You’re very misinformed if you think democrats and republicans arent playing the “election influence fiddle” in exactly the same way; legitimising the elections they won, casting doubt on those they lost, all while achieving the main goal of making sure the population doesnt forget who their so called enemies are.
Yes and no I think. If you analyse it, the censors will work to actually block channels where the truth can be shared. What's left over time is only the government sanctioned media, which over time becomes more and more corrupt with disinformation. So I think I agree with your second sentence but not your first, in that if we didn't pretend to fight disinformation, I think we wouldn't have so much of it.
It’s really quite amazing how the US went in without seemingly an iota of planning beyond “kill ayatollah for regime change”, but at this rate we will see US regime change before Iranian.
It's really this simple. People seem so confused as to why this administration is doing this and why this administration is doing that, but it's clearly about personal enrichment of leaders. It's not some complex 5D chess game. If you want to know why Trump did this or why Hegseth did that or why Bondi did thus, just look at who placed bets, owns stock, owns companies, and/or will be personally enriched by the decision. That's all there is to it.
>> A lot of military software is built with tax money.
> And can that be opensource as well. What's your point?
Probably because military software likely contains military secrets that would be useful to an adversary.
A lot of espionage is focused on getting seemingly boring information like the performance characteristics of a radar system. If the radar system is run by software, and the software is made publicly available to anyone, an adversary country could learn what they want from the software (and do other things, like improve their jammers).
The government should definitely get the rights to the source code (and other IP) for military projects they fund, but I think it should still be kept secret (so not "open sourced" under a typical understanding of the term).
> PEPP-PT is purely funded by donations. It is a non-profit organization and completely transparent. Our strict guidelines preclude any influence from donors.
> As the formal organization is not yet established, we cannot yet provide links for making a donation or for downloading the guidelines for a donation. Please sign up below if you would like to be informed when you can support us.
a. They aren't even incorporated. b. Donations aren't public grants for which one has to apply.
The members listed on the page do include public entities such as universities and publicly funded research groups. However, membership to a non-profit organization doesn't necessarily imply that the non-profit needs to comply to policy rules that govern the funding of individual members.
Of course, if the majority of those members are public entities, adhering to open policies would enhance the credibility of such organizations. Even so, open source and open access are easier said then done. For starters, a significant portion of research ends up behind the paywalls of incumbent academic publishers.
Furthermore, you have to ask yourself why such an initiative suddenly springs to life exactly at this time. It's not the first infectious disease that causes a pandemic. The main reason is that it created public awareness in the Western World overnight. No more, no less. And so, there's suddenly an opportunity to rally funding, justify ethical shortcuts and do large scale social and technological experiments that are usually left to the realm of "what if".
The fact that this thing exists now shakes a shiver down my spine, regardless of any well meant intentions.
It’s specifically set up to protect privacy. If governments didn’t care, or had anything near the power and data that conspiracy theorists always assume they do, or felt justified to disregard the law, or empowered to change it, they’d tell Apple & Google to flip the switch and all location matching would happen tonight, in some unlucky eurocrat’s excel table.
> Furthermore, you have to ask yourself why such an initiative suddenly springs to life exactly at this time.
I don’t get this paragraph at all. It’s no mystery why this is happening now and didn’t happen last year: there’s a pandemic on.
I realize you say as much. But somehow, with the “no more, no less” and “technological experiments” you make it sound sinister. Like C-SPAN, but with an iMovie horror sound & lighting preset.
It can't protect privacy. A non-profit isn't a public authority. This initiative is meant to (a) create technology that adheres to existing legislation and (b) lobby - read argue or ask - with politics to use this technology.
The harsh reality is that authorities can happily ignore or cherry pick from such efforts, and that they are free to change or deprecate legal frameworks is such is deemed necessary "in the public interest".
This initiative sounds nice, but I don't read anywhere how they tie into the longstanding efforts of human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch.
That's why I feel this is a technological experiment. It simply doesn't even consider the social impacts: there's no mention whatsoever of social research or leveraging existing social research.
