The study itself: https://www.fire.org/research-learn/faculty-ideology-measuri...
2,025 karma · joined March 23, 2024
[1] https://www.gadgetreview.com/reddit-user-uncovers-who-is-beh...
I think it's related to https://github.com/element-hq/matrix-content-scanner-python, but that page also assumes the reader already knows what "scanning" means.
And honestly, personally I am of the opinion that even the repression is just as harsh, but in a different way. But this is not the place to open that can of worms, so I leave it at (arguably).
Say what you will about the biases of teachers, but I'll take them any day over the propaganda [1] some foreign megacorporation has inculcated into its AI.
Unfortunately Europe is doing no better regarding surveillance [1,2,3]. Only the repression is not yet so harsh (arguably).
(This complaint should be interpreted as the opposite of whataboutism - it makes the problem worse and more urgent in both places, since there is no more safety to flee to, or to point to as examples of freedom.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_law
[2] https://euperspectives.eu/2025/08/surveillance-becoming-norm...
[3] https://www.politico.eu/article/data-retention-europe-mass-s...
Very wise words. The US should adopt China's immigration policy instead - an ethnostate open to foreigners only if they have a Nobel prize.
And let's not pretend there are not already many other ways in which child abuse is detected and fought. When schoolteachers or doctors or neighbors or other family members notice something is amiss, when a CSAM group is infiltrated by police, or when a predator falls for a honeypot. This triggers an investigation, and at that point no digital lock can withstand modern targeted covert surveillance. But we are supposed to pretend none of this exists, and that encryption is an unassailable castle, and play along with the "going dark" lie, despite being more surveilled than at literally any point in history, including under the Stasi.
They only don't address child abuse, if by "child abuse" is meant a photo existing in some private shared-with-nobody hard drive, and not an actual human child being abused.
It's dispiriting to see a supposedly pro-privacy politician launder backdoors as "strict security standards".
Well, Poland is part of the EU.
> probably LLM-generated
What makes you say that? I admit I can't spot LLMisms in Polish, but the translation seems perfectly reasonable.
> Defending “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism”, concepts not backed by empirical evidence
While the post discusses that the suspended developer didn't even do that, calling them "not backed by empirical evidence" is simply false. A few examples:
Over/under-representation by race in the Ivy League (as of 2023): https://archive.org/details/ivy_league
At Harvard, an Asian candidate in the eighth highest academic decile had 5.1% chance of admittance, compared to 7.5% for white, 22.9% for Hispanic, and 44.5% for black applicants: https://nypost.com/2023/06/29/supreme-court-affirmative-acti...
Toronto university’s medical school to keep 75% of spots for DEI applicants: https://www.westernstandard.news/eastern/toronto-universitys...
Teachers discriminate in favor of children with a migration background over German children when issuing grades : https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/bildung/schulnoten-und-migra...
Illegal immigrant-only scholarships at five US universities: https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of...
In France, students are given exams that are graded blind (not knowing which student took it) and exams graded by a teacher who knows who took the exam. The exams measure the same knowledge and abilities. Boys are graded lower when the grader knows they are boys: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02727...
Disguising sex on application forms reduced the likelihood of women being shortlisted: https://reason.com/2019/10/22/orchestra-study-blind-audition...
And to steal tips [1], lower your salary [2,3], charge you more [3,4], and limit how you may use "your" property [5]. I'm sure there are many I've missed.
Oh and how could I forget - to smear you if you stand in their way [6].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoorDash#Withholding_of_tips_a... (try doing that when tips are in cash)
[2] https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20260401139/emp...
[3] https://towardsjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Real-S...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/27/nvidia-limits-data-center-us...
[6] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/07/monsanto-fu...
And this and similar laws just keep coming up, no matter what the public says. I guess from now on I'm voting for the most anti-EU party I can find. Too bad, because I like the idea of cooperating to protect our interests, but the EU just keeps growing and invading areas it has no business in (like social media content moderation - I'd prefer not to outsource free speech rights away from our national constitution and to the EU). It needs to be rebuilt, with strict limits to its authority, to stop it from continually draining sovereignty from its constituent countries.
Whether books by e.g. Jared Taylor are also "banned" in this manner in the UK is left wonderfully vague - the only way to find out is to be found possessing one, and then see if the government prosecutes you. You get chilling effects for free, and avoid the bad PR of a "banned books" list!
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867
[2] https://www.thelawpages.com/criminal-offence/Possessing-raci...
[3] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/R-v-Robe...
"Atwood was also inspired by the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1978–79 that saw a theocracy established that drastically reduced the rights of women and imposed a strict dress code on Iranian women, very much like that of Gilead." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale#Composit...
This needs more emphasis. Once we make (even zero-knowledge) proofs convenient and common, it'll spread, and soon it won't be just age that's getting assured.
Did you mean to write "America" instead of "the United States"? Because when the continent had only American Indians, there was no United States. And in fact for a long while after it was founded, they were excluded from citizenship.
Regardless, I'm sure we both agree that European conquest and colonization represented a giant change. It's false to imply that another such change isn't a change, by virtue of it happening once before already. Or to imply that therefore, the country is compelled to submit to such a change.
It's weird he said that, given that at the time there were many examples of intolerant societies that had become increasingly tolerant. So the statement is factually incorrect, and, given how educated he was, he knew this. In other words, the statement is a lie. But very useful if you manage to put yourself in the position of being the one to define what is intolerant, and which things are so important to tolerate that they should be beyond democratic decision-making.
That said, I don't disagree that private donations can be incompatible with (or more accurately, counter-productive to) the stated mission of a company. And it's not unreasonable for journalists to report on it, on the logic it may affect consumer choices. But I'm not familiar with Örebro, and nothing in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96rebro_Party#Policies indicates they're against online anonymity or free expression. But maybe I missed something?
All that will happen is this term or similar will appear in some other "contract" of adhesion. Your bank? Your motherboard's EULA? Paypal or LLM vendor terms? Your phone OS/ISP? Your car? Anywhere and everywhere where some necessity of modern life is provided by a faceless multinational corporation.
If you don't want this, organize and lobby against it politically. That's what corporations do when they want to screw us over, and it's working great for them. Is the act-as-an-isolated-mere-consumer approach working great for us?
The article said what they didn't teach, and that the court didn't like it. That those topics were legally required was implied - it's certainly how I interpreted it, despite no explicit line saying "oh by the way these topics are legally required/not required". In other words, the article didn't state it explicitly either way, the reasonable disambiguation is the correct one, and yet you're treating the absence of explicit disambiguation as a "significant" factual error.
> dislike of funk and sertanejo was a claim from the family, and apparently not based on the ruling.
No, according to you, it was "a claim made by the defense attorney in the appeal". That's a lot more trustworthy than just a random claim. Presumably lying (about things easily verifiable from a court transcript) in a legal filing is not looked kindly upon by courts, so it's reasonable to believe it.
> and apparently not based on the ruling.
The exact words were: The court also concluded that because the girls, aged 15 and 11, did not like “trap” or “sertanejo” (folk) music
It doesn't say it was part of the ruling, only that it led to the ruling (since the judge stated it as a negative during court proceedings). I agree the wording could have been better, but as it can give the impression those words were in the actual final written judgment, not just the cause for that judgment. But that's a distinction without a difference.
The only error (or rather, significant omission) is that the article should have mentioned the jail term was "limited release" or whatever modified sentence they got. That's it, and that's apparently enough to entirely dismiss reporting when you'd rather people just shut up about it. By this bar you could dismiss nearly any story from the BBC or the New York Times too.
It was only after all of that failed, with no measurable effect, that our governments, reluctantly and as a last resort, proposed these privacy-destroying measures. And even then, they respected their citizens' rejection of these proposals [1].
I mean I didn't actually check that this is how it went, but with all the lecturing about "democracy" from our rulers, surely that's how they went about it, right?
And yet it just keeps showing up over and over and over again, no matter how many times it's voted down. Someone with no actual power must really not care about this at all.