, with some universities even providing students licenses for it. At some point I came to realize this practice really only benefits the proprietary operating system vendor. Similarly terrifying is the level of dependence of course organization on nonfree Google Sheets and Google Forms.

During the pandemic we saw educational facilities hastily embrace proprietary tools such as Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and WhatsApp, pressured by the network they generate. Schools and universities then tried to impose them on students, who subsequently suffered the loss of freedom from using programs that users don't control, as well as bad security and violations of privacy.

Because I refuse to use unethical software, the complete reliance on proprietary platforms has created an ethical conflict. My aim has been to complete my university degree without surrendering to the imposed nonfree services, by convincing my professors[2] to allow me to use only free-software replacements to proprietary applications. I didn't expect to win a fight against such power, but now, through polite but firm action, I think I may have prevailed. Hopefully this story will help you resist too.

Ethical studying

Over time I've become more and more determined to avoid nonfree software. Among other challenges, that meant getting a Libreboot'ed ThinkPad and switching to GNU/Linux distros that include only libre packages. One might ask:

> What about studies? Weren't you required to use Windows? Or MS Office? Or some other proprietary tools?

Actually, a majority of classroom assignments could be completed with free software. Today we have the luxury of excellent libre operating systems and libre tools for most tasks. Most popular programming languages have free software implementations. On those few occasions when some nonfree tool was strictly required, I was able either to convince the professor to let me make a substitution—for example, to complete the exercises with a PostgreSQL database instead of Oracle—or to do the assignment on a university computer in the lab. I admit, running nonfree software on a computer other than one's own doesn't fully solve the ethical problem. It just seemed fair, but it is not something I'm proud of.

I also take the issue of in-browser JavaScript (js) more seriously now. Web js runs in an isolated sandbox, which leads many to believe it's acceptable, even though it's nonfree. Sandboxing might indeed solve security issues, but the true problem with proprietary programs lies elsewhere, in its denial of letting users have control. Currently, maintaining one's software freedom in the field of web browsing is not easy. Sites frequently malfunction when js is disabled. I have had to ask colleagues to help me enter study-related data into a Google Sheet because I couldn't do that without js enabled. In addition, js code is used to implement browser fingerprinting which is used to track users.

Gentle persuasion

Without serious problems, I completed the fifth semester of my studies. At the beginning of the sixth semester, the pandemic began. Universities closed their physical facilities, so most students returned home and professors started organizing remote classes. Unsurprisingly, they all chose proprietary platforms. Cisco WebEx, Microsoft Teams, ClickMeeting, and Skype were popular choices. I could not find a free software client for any of those. Also, not realizing the problem of nonfree js, professors expected everyone to be able to easily join the video sessions using any web interface.

How did I handle these requirements? I would very politely email every single professor who announced something would be done using a problematic platform, explaining the lack of a suitable free software client. I often included a link to a popular online explanation of the issues of software freedom and universities, the “Costumed Heroes” video created by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), along with some other links to free videoconferencing programs like Jami and Jitsi Meet.

Although there are many documented surveillance and security issues on these centralized platforms, I explained that, for me, software freedom was the troubling factor. Replies urging me to “run the program in a virtual machine” or saying that I “don't need the source code to use the service,” made it clear that some of my professors didn't understand, or understood only part of the issues. Had I been studying anything other than informatics, I suspect the fraction of those who understood the problem would be far smaller.

Missing out

There were two distinct areas of concern. The first was with accessing and participating in the teaching materials; for example, in a Machine Learning class I found someone to forward on to me what the professor had said. The second was around registration and assessment. For some remote classes, presence was not checked. I skipped those. Uploading my homework to Moodle also didn't pose any issues.

The first real problem arose with the Artificial Intelligence (AI) course. It was taught by rotation. The first professor gave homework requiring the proprietary Framsticks application, but allowed me to do a neural networks exercise instead. Another professor agreed I could use Webots instead of Choreographe for a simulation exercise. Yet another one asked us to complete an online NVIDIA course that required nonfree js. That professor did not respond to my email.

One Distributed Systems homework was supposed to be submitted via WebEx, but that professor agreed to let me use Jami instead.

Uncertainty and doubt

Another issue that arose was gnawing uncertainty in the absence of a clear policy. Not knowing whether the university would recognize my principles was a cause of ongoing stress. Despite my small early victory, other rotational courses meant that three more professors would each need to agree if I were to pass, so until June I could not be sure I would succeed. In March, System Programming classes started. The professor, who didn't want to lose time connecting to a libre platform to rate my homework, gave me little hope, so again I was to live in uncertainty through the Easter and beyond.

I believe every class should at minimum be offered ways to interoperate with libre tools so that students can at least read class assignments on free platforms, and upload their answers from them. Unless universities offer interoperability, the reliance on proprietary software costs both students and professors time and headaches. At one point I emailed two professors about the use of nonfree platforms for lectures. One didn't respond and the other replied rudely. They seemed not to understand, but I suspect they were avoiding any extra work. This had a corrosive impact on my engagement and I stopped caring about lectures. Avoiding a language-specific package manager that I felt put me at risk of security and freedom issues cost me considerable time and delayed my studies. Time is precious for us all.

Friction over freedom

Although stressful, thus far things had gone fairly smoothly. But after Easter, a Software Engineering course presented the first big problem. This professor first ignored my emails, but eventually wrote a long reply and threatened to fail me if I missed one more meeting. That email's tone showed great annoyance, perhaps anger. It was suggested that I use a colleague's help to participate in the meeting. Another classmate and I connected through Mumble, through which the professor was also intermediated—not perfect, but it worked!

The issues of software freedom, which are ethical, must be separated from other concerns to which open source supporters often give priority. For example, advocates of open source refrain from bringing those important freedom issues to the table and only say that software with source code publicly available is going to achieve higher quality with the help of the community. Meanwhile, our opponents claim proprietary software can bring higher revenue, allowing the hiring of more developers to work on improving it.

The Compilers course exam was to be conducted through Microsoft Teams. Again, sticking to my principles, I thought I would fail. Funnily enough, it was Teams that failed. It could not handle dozens of students connecting, so instead the exam was conducted via email. On the other hand, during contact with my thesis supervisor in July, Jami broke during the meeting. No software is perfect. But with libre software you at least get to keep both pieces when it breaks.

It is not necessarily the functional aspects of the software that creates friction around lack of software freedom. During the summer I had to do an internship. I backed out of a paid offer after learning that the employer would make my code nonfree. I eventually did another, unpaid internship.

So after all my struggles, I finally passed the summer semester and even had decent grades. What at some point seemed almost impossible, was now a reality.

Proprietary imposed at all levels

Before the winter semester, a list of allowed videoconferencing platforms that comply with the data protection law was given to professors. It contained Microsoft Teams, Cisco WebEx, ClickMeeting, and Google Meet. You will surely see the irony here!

One professor agreed to use Jitsi Meet for all his classes and suggested that I ask the student council to recommend it to the Dean, but the council never responded to my emails. High quality software offering better data protection capabilities was deliberately sidelined in favor of commercial nonfree solutions in what seems like a case of corrupt corporate capture of an educational institution. The libre software didn't get approved and the professor kept communicating with other students via WebEx.

Misconceptions

As I mentioned earlier, despite being highly knowledgeable computer scientists and experienced in informatics, many academics demonstrated a generally poor understanding of the politics and ethics around software.

The professor giving the seminar claimed that because a libre platform also runs on someone else's server, “it cannot be safer.” I responded that Jitsi Meet allows for independent instances to be created, which eliminates the need to rely on a single company. I also noted that the lack of libre clients is the main problem with other services. It is a shame that professors at this level, who fully grasp the difference between intermediated encryption and end-to-end encryption, will teach it in their classes but not practice it in their daily profession.

On another occasion, I objected to using a Windows VM for a penetration testing exercise. The professor remarked that one would not be a good penetration tester if restricted to testing only libre servers. I gave up on responding to him, but I think proprietary platforms should be considered insecure by default due to, for instance, possible backdoors they may have.

Having resolve

At some point I had an argument with my supervisor, who gave me an ultimatum that I must use Microsoft Teams. I didn't agree and my supervisor was supposed to inform the Dean about withdrawing from supervising me. Perhaps the Dean didn't read that email? I'm just guessing. Anyway, a few weeks later I even borrowed some electronics from my supervisor—almost as if the argument had never happened.

Later, one professor who didn't agree to let me pass a course without using Teams wanted to fail me for my “absences,” despite my uploading homework throughout the semester. After a protracted argument, I was offered an option to meet online on January 8th… on Teams! I politely refused again, and reiterated my points. The professor eventually CC'd the Associate Dean in an email. In the meantime, the deadline to upload my thesis for a January defense expired. After many reminder emails, a response finally came, and through the Dean's intercession I got a grade, passed my seventh semester and successfully defended my thesis in March.

Conclusions

Looking back, I'm proud of my actions. I took the risk of failing my studies, and I would end up with lower final grade than if I had submitted to the use of unethical and insecure software products. But I am content with this. I don't think surrendering to nonfree platforms would bring any long-term benefits—only more compromises.

We can see some people are intolerant to software freedom principles, but in the end those were few and most university staff at the AGH were actually kind to me. Thanks to them I now have a proof that it is possible to study, graduate… indeed to live without relying on proprietary software. After all this hard experience, I feel more independent than ever, and I even received appreciation from the well-known RMS [3]. Hopefully, my story will help more students get to where I am.

Struggling to run only libre programs forced, and continues to force me, to gain new skills. I now know enough about web technologies to make several sites function without JavaScript. But what is best about my experience is that I will be able to share my fixes with others and eventually make a subset of the World Wide Web usable in freedom.

> Hong Kong (AFP) – Hong Kong police have warned downloading a mobile game in which players can attempt to overthrow a stand-in for China's Communist Party could constitute a national security crime, as it vanished from Apple's local App Store Wednesday.

> Beijing is extremely sensitive to even subtle hints of dissent, and in 2020 imposed a national security law in Hong Kong that has effectively quashed any political opposition.

>In "Reversed Front: Bonfire", developed by a Taiwan-based company, users can "pledge allegiance" to entities including Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet and "Uyghur" to "overthrow the communist regime".

>Although the game takes place in a historically different universe, the description reads: "This game is a work of NON-FICTION. Any similarity to actual agencies, policies or ethnic groups of the PRC (People's Republic of China) in this game is INTENTIONAL."

>On Tuesday police in Hong Kong said "Reversed Front" was "advocating armed revolution" and promoting Taiwan and Hong Kong independence "under the guise of a game".

>Downloading the game could see players charged with possessing seditious material, while making in-app purchases could be viewed as providing funding to the developer "for the commission of secession or subversion", police warned.

>Recommending the game could constitute the offence of "incitement to secession".

>Although players can choose to "lead the Communists to defeat all enemies", the game description makes clear they are meant to be the villains.

>The Communists are described as "heavy-handed, reckless and inept" and accused of "widespread corruption, embezzlement, exploitation, slaughter and defilement".

>Many of the other playing roles correspond to flashpoint issues for Beijing -- including self-ruled Taiwan, which China claims as its territory, and Xinjiang, where it has denied accusations of human rights abuses against the minority Muslim Uyghurs.

>Hong Kong's vibrant civil society and political opposition have all but vanished since the imposition of the national security law, which was brought in after huge and sometimes violent pro-democracy protests in 2019.

>OpenAI last week said it had detected and banned a number of "likely China-origin" accounts targeting "Reversed Front" with negative comments.

>"The network generated dozens of critical comments in Chinese about the game, followed by a long-form article claiming it had received widespread backlash," said OpenAI.

>On Wednesday Apple appeared to have removed the game from the Hong Kong version of the App Store, after it had been available the day before, an AFP reporter saw.

>It was not available on Hong Kong's Google Play on Tuesday, local media reported.

>But the game's developer said it had seen a surge in searches since Tuesday's police announcement, jokingly implying it was thankful to authorities for the visibility boost.

> Police in northwestern China are cracking down on writers of online erotic fiction across the country, including many college students, according to RFA sources and media reports, amid concern that officers are punishing people outside their jurisdiction.

> Police in Lanzhou, the capital of Gansu province, have been summoning writers who don’t even live there. A report from Caixin media group said some have been referred to police for prosecution, and anecdotal evidence indicates writers are facing substantial fines.

> A source who spoke to Radio Free Asia on condition of anonymity for safety reasons said the crackdown could involve 200-300 writers.

> Their cases have also sparked a legal debate over the definition of “obscene materials” and renewed public discussion on the boundaries of creative freedom. Known as “Danmei,” the genre features romantic relationships between male characters. It originated in Japan and has become popular in China.

> Amid tightened restrictions in China, many writers have turned to Haitang Culture, a Taiwanese-based adult fiction website established in 2015 to publish their work. The website on the democratic island doesn’t force censorship and allows explicit written content. Most readers are females.

> Authorities in China have reacted. Last year, two China-based distributors affiliated with Haitang Culture were arrested for “assisting in information network criminal activities,” according to Shuiping Jiyuan, a news portal on the WeChat social media platform.

> The recent police crackdown in Lanzhou followed similar moves in the eastern province of Anhui in June 2024, where authorities began arresting writers of online erotic fiction under the charge of “producing and distributing obscene materials for profit,” resulting in heavy fines and even prison sentences.

> Police are seeking out writers even when they leave outside their jurisdiction - a practice that critics call “offshore fishing,” implying the motive of police is financial or political, rather than strictly legal.

> “I don’t understand what they’re trying to do—are they pushing political correctness, or are they just desperate for money?” said Liu Yang, a veteran media professional in Lanzhou, told Radio Free Asia. “The police are short on funds, and now even arrests have become a way to make money.”

From The Register via this RSS feed

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-pay-5-million-settle-lawsuit-ashli/story?id=121959389

Maybe:

• police officers who defended the Capitol
• Congresspeople, staffers etc hiding for their lives inside
• anyone who voted in the 2020 presidential election whose vote Babbit was trying to overturn

The only laws the Trump Administration respects are the laws it gets to inflict on others. The rule of law, however, doesn’t mean the laws don’t apply to those who make the rules. And yet, here we are, seeing another flagrant refusal to comply with oversight laws just because the DHS and ICE feel they can keep getting away with this.

Last month, ICE’s refusal to allow congressional reps to engage in an unannounced inspection of a New Jersey detention facility resulted in the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka — something that occurred even though Baraka followed ICE officers’ orders and returned to the public sidewalk outside of the facility’s gates. That then led to federal prosecutors receiving a tongue-lashing from a federal judge for the arrest and refusal to dismiss the obviously bogus charges the feds used to justify their retaliatory arrest of the mayor.

It’s happening again, albeit without the arrests. But it’s still just as unlawful. Congressional reps on both coasts were denied access to ICE detention facilities — something ICE cannot legally do.

> Three Democratic members of Congress from California and two from New York said over the weekend that they were barred from entering federal detention centers in their respective states to check on people who were detained in immigration raids or in protests against the raids. > > All five members — Representatives Maxine Waters, Jimmy Gomez and Norma Torres of California and Representatives Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velázquez of New York — said that they should have been allowed to enter the buildings as members of Congress.

The congressional reps are entirely in the right, even if DHS head Kristi Noem and professional liar/DHS PR rep Tricia McLaughlin say otherwise. Inconveniently for both Noem and McLaughlin, ICE’s current acting direction, Todd Lyons, has publicly confirmed congressional members have the right to engage in unannounced inspections of federal facilities.

> “We do acknowledge that any member of Congress has the right to show up for an inspection at one of our facilities in their oversight capability,” Lyons said. He also said that while those visits are “unannounced,” members need to show identification and go through screening and can’t bring contraband. > > By law, members of Congress are allowed to visit ICE facilities and don’t have to give any notice, although congressional staff members need to give 24 hours’ notice.

That’s what’s being said by ICE, but that’s definitely not how ICE is actually doing things. And ICE’s parent agency, the DHS, is only too happy to oblige ICE’s incorrect claims and unlawful actions by adding more bullshit of its own.

> A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, said that the lawmakers had shown up unannounced. ICE officials had told them, she said, that they “would be happy to give them a tour with a little more notice, when it would not disrupt ongoing law enforcement activities and sensitive law enforcement items could be put away.”

Wrong answer, Trish. The law says congressional reps can enter at any time without any prior notice. There’s no provision in the oversight law that gives federal agencies a bit of extra time to tidy up the place and hide anything incriminating. Oversight isn’t really oversight if those being inspected are given advance notice and enough time to sweep stuff under the rugs.

But ICE continues to pretend otherwise and Tricia McLaughlin is always on hand to misrepresent the law and/or claim these completely legal impromptu inspections are nothing more than political stunts. Even if they are “political stunts” (and they are, to a certain extent), the law doesn’t say federal agencies can bar Congress members from entry just because they might they have problems with any perceived motive.

The law is law, but somehow that just never seems to be the case when it comes to this administration. Trump and his cabinet are still picking and choosing which laws they’ll follow and relying on the resulting deluge of lawsuits to continue violating laws while overworked courts try (often in vain) to rein in this administration. Hopefully the tide will turn in the near future, and the system of checks and balances will slowly begin to drain the swamp Trump has created.

---

From Techdirt via this RSS feed

The only laws the Trump Administration respects are the laws it gets to inflict on others. The rule of law, however, doesn’t mean the laws don’t apply to those who make the rules. And yet, here we are, seeing another flagrant refusal to comply with oversight laws just because the DHS and ICE feel they can keep getting away with this.

Last month, ICE’s refusal to allow congressional reps to engage in an unannounced inspection of a New Jersey detention facility resulted in the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka — something that occurred even though Baraka followed ICE officers’ orders and returned to the public sidewalk outside of the facility’s gates. That then led to federal prosecutors receiving a tongue-lashing from a federal judge for the arrest and refusal to dismiss the obviously bogus charges the feds used to justify their retaliatory arrest of the mayor.

It’s happening again, albeit without the arrests. But it’s still just as unlawful. Congressional reps on both coasts were denied access to ICE detention facilities — something ICE cannot legally do.

> Three Democratic members of Congress from California and two from New York said over the weekend that they were barred from entering federal detention centers in their respective states to check on people who were detained in immigration raids or in protests against the raids. > > All five members — Representatives Maxine Waters, Jimmy Gomez and Norma Torres of California and Representatives Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velázquez of New York — said that they should have been allowed to enter the buildings as members of Congress.

The congressional reps are entirely in the right, even if DHS head Kristi Noem and professional liar/DHS PR rep Tricia McLaughlin say otherwise. Inconveniently for both Noem and McLaughlin, ICE’s current acting direction, Todd Lyons, has publicly confirmed congressional members have the right to engage in unannounced inspections of federal facilities.

> “We do acknowledge that any member of Congress has the right to show up for an inspection at one of our facilities in their oversight capability,” Lyons said. He also said that while those visits are “unannounced,” members need to show identification and go through screening and can’t bring contraband. > > By law, members of Congress are allowed to visit ICE facilities and don’t have to give any notice, although congressional staff members need to give 24 hours’ notice.

That’s what’s being said by ICE, but that’s definitely not how ICE is actually doing things. And ICE’s parent agency, the DHS, is only too happy to oblige ICE’s incorrect claims and unlawful actions by adding more bullshit of its own.

> A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, said that the lawmakers had shown up unannounced. ICE officials had told them, she said, that they “would be happy to give them a tour with a little more notice, when it would not disrupt ongoing law enforcement activities and sensitive law enforcement items could be put away.”

Wrong answer, Trish. The law says congressional reps can enter at any time without any prior notice. There’s no provision in the oversight law that gives federal agencies a bit of extra time to tidy up the place and hide anything incriminating. Oversight isn’t really oversight if those being inspected are given advance notice and enough time to sweep stuff under the rugs.

But ICE continues to pretend otherwise and Tricia McLaughlin is always on hand to misrepresent the law and/or claim these completely legal impromptu inspections are nothing more than political stunts. Even if they are “political stunts” (and they are, to a certain extent), the law doesn’t say federal agencies can bar Congress members from entry just because they might they have problems with any perceived motive.

The law is law, but somehow that just never seems to be the case when it comes to this administration. Trump and his cabinet are still picking and choosing which laws they’ll follow and relying on the resulting deluge of lawsuits to continue violating laws while overworked courts try (often in vain) to rein in this administration. Hopefully the tide will turn in the near future, and the system of checks and balances will slowly begin to drain the swamp Trump has created.

---

From Techdirt via this RSS feed