西口情/Xikou Qing ("Xikou Sentiments") a Shanbei folk song, performed by 丁文军/Ding Wenjun

English added by me :)

saw a post abt HBO removing shows that suggests ppl just “burn dvds” but everyone doesnt know how to do that so here is one way to do that

- get blank dvds (Both +R or -R work, I think +R is slightly cheaper, the difference is rewritability), these are not very expensive for the amount you can get in bulk (if you are in the US 100 of them is about 30$ at walmart)

- an external DVD drive that plugs in via usb is also around 20-40$ (it tends to be closer to 20)

- download DVDFlick (free)

- if you don’t already have the mp4/mpeg of whatever media you want to burn, you can download movies/shows off of sites like gomovies.sx and soap2day

gomovies.sx will have a download button that looks like this

below the video you can choose one of these

if you click streamlare for example and then the download button it will take you here where the mp4 is

(if you’re on an iphone/ipad, clicking download will save it to your files app)

- if you cant find the download button on soap2day you can also install a video downloader extension which will find the movie for you

- at this point you can drag and drop it into a google drive or keep it on your computer but if you still want it on dvd ->

- open dvd flick, drag and drop the video

- click “project settings”

- give it whatever title you want, you can change encoder to “normal” (default is below normal if you are doing other things on the computer). you dont need to change target size or thread count (unless you want to)

- insert a blank dvd into your drive, make sure you click “burn project to disc”

- click accept then click “create dvd” next to menu and project settings. it will create a destination folder and this dialogue box will pop up when you click “create” on more dvds, just click “yes” and then “okay” on the box that appears after it

it’ll take a couple hours, once its done take a sharpie & write whats on it and stick it in a case . or dont . im not ur mom

Hot take but the LGBTQ+ community needs to stop gatekeeping on the basis of labels. No exceptions.

If someone refers to themselves with extremely specific terms like xenogenders, that’s valid. If someone uses really vague blanket terms like “queer,” that’s valid. If someone doesn’t fit the textbook definition of a term like he/him lesbians, that’s valid. If someone is using an older definition of a modern term like mspec gays and lesbians, that’s valid. If someone uses a reclaimed slur, that’s valid.

Gender and sexuality are so complicated and everyone’s own experience is unique. You don’t get to tell someone else what labels they use. If they genuinely use that label, then they personally relate to it to some degree. We need to use some empathy and accept that everyone has different experiences.

By the way legislators aren’t making laws specifically targeting the LGBTQ community because of pansexuals or trans people without dysphoria or aces and aros. They’re doing it because they hate queer people, and want to make us existing openly illegal.

No amount of “but but but the new labels are making us look bad and people won’t take us seriously” will ever change the fact that you are putting yourself on the side of people that want us dead. So stand by your community, or put a damn sock in it.

This is your community. There is no circumstance that you should say “well, the oppressor is right on this one” but that’s what SO many of you are doing!

When politicians mock parts of our community that they know you won’t bother to defend, they’re using it as a foot in the door. They are using it as a way to make their next action seem less extreme, and they will continue until they have achieved what’s happening in Texas and Idaho. And you are allowing them to.

Other queer people are not your enemy. And once again if you still can’t see that, you’re on the side of the oppressors.

“Our side concocted the ‘bathroom safety’ male predator argument as a way to avoid an uncomfortable battle over LGBT ideology, and still fire up people’s emotions.”

COLOUR ME FUCKING SURPRISED

I want people, in particular cis people, to read this and understand what it means.

It means that these groups, these organizations, are so Hellbent on getting trans people outlawed, hurt, and killed, that they will openly lie and admit to lying to stir up emotions. They have no qualms with actively lying and distorting reality. 

They have no qualms about misleading people. Actively lying to people. 

They don’t care how immoral their actions may be, how much their rhetoric flies in the face of reality, as long as it reaches their end goal of the destruction of “transgender ideology.” 

MassResistance and all their ilk want us dead, and should never be trusted, not even for the most trivial of matters. They should be rejected, reviled, despised, because nothing they do is in service of anything but hatred and evil. 

And in case anyone actually doubts this, and wants to cry “fake news,” here’s MR’s actual article. Should it get deleted, here’s an archived version. Some choice bits under the cut, if you want to see how vile these people really are. 

Keep reading

@asymbina @thefingerfuckingfemalefury

Also worth reminding everyone that the lie doesn’t magically become true when it’s spread by putative feminists in stead of conservatives.

They knowingly lied so more people would hate and fear us.

If you don’t understand how evil that is let me briefly explain.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_stages_of_genocide

today I’ve been especially curious where the whole queer taboo came from and I’m trying to figure out when exactly it started being a thing.

According to this google trends, the phrase “is queer a slur”, there were no results until May 2013. Now, I’m not implying “queer” isn’t used as a slur or hadn’t been considered a slur until then, but SOMETHING happened in May 2013 that caused a bunch of people to search that.

Similarly, the oldest posts I’ve seen tagged on tumblr with the phrase “q slur” have been from 2013, and have so far not found any earlier posts with the tag. (and really I have no way of knowing if the tag was added at a later time) So far what I’ve found is the actual censoring/starring of queer and use of “q slur” has been predominately from 2016 onwards, and people that used the tag before then would frequently use it as a catch-all term or to refer to themself. It wasn’t until the past few years that those people started telling others not to use it to refer to other people.

I am just so, so fascinated as to what exactly happened that caused this shift and I can’t find it

….OH? 👀

Why none of my books are available on Audible (and why Amazon owes me $3,218.55)

I love audiobooks. When I was a high-school-aged page at a public library in the 1980s, I would pass endless hours shelving and repairing books while listening to “books on tape” from the library’s collection. By the time iTunes came along, I’d amassed a huge collection of cassette and CD audiobooks and I painstakingly ripped them to my collection.

Then came Audible, and I was in heaven — all the audiobooks, none of the hassle of ripping CDs. There was only one problem: the Digital Rights Management (DRM). You see, I’ve spent most of my adult life campaigning against DRM, because I think it’s an existential danger to all computer users — and because it’s a way for tech companies to hijack the relationship between creators and their audiences.

In 2011, I gave a speech at Berlin’s Chaos Communications Congress called “The Coming War on General Purpose Computing.” In it, I explained that Digital Rights Management was technologically incoherent, a bizarre fantasy in which untrusted users of computers could be given encrypted files and all the tools needed to decrypt them, but somehow be prevented from using those decrypted files in ways that conflicted with the preferences of the company that supplied those files.

As I said then, computers are stubbornly, inescapably “general purpose.” The only computer we know how to make — the Turing-complete von Neumann machine — is the computer that can run all the programs we know how to write. When someone claims to have built a computer-powered “appliance” — say, a smart speaker or (God help us all) a smart toaster — that can only run certain programs, what they mean is that they’ve designed a computer that can run every program, but which will refuse to run programs unless the manufacturer approves them.

But this is also technological nonsense. The program that checks to see whether other programs are approved by the manufacturer is also running on an untrusted adversary’s computer (with DRM, you are the manufacturer’s untrusted adversary). Because that overseer program is running on a computer you own, you can replace it, alter it, or subvert it, allowing you to run programs that the manufacturer doesn’t like. That would include (for example) a modified DRM program that unscrambles the manufacturer-supplied video, audio or text file and then, rather than throwing away the unscrambled copy when you’re done with it, saves it so you can open it with a program that doesn’t restrict you from sharing it.

As a technical matter, DRM can’t work. Once one person figures out how to patch a DRM program so that it saves the files it descrambles, they can share that knowledge (or a program they’ve written based on that knowledge) with everyone in the world, instantaneously, at the push of a button. Anyone who has that new program can save unscrambled copies of the files they’ve bought and share those, too.

DRM vendors hand-wave this away, saying things like “this just keeps honest users honest.” As Ed Felten once said, “Keeping honest users honest is like keeping tall users tall.”

In reality, DRM vendors know that technical countermeasures aren’t the bulwark against unauthorized reproduction of their files. They aren’t technology companies at all — they’re legal companies.

In 1998, Bill Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) into law. This is a complex law and a decidedly mixed bag, but of all the impacts that the DMCA’s many clauses have had on the world, none have been so quietly, profoundly terrible as Section 1201, the “anti-circumvention” clause that protects DRM.

Under DMCA 1201, it is a felony to “traffick” in tools that bypass DRM. Doing so can land you in prison for five years and hit you with a fine of up to $500,000 (for a first offense). This clause is so broadly written that merely passing on factual information about bugs in a system with DRM can put you in hot water.

Here’s where we get to the existential risk to all computer users part. As a technology, DRM has to run as code that is beyond your observation and control. If there’s a program running on your computer or phone called “DRM” you can delete it, or go into your process manager and force-quit it. No one wants DRM. No one woke up this morning and said, “Dammit, I wish there was a way I could do less with the entertainment files I buy online.” DRM has to hide itself from you, or the first time it gets in your way, you’ll get rid of it.

The proliferation of DRM means that all the commercial operating systems now have a way to run programs that the owners of computers can’t observe or control. Anything that a technologist does to weaken that sneaky, hidden facility risks DMCA 1201 prosecution — and half a decade in prison.

That means that every device with DRM is designed to run programs you can’t see or kill, and no one is allowed to investigate these devices and warn you if they have defects that would allow malicious software to run in that deliberately obscured part of your computer, stealing your data and covertly operating your device’s sensors and actuators. This isn’t just about hacking your camera and microphone: remember, every computerized “appliance” is capable of running every program, which means that your car’s steering and brakes are at risk from malicious software, as are your medical implants and the smart thermostat in your home.

A device that is designed for sneaky code execution and is legally off-limits to independent auditing is bad. A world of those devices — devices we put inside our bodies and put our bodies inside of — is fucking terrifying.

DRM is bad news for our technological future, but it’s also terrible news for our commercial future. Because DMCA 1201 bans trafficking in circumvention devices under any circumstances, manufacturers who design their products with a thin skin of DRM around them can make using those products in the ways you prefer into a literal crime — what Jay Freeman calls “felony contempt of business model.”

The most obvious example of this is in the Right to Repair fight. Devices from tractors and cars to insulin pumps, wheelchairs and ventilators have been redesigned to use DRM to detect and block independent repair, even when the technician uses the manufacturer’s own parts. These devices are booby-trapped so that any “tampering” requires a new authorization code from the manufacturer, which is only given to the manufacturer’s own service technicians.

This allows manufacturers to gouge you on repair and parts, or to simply declare your device to be beyond repair and sell you a new one. Global, monopolistic corporations are drowning the planet in e-waste as a side-effect of their desire to block refurbished devices and parts from cutting into their sales of replacements:.

DRM laws like DMCA 1201 are now all over the world, spread by the US Trade Representative, who made DRM laws a condition of trading with the USA, and a feature of the WTO agreement. Whether you’re in South America, Australia, Europe, Canada, Japan, or even China, DRM-breaking tools are illegal. But remember: DRM is a technological fool’s errand. So while there is no above-ground, legal market for DRM-breaking tools, there is still a thriving underground for them.

For example, farmers all over the world replace the software on their John Deere tractors with software of rumored Ukrainian origin that floats around on the internet. This software lets them fix their tractors without having to wait days for a $200 visit from a John Deere technician, but no one knows what’s in the software, or who made it, or whether it has sneaky back-doors or other malicious code.

And yet, manufacturers keep putting DRM in their products. The prospect of making it a felony to displease your corporate shareholders is just too much to resist.

Which brings me back to Audible. Back before Amazon owned Audible, I bought thousands of dollars’ worth of Audible audiobooks, and they worked great — but they failed badly. When I switched operating systems and could no longer get an Audible playback program, I was in danger of losing my audibook investment. In the end, I had to rig up three old computers to play my Audible audiobooks out in real time and recapture them as plain old MP3s. It took weeks. If I’d made the switch a couple years later, it would have been months (the “audiobooks” folder on my current system has 281 days’ worth of audio!).

Amazon bought Audible during a brief interval in which the company was taking on DRM. They had just launched the Amazon MP3 store, as a rival to Apple’s iTunes Store, which sold music without DRM, so users wouldn’t be locked to Apple’s platform. This was a problem the music industry had just woken up to, after years of demanding DRM, they realized that nearly all the digital music they’d ever sold was locked to Apple’s platform, and that meant that Apple got to decide whether and how their catalog was sold.

Amazon’s MP3 store’s slogan was “DRM: Don’t Restrict Me.” They even sent me a free t-shirt to promote the launch, because they knew my feelings on DRM.

When Amazon announced its Audible acquisition, they promised that they would remove DRM from the Audible store, and I rejoiced. Then, after the acquisition…nothing. Not a word about DRM. The Amazon PR people who’d once enthusiastically pitched me on Amazon’s DRM-free virtue stopped answering my email.

When I got new PR pitches from Amazon, I’d reply by asking about DRM and I’d never hear from those PR people again. I got invited to give a talk at Amazon and I said sure, I’d do it for free — but I wanted to talk to someone from Audible about DRM. The invitation was rescinded.

Once on a book-tour, I gave a talk at Goodreads — another Amazon division — about my work and when they asked if I had any questions for them, I raised Audible’s DRM and the senior managers in the audience promised to look into it. I never heard from them again.

Today, Audible dominates the audiobook market. In some verticals, their market-share is over 90 percent! And Audible will not let authors or publishers opt out of DRM. If you want to publish an audiobook with Audible, you must let them add their DRM to it. That means that every time one of your readers buys one of your books, they’re locking themselves further into Audible. If you sell a million bucks’ worth of audiobooks on Audible, that’s a million bucks your readers have to forfeit to follow you to a rival platform.

As a rightsholder, I can’t authorize my users to strip off Audible’s DRM and switch to a competitor. I can’t even find out which of my readers bought my books from Audible and send them a download code for a free MP3. Even when I invest tens of thousands of dollars of my own money to hire professional narrators to record my audiobooks, if I sell them on Audible, they get the final say in how my readers use the product I paid to create. If I provide my readers with a tool to unwrap Audible’s DRM from my copyrighted books, I become a copyright infringer! I violate Section 1201 of the DMCA and I can go to prison for five years and face a $500,000 fine. For a first offense.

All of this is so glaringly terrible that it prompted me to coin Doctorow’s First Law:

“Any time someone puts a lock on something that belongs to you, but won’t give you the key, that lock is not there for your benefit.”

It’s been more than a decade since Amazon bought Audible and it’s clear that their DRM policy isn’t going anywhere.

Which is why none of my audiobooks are available on Audible.

I don’t want to contribute to the DRM-ification of our devices, turning them into a vast, unauditable attack-surface that is designed to run programs that we can’t see or terminate. I don’t want my work to be a lure into a DRM-poisoned platform. I don’t want to make myself beholden to Amazon, locking my customers to its platform with every sale.

This doesn’t mean I don’t have audiobooks — I do! Early on, I worked with great audiobook publishers like Random House and Blackstone and Macmillan to produce DRM-free audiobooks which were sold everywhere except Audible. But Audible has the vast majority of the market, and it just didn’t make financial sense for these publishers to pay me a decent sum for my audio rights and then pay great narrators and engineers to produce books.

So I started retaining my audio rights in my book deals, and paying to record my own audiobooks. The first one was Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free, recorded by @wilwheaton​, with introductions by @neil-gaiman​ and Amanda Palmer, which explains Doctorow’s First Law in detail.

Since then, I’ve produced many more independent audiobooks, including the audio for Homeland (the bestselling sequel to my YA novel Little Brother, also narrated by Wil), Walkaway (a fabulous multi-cast audiobook starring Amber Benson, Wil Wheaton, Amanda Palmer, Miron Willis, Gabrielle de Cuir and others), and Attack Surface (the third Little Brother book, narrated by Amber Benson).

Generally, these books recoup and make a little money besides, but not nearly so much as I’d make if I sold through Audible. My agent tells me that if I’d been willing to set aside my ethics and allow Audible to slap DRM on my books, I’d have made enough money to pay off my mortgage and save enough to pay for my kid’s entire college education.

That’s a price I’m willing to pay. In the years since the Amazon acquisition, Audible has become the 800-pound gorilla of audiobooks. They have done all kinds of underhanded things — like buying up the first couple books in a series and releasing them as Audible-only recordings, then refusing to record the rest of the series, orphaning it. They’re also notorious among narrators for squeezing their hourly rates lower than anyone else. Audible also refuses to sell into libraries, so all the “Audible Original” titles are blocked from our public library systems.

I think audiences get that there’s something really wrong with a system where a single company controls an entire literary format. In 2020, I Kickstarted the independent audiobook of Attack Surface and broke every record for audiobook crowdfunding, raising $276,000.

But Audible continues to dominate. It is the only digital audiobook channel Amazon will allow, so anyone who searches Amazon for a book will only see the Audible audio edition. It’s also the exclusive audio partner for Apple’s iTunes/Apple Books channel, which is the only iOS audiobook store that doesn’t have to pay Apple a 30 percent commission on all its sales, so it’s the only audiobook store that lets you actually buy new audiobooks.

Other audiobook stores require you to buy your books with a web-browser (which avoids Apple’s sky-high commissions) and then switch back to the app to download them — a clunky experience that has ensured that Apple’s own audiobook channel — with its mandatory DRM — is the only one iOS customers really use.

Not surprisingly, a lot of people assume that if an Audible search for an author or book comes up empty, that means there is no audiobook available. They don’t think of searching for the book on Google Books, or Libro.fm, or Downpour. They never think to check to see whether the author maintains their own storefront, as I do, where you can get all their ebooks and audiobooks without DRM.

That’s bad enough, but it gets worse. So much worse.

Audible has a side-hustle called ACX: it’s a “self-serve” platform where writers and narrators can team up to self-produce their own audiobooks, which are locked to Audible’s platform and encumbered with Audible’s DRM.

ACX has some nominal checks to ensure that the audiobooks that land on its platform are duly licensed from the rightsholders, but these are trivial to circumvent. Here’s how I know that: on multiple occasions, I’ve discovered that my own books have been turned into unauthorized audiobooks over ACX.

Scammers claiming to have the rights to my books commission narrators to record them on the cheap, with the promise of a royalty split when they are live. Inexperienced narrators, excited at the prospect of recording a major book by a bestselling author, put long, grueling hours into recording them. Then the book goes live, and I discover it, and have it taken down. The scammer disappears with the profits from the sales in the interim, and the narrator is screwed.

As am I.

Because these illegal ACX audiobooks compete with my own, self-produced editions, for which I pay narrators, directors and editors a fair wage for their creative labor. These unauthorized ACX audiobooks show up in searches for my name on Audible and Amazon, where my own (vastly superior, authorized) DRM-free audiobooks are not allowed.

This isn’t an isolated incident. It’s happened over and over again. It just happened again.

Last week, I heard from Shawn Hartel, a narrator who got scammed on ACX by someone calling themself “Barbara M. Rushing,” who told Hartel that they held the audio rights to my 2017 novel Walkaway. They do not have those rights.

I spent about $50,000 recording a stupendous audiobook edition of Walkaway, which you can buy here for $24.95.

This audiobook has met with widespread critical acclaim and the print edition has been translated and celebrated around the world. But Hartel didn’t know that.

On January 11, 2021, he accepted an offer from “Barbara M. Rushing” to record the book and worked long hours to produce a 16-hour narration. On February 1, 2021, the book was accepted by Rushing. On July 7, 2021, ACX listed Walkaway for sale. On November 9, 2021, ACX took the book down, having figured out that it was infringing.

In the meantime, Rushing sold 119 copies and gave away ten more, diverting people from buying my own, DRM-free edition.

129 times $24.95 is $3,218.55, and as far as I’m concerned, that’s what Amazon owes me.

Now, I’m not going to sue them (probably). I don’t have the money or time to fight that kind of battle. For one thing, I have eight books (four novels, a YA graphic novel, a short story collection and two nonfiction books) in various stages of production right now, and I’m going to be producing my own audio editions for them, which is going to suck up a lot of time.

But Amazon does owe me $3,218.55.

I don’t expect they’ll pay it.

Anyone who’s paid attention to Audiblegate knows about Amazon’s dirty ACX dealing. The company has been credibly accused of more than $100 million in wage-theft from ACX authors and narrators, whom it has scammed with a combination of a one-sided refunds policy and out-and-out accounting fraud.

I know a lot about Audiblegate because there’s a whole chapter about it in Chokepoint Capitalism: How Big Tech and Big Content Captured Creative Labor Markets and How We’ll Win Them Back, the book on creative labor markets that Rebecca Giblin and I wrote for Beacon Press:

Chokepoint Capitalism explains how large media and tech companies have cornered the markets for creative labor, and why giving creators more copyright won’t unrig this rigged game. The tech and entertainment giants are like bullies at the school gate who shake down creators for their lunch money every day.

To reach your audience you have to go through the chokepoints they have erected, and when you do, any additional copyright powers Congress has granted you is taken away as a condition of entry (think of how Audible nonconsensually takes away your right to use DRM law if you want to list your audiobooks).

If you give your bullied kid more lunch money, you won’t buy them lunch — you’ll just make the bullies at the school-gate richer. Giving creators more copyright inevitably results in those copyrights being transferred to Amazon and other monopolists. To get lunch for your kid — or justice for creators — you have to get rid of the chokepoints.

That’s what Chokepoint Capitalism is really about — not just how the markets got rigged, but how to fix them, with a list of shovel-ready, practical actions for local governments, national legislatures, artists’ groups, as well as creators, technologists and audiences.

We’re going to be rolling out a crowdfunding campaign for the Chokepoint Capitalism audiobook in a couple of weeks (the book comes out in mid-September). We’ve scored an incredible narrator, Stefans Rudnicki, who you may have heard on the Ender’s Game books, Hubris by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, or any of 1,000 other audiobooks. Stefan’s won a Stoker, a Bradbury, dozens of Audies and Earphones, two Grammys, and two Hugos. It’s gonna be fucking great.

And it won’t be available on Audible. Who owe me $3,218.55.

But you know what will*be available on Audible?

This. This essay, which I am about to record as an audiobook, to be mastered by my brilliant sound engineer John Taylor Williams, and will thereafter upload to ACX as a self-published, free audiobook.

Perhaps you aren’t reading these words off your screen. Perhaps you are an Audible customer who searched for my books and only found this odd, short audiobook entitled: “Why none of my books are available on Audible: And why Amazon owes me $3,218.55.”

I send you greetings, fellow audiobook listener!

I invite you to buy all my audiobooks at prices lower than Amazon’s, free from DRM and unencumbered by comedy-of-the-absurd “user agreements” that no one in their right mind would ever*agree to. They are for sale at craphound.com/shop.

Among those audiobooks, the $15 edition of Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free, where I explain not just Doctorow’s First Law, but also my Second and Third Laws (my agent was Arthur C. Clarke’s agent; when I told him I had come up with “Doctorow’s Law,” he told me that I needed three laws). As noted, this is superbly read by Wil Wheaton, and Neil Gaiman and Amanda Palmer read their own intros:

Of course, you will only find this book if Amazon ACX accepts it. I’ve combed quite carefully through their terms of service and I don’t see anything that would disqualify this from being listed as an ACX book.

But then again, they say they ban books produced without permission from the copyright holder and we’ve seen how that works out, right? From poking around on ACX, it looks like Amazon’s main way of checking whether a user has the rights to a book is by looking in Amazon’s catalog to see if there’s already an audiobook edition. That means that if a writer refuses to sell on Audible because of their DRM policies, Audible will use that boycott as an excuse to let ripoff artists bilk the writer, the narrator and the listeners — because if there’s no Audible edition, they assume that the audio rights must be up for grabs.

Will Audible let me use its platform to give away a book that criticizes Audible? Or will they exercise their overwhelming market power to both abet a $3,218.55 ripoff and suppress a critique of their role in that ripoff?

Only time will tell.

[Image ID: A screengrab of the ACX page for the audiobook, showing that it is ‘pending audio review]

Addendum: I wrote the above on July 4, 2022, just before submitting the audiobook to Amazon and leaving for a holiday. Over the past two weeks, I’ve checked in with ACX daily, but the audiobook still shows as “Pending Audio Review.” ACX advises that this process should take a maximum of ten business days. It’s been 15. Perhaps they’re very backlogged.

Or maybe they’re hoping that if they delay the process long enough, I’ll give up. In the meantime, there is now a Kindle edition of this text:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B5RWTPR7/

I had to put this up, it’s a prerequisite for posting the audio to ACX. I hadn’t planned on posting it, but since they made me, I did.

[Image ID: A screengrab of the Kindle listing page for my ebook showing it as the number one new release in antitrust.]

Bizarrely, this is currently the number one new Amazon book on Antitrust Law!

Also bizarrely - given the context - this book was taken down for several days due to a spurious copyright issue over the cover art, a cack-handed collage of some Creative Commons icons I put together with The GIMP. Amazon flagged this as a copyright violation (despite correct Creative Commons attribution) and took the book down, demanding that I change the cover art, ignoring my explanations. I was ultimately able to get the book restored by contacting someone I know at Amazon legal, who intervened.

I don’t know if Amazon will ever release my audiobook, but I hope they do. In the meantime, you can listen to the audiobook of this essay for free via my podcast:

https://archive.org/download/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_431/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_431_-_Why_none_of_my_books_are_available_on_Audible.mp3

Image: Paris 16 (modified)/CC BY-SA 4.0; Dmitry Baranovskiy (modified) CC BY 4.0

[Image ID: An anti-pickpocketing graphic featuring a stick figure reaching into an adjacent stick-figure’s shoulder-bag. The robber’s chest is emblazoned with an Amazon ‘a’ logo. The victim’s chest is emblazoned with an icon of a fountain-pen. The robber’s face has an Amazon 'smile’ logo. The victim’s face has an inverted Amazon 'smile’ logo (and is thus frowning). Beneath these two figures is a wordmark reading 'Audible: Am Amazon Company.’]

let’s talk about panphobic dogwhistles

A panphobic dogwhistle is coded/subtle to avoid opposition. These statements aren’t inherently panphobic and not everyone who shares them is panphobic.

“You can identify as pan, if… I support you being pan, but…”

This create hoops for pan people to jump through in order to be supported. But support and respect contingent on us internalizing and regurgitating panphobia isn’t genuine. We don’t trade autonomy for a sliver of pseudo acceptance.

“New labels damage the community. It doesn’t matter if a label is valid, it matters if it’s useful, materially different, and serves a political purpose.” And other anti self-identification/individualism statements.

This targets any label that isn’t The Four. Labels are, and always have been, useful if they help someone understand and communicate their feelings, identity, and experiences. We don’t owe our queerness to anyone, and we don’t have to use our queerness as a calculated strategy for anything.

What damages the community is creating an environment where any kind of difference in identity/language/expression or rebellion against norms/status quo/rules is met with hostility, fostering fear and distrust of the people who are supposed to support and nurture that self-discovery and expression.

“All genders/regardless of gender has always been the definition of bi.”

This often perpetuates the counterfactual ideas that pan “stole” The bi definition and isn’t necessary because “bi already means that”. This is also ahistorical biphobia; there’s never been one “true” definition of bi (this isn’t even the common community one) and it erases bi history/people who don’t relate to it.

Using scare quotes around pan.

Putting pan in quotes when it isn’t necessary is often a way of disrespecting its legitimacy, casting doubt/judgement, especially if pan is the only one in quotes.

“Bi has always included trans/nonbinary people.”

This is often used to falsely claim pan was created because “biphobes thought bi didn’t include trans/nonbinary people, so pan doesn’t need to exist”. (Binary bi texts aren’t universal, but there are plenty that speak to a reality that affected people and contributed to the current more inclusive language.)

“Mspec labels overlap but the distinction matters to some and that’s okay.”

I’ve seen this said so many times in response to people asking what bi and pan mean and how they relate to and differ from each other. What good is it to tell people the distinction matters while avoiding explaining what that distinction is? Ultimately this statement discourages any dialogue about mspec labels.

“Bi is an umbrella term that includes pan.”

The bi umbrella was once genuine inclusion of all mspec people, and activists/orgs use it, so most people don’t see it as anything else. But when bi only content has “bi+” slapped onto it, it becomes meaningless and performative. Panphobes also use it to argue pan doesn’t need its own, specific visibility.

“When a character ‘just likes people’ or is ‘attracted to all genders or regardless of gender’ they aren’t automatically pan instead of bi.”

I’ve experienced this from panphobes who simply assume pan interpretations of pan definitions/common pan explanations must be because of biphobia. But it’s a big, false, and purposely bad faith leap of logic to fuel the panphobic narrative that pan people are always misrepresenting bi.

“Pan people need to let bi people have something and stop making everything about themselves.”

This might seem like advocating for bi only content/events for the sake of bi visibility/community, but it’s often malicious exclusion of pan people who’ve always been included. We aren’t “invading” or “derailing” anything by being in spaces we’ve always been in, or by sharing a bi post because we relate to it.

“Read the Bi Manifesto.”

A lot of the time, people say this because they think the manifesto states the true definition of bi and proves pan is unnecessary/biphobic. However, the full text explicitly states there isn’t one true definition of bi and the group who published it explicitly supports all mspec people and identities.

“People identify as pan due to internalized biphobia.”

This masks panphobia with concern for internalized biphobia. Pan is being written off as a product of biphobia under the guise of wanting bi people to embrace being bi. Pan people are being equated to bi folks who just haven’t unlearned biphobia enough to embrace being bi, when that isn’t the case.

“All pan people are bi, but not all bi people are pan.”

This appears to be an easy explanation of bi/pan, borrowing from “all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares”. But queerness isn’t geometry and doesn’t work like that. The only pan people who are bi are the ones who also identify as bi. We can’t box queerness into simple, universal categories.

“Analyze why you’re uncomfortable with being associated with bi people or being called bi.”

Of course, pan and bi are associated, but it’s never mere association these people are referring to. Pan people are vilified and wrongly painted as biphobic for criticizing the erasure and mislabeling of our identity.

“Bi and pan people need to stop fighting each other, both are valid and neither is -phobic.”

This implies the “fighting” is equal. But there are popular bi accounts dedicated to panphobia, “battleaxe bi” was coopted for panphobia, a major bi org spreads panphobia, panphobic bi authors/activists are praised, and researchers subsume pan data into bi data. Biphobia from pan people just is not on the same scale as panphobia from bi people.

This is not to disregard/downplay biphobia from pan people. It’s just important to acknowledge the reality, severity, and disparity of the situation. Erasing that by saying or implying it’s just a silly mutual argument about which word is better is disingenuous at best, and malicious misrepresentation at worst.

“I’ve never seen a definition of pan that isn’t biphobic/transphobic.”

Panphobes involved in bi/pan “discourse” saying this aren’t hoping to learn the actual (read: non bigoted) definitions of pan, they’re saying there aren’t any definitions of pan that aren’t biphobic or transphobic, because they believe pan is inherently biphobic and transphobic.

“Behaviorally/scientifically bi.”

“Behaviorally” and “scientifically” bi are used to categorize people based on so-called innate, universal indicators of being bi. Both say pan people are actually bi, hiding identity policing/erasure behind science. Funnily enough, researchers have said it’s hard to determine who is “actually bi” because “individuals determine this for themselves”. In other words, there aren’t innate or universal indicators, we simply are who we say we are.

So. I’m sure there are plenty more examples I’ve missed, and if you have any please send them my way! (I tried to make this as short as possible, so if you’d like me to elaborate on any of these, let me know and I’ll happily do so!)

But I hope this will encourage you to think a bit deeper about the things people say and the possible intent behind it before sharing, as well as be more invested in supporting pan people and trusting us when we tell you something is being said to spread panphobia.

this post (slightly edited) is now on medium!

Please do not let debt collectors play in your face.

I am super busy so I honestly don’t even know if I should be taking the time to write this, but hopefully this will help those of you who may find yourself in a similar situation.

Earlier this year I received a letter of notice from a debt collector stating that they had acquired a debt supposedly belonging to me and that, per law, I have 30 days to dispute the debt. I immediately drafted a letter and sent it to both disputing the debt and request validation of the debt as well as possible settlement arrangements had they actually been able to validate said debt

I sent this letter via certified mail. Always certified mail.

About a week after the 30 day period for them to respond expired, I received a Phone call very specifically crafted in a way to invoke urgency and panic and suggest legal action. So, naturally, I called this number only to discover this was a different company that had only just recently acquired said supposed debt. I reiterated to them that I was disputing this debt and required validation in writing.

The initial conversation went smoothly, they then called me back the next day and became aggressive. They accused me of lying and did everything under the sun to try and trick me into validating this debt as mine so that they would not have to legally send me that validation. I, knowing my rights, insisted that I was disputing the debt and that they were required to send me validation despite them claiming that they were not and that they already had and many other number of lies. I refused to continue the conversation until someone had sent me validation to which they continually responded that they would be forwarding this to their legal department and blah blah blah blah blah.

Surprise surprise, I get a phone call today from yet another company, this one claiming to be in the process of forwarding my account to the county clerks office. That was an immediate red flag as the county clerk does not handle debt disputes. They would have to hire a lawyer in my state to handle this case. I asked what company this was as they had not stated initially, and when they told me I realized this was now another company who had purchased said alleged debt and we’re trying to collect on it. this one outright illegally threatening to take me to court knowing they weren’t.

Beyond that, he tried to lie to me and tell me that a debt validation was not what I thought it was and that a validation was actually just a notice that they had purchased a debt so when I received a letter stating that they had purchased this debt that would be a validation.

That is not true! Debt companies are legally required to send you notice of an allegedly acquired debt in writing and you have 30 days to dispute and request that validation. The company then has 30 days themselves to respond and validate your debt or the debt is forfeit. This man tried to lie to me and tell me that a notice was the same thing as a dead validation in order to trick me into paying a debt that he cannot validate that I am actively disputing.

This is now the fourth company that has attempted to collect on a debt they cannot validate. They know they cannot validate this debt and instead have relied on trying to trick me into paying it. These tactics would absolutely work if I did not have a sales background and or know my rights.

And this ladies and gentlemen is why you always always always dispute a debt. The last debt I disputed was immediately pulled from collections and that allowed me to get back in contact with the original creditor and work out a payment plan so that it would never hit my credit and keep my account with them current. This debt is invalid and therefore they cannot hit my credit with it nor can I collect on it or I will sue them.

If you guys have any questions about dealing with that collectors please ask me.

I’m not surprised they gave you the long ass run around on this.

For anyone that has a debt sold to a Collections Agency do exactly what OP did and request debt validation (Google-able). Most of the time, the Original company you owed debt to did not give them your Social Security Number or your date of birth; just a good phone number and address. In order to be held legally responsible for it and to be on your credit score, they need your SSN or DOB to prove it’s yours.

Usually, they’re initial call will say “Hey so before we can discuss your debt of $Xxxx, we need you to verify your SSN and DOB.” They’re lying. That means they want you to confirm it so they can legally pin that debt to you. If you send a Debt Validation letter VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, that Collections Agency has 30 days to prove you owe the debt and that it does in fact tie to you. Since in most cases they can’t, they’ll send a letter saying “We don’t have the necessary information to collect on this debt. It is now null and void.” Send copies of that to the credit bureaus, and they wipe it from your credit report.

With OP, they did the shadiest thing possible by constantly re-selling the debt, thus starting over that 30 day response period.

Never pay a debt unless you’re certain that you owe it. Especially if it’s for a deceased relative. Debt collection companies are especially predatory during the grieving period asking you to “Pay down the debt” or “Clear their good name”. Unless you (co)signed, don’t give them anything. The debt will get written off on their taxes. If you do pay, you’re locked in on that debt. You basically showed “willingness and ability to pay” which is all they need.

this is US rules btw

just to emphasize the last point: the collection agency may actually have the information they need to tie you to a debt that’s yours, so you might end up having to pay. but they CANNOT make you pay your own money to clear a dead relative’s debt. all of those debts have to come out of that relative’s money, and if there’s no money left, too bad! cost of doing business.

one of the top 10 funniest terf moments on twitter was katie herzog, whose entire shtick is claiming that the Trans Craze is tricking masculine or gender non-conforming girls into transitioning, thus turning lesbians into an endangered species, (I am only lightly exaggerating her perspective on this) without a hint of irony citing a gallop poll that showed the rate of women identifying as lesbian going up over time as evidence for her claims

wow.... look at how all the lesbians are disappearing.... isn't it so sad how that whole identity is just dying out right before our eyes

hot take but ply/pan/omni/abro ect people shouldn't have to come up with cited historical documentation of our identities and share deeply personal reasons as to why we use those labels in hopes that other queer people will decide we are actually worthy of basic respect

exclusionism and pitting identities that overlap against each other does nothing to help advance our rights, it just makes the LGBT+ community incredibly toxic and unwelcoming for people who don't fit into socially acceptable labels and experiences of queerness

we are stronger together

Follow @memeuplift for more wholesome memes! 

“There are only two genders!  It’s a biological fact!”

[Image description: a Twitter thread from Open Ocean Exploration (@RebeccaRHelm), dated 12/19/19: “Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex…[a thread]

If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well…

Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male.” But is this “biological sex”?

Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean?

A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromosomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer…

Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specific areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”??

“Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And…

…if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this…

Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb”. Call and cell, they will not answer.

What does this all mean?

It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.

Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point ot what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it?

Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I wll tell you…

The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME.

Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells?

Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be. [end of thread]“ Description ends]

Whew! That was a lot to type out. But I’m glad I did. 

Especially for that ending.

worth also noting: SRY? yeah, that is exclusively a eutherian (non-monotreme) mammal thing. while other species do use XY sex determination, meaning that a Y chromosome induces an embryo bearing it to become male and the absence of a Y chromosome induces the presumably XX embryo to develop along female pathways, SRY as a single determining male-or-not factor is actually incredibly weird, and most XY (and ZW) species outside the eutherian mammals actually seem to use a critical threshold of a bunch of gene variants found on the Y or W chromosome to initiate developmental cascades towards the heterogametic sex.

(heterogametic sex == the sex that has one copy of the Big Necessary Sex Chromosome and one Weird One. If that sex is “male,” the species is XY. If that sex is “female”, the species is ZW. XY-determination species have females with two of the same Big Necessary Sex Chromosome–XX. ZW-determination species have males with two of the same Big Necessary Sex Chromosome–ZZ.)

basically, all of that shit Rebecca Helm is talking about is totally correct, and remarkably anthropocentric in the way that it works and Helm leaves out whole axes of potential complexity in the way that sex determination can happen on a chromosomal and biological and developmental level, because there are so many goddamn ways to complicate it you can only talk for so long. and I’ve only talked about easy variants to compare to humans here. if you’re unlucky I’ll start talking about dosage compensation, other forms of genetic sex determination like haplodiploidy, and the absolute bugfuckery of the sexual inheritance pattern of cottony cushion scales which has lived in my head rent free since 2012.

Biological 👏 sex 👏 is 👏 not 👏 simple

I thot Oliver Cromwell died

- Forbidding the Irish people to speak their own language

- Persecuting Catholics, to the point where Catholic children couldn’t inherit, Catholics could not own land or engage in commerce, clergy were forbidden from wearing vestments and Catholics were not allowed to educate their own children

- Forcing the Irish to hand over their crops, except for potato’s.

- Not to mention the war crimes committed by the British in Northern Ireland during the troubles

But no, Ireland wasn’t colonized at all

This is what happens when you make a neat little victim box in your mental scaffolding and reject anyone who doesn't look like they belong in the box out of hand--you end up denying people who suffered centuries long oppression and genocide in a fit of smug, self-righteous, historically inaccurate pique and outing yourself as ignorant to the whole Internet.

I think these people would shit themselves if they learned how many ethnicities Russia/USSR has colonized

Or how many China has colonized

In a strange turn of events, it wasn’t skin color that made some people oppress others; it was access to power and a willingness to use it callously for their own good, with no regard for the suffering of anyone except their own.

It is always, ALWAYS about power and who can access it.

nintendo is taking down the 3ds and wii u eshops next year

and they had this lovingly made totally not taunting message to leave about their virtual console legacy they’re destroying

(that they’ve, fun fact, taken down from their site now :])

this pisses me off so much because nintendo is AWARE we want their legacy of games put on their best selling system (literally, outside of the combined sales of every nintendo DS, lite, DSi, and XL, and the GB and GBC’s combined sales, the switch is at the top)

and yet they still do not care. it’s not about them not having this content either because 1 the wii u vc and 3ds vc. exist. and 2, even for stuff that isnt on the virtual console yet, we’ve been given internal proof from previous big nintendo leaks (namely the gigaleak) that nintendo does not mess around when it comes to keeping backups of their older content. its not a lack of money either, nintendo is literally one of the richest companies in japan. it’s just. a lack of caring

last thing im gonna say about this is that the 3DS and Wii U both have excellent, actively updated guides for softmodding them to run homebrew. the Wii and DSi do as well!

on top of that the emulation general wiki is an amazing resource for emulators for pretty much every generation of game system, including emulators for non game systems like arcade hardware, PCs, and mobile phones, along with emulators on game systems! so check the wiki out if you’re interested!

And if/when you do softmod your 3DS, gosh, wouldn’t it be nice if there was a site that safely and reliably hosted games for it, where you could even download them directly to your 3DS through a QR code?

x

Holy fuck

This works best if you keep windows closed.

Another design is using 2 20x25x1 filters, taping them to the sides of the box fan and then to each other so they sort of make a triangle, then cutting cardboard to make a top and bottom to the triangle.

This was discovered as a more effective design during the 2020 US west coast fires.

https://tombuildsstuff.blogspot.com/2013/06/better-box-fan-air-purifier.html

If you live on the west coast of the United States, fire season is coming and this is vital.

We’ve been using one, and they’re great. Might try to make the double filter version this year.

theyve been doing a bunch of studies on this during the pandemic and this design is best! 4 filters and a shroud to optimize flow rate.

https://encycla.com/Corsi-Rosenthal_Cube

let’s talk about the term “panphobia”

recently people started accusing pan folks of ableism for using the term “panphobia” for pan hate, claiming it’s a medical disorder. the only source i’ve seen provided from them is the literal first thing on google when you search “panphobia”, which is a wikia page with no sources.

(the wikia page lists all the phobias that woody allen has to back the claim that he has “panphobia”, but that’s not what “panphobia” in this context even means; when it was used in this way, it was a phobia of its own, not a term for having a lot of specific phobias.)

the wikia page also links to wikipedia, which states “panphobia is not registered as a type of phobia in medical references” and “pantophobia may actually be considered the more accurate name to describe the non-specificity associated with a fear of all.”

their one “source” doesn’t even support their argument. sound familiar? now, let’s dive into the history of the “fear of everything”, shall we? the “fear of everything” has had many terms throughout history, such as panophobia, pantophobia, panaphobia, pantaphobia, panphobia, neurasthenia, anxiety neurosis, generalized anxiety disorder, and panic disorder.

“pantophobia”, “pantaphobia”, and “panaphobia" were the more commonly used medical terms until the early 20th century. “panophobia” and “panphobia” were also used, but less so and argued to be not as accurate as others. they were first employed by fifth century physician caelius aurelianus, “alluding to patients who supposedly were afraid of everything”.

nosologie methodique vol. 7 (1772) divided mental disorders into four orders. “panophobia” was in “morositates” and was the main disorder dealing with anxiety. There were subtypes of panophobia, one similar to generalized anxiety disorder, which included avoidance, pain, and tension due to extreme worry.

the physiognomy of mental diseases (1840) defined “panaphobia” as a “dread of everything” or “vague and undefined terror”. a portrait was captioned, “a female, in whom delusive fear of every object and person, panaphobia, keeps her in a state of perpetual distress”.

the psychology of the emotions (1897) defined “panphobia, or pantophobia” as a “vague but permanent state of anxiety or terror. a state in which the patient fears everything or nothing, where anxiety floats as in a dream, and only becomes fixed for an instant at a time.”

and in 1917, devaux and logre argued that “pantophobia” is a more accurate term than “panophobia”, as the latter could be interpreted as referring to the god pan.

the diagnostic term “neurasthenia”, no longer in the dsm and popular well into the 20th century, included most symptoms of anxiety. a practical treatise on neurasthenia (1905) stated “pantophobia/fear of everything” is a common symptom of “neurasthenia/nervous exhaustion”.

“anxiety neurosis” was a criticized effort to detach a particular syndrome from “neurasthenia”. including symptoms such as irritability, anxious expectation, anxiety attacks, and phobias, it was the precursor to generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder.

in dsm-i (1952), “anxiety reaction” was characterized by “anxious expectation and frequently associated with somatic symptomatology”, differentiated from normal apprehensiveness/fear. it was diagnosed when anxiety was diffuse and not restricted to definite situations or objects. in dsm-ii (1968), the diagnostic category “anxiety neurosis” was characterized by “anxious over-concern extending to panic and frequently associated with somatic symptoms”. and in dsm-iii (1980), “anxiety neurosis” was split into generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder.

“panphobia” is an outdated term for gad/pd. even when it was used, it was seldom used because there were several similar terms determined more accurate, all of which were replaced and eventually evolved into gad/pd.

the claim of ableism due to using “panphobia” is as weak and poorly researched as every other argument made against pansexuality/pan people. that’s what happens when people prioritize being—wait for it—panphobic over being factually, historically correct.

and yes, words can mean more than one thing. so even if “panphobia” was still used as a medical term, that wouldn’t mean it couldn’t be used for pan hate, too. also, using “phobia” for any queer hate has been criticized for at least a decade. so if the people arguing against “panphobia" truly cared about ableism, they wouldn’t be only arguing against “panphobia”. and they wouldn’t be ignoring all the people with gad/pd addressing this.

sources:

also, i made a twitter thread of this post if you’re into that.

here's the story. i know expressvpn has been recommended in some 🏴‍☠️ how-to posts but it is not trustworthy. the parent company, kape technologies, not only used to distribute malate but has ties to multiple state surveillance agencies. and be careful where you look for info about good vpns, because kape technologies owns a bunch of "vpn review" sites too

In case anyone can’t read the article for whatever reasons, the VPNs acquired are:

ExpressVPN

Private Internet Access

Zenmate

CyberGhost

And the VPN review sites they purchased are:

vpnMentor

Wizcase

So if you use any of those, time to look for other options.

PROTON VPN REIGNS SUPREME