That post about meme definitions is lying to you. "Glup Shitto" isn't about how Star Wars characters have silly names. "Glup Shitto" is about how the incidental Star Wars character with a cumulative eight seconds of screen time somehow has a silly name, a well established fandom, and forty years of meticulously detailed backstory.
Finally got rid of Shinigami Eyes. You may no longer rely on me to note when you reblog TERFs because I'm now as clueless as everyone else.
I kept it for so long because it was still like 20-30% legit TERF flags, but idk if it's just because I've pointed out enough of them to the people I follow that the major ones on tumblr are all removed from my feed, but it's been 0% legit flags for months now. And there are a LOT of flags. It's finally crossed the threshold of becoming 100% a marker of notable trans users and 0% TERF detector. In other words, 100% useless.
At least for a the past few years it was only 80% useless and 20% useful, so I could at least use it as a marker to investigate, but 0% useful means it's uninstall time.
Zuckerberg’s increasingly bizarre war on whistleblowers
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
More than a decade ago, a group of young, internet-connected Belarusian dissidents launched a series of increasingly high-stakes, increasingly surreal confrontations with the corrupt, authoritarian government of Alexander Lukashenka, a man who is often called "the last Soviet dictator."
Lukashenka's secret police – still called the KGB – routinely terrorize and kidnap pro-democracy activists, and all forms of protest are banned. It was against the backdrop of this unrelenting oppression that the activists launched a series of whimsical "flash mobs" that challenged the Lukashenka regime's willingness to crack down on even the most innocuous behavior.
One of these flash mobs was an ice cream social: activists converged on a public square to eat ice cream cones. Lukashenka's thugs beat them and dragged them away:
The protestors thought that by daring Lukashenka to arrest people for eating ice cream, they could create a win-win situation: either Lukashenka would be revealed as the kind of asshole who thinks it should be illegal to eat ice cream, or he'd be revealed as the kind of weakling who couldn't keep a lid on dissent.
Lukashenka took the bait. And took it. And took it. In the years that followed, protesters would be arrested for smiling, clapping, and just standing silently:
The world learned that Lukashenka was a buffoon, and Belarusians affirmed their view that this buffoon would not hesitate to mete out the most vicious punishments for the most innocuous actions:
https://sci-hub.st/10.1080/25739638.2021.1928880
Speaking of thin-skinned, paranoid, wildly corrupt buffoons who will stop at nothing to silence their enemies, how about that Mark Zuckerberg, huh? Sure, all the headlines these days are about Zuck's intention to transform Facebook into a sports betting site:
But in the UK, Zuckerberg's war on whistleblowers keeps finding new, ice cream grade depths of absurdity to plumb. The whistleblower in question is, of course, Sarah Wynn-Williams, author of the internationally bestselling memoir Careless People, which details the criminality she witnesses during her years as the head of Facebook's international relations team:
Careless People is full of revelations about the gross institutional misconduct of Facebook, including its knowing encouragement of a genocide in Myanmar. But it's also full of stories about the severe personal failings of Facebook's executive team, especially Sheryl Sandberg, Joel Kaplan and Mark Zuckerberg.
These three come off as the most colossal of assholes, cruel, petty and predatory. Sandberg comes across as a sexual abuser who dreams of trafficking in poor people's organs. Kaplan is an oaf whose plan to provide paid internet access to refugee camps falls apart once he learns that refugees in camps don't have any money (he also takes points off of Wynn-Williams' workplace evaluation for being "unresponsive" over a period when she was in a near-death coma). Worst of all, though, is Zuckerberg, whose sins range from cheating at Settlers of Catan to endangering the Colombian peace process after a 50-year civil war because he refused to get out of bed before noon. Zuck is also revealed to have given the Chinese state access to all of Facebook and the power to censor content they disliked, as part of a failed bid to get permission to offer a Facebook service in China.
It's a terrible company, with awful products, run by the worst people. Wynn-Williams' conditions of employment required her to sign a contract that bound her to silence (nondisclosure), forbade her from speaking ill of the company (nondisparagement), and denied her access to the legal system in all her dealings with Meta (binding arbitration).
Together, these three clauses – routinely used by Meta to silence would-be whistleblowers – meant that after Wynn-Williams's book was published, Meta got its arbitrator – a lawyer who is paid by Meta to adjudicate contractual disputes instead of an actual judge – to order her to never promote or even speak about her book.
The arbitrator awarded Meta $50,000 for each criticism that Wynn-Williams levied, quickly coming to a total of over $11,000,000. This vastly exceeds the assets and lifetime earning potential of Wynn-Williams and her husband (a reporter with the Financial Times). If this bill ever truly comes due, they will be wiped out.
Which raises an interesting question: what else can they do to her? Once they've secured civil damages that exceeds her net worth several times over, why shouldn't she just flout her agreement? "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose," and all that.
Nevertheless, Wynn-Williams has scrupulously hewed to the arbitrator's rules, steadfastly remaining silent about her book, its contents, and her experiences at Facebook/Meta. When she and I appeared onstage together in London for the launch for my book Enshittification last year, she fell silent and assumed a blank expression any time the subject of Meta came up, and she didn't sign or sell books afterward:
When she won the British Book Award, she did not speak to accept it, and the cover of her book was blurred out on the overhead screen (she gave an acceptance speech on behalf of her co-winner, the late Virginia Giuffre, who was abused by Jeffrey Epstein and who accused Prince Andrew of sexual assault):
Nevertheless, when she was booked to speak – about a subject other than her book – at the Hay Festival on a stage with Tim Wu and Carole Cadwalladr, Meta sent a legal threat to the festival and Wynn-Williams, claiming that if by speaking about anything in public, she would violate the arbitrator's order. Accordingly, Wynn-Williams maintained total silence and a blank facial expression for an hour on stage, saying not one word, while Wu and Cadwalladr carried on a discussion. Careless People was withdrawn from the festival bookshop on the days she appeared there:
Nevertheless, Meta has informed Wynn-Williams that her silent, motionless appearance on a stage constitutes a further breach of her "agreement" and that they are going to seek even more damages from her. This act of anti-ice cream thuggery has pushed Wynn-Williams over the edge and now she's sued to invalidate her contract:
Her lawyers have posted their documents related to the suit, including a 285-page declaration by Wynn-Williams explaining the great lengths she's gone to in order to comply with Meta's demands, and the company's absolute intransigence and arbitrary menace:
Why would Meta be so intent on destroying this one high-profile whistleblower? Surely they've heard of the Streisand Effect. There is no better way to ensure that Wynn-Williams' book (already a NYT #1 bestseller) continues to attract readers than to continue to escalate these threats.
I think they're perfectly aware that they are convincing more people to read Careless People (you should read it, it's genuinely excellent):
But I think they've decided that this is a price worth paying, because:
a) They've done even worse things since Wynn-Williams parted ways with the company; and
b) They're laying off thousands of workers because their giant bet on AI has been a flop, leaving them with a massive cash crunch; and
c) By destroying Sarah Wynn-Williams, they can terrorize all those thousands of bitter ex-employees into silence about the even graver sins the company has committed.
Lukashenka knew that arresting children for eating ice cream would make him a laughingstock abroad. Zuckerberg knows that threatening Wynn-Williams for standing in wooden silence on a stage makes him look like history's most guillotineable billionaire. But both Lukashenka and Zuckerberg are willing to be thought a thin-skinned bully, so long as that means the people they oppress the most are too terrified to ever challenge their authority.
I read this book, and my main takeaway was that Sarah-Wynn Williams spent years trying to change Facebook from within, and ultimately learned the hard lesson that it is virtually impossible to change a corrupt organization from within, and that toxic culture is far more likely to change you than you are to change it, at which point she got out, and wrote a book about it.
I don't think any of the people criticizing her and calling her a monster have more moral fortitude than she did. They would fail just as badly as she did if they tried to do what she tried to do, but of course they would never try in the first place, because they would rather pass judgement on the internet from the comfort of their toilet seats.
My spouse and I just had one of those “wait your brain works HOW?” exchanges, and now I am BURNING TO KNOW HOW IT WORKS FOR OTHER PEOPLE:
Fellow speakers of this feral bastard language (English), rb and tell me in the tags: what is the delineation for you, if any, between evening and night?
On Prairieland: Anti-fascist Action is now "Terrorism" in the USA
Y'all, the Prairieland sentencing should trouble EVERYONE. 50 years for being a part of a demonstration against ICE. 30 years for not even being at the demonstration, but for moving magazines with anti-fascist messaging (I mean LITERALLY MOVING a box in his house).
Yes, one man discharged a weapon: at the ground as suppressive fire when he saw an officer with weapon drawn chasing after an unarmed protestor. In the wake of Alex Pretti and Renee Good's deaths, he fired his legal weapon at the ground and the ricochet hit an officer. I'm not really interested in your opinions on his actions, of course he was going to get the book thrown at him, but he is a firearms instructor and Marine Vet who has vehemently denied acting with intent to harm or kill. You can read his own words about it here.
But the others, that's what really troubles me and many people I know: 50 years for being at a protest, wearing black clothes, moving zines now = terrorism charges.
Black clothing is all I wear. I've been at numerous protest alongside legal gun owners and carriers. I've been at numerous protests where people have set off fireworks or passed out anti-fascist messaging or simply made noise outside a detention center. And I've witnessed the police - ATL PD & LAPD discharge "less than lethals" in a violent ways directly at people's heads and faces; I've helped patch up the wounded - people who have been cut or bruised and at least one who has lost his eye from these weapons (a passerby who wasn't even part of the protest happening!) Been pepper sprayed and tear gassed. I've watched mounted cops trample people. Seen others push protestors violently to the ground, against objects, down stairs. All for exercising our First Amendment Rights in ways they didn't like. Against the tide of fascism in our country.
The Prairieland defendants have all received harsher sentences than ANYONE who participated in January 6th. Who boldly and proudly threatened to KILL members of our government. Who hurt and KILLED a police officer.
This is where we're at folks.
Here's some other related articles:
Talking Points Memo
The Union Bulletin
AP News
The Real News Network
not seeing a lot of people on here talking about ICE murdering another man yesterday. His name was Lorenzo Salgado Arajou. He was a Mexican man living in Huston Texas. He was killed at age 52 and lived the past 35 years here in the USA, and was in the process of obtaining a work permit. He was shot and killed during a traffic stop that ICE claims was part of a targeted operation, and claimed he was “weaponizing his vehicle”- the same claim ICE agents made when they shot and murdered Renee Good.
During the stop, Lorenzo had 3 coworkers with him in his truck who have all been taken into ICE custody.
His family described Lorenzo as a hardworking family man who didn’t deserve to be killed. All he wanted was to provide for his wife and see his sons become great people. His eldest son recognized his father by his cries and pleas when trying to identify who the victim was.
The Salgado Araujo family has set up a gofundme to help with funeral and legal costs, and to help keep their family supported since Lorenzo was the sole provider.
On the morning of July 7, 2026, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was ta… LULAC Institute, Inc. needs your support for In Loving Memory of Lorenzo Salg
did you know if you are good enough at time management you can sleep 17 hours straight and not sleep at all the next night? the reviews are coming in, critics are raving: "this is not a good idea" and "please go to bed" "wow those are some eye bags, are you sick?"
