Sam Harper

@sharper.bsky.social

Journaliste pour https://pivot.quebec | Journalist at Pivot https://lebruitdesbottes.ca Infosec dilettante | OSINT amateur Cofondateur | co-founder https://cybercitoyen.org

Même après 1000 cas où la police ment et invente des histoires, elle est encore souvent traitée comme la vérité absolue, qu'on n'a pas besoin de questionner. Ces histoires de défis en ligne, ça devrait justement être l'occasion de se pratiquer à les challenger, à douter d'eux. Ok là j'ai fini.

I had an idea years ago of creating a (paid) labour reporting internship to help students gain experience doing labour reporting Emma was our first labour intern and I was so proud we could later hire her as full-time labour reporter Please follow @emmaarkell.bsky.social and support her journalism

Last week, @lemonde.fr asked us if the World Cup had made racism explode online. Yes and no. - Twitter/X had more hate speech than FB, YouTube, TikTok and Insta **combined**. - But it mostly came from the same community spreading racist content all year anyway. Football was just today's excuse.

Football, a playground for hatefull communities
With screenshot of tweets with content like "Blacks are a sub-species" and tweets about muslim attacks.

FWIW, Meta was fully aware of how these glasses would primarily be used. The glasses were designed to erase consent, and that is why they exist. Anything that they do that suggests they want to ameliorate this use is an attempt to win the PR battle and manipulate public opinion.

Meta Desperately Trying to Ban Creeps Misusing Its AI "Pervert Glasses"

Meta is vowing to crack down on creeps misusing its Ray Ban smart glasses. Whether it will be enough to regain trust remains to be seen.

futurism.com

From the article… “You don't need to buy or use these invasive technologies, and you can reject them. Friends don't let friends wear pervert glasses.” Amen!

Zack Whittaker@zackwhittaker.com · 4w ago

Smart glasses with cameras and microphones built-in and facial recognition to come are the latest fad in surveillance tech. For this.weekinsecurity.com, I wrote about why the backlash against smart glasses — aka "pervert glasses" — is justified from a security and privacy perspective. Please share!

Les vrais responsables des canicules : le gouvernement, les votes à l’Assemblée nationale, les exportateurs d’énergies fossiles, les médias qui préfèrent parler de la clim et du petit Hamza plutôt que des milliers de morts des canicules. Partagez ce thread, et politisons cette canicule !

Nouveau : le pipeline promis par Mark Carney à l'Alberta et à l'industrie pétrolière sera construit. -Financement public via Trans Mountain (après les 35 milliards $ du fédéral pour l'expansion de Trans Mountain) -Un million de barils par jour = 365 millions de barils par année -Projet soumis au BGP

Today we beat Stephen Miller’s lawsuit mill in court! For 3 years I’ve been a defendant in a case filed by America First Legal on behalf of Gateway Pundit & a random antivaxxer we’d never heard of until she sued us. The plaintiffs claimed we “censored” them. It was a lie. They just lost.

Case 3:23-cv-00571-TAD-KDM
Document 219
5979
Filed 07/01/26 Page 1 of 23 PagelD #:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
JILL HINES ET AL
VERSUS
ALEX STAMOS ET AL
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00571
JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY
MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D.
MCCLUSKY
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is a Renewed Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter and Personal Jurisdiction [Doc. No. 191] filed by Defendants, Alex Stamos,
Renée DiResta, the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, the
Leland Stanford Junior University, Kate Starbird, Graphika, Camille François, the
Atlantic Council, and Graham Brookie (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs, Jill Hines ("Hines") and Jim Hoft ("Hoft") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed an Opposition
[Doc. No. 207]. Defendants then filed a Reply [Doc. No. 209].
For the reasons set forth, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
This case is before the Court on limited remand to determine jurisdiction.
Hines v. Stamos, 111 F.4th 551 (5th Cir. 2024); see also [Doc. No. 112]. On May 2,