(I’m running slightly “behind” for the day; yesterday was eventful at home, then I was up a little later watching some of the local coverage of the plane crash in DC. So, I’m takin’ my time today, and what gets done, gets done. Anyway, I’m still enjoying this toon, and I hope you do, too! -A.)
Rare because I rarely post such. Pastor Bolz-Weber says all this so well, and it is what I learned when I was young and growing up; what I work to apply in my own (and in no one else’s) life. I’m not proselytizing or trying to “draw anyone in.” This helps to explain why and how I feel as I do about justice and peace, and love and understanding and all that, including hope and light. Enjoy with a mind that can absorb without feeling there’s gonna be a “come forward” moment, because there’s not one. (Other than to Christians who feel as we do, but wonder about Zionism and Nationalism being as bad as they are.)
Heresy and Checkpoints by Nadia Bolz-Weber
Some thoughts from breakfast this morning. Read on Substack
This morning I had a quick breakfast with another Lutheran pastor. This of course is not terribly remarkable in the scheme of things, except for the fact that the breakfast took place in the Kingdom of Jordan, a few feet away from the Dead Sea and my colleague had to cut the breakfast short so he could return home to his family, but he was anxious about all the military check point between here and there.
“How far of a drive is it” I asked.
“If I had a car and could drive straight there, about an hour. But my hope is that it will only take 8 hours.” He accepted that he may in fact not even make it home at all tonight.
Munther Isaac is a Palestinian Lutheran Pastor who lives and serves a church in Beit Sahour, near Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus. Christians have been here since the day the Spirit blew through them on the day of Pentecost, so Munther and my other Palestinian Christian friends can get slightly annoyed when well meaning Christians from the West ask “when did your family convert?”.
Um, over 2,000 years ago?
Munther and I are in Jordan right now for a conference – 60 academics and church leaders from 17 countries gathered over the last several days for a consultation on Christian Zionism (belief that Jewish people have a “divine right” to the land here – using a few verses in a 4,000 year old text to have authority over foreign policy and global political realities of today), and the impact of that on Christians in the Middle East; a few days together in a majority Muslim country, across the Dead Sea from the State of Israel to talk about Christian folks’ business: how do the theological beliefs of one group of Christians impact the lives of another group of Christians halfway across the planet?
Many of us grew up with some form of Christian Zionism, I know I did. Perhaps it stemmed from a desire to be faithful to what we have been told, or a desire to help usher in the second coming of Christ (ala The Late Great Planet Earth) so he can come back and destroy the world and take us up to heaven (described this week as science fiction theology), or a desire to assuage the guilt left over from the unspeakable atrocities and genocide of the holocaust.
It will take me time to metabolize what I heard over the last few days. Christian Zionism is widespread, and far reaching in it’s impact, and I am committed to try and maintain the humility it takes as a US citizen and a Christian to consider people like Munther and my friend Mitri Raheb as reliable narrators of the impact on the ground in Palestine.
Palestinian Christians should be listened to by us, their siblings in Christ.
Munther Isaac appeared in ‘Til Kingdom Come (2020), an Israeli documentary about American Christian support for Israel.[20] In the film he explains his view to pastor William Bingham that Christian Zionism contributes to the oppression of Palestinians. After their conversation, Bingham calls Isaac an anti-semite and says that Palestinians do not exist. – Wikipedia
This morning before Munther left to make his way home, he told me a story of a family in his church. For over 150 years they have rightfully owned and inhabited their land outside Bethlehem – a beautiful parcel dotted with olive trees, often hundreds of years old themselves.
Israeli settlers (whose actions are deemed illegal by the UN Security Council)
who for years have been attempting to take this family’s land, confronted them at their gate recently, demanding the family leave. The family showed them their ownership documents – dating back from Ottoman rule, then Jordanian rule through to Israeli rule. The settlers angrily lifted up their Bible and said “We have documents too. God gave us this land!”
As I mentioned, I am overwhelmed by all I heard this week and will try and write more later for those who are interested, but for now I wanted to report how one word stood out for me in a particular way during the conference, and that word is: heresy.
19th century theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher defined heresy as, “that which preserves the appearance of Christianity, and yet contradicts its essence“
So perhaps that is the correct word for when, with all the trappings of Christianity behind us, we who seek to justify or maintain our dominance over another group of people use the Bible to prove that our domination`is not actually an abuse of power at the expense of others, but is, indeed, part of “God’s plan”. Because there you have the appearance of Christianity (Bible verses and God-talk) contradicting its essence (love God, and love your neighbor, blessed are the meek, etc…).
Is it not heresy when slavery is established as “God’s will”; when the subordination of women is established as “God’s will”; when discrimination against queer folks is established as “God’s will”, when the taking of one people’s land by another people is established as “God’s will” (hello, manifest destiny), when the executive VP of the National Rifle Association claims that the right to buy an assault rifle is “not bestowed by man, but granted by God”? When a self-justifying message is heretically delivered in God’s name it brings with it a poison that infects the deepest parts of us and when the poison spreads, so does the violence.
When you can say that God Almighty is co-signing on your dominance over another group of God’s children, then every means is justified, right to the end. Every inch of land stolen, every suicide bombing enacted, every act of violence committed, every weapon used, every checkpoint and illegal detention, every child who dies, every tower that falls to the ground – all of it covered under some sort of bullshit spiritual umbrella policy. There are no means that need justifying if we claim God as our patron and guide.
And I imagine God is just about sick to death of it.
As I claimed in my book about sexual shame and religion, we should never be more loyal to a doctrine or an interpretation of a Bible verse than we are to people. If the teachings of the church are harming people we re-think those teachings. Amen?
Speaking up for Palestinians often comes at a cost. Those of you who have done it know. I also know, but am frankly too tired to care right now. So, if based on my recounting of the stories of my friends and colleagues, anyone is moved to called me anti-semitic, please open up the notes app on your phone and feel free to write it there but I will delete your unfounded accusations if you leave them here.
My apologies for the edge in my writing voice. We are all exhausted and as my friend Jodi just texted me, “this month has been two years long already.”
Thank you for reading. I am genuinely sending my love. Please pray this ceasefire holds. And for those waiting on the side of a road right now to return to the rubble of their homes. And for the hostages and prisoners who were released yesterday. I cannot imagine the trauma.
More soon…
In it with you,
Nadia
I am not autistic. But many of us here read Barry’s blog to learn, and to be more effective allies. The next 2 entries on his blog are informative, as well.
and maybe you’ll get a good laugh out of this news I read on Showercap’s blog. Apparently Musk cheats and isn’t really a very good player. Earlier Sat. evening, I saw Musk on an old Big Bang Theory, acting at working in a soup kitchen on Thanksgiving. This was fun news to read after seeing that!
Now I’m not at all a gamer, though once upon a time I did all right at PacMan & Asteroids. I couldn’t care less about this sort of thing, but I find it funny to learn it about Musk. Two story snippets below:
Elon Musk is currently in the midst of a feud with Twitch streamer Asmongold, after he was accused of boosting his ‘Path of Exile 2’ account, leading to Musk leaking Asmon’s private DMs.
Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is in the midst of a heated feud with gaming streamer Zack Hoyt, better known as “Asmongold,” who is accusing Musk of cheating at Path of Exile 2.
Asmongold is not the only gamer accusing Musk of cheating, as the larger gaming community, particularly Path of Exile players, believe that Musk is paying people to play games for him, leveling up his characters and arming them with powerful equipment—a practice known as “boosting.”
After Musk played Path of Exile 2 on a livestream, gamers quickly noticed that his actions did not match that of a proficient player, and compiled a list of evidence on Reddit that strongly implies that Musk is boosting his characters.
Commentators responded in bemused disbelief—one wrote that Musk “doesn’t seem to understand why he can’t pick up items when his inventory is full.”
It should be noted that Path of Exile 2 is a very difficult game that requires a serious time commitment to reach the level that Musk’s character achieved (level 97 on hardcore mode).
The prevailing sentiment is that a man who is running multiple businesses simply does not have time to do this.
Like many gaming streamers, Asmongold watched Musk’s livestream of Path of Exile 2 and came to the conclusion that Musk did not know how to play the game properly.
Asmon took it a step further, and challenged Musk to prove that he had reached level 97 by himself.
If Musk could prove this, Asmon promised that he would stream on X (Twitter) for a full year. Once the news of Asmon’s challenge made its way to X, Musk didn’t take the criticism very well. (snip-More)
Musk’s livestreams in which he plays a popular role-playing game have sparked some in the gaming community to speculate that he’s not the gamer he claims to be.
Elon Musk is battling critics on the internet, again. This time, it’s the video game community.
The tech titan has in recent days taken time away from his roles as SpaceX CEO and adviser to President-elect Donald Trump to call out some of the gaming world’s niche content creators, firing back at accusations that he is not quite the gamer he purports to be.
The allegations amount to a sort of stolen valor for video games and center on some recent livestreams in which Musk played Path of Exile 2, a popular online role-playing game in which players select from a number of characters to end corruption spreading through the fictional world of Wraeclast. When playing on hardcore mode, as Musk does, when a character dies, its death is permanent. As gamers play, their characters level up, increasing in power and capability.
But many gamers have pointed out what they say is a crucial discrepancy. Two of Musk’s characters were particularly powerful — among the top 100 most powerful in the world — when they were “alive” (two characters tied to Musk have since “died” and are now ranked in the 30s and 200s, respectively). The levels of Musk’s now-deceased characters would require dozens if not hundreds of hours of gameplay, depending on the gamer, to achieve. His skills, however, appear to be lacking, according to some gamers.
“I’m a huge fan of Elon Musk — but this is embarrassing and very silly,” Zack Hoyt, who is known as Asmongold to his 3.29 million subscribers on YouTube, said in a video posted Sunday. “It makes him look bad and it’s for absolutely no reason. It’s of no consequence and it achieves no goal.”
Criticism toward the X CEO — who has for years described himself as an avid gamer — began gaining traction online after he livestreamed himself playing Path of Exile 2 on Jan. 7. Days later, in the Reddit community for the game, some accused Musk of having someone “boost” his account, or play for him. Others suggested he’s playing using a more skilled player’s account. (snip-More)
Last night, it got to be bedtime and I didn’t even realize I’d set nothing up for today, until I got up this morning. Scottie’s posted some important news here already, and I don’t want to knock it off the top, so instead of the posts I thought I’d make, I’m just gonna link ’em, and readers can just read whatever they like and still not miss those posts of Scottie’s.
Peace & Justice History for 1/17
The Way of Water: On the Quiet Power of Ursula K. Le Guin’s Activism
Explore the Newly-Launched Public Domain Image Archive with 10,000+ Free Historical Images
SCOTUS Takes Up Case Challenging the ACA’s No-Cost Coverage of PrEP
There’s a lot; some of it we’ve seen discussed 8 ways to Sunday, but some I’ve not yet seen, that involve WordPress, Mastodon, and others. Not all is bad news, much is good. This came from my Werd.i/o newsletter, but there’s not a newsletter link. So, snippets below, with links:
https://werd.io/2025/the-people-should-own-the-town-square
Mastodon is growing up:
“Simply, we are going to transfer ownership of key Mastodon ecosystem and platform components (including name and copyrights, among other assets) to a new non-profit organization, affirming the intent that Mastodon should not be owned or controlled by a single individual.
[…] We are in the process of a phased transition. First we are establishing a new legal home for Mastodon and transferring ownership and stewardship. We are taking the time to select the appropriate jurisdiction and structure in Europe. Then we will determine which other (subsidiary) legal structures are needed to support operations and sustainability.”
Eugen, Mastodon’s CEO, will not be the leader of this new entity, although it’s not yet clear who will be. He’s going to focus on product instead. (snip)
https://werd.io/2025/content-policy-on-the-social-web (snip)
The Social Web Foundation‘s statement about Meta’s moderation changes is important:
“Ideas matter, and history shows that online misinformation and harassment can lead to violence in the real world.
[…] Meta is one of many ActivityPub implementers and a supporter of the Social Web Foundation. We strongly encourage Meta’s executive and content teams to come back in line with best practices of a zero harm social media ecosystem. Reconsidering this policy change would preserve the crucial distinction between political differences of opinion and dehumanizing harassment. The SWF is available to discuss Meta’s content moderation policies and processes to make them more humane and responsible.”
This feels right to me. By implication: the current policies are inhumane and irresponsible. And as such, worth calling out.
[Link] (snip)
https://werd.io/2025/doj-releases-its-tulsa-race-massacre-report-over-100-years
[Adria R Walker at The Guardian]
A full century after the Bureau of Investigation blamed the Tulsa race massacre on Black men and claimed that the perpetrators didn’t break the law, the DoJ has issued an update:
““The Tulsa race massacre stands out as a civil rights crime unique in its magnitude, barbarity, racist hostility and its utter annihilation of a thriving Black community,” Kristen Clarke, the assistant attorney general of the DoJ’s civil rights division, said in a statement. “In 1921, white Tulsans murdered hundreds of residents of Greenwood, burned their homes and churches, looted their belongings, and locked the survivors in internment camps.””
Every one of the perpetrators is dead and can no longer be prosecuted. But this statement seeks to correct the record and ensure that the official history records what actually happened. There’s value in that, even if it comes a hundred years too late. (snip-MORE; this is history which should be recalled/learned)
https://werd.io/2025/mullenweg-shuts-down-wordpress-sustainability-team-igniting-backlash
The bananas activity continues over at Automattic / Matt Mullenweg’s house:
“Members of the fledgling WordPress Sustainability Team have been left reeling after WordPress co-founder Matt Mullenweg abruptly dissolved the team this week.
[…] The disbandment happened after team rep Thijs Buijs announced in Making WordPress Slack on Wednesday that he was stepping down from his role, citing a Reddit thread Mullenweg created on Christmas Eve asking for suggestions to create WordPress drama in 2025.” (snip)
https://werd.io/2025/is-ignorance-bliss
Is Ignorance Bliss?
I’ve been thinking about this paragraph since I read it:
“In times past, we would worry about singular governmental officials such Joseph Goebbels becoming a master of propaganda for their cause. Today’s problem is massively scaled out in ways Goebbels could only dream of: now everyone can be their own Goebbels. Can someone please tell me what the difference is between an “influencer” holding a smartphone and…a propagandist? Because I simply can’t see the distinction anymore.”
This brings me back to Renee DiResta’s Invisible Rulers: whoever controls the memes controls the universe.
[Link]
===================
As I said, there is more. From the werd.i/o links, you can navigate to read to your heart’s content. I didn’t want to make too long a post here, so I put the most pertinent ones here, but this week’s newsletter is full of important stuff. -A
We live in a world where right-wing nationalism is on the rise and many governments, including the incoming Trump administration, are promising mass deportations. Trump in particular has discussed building camps as part of mass deportations. This question used to feel more hypothetical than it does today.
Faced with this reality, it’s worth asking: who would stand by you if this kind of authoritarianism took hold in your life?
You can break allyship down into several key areas of life:
And in turn, can be broken down further:
These two things are different. There’s also a third option — non-collaboration but non-refusal — which I would argue does not constitute allyship at all. This might look like passively complying with authoritarian demands when legally compelled, without taking steps to resist or protect the vulnerable. While this might not seem overtly harmful, it leaves those at risk exposed. As Naomi Shulman points out, the most dangerous complicity often comes from those who quietly comply. Nice people made the best Nazis.
For the remainder of this post, I will focus on the roles of internet service vendors and protocol authors in shaping allyship and resisting authoritarianism.
For these groups, refusing to collaborate means that you’re not capitulating to active demands by an authoritarian regime, but you might not be actively considering how to help people who are vulnerable. The people who are actively helping, on the other hand, are actively considering how to prevent someone from being tracked, identified, and rounded up by a regime, and are putting preventative measures in place. (These might include implementing encryption at rest, minimizing data collection, and ensuring anonymity in user interactions.)
If we consider an employer, refusing to collaborate means that you won’t actively hand over someone’s details on request. Actively helping might mean aiding someone in hiding or escaping to another jurisdiction.
These questions of allyship apply not just to individuals and organizations, but also to the systems we design and the technologies we champion. Those of us who are involved in movements to liberate social software from centralized corporations need to consider our roles. Is decentralization enough? Should we be allies? What kind of allies?
This responsibility extends beyond individual actions to the frameworks we build and the partnerships we form within open ecosystems. While building an open protocol that makes all content public and allows indefinite tracking of user activity without consent may not amount to collusion, it is also far from allyship. Partnering with companies that collaborate with an authoritarian regime, for example by removing support for specific vulnerable communities and enabling the spread of hate speech, may also not constitute allyship. Even if it furthers your immediate stated technical and business goals to have that partner on board, it may undermine your stated social goals. Short-term compromises for technical or business gains may seem pragmatic but risk undermining the ethics that underpin open and decentralized systems.
Obviously, the point of an open protocol is that anyone can use it. But we should avoid enabling entities that collude with authoritarian regimes to become significant contributors to or influencers of open protocols and platforms. While open protocols can be used by anyone, we must distinguish between passive use and active collaboration. Enabling authoritarian-aligned entities to shape the direction or governance of these protocols undermines their potential for liberation.
In light of Mark Zuckerberg’s clear acquiescence to the incoming Trump administration (for example by rolling back DEI, allowing hate speech, and making a series of bizarre statements designed to placate Trump himself), I now believe Threads should not be allowed to be an active collaborator to open protocols unless it can attest that it will not collude, and that it will protect vulnerable groups using its platforms from harm. I also think Bluesky’s AT Protocol decision to make content and user blocks completely open and discoverable should be revisited. I also believe there should be an ethical bill of rights for users on open social media protocols that authors should sign, which includes the right to privacy, freedom from surveillance, safeguards against hate speech, and strong protections for vulnerable communities.
As builders, users, and advocates of open systems, we must demand transparency, accountability, and ethical commitments from all contributors to open protocols. Without these safeguards, we risk creating tools that enable oppression rather than resisting it. Allyship demands more than neutrality — it demands action.
https://werd.io/2025/building-an-open-web-that-protects-us-from-harm
Read in full here: https://www.platformer.news/meta-new-trans-guidelines-hate-speech/
Snippet:
Earlier this week, Meta announced a sweeping set of changes intended to reduce the amount of content it moderates and align its speech policies more closely with the incoming Trump administration. On Thursday, employees and contractors working on trust and safety began to learn what this would mean in practice.
One change Meta made this week was to eliminate restrictions on some attacks on immigrants, women, and transgender people. Specifically, its hateful conduct policy now allows “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like ‘weird.’”
Meta has long supplemented its public community standards with nonpublic guidelines that it shares with employees and contractors charged with enforcing its policies. The guidelines give moderators examples of what is and is not allowed.
Today, Platformer is sharing some of those guidelines.
In an answer to the question “Do insults about mental illness and abnormality violate when targeting people on the basis of gender or sexual orientation?” Meta now answers “no.” It gave the following examples of posts that do not violate its policies:
Non-violating: “Boys are weird.”
Non-violating: “Trans people aren’t real. They’re mentally ill.”
Non-violating: “Gays are not normal.”
Non-violating: “Women are crazy.”
Non-violating: “Trans people are freaks.”
And in a follow-up questions about whether denying that a protected class violates the hateful content policy, Meta also answers no. It gave these as examples of posts that are now allowed on Facebook and Instagram: (snip-MORE. This is from the guy who left Substack a while back. I don’t want to steal from him. It’s free to read.)
Personally, I don’t think it’s surrender on the part of Meta, nor any of the other media moguls. It’s all of one piece-they’re all in it together with the new 47th president. I’ve read this from others, too, both last night and this morning. We the people are not part of the club. Anyway, here is this.
“I really think this a precursor for genocide,” a former employee tells Platformer
Jan 7, 2025 — 12 min read
Snippet:
I. The past
Donald Trump’s surprising victory in the 2016 US presidential election sparked a backlash against tech platforms in general and against Meta in particular. The company then known as Facebook was battered by revelations that its network dramatically amplified the reach of false stories about Trump and his opponent, Hillary Clinton, and was used as part of a successful effort by Russia to sow division in US politics and tilt the election in favor of Trump.
Chastened by the criticism, Meta set out to shore up its defenses. It hired 40,000 content moderators around the world, invested heavily in building new technology to analyze content for potential harms and flag it for review, and became the world’s leading funder of third-party fact-checking organizations. It spent $280 million to create an independent Oversight Board to adjudicate the most difficult questions about online speech. It disrupted dozens of networks of state-sponsored trolls who sought to use Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp to spread propaganda and attack dissenters.
CEO Mark Zuckerberg had expected that these moves would generate goodwill for the company, particularly among the Democrats who would retake power after Trump lost in 2020. Instead, he found that disdain for the company remained strongly bipartisan. Republicans scorned him for policies that disproportionately punished the right, who post more misinformation and hate speech than the left does. Democrats blamed him for the country’s increasingly polarized politics and decaying democracy. And all sides pilloried him for the harms that his apps cause in children — an issue that 42 state attorneys general are now suing him over.
Last summer, the threats against Zuckerberg turned newly personal. In 2020, Zuckerberg and his wife had donated $419.5 million to fund nonpartisan election infrastructure projects. (Another effort that had seemingly generated no goodwill for him or Meta whatsoever.) All that the money had done was to help people vote safely during the pandemic. But Republicans twisted Zuckerberg’s donation into a scandal; Trump — who lost the election handily but insisted it had been stolen from him — accused Zuckerberg of plotting against him.
“We are watching him closely,” Trump wrote in a coffee-table book published ahead of the 2024 election, “and if he does anything illegal this time he will spend the rest of his life in prison.”
By the end of 2024, Zuckerberg had given up on finding any middle path through the polarized and opposite criticisms leveled against him by Republicans and Democrats. His rival Elon Musk had spent the past year showing how Republican party support can be bought — cheaply.
In business and in life, Zuckerberg’s motivation has only ever been to win. And a doddering, transactional Trump presented Meta with a rare opportunity for a fresh start.
All they would have to do is whatever Trump wanted them to do.
II. The announcements
On Tuesday, Meta announced the most significant changes to its content moderation policies since the aftermath of the 2016 election. The changes include:
Zuckerberg announced these changes in an Instagram Reel; Joel Kaplan, a Republican operative and longtime Meta executive who last week replaced Nick Clegg as the company’s president of public policy, discussed the changes in an appearance on “Fox and Friends.” (See transcripts of both here.)
One way to understand these changes is as a marketing exercise, intended to convey a sense of profound change to an audience of one. In this, Meta appears to have succeeded; Trump today called the company’s changes “excellent” and said that the company has “come a long way.” (“Mr. Trump also said Meta’s change was ‘probably’ a result of the threats he had made against the company and Mr. Zuckerberg,” dryly noted the Times’ Mike Isaac and Theodore Schleifer.)
Whether this will be enough to get Trump to end the current antitrust prosecution against Meta, or otherwise advocate for the company in regulatory affairs, remains to be seen. By the cynical calculus of the company’s communications and policy teams, though, one assumes that Trump’s comments inspired a round of high-fives in the company’s Washington, DC offices.
But these changes are likely to substantially increase the amount of harmful speech on Meta’s platforms, according to 10 current and former employees who spoke to Platformer on Tuesday.
Start with the end of Meta’s fact-checking partnerships, which perhaps generated the most headlines of the company’s changes on Tuesday. While the company has been gradually lowering its investment in fact-checking for a couple years now, Meta’s abandonment of the project will have real effects: on the fact-checking organizations for whom Meta was a primary source of revenue, but also in the Facebook and Instagram feeds of which Meta is an increasingly begrudging steward. (snip-MORE. Go read; he left Substack because of the nazis, and made Platformer to get his writing to people. It’s free to read, and you don’t have to subscribe, either.)
Scottie's Playtime 