> The group is women-centric and open to all women, inter, trans and non-binary people.
Well this answers the question, at least partially. Groups like the FSFE cannot do its job of focusing on free software activism, but instead takes (questionable to put it mildly) sides on the political fad of the day and alienate people in the process
@fsf Let's not conflate users of a piece of (server) free software with users having an account registered with a server instance. The former (operators / admins of a mastodon server) do have full control. The latter have control on the client side, but otherwise are at the whims of the former.
@ninapaley But a fetus cannot survive without the "host", so if said "host" caused said fetus to grow in her body voluntarily (say, by having consensual unprotected sex), she has the responsibility not to murder it.
@Flick I don't think it's up to the users. Mainstream Mastodon instances are not as democratic or transparent as they pretend to be. Did pre-musk twitter users not want free speech?
> Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we’re going to invest deeply in trust & safety. We want everyone, especially marginalized communities, to feel safe on our platform. We’re working on building a stronger trust & safety function—including hiring—which will contribute to new features, educate instance admins about best practices, assess community needs, and partner with organizations like IFTAS to share insights and expand the availability of resources in this critical area.
> We assessed Wikipedia browsing data from 482,760 people collated across 50 countries or territories and 14 languages. Naturalistic Wikipedia browsing data were collected for the months of March 2022 and October 2022 from the webrequest logs (142). In general, these data are continuously and automatically collected for analytic purposes on Wikimedia’s infrastructure and deleted after 90 days. We only considered requests from the mobile app to articles in the main namespace. We discard requests marked as automated traffic or coming from bots (143). We identify unique readers via the wmfuuid (144) associated with the app installation (readers of the app have the option to turn off sending this ID with their requests).
Sure server log is fair game, but I don't see any option to opt out of wmfuuid on my app downloaded from f-droid.
> AusPATH: Activism influencing health policy https://doi.org/10.1177/10398562241312867 > Initially, members had to be registered with a relevant professional regulatory authority. However, these requirements were criticised as ‘gate keeping’, and pressure was exerted to accept trans people without health qualifications as members. AusPATH’s constitution was subsequently changed to admit transpeople and non-registered professionals as full members. Within the organisation, trans members have implored AusPATH to see members with lived experience as experts, and for health professionals to acknowledge their position of ‘privilege’.
In November 2020, the EU unveiled its first LGBTIQ Equality Strategy (2020-2025)—a grandiose political manifesto designed to weave LGBTIQ issues into the fabric of EU policies, legislation, funding programmes, and even its external relations.1 Though the strategy carries no legal force, its influence is undeniable. Civil society organisations and activists on the ground wield anything bearing the EU stamp like a blunt instrument, treating it as irrefutable proof of progressive consensus. That strategy is then recycled and repurposed in national debates, magnifying its effect far beyond its official remit.
Funding streams such as CERV, Erasmus+, and ESF+ dutifully flow toward LGBTIQ initiatives, supporting projects that align with the EU’s broader vision of progress—which increasingly resembles a Netflix series written by an algorithm trained on Tumblr blogs. These programmes not only nudge member states and candidate countries toward compliance but also export the agenda beyond European borders, positioning the EU as a global standard-bearer of identity politics.
The strategy was drafted under the leadership of then-Commissioner for Equality Helena Dalli, shaped in collaboration with institutional partners like the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and civil society organisations. Chief among these is ILGA-Europe, comparable to the UK’s notorious queer advocacy group Stonewall—but on steroids. With deeper pockets, more expansive access to European institutions, and an outsized influence over policymaking, ILGA-Europe has been instrumental in defining the scope and priorities of the strategy, ensuring its agenda aligns neatly with the broader goals of radical queer activism.2
> As I’ve said before, I would prefer large social-media platforms like Facebook and Twitter (now X) to adhere as strongly as possible to the First Amendment of the Constitution. That Amendment, of course, has carve-outs: truly prohibited speech. This includes defamation, harassment, false advertising, child pornography, obscenity, and speech liable to incite predictable and lawless violence.
> So long as Facebook and X adhere to this policy, I think it’s a step in the right direction. The “Community Notes” will allow the counter-speech that advocates of free speech see as essential to promote the clash of ideas that, according to John Stuart Mill, will promote the emergence of truth. So I think this is a good step, regardless of what you think of Zuckerberg (or Elon Musk, who is running X this way).
> I will be at meetings all day today, so I ask readers to discuss this new policy of Zuckerberg (and Musk). Yes, I know people say that Musk and Zuckerberg are pandering to Trump, and perhaps that is one motivation, but I do not want readers to concentrate on the people involved, but on the speech policy itself.
Compared with mid-2022, support for allowing trans-identifying males into women’s spaces and sport has fallen. Almost three-quarters of all respondents believe women’s sport should exclude all males regardless of claimed identity.
As before, when told that many “transgender women” do not have surgery, support for their access to women’s spaces is less.
An overall majority of respondents support changing the Equality Act so that sex is defined as meaning “biological sex”. This support is across all major political parties.
In the new poll, conducted on 19th December 2024, the number of people answering “don’t know” was lower across all the questions compared to the May 2022 poll, suggesting greater awareness and/or more confidence to express a view.
> rather than addressing those historically over-moderated subjects, Meta was taking the opposite tack and —as reported by the Independent—was making targeted changes to its hateful conduct policy that would allow dehumanizing statements to be made about certain vulnerable groups.
Yuchen's political account. For the nonpolitical account see @semi.Left is not woke.Just because I'm right does not mean I'm far right. Against real bigotry, fascism and regressive politics. Free software & free speech.(not me in the banner photo)Reincarnation of @dragestil@hostux.social, which was suspended by admin of that instance on 2024-04-09.