Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Embed this notice
   Leeloo (leeloo@techhub.social)'s status on Sunday, 22-Dec-2024 13:27:10 JST Leeloo

   in reply to

   @davidbisset
   It may not be real, but the Danish national ID system had a similar one at the beginning.

   To prevent brute force attempts, they would lock a user account after N failed login attempts (even though brute forcing should be impossible with one time codes), so all you needed to lock someone elses account was their username and a wrong password - and it's easy to guess a wrong password😀

   The solution they chose was to tell people not to tell anyone their username, but when I went to create mine, I was told that the username I wanted was already taken.

   So I had both someone elses username and a reason to want to lock them out (they took the username I wanted). I didn't, but I easily could have.

2. Embed this notice
   carl marks (tillshadeisgone@blackqueer.life)'s status on Thursday, 01-Feb-2024 08:35:08 JST carl marks

   THIS POST APPLIES TO LEFTISTS ONLY. IF YOU ARE A LIBERAL OR FURTHER TO THE RIGHT THAN LIBERALS, THIS DOES NOT CONCERN YOU. MOVE ALONG, HAVE THE DAY YOU DESERVE. THANKS.

   Recently, I've become very agitated by the state of white supremacy etc. both on and offline and I've gotten into a lot of conflicts with folks on here as a result.

   So, I have been rethinking how I interact with this space going forward to better protect myself but also to have a more robust and intentional framework for how to engage with conflicts. I've been learning about how revolutionaries in the past have handled conflict with each other while maintaining unity in their movement.

   Many of these practices existed within local orgs and communities, and therefore are not necessarily applicable or appropriate for a digital and public space like this. However, I think some lessons can still be taken.

   So, in light of that, HERE IS MY PROPOSAL:

   If I am engaging with you and I believe that while we are aligned in our goals for liberation, you are inadvertently causing harm with your words, I may ask you to self-crit. This is not an attack, but is an invitation to reconsider what you are saying. This will also mean that I am available to you, privately or publicly, to explain my thinking and have a dialogue about our disagreement.

   IF YOU ARE A MUTUAL OR PERSON OF COLOR, I am also open to this response from you. If you believe I am inadvertently causing harm with my words, I want you to ask me to self-crit. I will understand that the request coming from you is also an invitation for dialogue, publicly or privately.

   IF YOU ARE A WHITE MUTUAL OR NONBLACK PERSON OF COLOR, I want you to be very cognizant of any antiblackness in your thinking before you make this request. My intention with this practice is to encourage unity, and antiblackness destroys unity. I am taking a big risk for myself by doing this, so please please respect that. If you accidentally or purposefully bring antiblackness my way because of this policy I will disengage with you immediately and we will not be speaking further.

   IF YOU ARE WHITE AND NOT A MUTUAL OF MINE then I cannot accept a request to self-crit from you. White supremacy is extremely dangerous to my continued existence and I have no faith that a typical white person would safeguard my humanity when critiquing my arguments. If you do not respect this boundary, I will be blocking & reporting you with no further notice given.

   I will adjust this policy as needed, for now this is a trial run. I will pin this for ease of access.