Despite passing in the Senate earlier this week, the Kid’s Online Safety Act (KOSA) is reportedly dead in the U.S. House after progressives, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), worried that it would possible censor LGBTQ+ content. Some Republicans also opposed the bill, stating that it would violate free speech protections for social media platforms and their users.
KOSA would have mandated that social media companies take measures to prevent recommending any content that promotes mental health disorders (like eating disorders, drug use, self-harm, sexual abuse, and bullying) unless minors specifically search for such content. Opponents worried that Republican attorneys general who see LGBTQ+ identities as harmful forms of mental illness would use KOSA’s provisions to censor queer web content and prosecute platforms that provide access to it.
“KOSA was a poorly written bill that would have made kids less safe,” said one of the bill’s most vocal opponents, Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, a nonprofit that protects human rights in the digital age. “It’s good that this unconstitutional censorship bill is dead for now, but I am not breathing a sigh of relief.”
“KOSA was always too controversial to succeed, and divided our coalition,” Greer added. “If we want to take on Big Tech and win, we have to quickly regroup and make a plan for next Congress. We need strong privacy, antitrust, and algorithmic justice legislation that address the harms of Big Tech without endangering free expression and human rights.”
Many other groups opposed the bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, the LGBT Technology Partnership, as well as LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations in six states.
While KOSA passed in the Senate earlier this week in a 93-1 vote, three senators voted against the bills: Ron Wyden (D-OR), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Rand Paul (R-KY) — all three made statements explaining why.
Wyden specifically said he voted against the bills because he worried a future administration could use the legislation to “pressure companies to censor gay, trans, and reproductive health information,” The Hill reported.
Lee said, “This legislation empowers the [Federal Trade Commission (FTC)] to censor any content it deems to cause ‘harm,’ ‘anxiety,’ or ‘depression,’ in a way that could (and most likely would) be used to censor the expression of political, religious, and other viewpoints disfavored by the FTC.”
Paul wrote in a recent Louisville Courier Journal opinion article, “KOSA would impose an unprecedented duty of care on internet platforms to design their sites to mitigate and prevent harms…. This requirement will not only stifle free speech, but it will deprive Americans of the benefits of our technological advancements.”
KOSA was introduced by anti-LGBTQ+ Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who said that one of the bill’s top priorities is to protect children from “the transgender in this culture.” Blackburn’s office told LGBTQ Nation that her comment had been “taken out of context” and wasn’t related to KOSA. Nevertheless, the anti-LGBTQ+ conservative think tank Heritage Foundation has also said it wishes to use the law to “guard” kids against the “harms of… transgender content.”
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, said, “KOSA compounds nationwide attacks on young peoples’ right to learn and access information, on and offline. As state legislatures and school boards across the country impose book bans and classroom censorship laws, the last thing students and parents need is another act of government censorship deciding which educational resources are appropriate for their families.”
You are being sold with every email, every picture, every blog post, every Instagram post, every thing you put on X or Facebook, you are the cash cow these companies want to milk. I have been taking steps for years to reduce how much these businesses can strip mine my stuff data about me. Here is a program I like, and here is a free tutorial on how to remove a lot of the metadata out of your images and files. I recently realized how much information about myself I include in messages, so I looked into this program by Sessions. Hugs. Scottie
January 07, 2022 / Alex Linton
Metadata is a big deal — especially for people who are trying to protect their online privacy. For any files on your computer, there is probably a bunch of metadata about the file — such as location data, when the file was created, when it was last changed, or even what device created the file. If you ever give that file to someone else (or upload it to the internet), the file’s metadata will be transferred as well — which means they can see all that info.
There are plenty of reasons you might want to share a file without wanting to share the metadata as well — such as preserving your privacy or anonymity. To do that, you’ll want to strip the file’s metadata. Stripping metadata from files removes all that extra information and leaves you with just the information in the file itself. Some messengers—like Session—strip metadata from your image files when you attach them to a message. This is because they can contain sensitive EXIF data, which contains device and location information. Other file types—like MP3s—might have less sensitive metadata (such as a song name or artist) which won’t be stripped.
However, if you want to be sure, you can always manually strip the metadata from your files. Here’s how!
How to remove metadata from files using Windows
Scrubbing your files on Windows is relatively easy, you can do so directly in the File Explorer without relying on any third party software.
Locate the file you want to strip in Explorer
Right click on the file and select Properties
Select the Details tab to see the associated metadata
Click Remove Properties and Personal Information
Select the metadata you want to remove
Select to either Create a copy (if you want to preserve the original)or Remove properties from this file
Click OK
Ta-da! Metadata removed, now you can safely share the file without extra personal information being attached.
How to remove metadata from files using macOS
Unfortunately things aren’t as simple on macOS. There’s no catch-all option for all file types, and you can only remove specific kinds of data. For images, you can remove location data using macOS’s built-in Preview application.
Open the image in Preview
Hit CMD + i to display the image’s metadata
Navigate to the Info tab (circle with an ‘i’ inside it)
Click on GPS to see the location metadata
Click Remove Location Info to remove the GPS information stored in the image
For anything more thorough than this (or any file type other than images) you’ll need to use third-party software, such as Acrobat Pro for PDFs.
How to remove metadata from files using Linux
Thankfully, things are much easier on Linux! Note: Instructions may be different depending on your distro.
If you’re using a Debian-based system (such as Ubuntu), you can install MAT (which comes pre-packaged) using this command: $ sudo apt-get install mat
You can then launch the MAT GUI using this: $ mat-gui
Add the file you want to strip to MAT by clicking the Add icon in the top navigation bar
Once the file is added, click Check to scan for metadata
If metadata is detected, MAT will mark the file as ‘Dirty’, you can double click the file to see what metadata has been detected
Click Clean to strip the metadata from the file
Simple as that!
Keep your files safe
Stripping metadata from your files before you share them is a good idea — especially if you’re going to upload them somewhere public on the internet. If you want to be certain that the files you send are completely metadata free (even to the people you send them to) — make sure to strip them first! To ensure your files stay private, it’s also important to consider how and where you store your files. Make sure you’re encrypting your hard drives, and be careful about what Cloud storage providers you use and what upload.
These days, it’s a normal everyday thing to share files on messaging apps and social media — but it’s important to be mindful about what exactly you’re sharing. Once those files hit the internet — they could end up anywhere!
If Donald Trump returns to the presidency, he’ll have another shot at achieving a goal that eluded him last time: Changing the colors of Air Force One to his beloved red, white and dark blue.
And he’ll likely do it — even though replacing the traditional light-blue-and-white design with Trump’s preferred scheme would be complicated and expensive.
A former senior Trump White House official who remains close to him says it would be totally in character for the former president to insist on using his preferred colors on the planes.
“Absolutely. 100 percent,” said the former official, granted anonymity to discuss Trump’s thinking.
The Air Force is still modifying two Boeing 747-8s to replace the existing aircraft, and the two planes are on track to be delivered in 2026 and 2027, years late and well over budget. When they arrive, they’ll be sporting the traditional white-and-light-blue livery that has adorned presidential aircraft since the Kennedy administration.
But according to three people familiar with the program, there’s still time for Trump to order the color scheme back to his favored palette, similar to the pattern already on his private plane. In 2019, the then-president told ABC host George Stephanopoulos that he wanted to shake up the traditional pattern with a design he made himself.
“There’s your new Air Force One,” Trump said at the time, holding up mock-ups of the aircraft that at the time was supposed to be delivered by this year. “I’m doing that for other presidents, not for me.”
After POLITICO reported in 2022 that Trump’s preferred colors would lead to expensive design fixes, the Biden White House scrapped the plan and brought back the traditional palette.
The person familiar with Trump’s thinking said he expects him to change the colors back because of how proud the former president was of the design change.
“The model was on the coffee table in the Oval Office and he pointed it out many times to foreign and domestic visitors,” the person said. “He thought it represented America more and represented strength, the red, white and blue.”
Yet the cost of bringing back Trump’s favored shade hasn’t gone away.
At some point after Trump announced he was changing the colors in 2019, Boeing determined that the dark blue paint on the underside of the plane and its engines would likely contribute to excessive temperatures, a problem that Boeing would likely have to pay out-of-pocket to fix.
Specifically, the dark color would require modifications to cool some of its components, the three people familiar with the changes said. The people were granted anonymity to speak freely about the sensitive program.
The people said changing the color scheme this far in the process may require more engineering work, millions of dollars in cost overruns, and further delays.
“For example, Boeing would need to ensure antennas work with the new livery and that there is no interference,” one person said.
Boeing referred to the Air Force for comment. An Air Force spokesperson said the service does not speculate on hypotheticals. Asked for comment, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said “Sounds like Joe Biden hates the Red, White, and Blue.” He did not specifically answer whether Trump would change the color.
As president, Trump took pride in personally getting involved in the negotiations for the replacement aircraft once he learned of the cost. In February 2017, he said the Air Force was “close to signing a $4.2 billion deal” and “we got that price down by over $1 billion.”
The Air Force awarded Boeing a $3.9 billion contract in 2018 for the two modified 747-8s to replace the existing Air Force One aircraft, based on the 747-200B model that has been flying since the 1990s.
The company consented to a fixed-price contract with the Air Force, meaning any changes made to the airplane are at Boeing’s cost, not the government’s. The program is already more than $2 billion over budget.
Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun told investors in 2022 that company executives should never have agreed to Trump’s terms for the Air Force contract six years ago.
The program faced major problems when a subcontractor hired to furnish the cabin interior went bankrupt, and Boeing had to switch to a new supplier. The program also faced hurdles due to labor shortages and a lack of employees with the proper clearances to work on the sensitive program.
During Trump’s presidency, Democrats registered their opposition to his decision to change Air Force One’s paint scheme. After winning control of the House in 2019, Democrats pushed to limit changes to the paint job or interior decorations on the program.
Defense legislation that passed the House that year included language limiting changes to the aircraft’s livery and interior design to what was included in the contract.
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), who sponsored the proposal, said at the time that Congress needed to rein in “less essential aspects” of the new planes and close a potential “backdoor for the program to hemorrhage” money.
“The president will have an opportunity to make some suggestions and changes to the plane,” Courtney said during the 2019 House Armed Services Committee deliberations on the defense bill. “But we do want to keep this within the parameters of the existing contract process so that, again, we’re not creating additional costs for the operation of the plane.”
“Additional paint can add weight to the plane,” he noted.
Republicans, however, accused Democrats of using the program to take a swipe at Trump. Then-Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) criticized the effort as “an attempt to just poke at the president.”
“Prior to 2017, I don’t recall attempts to block things like paint colors,” he said.
The measure passed the House, but not the Senate. Lawmakers ultimately approved a compromise bill that required the Air Force to notify Congress before it undertook any “over and above” work on the aircraft.
Newsweek observed that the White Dudes for Harris X account had been suspended after the group held a star-studded virtual call on Monday night that raised more than $4 million.
The automated message when the account was suspended read: “X suspends accounts which violate the X rules.” Mike Nellis, who is involved in the organization, shared an update on Tuesday explaining that while the X account is live again, it still remains suspended.
He said the account is “permanently in read-only mode,” meaning it cannot post. When contacted by Newsweek for comment, X’s press office responded: “Busy now, please check back later.”
Classic. @elonmusk puts false video smearing VP Harris with lies in an AI generated audio/video of statements never made. He violates his own rules but because he’s on the wrong side of history now is reduced to muzzling honest support for #Kamala4President2024 . https://t.co/VTCxKDixLL
Technically not GOP, but definitely a platform for white racist bigots, Nazis, and other hate-filled bigots. Which, I suppose, is pretty much the same thing nowadays.
I like to combine the old name into the new: Xitter, with the X pronounced as /sh/, because that is exactly what it has become since Musk took over. In a similar fashion, the messages are now xits, with x pronounced the same way
At the risk of repeating myself until the end of time, I continue to be annoyed that Kamala Harris and her allies emphasize how she “stood up to the big banks.” In reality, nobody stood up to the big banks after the 2008 financial crisis. No executive saw a prison cell for the mountain of fraud committed; their companies only got bigger, nearly all of the penalties imposed on them amounted to taking the air out of their books; homeowners saw virtually no relief (literally less than 10 percent of what was promised); and millions of families lost their homes unnecessarily and in most cases illegally. To elevate that as some kind of accountability moment is an insult to foreclosure victims.
But I want to make myself clear: Nobody stood up to the big banks. Harris was no worse than any of the other law enforcers who brought us that shameful course of events, and at least in one key area, she was actually better. Harris insisted that California have its own monitor for the National Mortgage Settlement, someone who could scrutinize banks’ compliance with the terms of consumer relief and improve it to the greatest extent possible. (emph. mine-A)
That monitor, who made the very best of a bad deal, ensuring that California wound up playing host to nearly two out of every five principal reductions granted in the settlement (the most sustainable form of relief), was Katie Porter, then a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. You now know her as Rep. Katie Porter, who served three terms in Congress—and it was her experience as California monitor that really launched her career in politics. She happens to be the only person now in Congress who has actually worked for Kamala Harris, and so I tracked her down to talk about that experience. (snip)
There was a national monitor for the $25 billion settlement, North Carolina banking commissioner Joseph Smith. But other than California, no state had one. “This position was a creature of [Harris’s] will,” Porter told me. “She pushed to get something like this. The banks didn’t want it.”
When the time came to choose a monitor, Porter explained, Harris wasn’t steeped in consumer protection issues, having just become attorney general a year earlier after a career as a prosecutor in criminal cases. So she asked Elizabeth Warren, who at the time was still a Harvard law professor, for advice on who to choose for the position. Porter had been Warren’s student at Harvard Law and had co-authored a book with her. So Warren asked Porter to identify possible monitors. Porter suggested three other people, including the current director of the U.S. bankruptcy trustee program, Tara Twomey. Ultimately, though, Harris selected her.
Of the issues where Porter thought she could be most helpful, she cited affordable housing.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis addresses the crowd before publicly signing “Stop W.O.K.E” bill in Hialeah Gardens, Florida, on April 22, 2022. (Daniel A. Varela/Miami Herald via AP)
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis often says the Sunshine State is the place where “woke goes to die.” But a federal judge on Friday killed part of the Stop W.O.K.E. Act championed as standing up against “indoctrination.”
Judge Mark Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida issued a permanent injunction, saying the law that bans diversity training in private workplaces “violates free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” The ruling follows a three-judge appeals court panel’s March decision that upheld Walker’s original injunction. The State of Florida did not oppose the motion to make the ruling permanent.
Florida honeymoon registry company Honeyfund.com and Primo Tampa, a subsidiary of a Ben & Jerry’s ice cream franchisee, were among those who filed the lawsuit after the Legislature passed the law in 2022. Shalini Goel Agarwal counsel for Protect Democracy which filed the lawsuit on their behalf said the ruling is “a powerful reminder that the First Amendment cannot be warped to serve the interests of elected officials.”
“Censoring business owners from speaking in favor of ideas that politicians don’t like is a moved ripped straight from the authoritarian playbook,” she said in a statement.
“We have every right as a state to provide protections for employees and businesses to say if they are doing woke training which is basically discriminating against folks on the basis of race, you have a right to opt out,” he said. “It’s not a question of what the company can say. They can say whatever they want. But you have a right to not self flagellate. You have a right to not sit there and listen to that nonsense.”
Sara Margulis, CEO of Honeyfund.com, hailed the appeals court decision from March.
“We moved Honeyfund to Florida in 2017 because it was known as a business-friendly state,” she said in a statement. “Passing laws that seek to squash free speech like HB7 is not only a violation of The First Amendment but is also a losing strategy because businesses serve people of all backgrounds, walks of life, and political views. Therefore the law would have effectively hampered the ability of Florida businesses to grow and serve their market. I don’t think that’s what Florida really wants. It’s clearly not in line with American values. I couldn’t be happier that we stood up for free speech and business in the state of Florida.”
The legislation — HB 7, formally called the “Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act” — is also aimed at blocking school teachers and college professors from offering their opinions on what DeSantis described as “pernicious ideologies” that could potentially make students, because of their race, feel personally responsible for past racism, sexism, or other discrimination in the U.S. That part of the law also has an injunction and is awaiting a ruling from a higher court.
Critics have said it’s an attempt to stop meaningful discussion of the ongoing effects of longstanding systemic discrimination and topics including critical race theory and privilege. A slew of lawsuits were filed against the legislation including by professors, students and the ACLU. Courts have repeatedly blocked portions of the law.
According to the bill’s text, “[i]t shall constitute discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex under this section to subject any student or employee to training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such student or employee to believe” the following:
1. Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.
2. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
3. A person’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.
4. Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, national origin, or sex.
5. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
6. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
7. A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex to oppress members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.
Matt Naham and Marisa Sarnoff contributed to this report.
TRIGGER WARNING: Contains disgusting descriptions of the nasty-ass Guinea Worm, though no photos. Do not Google the photos.
…
So this is very nice, former President Jimmy Carter — who is still alive and 99 years young, though in hospice — has succeeded in his decades-long goal to get Guinea Worm Disease cases down to zero before he dies. (Warning, the picture at that link is disgusting.) There have now been zero cases of Guinea Worm disease in the past three months, and there were only 14 last year. Extremely promising signs that maybe they are truly gone forever! If no more Guinea Worms burst through anybody’s flesh within the next nine months, then it’ll officially be the second disease eradicated by humanity after smallpox.
When the Carter Center started trying to take down big Guinea Worm back in 1988, more than 3.5 million people in Africa and India were suffering from it. And BOY WERE THEY SUFFERING, because while the worm won’t directly kill you, it is agonizing and SO RETCHINGLY GROSS. First, nasty-ass fucking worm larva gets into your guts through dirty drinking water. Then it grows in your stomach for a fucking year. And THEN, a fucking THREE-FOOT WORM POPS OUT OF YOUR SKIN which hurts like fucking hell, obviously. And there is no vaccine or cure, the only solution is to pull this FUCKING DISGUSTING WORM out of your fucking skin by winding it around a fucking STICK.
So it is not the glamorous kind of affliction that makes a good poster for a benefit concert or bake sale, or plays well on an ad with Sarah McLachlan playing in the background. But one fixed relatively simply, with clean drinking water. And so that is what sweet peanut-farming Jimmy worked at. His Carter Center partnered with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and has been quietly toiling to eradicate many other un-glamorous diseases that no one in the year of our Lord 2024 should have to suffer from, including: poliomyelitis (a virus that paralyzes mostly children), mumps, rubella, lymphatic filariasis (aka elephantiasis, a roundworm transmitted by mosquitoes), cysticercosis (tapeworm infection), measles, river blindness, and yaws (a nasty spirochete bacteria that causes bursting lesions). (snip-More)
Photo: Shutterstock
Scottie's Playtime 