Il Partito Pirata degli Stati Uniti condanna l'organizzazione terroristica nazionale approvata dal governo
Durante la riunione di ieri, i membri del Comitato nazionale dei pirati hanno chiesto e votato una condanna dell'ICE, della sua violenza e dell'attuale amministrazione che ne dirige le azioni.
reshared this
Polizeirechtsnovelle in Sachsen: BSW auf Zustimmungskurs zu massiver Verschärfung
netzpolitik.org/2026/polizeire…
Verslag netten voor Oekraïne
Om te beginnen wil ik iedereen onwijs bedanken voor zijn/haar bijdrage en hulp voor het mogelijk maken van deze donatie-actie. Die is met zeer veel waardering en dankbaarheid ontvangen in Oekraïne en door betrokken organisaties. Het is een behoorlijke opgave geweest om alles geregeld te krijgen voordat ik kon vertrekken. Daar heb ik veel hulp […]
Het bericht Verslag netten voor Oekraïne verscheen eerst op Piratenpartij.
Mercoledì 4 Febbraio torna il Log Out!
Log Out è il ritrovo dei Tech Worker che dopo il lavoro vogliono incontrarsi. Un aperitivo per conoscersi e confrontarsi, per parlare di lavoro (ma anche altro) con persone che potrebbero benissimo essere nostri colleghi, se solo non lavorassero altrove 😊
Unisciti al gruppo Telegram!
reshared this
KW 5: Die Woche, als die Regierung sich an Automatisierung berauschte
netzpolitik.org/2026/kw-5-die-…
Lemon’s arrest delivers warning shot to journalists
Dear Friend of Press Freedom,
Rümeysa Öztürk has now been facing deportation for 311 days for co-writing an op-ed the government didn’t like, and journalist Ya’akub Vijandre remains locked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement over social media posts about issues he reported on. Read on for more of the week’s press freedom stories.
Arrests of journalists Don Lemon, Georgia Fort send unmistakable message
Federal agents arrested journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort on charges related to their news coverage of a Jan. 18 protest at a church in St. Paul, Minnesota, in an outrageous attack on freedom of the press.
Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern said, “These arrests, under bogus legal theories for obviously constitutionally protected reporting, are clear warning shots aimed at other journalists. The unmistakable message is that journalists must tread cautiously because the government is looking for any way to target them.”
“We’ve recently seen that even in the Trump era, public pressure still can work,” Stern added. “It’s time to do it again. News outlets across the political spectrum need to loudly defend Lemon’s and Fort’s rights.”
Alex Pretti’s murder was an attack on press freedom
The murders of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minnesota once again show the power of cellphone footage in combating official lies. Solely because footage was so clear that even the Trump administration knew its story wasn’t credible, the party line shifted within hours of Pretti’s shooting from comments about a “terrorist” planning a “massacre” to something akin to “jaywalking is now a capital offense.”
These days, cellphone videographers are a vital part of the news ecosystem, serving as crucial source material for reporters. FPF’s Stern writes about how shooting, killing, censoring, and other targeting of individuals filming news as it unfolds is an attack on press freedom (and an offense against all else that’s good in the world).
Whistleblower Guan Heng granted asylum
A judge on Wednesday granted asylum to Guan Heng, a whistleblower who secretly filmed Uyghur internment camps in China and shared his footage online after arriving in the United States. His footage became crucial evidence for journalists reporting on the camps, including the team at BuzzFeed News that won a Pulitzer Prize.
We said in a statement that those who spoke out against Guan’s deportation case “should carry that momentum to other fronts in the very active battles for the rights of whistleblowers, journalists, and people who film government wrongdoing, whether in China or Minneapolis.” And we called on the Department of Homeland Security to “give serious thought to why an immigration crackdown supposedly intended to target the worst of the worst is endangering the best of the best.”
Las Vegas judge doubles down on prior restraints
District Judge Jessica Peterson managed a remarkable feat: Violating the same bedrock First Amendment principles twice in just over a week.
First, on Jan. 13, Peterson issued a sweeping “decorum order” unconstitutionally restricting what journalists could publish about a sexual assault trial. She walked that back after a letter from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, but, eight days later, kicked the paper’s journalists out of court for not agreeing to her censorial demands.
The Nevada Supreme Court quickly struck down the second illegal order on Wednesday. Peterson could have saved herself some embarrassment if she’d changed course after reading Stern’s op-ed earlier in the week — or better yet, if she’d read the FIrst Amendment.
Unpaywalled reporting informed Chicago during ICE invasion
FPF founding board member and native Chicagoan John Cusack wrote for the Chicago Sun-Times about how the city benefited during the Operation Midway Blitz immigration enforcement crackdown from unpaywalled reporting by Chicago Public Media (which owns the Chicago Sun-Times), the Chicago Reader, Unraveled Press, The Triibe, Block Club Chicago, and others.
In other places, though, paywalls “create a two-tiered citizenry — one that can afford to be informed and one that cannot. Those most likely to be surveilled, policed, detained and deported are least able to afford subscriptions.”
His op-ed highlighted FPF’s event last October featuring fellow FPF board member Katie Drummond of Wired and Joseph Cox of 404 Media discussing the business benefits those outlets experienced after unpaywalling.
What we're reading
One year into President Trump’s second administration, press freedoms are under attack
WFAE
FPF Executive Director Trevor Timm explained how attacks on press freedom are growing. Timm’s greatest concern, he added, is that the government may soon cross the Rubicon of “actually prosecuting journalists for doing their job.”
NY Times Magazine writer subpoenaed over article in federal trial
U.S. Press Freedom Tracker
The court should reject prosecutors’ demand that Jeffrey Toobin testify about his reporting. Forcing journalists to testify about their newsgathering chills reporting and undermines the First Amendment.
The best weapon you have in the fight against ICE
The New York Times
Cellphone footage is an incredibly important source of accountability. Government attacks on those who document the news, whether journalists or not, are attacks on the First Amendment.
Illinois law shielding officials’ personal information amid political violence sparks transparency backlash
Chicago Tribune
A new Illinois law that allows public officials to shield their personal information from the public is “basically a sledgehammer” allowing politicians to carry out censorship, FPF Senior Adviser Caitlin Vogus explained.
RSVP here: freedom.press/covering-immigration.
Il padre di #Systemd lascia Microsoft per dimostrare che Linux è affidabile
Amutable di Lennart #Poettering mira a portare "integrità verificabile crittograficamente" all'altro sistema operativo
theregister.com/2026/01/29/len…
Systemd daddy quits Microsoft to prove Linux can be trusted
: Lennart Poettering's Amutable aims to bring 'cryptographically verifiable integrity' to the other OSRichard Speed (The Register)
reshared this
FPF statement on outrageous arrest of Don Lemon
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
New York, Jan. 30, 2026 — Federal agents have arrested journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort on charges related to their news coverage of a protest at a church in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Jan. 18.
The Trump administration had previously tried to criminally charge Lemon, and it lost.
Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern said:
“The government’s arrests of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort are naked attacks on freedom of the press. Two federal courts flatly rejected prosecuting Lemon because the evidence for these vindictive and unconstitutional charges was insufficient, and Lemon has every right to document news and inform the public. Instead of accepting that humiliating defeat, the government has now doubled down.“These arrests, under bogus legal theories for obviously constitutionally protected reporting, are clear warning shots aimed at other journalists. The unmistakable message is that journalists must tread cautiously because the government is looking for any way to target them. Fort’s arrest is meant to instill the same fear in local independent journalists as big names like Lemon.
“The answer to this outrageous attack is not fear or self-censorship. It’s an even stronger commitment to journalism, the truth, and the First Amendment. If the Trump administration thinks it can bully journalists into submission, it is wrong. We’ve recently seen that even in the Trump era, public pressure still can work. It’s time to do it again. News outlets across the political spectrum need to loudly defend Lemon’s and Fort’s rights. Journalists are not making themselves the story, Trump is.”
Through the Spyglass: On the Bastardization of Self-Determination [Part II]
In Part I, you were asked to keep a simple question in mind: “is this really self-determination?”
You have sat through the history of the French-Indian War, Pontiac’s War, U.S. Independence, and have stewed on what it all truly meant in terms of “self-determination” for a day.
We now could take this in any direction to continue to see the devastating effects of “self-determination” when it is for an in-group and not for everybody. We could look at Australia, and how in May of 1787 (almost three years to the day after the Treaty of Paris was ratified) the “First Fleet” departed in New South Wales as their new penal colony, having lost their original penal colony in North America.
European settlers would not be on Australian land until 1788, themselves not under their own free will. Yet, by 1901, Australia had a “White Australia” policy that restricted Australia from non-European immigration.
Australia was considered “terra nullius”, meaning the land belonged to “no one”.
Aboriginal Australians already lived there.
But to Great Britain, Australia provided another opportunity to send settlers to expand their reach and empire. It mattered not who lived there before; the land was British and her settlers.
At least, that’s how Britain saw it.
To the Aboriginal Australians, they saw an invading force taking their land, flooding it with their own people and destroying their way of life without much in the way of stopping it or defending themselves. Australia was not empty, and yet Britain treated the Aboriginals as though they were not human.
There was not even the farce of signing and breaking treaties; the Aboriginal Australians were considered a conquered “people”, at best.
Is this really self-determination?
We could move onto South Africa, New Zealand, Rhodesia, or any other settler project in the English-speaking world that we might be able to better recognize.
Mind you, this is not an attack specifically on Great Britain; they are merely the European country of focus as the direct continuation of the history of the United States and thus the simplest to look at.
We could move onto Algeria and France, move onto Hawaii, or South American settler expansion in Argentina or Chile.
However, there is one example that cannot be ignored. While the rest of the examples pertain to historical wrongs and sins we can map to and say “this was wrong”, there is an example that one actively should be saying “this is wrong”.
Part I ended with this:
“So what happened? Great Britain allied with a native population to fight a war and immediately turned their backs on them and gave their land away to the settler colonial project without their knowledge, and which the settlers claimed is their God-ordained right to have, leading to apartheid and genocide.”
That brings us to our subject, properly.
On New Year’s Day 1882, Leon Pinsker, in response to pogroms against Jews in Russia, released Auto-Emancipation, advocating for a Jewish state.
Fast forward to 1897, the First Zionist Congress takes place in Basel, Switzerland, headed by Theodore Herzl, head of the now-named World Zionist Organization. The goal of the Zionist Organization was to create a “Jewish homeland”, in which Jewish settlers would come to Ottoman Palestine, specifically, but other ideas were discussed. Palestine was selected for being the “biblical homeland” of the Jewish people.
Waves of Aliyah, or Jewish settlers to the Levant, would follow; from 1881-1939 there would be five Aliyahs.
Then, an ally makes itself known.
During World War I, the Entente of Great Britain, France, Belgium, Russia, later the USA and others, sent young men to die fighting the young men sent to die from the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and, more pertinent to the story, the Ottoman Empire.
Britain and France, once again aiming to expand their empires, began to plan how they would split up the Ottoman Empire upon victory. First, to achieve victory, Britain would promise the Arabs of the Ottoman Empire their recognized independence and Arab state during the McMahon–Hussein correspondence.
Meanwhile, Britain would also promise Lord Rothschild, the most prominent British Zionist at the time, that Britain would support their fight for a Jewish homeland. This was announced in the Balfour Declaration.
After the successful Arab Revolt and the war won, the Ottoman Empire was partitioned according to Britain and France’s Sykes-Picot agreement, giving us what will become modern-day Middle Eastern borders, breaking their promise to the Arabs, and carving out what would be named “British Mandatory Palestine” as a Jewish National Homeland.
The Arabs who allied with Great Britain and the Entente found themselves subjects of the British and French, while Arabs living in the Levant would see the area slowly transformed into a Jewish state.
So what happened? Great Britain allied with a native population to fight a war and immediately turned their backs on them and gave their land away to the settler colonial project without their knowledge, and which the settlers claimed is their God-ordained right to have, leading to apartheid and genocide.
Germany would go on to blame Jews, among others, for the Central Powers defeat in WWI, directly leading to persecution and the rise of antisemitism in Germany, itself leading to the rise of the Nazis.
In 1933, Nazi Germany and Zionist organizations came to the Haavara Agreement, in which approximately 60,000 German Jews would take the opportunity to leave for Palestine. With WWII’s start in September 1939, Britain and Germany would be at war and Britain would cut off Jewish immigration to Palestine from Germany.
Six million Jews would go on to die in the Holocaust, a systematic genocide against the Jews of Europe.
By 1944, a year before the official end of WWII, Zionist extremists would grow angry with and violent against the British for their limiting of Jewish migration to Palestine. The Irgun, a Zionist terrorist organization, would bomb the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.
By 1947, the Jewish settlers would declare the Jewish state of Israel, Arab states would intervene and lose in 1948, and Palestinian Arab Muslims would be ethnically cleansed from their lands. Settlers claimed they were “promised this land.”
Is this really self-determination?
When looking at Zionism, we see what was essentially a nationalism of the oppressed. Jews were facing oppression, discrimination and persecution from European states, and the Zionist solution was for them to have a state themselves and “self-determination”.
Yet, in practice, the Israel settler colonial project, which is something prominent early Zionists like Theodore Herzl or Ze’ev Jabotinsky would not have denied, has led to the displacement of native populations and turned them into second-class citizens. Jewish settlers are granted the rights of first-class citizenry while Arab Muslim Palestinians live in apartheid conditions.
The following is a quote from Abdullah Öcalan in his book Democratic Confederalism:
“The Palestine conflict makes it clear that the nation-state paradigm is not helpful for a solution. There has been much bloodshed; what remains is the difficult legacy of seemingly irresolvable problems. The Israel-Palestine example shows the complete failure of the capitalist modernity and the nation-state.”
The nation-state with a preferred people or in-group will never be a just cause. Nationalism of the oppressed still ends in such a predicament in practice.
One must realize nationalism of the oppressed is still nationalism. The plight of the oppressed must be addressed and rectified, but to answer with “give them their own country” is not the solution one should seek.
Sikhs have historically oppressed and persecuted, and they call for the Sikh nation-state of “Khalistan”. The Kurds were spliced up in their homeland and left to be a minority in four nations without moving an inch and robbed of their own “Kurdistan”.
It’s hard not to feel sympathetic towards the Sikhs and Sikh self-determination, or the Kurds and Kurdish self-determination, and we in the US Pirate Party wholeheartedly do hold such sympathies, but if the answer is simply “give them a nation-state as well,” ask yourself the question of “is this really self-determination?”
It is not because they are undeserving of self-determination and liberty; all peoples are. But they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If we wish to truly stop the violence perpetrated by the nation-state, is answer is to create more, regardless of pure intention?
This is also not to compare the Khalistan or Kurdistan movements to explicitly settler movements like Manifest Destiny or Zionism; this is to say that the path to hell is paved in good intentions.
There are models to explore outside of the nation-state. It is not a sacred concept, and other methods of self-rule must be explored and implemented if we can ever hope for true peace and self-determination.
The Rojava project stands as an example better suited for a model of self-determination, but this does not serve as an explicit endorsement of said model. That is, self-determination does not need to come from the nation-state and the Kurds have already proven that.
The nation-state, one with a set in-group, as history has shown, can quickly devolve into a harborer of violence, no matter how just the cause.
“The history of the last two centuries is full of examples illustrating the violent attempts at creating a nation that corresponds to the imaginary reality of a true nation-state.” – Abdullah Öcalan, also from Democratic Confederalism
In the pursuit of having a “Jewish nation”, the historically oppressed Jews have turned into oppressive settlers in their own right. Israeli settlers did not just force Palestinians from their home at gunpoint historically; they are still actively forcing Palestinians from their home at gunpoint.
West Bank settlers/settlements should sound off alarms just as much as the genocide in Gaza; the displacement of native populations by settlers to create a new first-class citizenry has not been left behind in the 19th or 20th centuries.
That is ethnic cleansing, and it is actively happening today.
The world watches and, while many protest and boycott, the highest powers in the land continue to let sins of the past happen in the present.
So I ask, if it is self-determination only for the Jews, is this really self-determination? If the Palestinian way of life is irrevocably changed due to the influx of new settlers and violence allowed and often carried out by the state, is this really self-determination?
Even if one could argue the Zionist idea started with good intentions, if one granted the benefit of the doubt, it has, in practice, become an ideology of apartheid and genocide.
The United States continuously finds itself the strongest ally of Israel, and one has to wonder: Is that all ideological and geopolitical, or does addressing the wrongs committed by Israel towards Palestinians open the can of worms of how the United States treated, and still treats in many ways, Native Americans? Is the United States willing to address our own apartheid? Can we reckon with the idea that the most impoverished counties in the U.S. are all American Indian-populated counties and reservations?
How can there be justification in 2026 to still call Zionism a “self-determination” project? After witnessing the death and destruction it has caused, it becomes a detached-from-reality position to maintain.
For if self-determination doesn’t include everyone, is this really self-determination?
Regrettably, in the Pirate movement overseas, mainly in Europe, there are folks who take a pro-Israel stance and claim Zionism is Jewish self-determination.
To our “counterparts” in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, and to an international whose leader is intimately involved with the World Zionist Organization, you have lost the plot.
We are not members of Pirate Party International, and we do not stand with those who stand in defense of the bastardization of self-determination.
We are the United States Pirate Party, and in our platform, we advocate for the right to free association and self-determination. People living in a political entity should have the right to maintain, alter or conclude their relationship to larger entities, or join in union, if it is the will of the people.
The will of one cannot be the will of all. So long as the will of the people is ignored, so long as displacement, genocide and apartheid persists, and so long as one’s concept of self-determination fails to answer to true freedom for all individuals, we will never be truly free. You are free to move and live wherever you wish, a person moving from one place to another does not make you a settler, but your moving should not come at the expense or destruction of others.
Not if your end result is the apartheid and genocide of the Native peoples, like how Manifest Destiny led to the ongoing apartheid and genocide of American Indians, and like how Zionism has led to the ongoing apartheid and genocide of the Palestinian people.
Ask yourself, before defending any movement that claims it is: is this really self-determination?
laquadrature.net/2026/01/30/ce…
Censure et surveillance : surchauffe au Parlement
Contrairement à ce que l'on pourrait penser, les parlementaires ne parlent pas que du budget. Comme chaque année, ils et elles échangent aussi sur leur autre sujet favori, avec la bénédiction du gouvernement : la dérive autoritaire, avec plus de sécu…La Quadrature du Net
The Pirate Post reshared this.
Trilog zu Alterskontrollen: Warnung vor „Ausweispflicht für weite Teile des Internets“
netzpolitik.org/2026/trilog-zu…
Big love to all our peers on the ground in the Open Source Village, working workshops, talking talks, connecting connections, being humans among humans! Meeting up is the cure to an increasingly divided world!
Are you in Brussels, in anticipation of #FOSDEM?
Share some pictures! Make some noise!
Open Source Village · Events Calendar
View and subscribe to events from Open Source Village on Luma. Pop-up village around Fosdem 2026. Expect a rich program of meetups & workshops + access to coworking space.Open Source Village
The Pirate Post reshared this.
Statement on the Taliban’s New Penal Code
Pirate Parties International continuously aims to protect basic human freedoms globally. Too often we gaze at the countries where Pirate parties exist, mostly in the developed world. However, we strongly believe that Pirates have a duty to examine problems around the world and attempt to garner international concern. Hopefully we can make a difference!
The issue we want to share with you regards the Taliban’s new Criminal Procedure Code in Afghanistan. A full copy of the 59 page law has been released.
The Taliban’s new Criminal Procedure Code legitimizes slavery and entrenches oppression!
We encourage the international community to read it for themselves (link to the full text on the Rawadari Website) and highlight further its outlandish claims on righteous conduct. From what we have learned already it justifies violence against women and children.
Of course, this region has suffered from decades of destabilizing conflicts and human rights abuses, but the current atrocity particularly bothers us. This code categorizes Afghan society into four classes: scholars, nobles, middle, and lower. Each class will face different punishments for crimes (including many normal acceptable behaviors in developed countries) based on their social status.
This hierarchical class system is discriminatory against minorities. It creates a monolithic definintion of who is a Muslim (a Hanafi) and how he should behave, while also punitively discriminating against women and non-binary individuals in unfathomable ways. It isolates all marginalized groups, such as Shia Muslims and other non-Hanafi sects. As highlighted by the Afghan human rights organization NGO Rawadari this measure exacerbates the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, including everything from education to employment to public life.
We suggest two basic frameworks for international collaboration to end the Taliban.
- Immediate international action by nation states to impose targeted sanctions on Taliban officials. We further advocate for formal recognition of the Taliban’s actions as crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court.
- Solidarity with Afghan resistance, minorities, and diaspora communities. We must support Afghan human rights defenders who resist this repressive regime. We encourage our member parties to amplify voices like those of Nilofar Ayoubi and Rawadari, who document these abuses. We also encourage the promotion of secure digital tools for communication and censorship circumvention. Finally we advocate support for a strong democratic system with a Pirate party in Afghanistan.
The Taliban’s penal code is a stark reminder that even slavery continues to exist on this planet. If we do not stand up against it, then it could return anywhere. Afghanistan was once a relatively liberal country until the 1970s where western people came to travel and have fun. We hope that we can one day return there, and that all people living in Afghanistan will one day be able to enjoy the basic human freedoms that most of us enjoy.
The following message was prepared by PPI board members. It does not necessarily reflect the views of all of our members, but we hope it does. If any of our members though have competing ideas about this issue or any other issue that they would like us to broadcast, please share them with us. We are happy to broadcast a variety of ideological opinions and diverse issues. Our goal is to create positive communication to solve problems.
Gazzetta del Cadavere reshared this.
Through the Spyglass: On the Bastardization of Self-Determination [Part I]
There has been a notable absence of a certain topic on the United States Pirate Party website. Something that has been so relevant and so important to the day-to-day for anyone considering themselves “politically involved” that it almost becomes indefensible that nothing has been properly stated on the issue.
Today is a course correction.
There will not be only one topic being tackled today, and by the end of it, dear reader, it’s hoped you understand why this took so long.
Before we can begin, you must keep this question in the back of your mind: “Is this really self-determination?”
In the interest of familiarity, we will first start at a time everyone is familiar with: the American Revolution.
We know the history; Stamp Act, Boston Massacre, tea in the harbor, Shot Heard ‘Round the World, Lexington and Concord, Crossing the Delaware, Yorktown, independence and freedom from Great Britain and the monarchy. Kids are taught this stuff from a young age, and this is how the story of the U.S.A’s founding typically goes.
Less mentioned, if mentioned at all, is the “French-Indian War”, which was actually the North American theatre of the Seven Years War, the first truly world war.
That is where we truly need to begin this story.
The French-Indian War is named as such because the British Army, their colonial settlers, and their American Indian allies fought a war against the French Army, their colonial settlers, and their American Indian allies over the Ohio River Valley; modern day Pittsburgh and the Ohio River.
All that you know to be quintessential Americana was the subject of two European Empires and their colonial settlers attempting to claim land for themselves and their home empires.
The war began when tensions over who controlled the Ohio River Valley boiled over into conflict after a young George Washington (yes, really) and his regiment ambushed, attacked and killed Joseph Coulon de Jumonville, a French officer reportedly sent to warn Washington of their encroachment on French land and was said to be merely on a diplomatic mission.
Again: settlers on this land claiming it to be theirs. French settlers, numbering ~40,000 in 1750, and British settlers, ~1 million, claiming land that they only knew existed with certainty as early as 1503 (when Amerigo Vespucci confirmed it was not Asia they discovered a route to but the New World entirely) for countries that have only had permanent presence on the Américan continent since 1604 (France, Port-Royal) and 1607 (Great Britain, Jamestown).
While the French-Indian War ended in British victory and total control over what was previously French North America (essentially, the Saint Lawrence River, the Great Lakes and Mississippi River and the land around it), it was not the central war to the question of self-determination.
It was the war following the conclusion of the French-Indian War, and the war that would lead to further colonist anger towards Great Britain: Pontiac’s War.
In the middle of all of this, one tends to forget that the European Empires were playing local American Indian populations against one another and signing treaties for protection and monetary gain. Many settlers came to spread Christianity and convert the Natives from their Indigenous beliefs.
Have they been granted the right to self-determination? Is this really self-determination?
Once the more consolatory French were defeated and forced to leave, and once British General Jeffrey Amherst began imposing policies threatening the local population, it was Odawa Chief Pontiac (Obwaandi’eyaag) who realized their way of life in the Great Lakes was in danger.
May 1763, Native Americans attacked multiple forts and drove many British settlers out of the region. Due to this conflict, and out of fear that it could be a perpetual state of conflict between settlers and natives, George III of Great Britain proclaimed there shall be no new settlements west of the Appalachian Mountains in October 1763, and that west of the Appalachians would be designated as Indian Territory.
Remember: that is the land the settlers fought a war over specifically to control.
This, as well as anger imposed over taxes installed to pay off debts of the Seven Years War, would set off a chain reaction that would lead to the colonists declaring independence from Great Britain and seeking their own idea of “self-determination”.
During the Treaty of Paris (1783), which marked the end of the American Revolution (on paper), Great Britain, who had previously treated Native Americans with enough dignity to at least sign and honor treaties, gave away land that wasn’t theirs to give, without any Native American delegation present during negotiations.
After that, the story often falls under the growth of the country, the admission of states and keeping balance in the Union until it fell apart briefly, bloodily. Rarely, if ever, is the story of the American Indian spoken of when talking about the growth of the United States.
Perhaps it is too uncomfortable to think about, but in their pursuit of westward expansion, these descendants of settlers, who twenty years prior called themselves “British”, claimed it was their God-ordained right to claim all the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Manifest Destiny, if you will.
While claiming “All men are created equal”, this country systematically had settlers drive the native population from their homes while many of the settlers also held African Americans in chattel slavery and considered them “property” and “3/5ths a person” for census keeping.
Is this really self-determination?
To restate a point from a previous Spyglass article:
“The United States Pirate Party, as part of our platform, advocates for self-determination. As outlined in our platform: “We advocate for the right to free association and self-determination. People living in a political entity should have the right to maintain, alter or conclude their relationship to larger entities, or join in union, if it is the will of the people.”
When Indigenous Americans cannot trust a treaty signed and continuously is driven from their land, is this really self-determination? When Black Americans are still in chains and treated like livestock instead of your fellow man, is this really self-determination?
To say the United States Revolution was a fight for self-determination and freedom becomes tainted when you zoom out and ask: “for who?”
Because if your version of “self-determination” doesn’t include everyone and is only “self-determination” for the in-group, is this really self-determination?
No. In execution, it looked more like genocide and apartheid. Even our own apartheid was simply called “Segregation” after chattel slavery’s “end”. Even the genocide of American Indian populations is boiled down to “leftist talking points” and dismissed.
So why bring this up? Is it to rag on the United States? Is it to hold up a mirror to the worst aspects of the United States and make the U.S. look bad?
No. In execution, I hoped to point out the worst aspects of U.S. history and say “We cannot change that past but we can learn from it and stop it from happening again.”
So what happened? Great Britain allied with a native population to fight a war and immediately turned their backs on them and gave their land away to the settler colonial project without their knowledge, and which the settlers claimed is their God-ordained right to have, leading to apartheid and genocide.
Oh.
Part II coming tomorrow.
Digitaler Omnibus: „Die EU-Kommission rüttelt an den Grundpfeilern des Datenschutzes“
netzpolitik.org/2026/digitaler…
Berlin: Undurchsichtige Gesundheitsdatenbank-Pläne nach Brandbrief vorerst gestoppt
netzpolitik.org/2026/berlin-un…
Embracing Linguistic Diversity: Shaping the Voice of Europe’s AI Future
At a time when the world is on the cusp of developing technologies that seamlessly integrate into daily life, particularly artificial intelligence, using language as input is a compelling proposition.
Language isn’t just a means of communication; it is a part of culture and identity, something people carry with them wherever they go. Imagine landing in a foreign land, surrounded by unfamiliar sounds, and suddenly hearing a familiar language being spoken. There is an immediate sense of connection, comfort, and belonging. This human response reflects a profound sentiment: Language is one of the forces that anchors human beings culturally, emotionally, and socially.
Linguistic Diversity And The European Dream Of Digital Sovereignty
With 24 official languages, alongside many regional and minority tongues, the European Union stands as a living example of “Unity in Diversity.” Despite such linguistic richness, the European AI landscape is dominated by English and a handful of other majority languages, leaving large parts of Europe linguistically underserved. For example, languages such as Latvian, Irish, and Maltese collectively account for only a small fraction of the datasets used to train the largest commercial models, which means these systems often perform poorly or inconsistently on them.
Having identified this gap, the European Commission launched a new initiative under its Digital Decade Programme 2030 to support the use of more languages in AI. Projects such as the Alliance for Language Technologies European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (ALT-EDIC) and the Language Data Space (LDS) aim to transform how AI is trained across the EU.
Why This Matters: Human and Competitive Edge
With many European languages underrepresented in the current digital landscape, the EU’s approach to embracing and incorporating linguistic diversity into its digital tech plans is a bid to uphold its identity while systematically reducing its dependence on non-EU models. The goal is to foster the EU’s local AI economy and strengthen tech autonomy.
- Digital Inclusion for All Citizens: When AI tools become operational in native languages, accessibility to the general public is enhanced. This helps close gaps in education, public services, healthcare, legal help, and civic life. It is not just convenient; it is essential for fair access to digital life.
- Cultural Preservation and Identity: The importance of languages in the history of the human race extends beyond the purview of a set of grammar rules or means of expression to communicate. Languages are cultural identities and a proof of evolution. AI that supports local and indigenous languages helps preserve cultural heritage in the digital world. Ensuring they thrive in technological ecosystems affirms their relevance and vitality.
- Boosting European Innovation and Competitiveness: Multilingual AI equips European startups and companies with market-tailored tools, reducing reliance on external providers and fostering homegrown innovation. Open models like OpenEuroLLM lower cost barriers, support custom use cases, and help European businesses compete globally on a stronger footing.
- Strategic Tech Sovereignty: By building its own infrastructure, data, and AI models, Europe depends less on foreign systems that may not comply with local laws, privacy rules, or language requirements. This supports the EU’s goals for digital independence and strength.
A Few Examples From The EU’s Initiatives
ALIA and AINA: Public AI for Spain’s Languages
The Barcelona Supercomputing Center created ALIA and AINA to support Spanish and its co-official languages: Catalan (including Valencian), Basque, and Galician.ALIA provides open language models to encourage innovation and strengthen Europe’s technology and culture. AINA’s goal is to preserve Catalan in the current digital era by providing linguistic and digital resources crucial to processes such as translation, voice assistants, and AI chatbots.
OpenEuroLLM: Multilingual Foundation Models for All EU Languages
Backed by a consortium of research institutions and companies and funded under the Digital Europe Programme, the OpenEuroLLM project is designed to develop a family of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) covering all official European Union languages, compliant with European AI regulations, and reflecting European values such as transparency and openness.
These models are intended not only for academic use but also for everyday business, public services, and startup innovation, thereby lowering barriers to AI adoption across the EU.
ALT-EDIC and the European Language Data Space
Another cornerstone initiative is the Alliance for Language Technologies EDIC (ALT-EDIC). This multi-country consortium brings together Member States to build a shared infrastructure for language technologies, including data collection, model development, evaluation, and ecosystem support.
Complementing this is the Language Data Space (LDS), a data ecosystem funded under the Digital Europe Programme that facilitates access to multilingual linguistic data for innovation. Together, these efforts address a core challenge: many European languages lack the volume and quality of digital data needed to train robust AI models.
EU Institutional Language Models & Multilingual Services
The European Commission is also developing AI services and models through its institutional channels — for example, efforts to build an EU-wide large language model that supports all official languages and serves public administrations, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), civil society, and academia. These include initiatives like:
- eTranslation (neural machine translation)
- eSummary (automated multilingual summarisation)
- eBriefing (draft document creation) All part of the Digital Europe AI ecosystem and contributing to multilingual public AI services.
Facing the Challenges
No discussion of ambitious AI policy is complete without acknowledging the hurdles:
- Data Scarcity: Many regional languages lack enough high-quality digital data — a core ingredient of powerful AI. Initiatives like ALT-EDIC help, but the work is long and resource-intensive.
- Compute and Energy Costs: Training large, multilingual models requires substantial compute and energy resources. Europe’s infrastructure investment must go hand in hand with sustainability commitments.
- Global Competition: While Europe’s strategy emphasizes openness, values, and inclusion, the global AI landscape is fiercely competitive, with U.S. and Chinese companies investing in vast proprietary systems. Investments such as those under Horizon Europe and Digital Europe are bridging gaps, but the challenge remains significant.
- Coordination and Scale: A shared pan-European approach requires alignment across 27 Member States, each with distinct languages, cultures, priorities, and capacities.
Conclusion: A Future Built for People and Purpose
Europe’s push for linguistic diversity in AI is more than a policy shift influenced by geopolitical changes. It’s a recognition that technology must reflect who we are: culturally, socially,y and democratically. This is a reminder that policies and investments should center not only on innovation but also on the people whose lives are shaped by the languages they speak.
From ALIA’s regional focus to EU-wide initiatives such as OpenEuroLLM and ALT-EDIC, Europe is working toward a future in which AI is inclusive, human-centred, and sovereign, and in which linguistic diversity isn’t an afterthought but a foundational strength.
Upcoming Board Meeting on Tuesday, February 10th at 17:00 UTC
Our next PPI board meeting will take place on Tuesday, February 10th at 17:00 UTC / 18:00 CET.
All official PPI proceedings, board meetings included, are open to the public. Feel free to stop by. We’ll be happy to have you.
Where:jitsi.pirati.cz/PPI-Board
Agenda: Pad: https://etherpad.pp-international.net/p/feb10-2026boardmeeting-qjxl0re
All of our meetings are posted to our calendar: pp-international.net/calendar/
We look forward to seeing visitors.
Thank you for your support,
The Board of PPI
Embracing Linguistic Diversity: Shaping the Voice of Europe’s AI Future
@politics
europeanpirates.eu/embracing-l…
At a time when the world is on the cusp of developing technologies that seamlessly integrate into daily life, particularly artificial intelligence, using…
RE: mastodon.social/@eff/115972535…
The #DSA is shaping platform regulation far beyond Europe, but replication without context can do real harm.
That’s why @eff & Access Now have developed a new resource setting out global recommendations for enforcing the DSA in ways that protect freedom of expression, safeguard marginalised communities, and prevent politicised or abusive enforcement.
🔎 Dive in here ⤵️
Today, the DSA Human Rights Alliance has published guidelines to set the stage for a globally aware and rights-respecting enforcement of the DSA in the coming years. eff.org/deeplinks/2026/01/dsa-…DSA Human Rights Alliance Publishes Principles Calling for DSA Enforcement to Incorporate Global Perspectives
The Digital Services Act (DSA) Human Rights Alliance has, since its founding by EFF and Access Now in 2021, works to ensure that the European Union follows a human rights-based approach to platform governance by integrating a wide range of voices and…Electronic Frontier Foundation
reshared this
Whistleblower who exposed Uyghur camps granted asylum
New York, Jan. 28, 2026 — A judge reportedly granted asylum today to Guan Heng, a whistleblower who secretly filmed Uyghur internment camps in China and shared his footage online after arriving in the United States. The footage he captured became crucial evidence for journalists reporting on the camps, including the team at BuzzFeed News that won a Pulitzer Prize.
The Department of Homeland Security has 30 days to appeal, during which time Guan will remain in detention. Guan and his relatives have said that if he is deported to China, his life would be in serious jeopardy.
Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern said:
“This ruling is evidence that even in today’s environment, public pressure still works. All of the journalists, activists, editorial board members, and others who spoke out about Guan’s case deserve enormous credit. They should carry that momentum to other fronts in the very active battles for the rights of whistleblowers, journalists, and people who film government wrongdoing, whether in China or Minneapolis. DHS should not wait the full 30 days to drop this case. It should announce immediately that it will not appeal, so Guan can walk free. And it should give serious thought to why an immigration crackdown supposedly intended to target the worst of the worst is endangering the best of the best.”
Please contact us if you would like further comment.
Phishing attack: Numerous journalists targeted in attack via Signal Messenger
netzpolitik.org/2026/phishing-…
KittyKosmo reshared this.
ChatGPT: Polizeigewerkschaft bebildert Pressemitteilung mit generiertem Schockerfoto
netzpolitik.org/2026/chatgpt-p…
Diskussionspapier: Tech-Unternehmen sollen legalen Extremismus suchen
netzpolitik.org/2026/diskussio…
Bloque la pub !
Le 28 janvier c'est la journée européenne de protection des données ! Notre petit rendez-vous annuel pour pousser un max de gens à installer un bloqueur de pub en faisant tourner bloquelapub.net/
avec @RAPasso @Framasoft et @ritimo
Plus d'infos : antipub.org/bloque-la-pub-inte…
Faites aussi installer des bloqueurs à vos proches !
Ce 28 janvier, bloquons la pub sur Internet !
Je bloque la pub sur Internet ! Pourquoi c’est important ? Internet est un espace prioritaire pour les investissements des publicitaires.Résistance à l'Agression Publicitaire (Résistance à l'Agression Publicitaire)
reshared this
J'ai aussi SponsorBlock à cause d'une overdose de nordvpn lol.
Kehrtwende in UK: Pornhub widersetzt sich britischen Alterskontrollen
netzpolitik.org/2026/kehrtwend…
Bastian’s Night #461 January, 29th
Every Thursday of the week, Bastian’s Night is broadcast from 21:30 CET.
Bastian’s Night is a live talk show in German with lots of music, a weekly round-up of news from around the world, and a glimpse into the host’s crazy week in the pirate movement.
If you want to read more about @BastianBB: –> This way
1/ 🎉Happy #DataProtectionDay 🎉
Data protection is fundamental right & backbone of many other digital rights we rely on every day.
Strong data protection limits surveillance, curbs profiling, exposes discrimination & gives people ways to challenge automated decisions. Without it, words like fairness, equality & accountability quickly lose their meaning, online & offline.
Today & any other day, our message should be clear: this right matters, it's not negotiable & deserves full protection.
reshared this
2/ 🚧 That’s why the current political moment is worrying. Under the banners of “simplification” and “competitiveness”, deregulation is accelerating.
The #DigitalOmnibus proposal feels more like a bulldozer, heading straight for core data protection safeguards. Rights are reframed as technical hurdles: they easy to reopen, easy to weaken.
Read more about the impacts of this proposal on core rights to data protection & the confidentiality of communications
edri.org/our-work/why-the-digi…
Why the Digital Omnibus puts GDPR and ePrivacy at risk - European Digital Rights (EDRi)
Today, the Commission will present a “Digital Omnibus” package, a series of measures to allegedly ease administrative burdens.European Digital Rights (EDRi)
Maria Chiara Pievatolo reshared this.
A “risk” is something that might not happen.
This is not a risk, it is certain.
Better headline probably: “How the Digital Omnibus damages GDPR and ePrivacy rights”
#università #ricerca Sulla materia del nostro comunicato dell'epifania ecco un aggiornamento a proposito della sorda lotta fra due commissioni diversamente ministeriali. Il dissenso, naturalmente, riguarda soltanto il come la ricerca italiana debba essere ministeriale.
Lo scontro tra le commissioni per la riforma dell'università
La riforma dell’università promossa dalla ministra Bernini dovrebbe nascere dal lavoro opaco di due commissioni ministeriali, una “fantasma” guidata da Ernesto Galli della Loggia, e una formalmente istituita, composta della stessa oligarchia accademi…ROARS
ANDU, FLC-CGIL, Roars, nonché la Rete delle Società Scientifiche, hanno espresso allarme o almeno preoccupazione per i doni che lo stato si appresta a regalare alla ricerca italiana. Questi doni, che rafforzeranno i poteri, già non poco oppressivi, del ministero dell’università e della ricerca, dell’Anvur che gli è sottomesso e delle gerarchie accademiche locali, consistono:
- in una riforma del reclutamento, già approvata in senato, che rende i concorsi interamente locali, ma sotto il controllo dell’Anvur sia in ingresso sia in uscita;
- in una riforma dell’Anvur, per via regolamentare e non legislativa, volta ad accentuarne ulteriormente la subordinazione al ministero;
- in una riforma dell’amministrazione delle università, per via legislativa, che accentuerebbe il dispotismo locale dei rettori e la loro sudditanza al governo nazionale.
La scienza italiana, che nell’età moderna si fondò e perseguì la libertà dell’uso pubblico della ragione e l’emancipazione dal segreto, si trova ora a misurarsi con tre poteri che hanno solo accidentalmente a che vedere con la ricerca della verità: quello, locale, di colleghi e rettori, quello, centralizzato, dell’agenzia sedicente indipendente per la valutazione di stato, la quale attribuisce la quota cosiddetta “premiale” del finanziamento ordinario, e quello del governo a cui essa stessa è sottoposta fin dalla sua istituzione.
Promuovendo la scienza aperta come scienza libera e non come costoso adempimento burocratico, abbiamo sostenuto che la valutazione amministrativa della ricerca, in Italia centralizzata in forma di valutazione di stato, è intrinsecamente dispotica e retrograda: dispotica perché sostituisce alla libera discussione entro le comunità scientifiche una statuizione di un’autorità esterna e non scientifica, in quanto derivante da una gerarchia amministrativa; retrograda perché impone indicatori costruiti sul passato che disconoscono non solo la riflessività dell’azione sociale,1 ma anche la natura aperta della ricerca.
A questo dispositivo, che Mario Ricciardi descrisse precocemente come un “apparato burocratico di tipo sovietico”, i professori italiani si sono – sostanzialmente – piegati. Fra gli effetti della sottomissione c’è stato il blocco di un’evoluzione verso una scienza aperta nel senso di libera da oligopoli editoriali privati e liste di riviste “scientifiche” ed “eccellenti” di composizione amministrativa. Accettarla, ai più, è parsa una scelta prudente: si tratta però di capire se è stata anche una scelta sapiente.
1. La metamorfosi del “cretino locale”
Pietro Rossi, in un fortunato articolo, criticò i concorsi introdotti nel 1998, in cogestione fra “facoltà e corporazione disciplinare”. Secondo Rossi, in un sistema in cui la sede che fa il favore di bandire una valutazione comparativa può barattare la vittoria del proprio candidato interno con le idoneità di candidati esterni supplementari che trovano cattedra a casa loro, l’ascesa del “cretino locale”, entro comunità di disciplina sempre più frammentate e chiuse, non può che essere irresistibile.Il disegno di legge approvato in senato abolisce l’Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale a favore di concorsi esclusivamente locali con vincitori unici, accessibili tramite un’autocertificazione della soddisfazione di criteri stabiliti con decreto ministeriale su proposta dell’Anvur, sentito il CUN, i quali comprenderanno “indicatori minimi di quantità, continuità e distribuzione temporale dei prodotti della ricerca”. I commissari dovranno godere dei medesimi requisiti. Dopo tre anni i vincitori verranno valutati dall’Anvur, con eventuali conseguenze sanzionatorie in termini di finanziamento istituzionale.
Si tornerà dunque al “cretino locale”, o, come scrive più gentilmente Roberta Calvano, a un sistema in cui “il nepotismo e gli abusi sono stati per anni alla radice di un diffuso malcostume accademico”? No: in virtù dell’Anvur e del ministero, questa volta il “cretino”, selezionato tramite valutazione amministrativa in ingresso e in uscita e giudicato da commissari simili a lui, sarà probabilmente bibliometrico, sicuramente governativo, e giocoforza sottomesso ai colleghi disposti a usare il loro potere di ricatto – qualità, queste, che con la scienza libera hanno ben poco a che vedere.
2. L’autoaffermazione dell’università italiana
“Noi vogliamo noi stessi” proclamava un rettore a Friburgo, perorando l’autoaffermazione dell’università. Correva l’anno 1933: Martin Heidegger diceva “noi”, ma era entrato in carica su pressione del governo nazista, dopo che il suo predecessore, riluttante a licenziare gli ebrei, era stato indotto alle dimissioni. Tra poco, forse, anche i rettori italiani, pur più sottilmente e con qualche sbavatura normativa, potranno dire “noi” al modo di Heidegger:
- la composizione, legalmente determinata, del consiglio di amministrazione consentirà loro di contare su una maggioranza certa purché ubbidiscano al governo. Eliminato il rappresentante del personale tecnico-amministrativo, degli 11 membri del consiglio uno sarà il rettore stesso, quattro saranno nominati direttamente da lui (due docenti e due componenti esterni); a questi si aggiungerà uno studente eletto, come residuo vestigiale di democrazia, due docenti indicati dal senato, il candidato rettore soccombente e un membro nominato dal governo. Al rettore basterà restare agli ordini di quest’ultimo – esercizio che, probabilmente, non gli sarà difficile – per avere una maggioranza garantita;2
- il mandato del rettore sarà prolungato da sei a otto anni, con un eventuale plebiscito di conferma dopo quattro anni, qualora proposto dai 3/5 del senato accademico. A proposito del mandato, dall’ipotetico testo di riforma cadono le parole “non rinnovabile”;
- nella programmazione triennale il rettore dovrà tener conto anche di “linee generali di indirizzo stabilite dal Ministro”.
I rettori preferiranno continuare a regnare all’inferno o proveranno a servire in paradiso? Non si sa: ma certamente con “rettori che agiscono sotto l’occhiuta vigilanza del ministro e da cui dipenderanno a catena tutte le cariche interne agli atenei (i cui mandati vengono allineati alla durata di quello dei rettori)” l’esercizio della libertà della ricerca, sia in senso negativo sia in senso positivo, sarà ancor più difficile, e rischioso.
3. L’epifania dell’Anvur
Come ha osservato Roberto Caso, l’Anvur, istituita nel 2006 sotto il governo Prodi II, è nata così dipendente da aver ricevuto critiche perfino da una sostenitrice della valutazione amministrativa come Fiorella Kostoris. Il regolamento di riforma – che viola, secondo il Consiglio di Stato, la gerarchia delle fonti3 – renderebbe più intenso un controllo del governo sulla ricerca già in atto, al quale i più, a dispetto del primo comma dell’articolo 33 della costituzione italiana, hanno ritenuto opportuno sottomettersi.
- L’Anvur sarà ancor più ministeriale e dipendente: rispetto al regime attuale, il presidente dell’Anvur diverrebbe di nomina ministeriale diretta, così come i comitati di selezione delle rose dei candidati fra i quali il ministro sceglierà i quattro membri del consiglio direttivo, non più costituiti su indicazione di enti esterni.
- L’Anvur diverrà la valutatrice generale di stato: l’agenzia, che attualmente valuta solo università ed enti di ricerca vigilati dal MUR (quali CNR, INAF, INDIRE, INFN, INGV, INVALSI), allungherà il suo occhio agli altri enti di ricerca pubblici (ASI, CREA, ENEA, ISPRA, ISS, ISTAT) in base ad accordi con i ministeri vigilanti, alle Accademie e all’Alta Formazione Artistica e Musicale (AFAM) a enti privati ma finanziati pubblicamente (IIT di Genova, HT di Milano e Fondazione Biotecnopolo di Siena) e simili, nonché, per chi mai volesse richiederlo, in ambito internazionale. E non si occuperà solo di arte, musica e ricerca bensì anche delle cosiddette “competenze trasversali e disciplinari” acquisite dagli studenti e degli “sbocchi occupazionali dei laureati”. Tutto ciò, chiarisce la relazione di accompagnamento, nel “rispetto dell’indirizzo politico dato dal Ministero dell’università e della ricerca, quale Ministero vigilante”.
Il modello dell’università-azienda – si è detto – è neoliberale; quello nei disegni del governo è autoritario. Qui però il “liberale” che segue al “neo-” non ha nulla a che vedere con Benedetto Croce: l’azienda è una struttura non democratica, bensì autoritaria e chi la impone come modello sostiene un’ideologia altrettanto autoritaria, se non totalitaria. In questo senso, il disegno di “riforma” dell’Anvur non è una metamorfosi, bensì un’epifania.
Non esiste una valutazione amministrativa buona o cattiva, così come non esiste un dispotismo cattivo o buono a seconda che sul trono sieda Commodo oppure Marco Aurelio. Se si accetta che la valutazione della ricerca non sia scientifica – e parte della ricerca stessa – bensì amministrativa e a essa esterna, si accetta anche che chi amministra ne fissi e ne muti i criteri e abbia titolo a controllare i suoi eventuali agenti in modo più o meno stretto. Il vizio della valutazione di stato non sta nel modo in cui valuta, come suggerito elusivamente dell’Unione Europea, ma nel fatto che Caesar sia supra grammaticos, non importa se come Marco Aurelio o come Commodo. Non è, questa, un’idea radicale, né sul piano della storia, né su quello della cronaca: lo scorso aprile, in Francia, l’assemblea nazionale ha votato a favore dell’abolizione dell’agenzia di valutazione di stato HCERES.
In questa prospettiva non ha senso limitarsi a chiedere un guinzaglio appena un po’ più lungo, o a sollevare il problema dei finanziamenti alla ricerca senza toccare quello della sua libertà, vale a dire della possibilità stessa di fare scienza – libertà, questa, che non si promuove difendendo l’Anvur attuale4 come se fosse indipendente, bensì considerandone l’abolizione.
Contro il disegno di intensificare il controllo politico di “un’università più piccola, gerarchica e precaria”, FLC-CGIL5 si è appellata alle “forze libere e pensanti dell’accademia e della comunità universitaria”. In effetti, se, dopo lustri di valutazione di stato, esistessero ancora “forze libere e pensanti”, non sarebbe loro difficile promuovere una campagna di ubbidienza civile alla costituzione, a partire dagli articoli 21 e 33. In un momento in cui dovremmo invece parlare, davanti agli stati armati per la guerra, delle condizioni della pace pubblica, continuare a compilare moduli e a supplicare favori ministeriali ci salverà, forse, come impiegati, ma certamente non come studiosi.
- Questa riflessività è nota a chi si occupa di valutazione come legge di Goodhart: i soggetti valutati non si limitano a farsi valutare, ma adeguano riflessivamente le loro prestazioni al criterio di valutazione. Così chi viene premiato per il numero di pubblicazioni inflazionerà i testi, mentre chi viene premiato per le citazioni scriverà solo per farsi citare. Le conseguenze sono tristemente note. ↩︎
- Per un aggiornamento sugli orientamenti ministeriali si veda però quanto riferito dall’ANDU qui. [nota aggiunta il 7/01/2026]↩︎
- Il Consiglio di Stato, nel parere formulato nell’adunanza del 23 settembre 2025, ha ricordato che, proprio in virtù della gerarchia delle fonti del diritto, un regolamento, perfino se riguarda la valutazione di stato, non può cambiare la legge che l’ha istituita. ↩︎
- L’agenzia, peraltro, si è mostrata incapace di onorare gli impegni di riforma della valutazione che aveva sottoscritto aderendo alla coalizione europea COARA. ↩︎
- ANVUR: un’Agenzia che diventa governativa, con l’intenzione di valutare e quindi disciplinare anche saperi e conoscenze (2025) merita di essere letto per la sua analisi dettagliata della bozza di DPR qui solo sommariamente esposta. ↩︎
This text is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 license
- The post’s content. aisa.sp.unipi.it/anvur-recluta…‘The situation has become appalling’: fake scientific papers push research credibility to crisis point
Last year, 10,000 sham papers had to be retracted by academic journals, but experts think this is just the tip of the icebergRobin McKie (The Guardian)
reshared this
avvenire.it/politica/caso-sang…
Il provvedimento è stato temporaneamente rimosso...
La rimozione temporanea dei provvedimenti è una nuova categoria giuridica in cerca di autore.
reshared this
Lo scudo europeo per la democrazia: Democrazia e scienza nella società dell’informazione
Lo Scudo europeo per la democrazia viene presentato come un argine a disinformazione e interferenze straniere, ma finirà per istituzionalizzare la censura preventiva nello spazio informativo.ROARS
reshared this
Phishing-Angriff: Zahlreiche Journalist:innen im Visier bei Attacke über Signal-Messenger
netzpolitik.org/2026/phishing-…
Alex Pretti’s murder was an attack on press freedom
The murders of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minnesota once again show the power of cellphone footage in combating official lies. Solely because footage was so clear that even the Trump administration knew its story wasn’t credible, the party line shifted within hours of Pretti’s shooting from comments about a “terrorist” planning a “massacre” to something akin to “jaywalking is now a capital offense.”
These days, cellphone videographers are also a vital part of the news ecosystem, serving as crucial source material for reporters who can’t be everywhere at once. That means shooting, killing, censoring, and other targeting of individuals documenting news as it unfolds is an attack on press freedom (and an offense against all else that’s good in the world).
It doesn’t matter if they’re journalists. Recording police or Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents is an act of journalism, no matter who does it. If those recording are not journalists themselves, their relationship with the press is symbiotic. They’re journalists’ sources — even whistleblowers.
Decades ago, the way to blow the whistle on government misconduct was to leak documents like the Pentagon Papers. Those methods are still vital, of course. That’s why the administration is trying so hard to stop them. But footage is just as powerful, maybe more so.
And the courage of those recording in the street rivals that of people like Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and National Security Agency surveillance whistleblower Ed Snowden, both of whom were founding board members of Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF). The latter group risked life behind bars, but the former risk being assaulted or shot dead by federal agents.
Cellphone footage also poses a more ubiquitous threat to the powerful than leaked documents. Only government contractors and employees have the ability to leak documents — virtually everyone has a cellphone. And that’s exactly why the government is cracking down on cellphone videographers with the same tactics it has long used against old-school whistleblowers.
The government is cracking down on cellphone videographers with the same tactics it has long used against old-school whistleblowers.
Whenever someone leaks government secrets to the press, no matter who is in the White House, the same pattern almost invariably plays out. Important-sounding people in suits and military uniforms pop up on the Sunday shows and op-ed pages warning about the dire threat to national security posed by the disclosures, which never materializes. Government spokespeople and their stenographers in the media nitpick at the leakers’ personal lives, question their motives, and call them traitors. What they actually revealed about government corruption and incompetence gets buried beneath the fearmongering and name-calling.
Similarly, the government now characterizes cellphone recording as obstructive or even violent. Officials claim agents are being “doxxed” when someone records their face or reveals their name, and complain about wildly exaggerated or entirely fabricated dangers they’re facing. ICE-watchers are accused of being part of some amorphous domestic terror conspiracy — their names might even be populating a government domestic terror watch list, according to some agents.
Their phones are often unlawfully seized or damaged before they can post their footage on social media, where journalists might find and report on it. A lawsuit seeking to force the federal government to preserve evidence from Pretti’s killing claims that federal agents “apparently seized cell phones and detained witnesses,” tactics that can both intimidate those who film and prevent their footage from seeing the light of day, just like newsroom raids intimidate and censor journalists and sources.
This didn’t start with Trump 2.0, of course, and, for whatever reason, the Twin Cities have been at the center of the story for years. Darnella Frazier didn’t have a press credential around her neck when she recorded Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd’s neck. When Philando Castile was shot during a traffic stop in 2016, Diamond Reynolds’ livestreamed footage captured a killing that would otherwise have been framed as justified.
Thousands of miles away, cellphone footage was crucial in exposing Israel’s crimes in Gaza. Palestinians, many with no prior journalistic training, took unfathomable risks to ensure that Israeli officials could not get away with the same kinds of lies and pretexts that U.S. officials now spew after killings of civilians (just replace “Hamas” with “the worst of the worst”).
One of this year’s Oscar nominees for best documentary is “The Alabama Solution,” which highlights reforms prompted by incarcerated people — including Robert Earl Council, Melvin Ray, and Raoul Poole — using contraband cellphones to document abuses. They risked and endured severe retaliation (they heard about the Oscar nomination from solitary confinement) to expose the truth because the press doesn’t cover prisons like it should. That’s both due to news companies not seeing any money in it and the government drastically restricting access.
As corporate and government pressures against accountability journalism continue to mount, the outside world might be similarly dependent on its Councils, Rays, and Pooles to expose the truth. Horrors like Pretti’s murder are tragic losses not only to the victims’ families and communities but to what’s left of the free press in the United States.
Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde: Microsoft hat illegal Minderjährige getrackt
netzpolitik.org/2026/oesterrei…
Pep reshared this.
Hinweise gesucht: „Wir wollen die Verbreitung sexualisierter Deepfakes einschränken“
netzpolitik.org/2026/hinweise-…
Anhörung zum Gesetzentwurf: Bundespolizei soll Staatstrojaner nutzen dürfen
netzpolitik.org/2026/anhoerung…
theguardian.com/us-news/2026/j…
Il giudice federale del Minnesota Patrick Joseph Schiltz (chief United States district judge), nominato da George W. Bush, ha convocato il capo dell’Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) a comparire davanti a lui venerdì, avvertendo che potrebbe arrestato per aver disatteso gli ordini del tribunale.
Minnesota judge summons acting ICE director, warns of contempt over court defiance
Chief judge orders Todd Lyons to appear, saying patience is exhausted as migrants remain jailed despite rulingsJoseph Gedeon (The Guardian)
reshared this
theguardian.com/us-news/2026/j…
United States District Court for the Central District of California, 15.01.2026
"Il dipartimento di giustizia non ha diritto a ottenere informazioni sensibili sugli elettori della California". Lo ha stabilito giovedì un giudice federale (David O. Carter), scrivendo che gli sforzi dell’amministrazione per ottenere le informazioni sugli elettori nello stato sono una minaccia per la democrazia.
Justice department loses bid to get sensitive information on California voters
Federal judge rules Trump administration’s efforts to obtain information on voters in the state is threat to democracySam Levine (The Guardian)
reshared this
The Pirate Post è una rassegna informativa per chi vuole conoscere le iniziative dei Pirati del mondo.
Friendica mi consente di impostare a ricondivisione automatica di alcuni account di area #pirata.
Questo non mi rende un "bot", ma sicuramente può dare fastidio a qualcuno. Fortunatamente esiste il silenziamento!
La selezione che effettuo comunque è abbastanza stringente e nel tempo mi preoccupo di effettuare qualche accorgimento per rendere la mia timeline meno noiosa. I miei follower talvolta mi fanno notare che alcuni contenuti non sono più in linea con il tema principale del mio account e mi è capitato di accogliere alcune di queste richieste e di rimuovere la ricondivisione automatica da alcuni fonti.
The Pirate Post is a review of information for those who want to know the initiatives of the Pirates of the world
Friendica allows me to set up automatic resharing for some #pirate accounts.
This doesn't make me a "bot," but it can definitely annoy some people. Fortunately, there's a mute option!
My selection is quite strict, and over time, I've made some adjustments to make my timeline less boring. My followers sometimes point out that certain content no longer aligns with the main theme of my account, and I've granted some of these requests and removed automatic resharing from some sources.
La Quadrature du Net
in reply to La Quadrature du Net • • •Larchmutz⏚ 🦊 🍂 reshared this.
La Quadrature du Net
in reply to La Quadrature du Net • • •La Quadrature du Net
in reply to La Quadrature du Net • • •La Quadrature du Net
in reply to La Quadrature du Net • • •Faites un don à La Quadrature du Net
La Quadrature du Net