Werd I/O

[Dan Sinker]

This story doesn't feel like it's going to end up inspiring, but bear with it:

"George Dale printed their names in his newspaper, part of his unrelenting, unceasing, and unflinching attack on the Muncie Klan.

[...] When he wrote an editorial accusing circuit court judge Clarence Dearth of being a Klansman and stacking his juries with Klansmen, that judge sent Dale twice to perform hard labor on a penal farm. He later fled to Ohio to avoid arrest. When Dale got home, he picked up right where he left off and he and Judge Dearth fought a long and protracted defamation battle that left Dale broke."

But do stick with it, because not only is the entirety of George Dale and the story of what he did in Muncie, Indiana inspirational from start to finish, but the conclusion might be enough fire to power you through and inspire your own acts of democratic heroism.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Bert Hubert]

A European point of view:

"We now have the bizarre situation that anyone with any sense can see that America is no longer a reliable partner, and that the entire US business world bows to Trump’s dictatorial will, but we STILL are doing everything we can to transfer entire governments and most of our own businesses to their clouds.

Not only is it scary to have all your data available to US spying, it is also a huge risk for your business/government continuity. From now on, all our business processes can be brought to a halt with the push of a button in the US. And not only will everything then stop, will we ever get our data back? Or are we being held hostage? This is not a theoretical scenario, something like this has already happened."

I can understand the risks. What's interesting is that many US companies also feel that way about European cloud services, in an effort to avoid having to adhere to the GDPR. Should every business adhere to strong privacy standards? Absolutely. I'm not defending it or suggesting it's equally justifiable. Regardless, the impulse exists.

These trends ultimately culminate in stratified national internets: technically connected internationally but in effect separated through different legal requirements and jurisdictions. (Some national internets are also separated by firewall or content filters - think China, for example.)

It would be nice to reverse this trend: one of the real benefits of the internet is that everyone is connected to everyone else. But I can also fully understand why Europeans (and particularly European governments) are worried about US policies and want to remain independent from them. There is a security and business continuity issue here, and they're right to de-risk their operations.

#Technology

[Link]

[Lizzie Presser, Andrea Suozzo, Sophie Chou and Kavitha Surana at ProPublica]

My colleagues at ProPublica conducted a first-of-its-kind data analysis on health outcomes after Texas banned abortion in 2021.

Here's what it found:

"The rate of sepsis shot up more than 50% for women hospitalized when they lost their pregnancies in the second trimester, ProPublica found.

The new reporting shows that, after the state banned abortion, dozens more pregnant and postpartum women died in Texas hospitals than had in pre-pandemic years, which ProPublica used as a baseline to avoid COVID-19-related distortions. As the maternal mortality rate dropped nationally, ProPublica found, it rose substantially in Texas."

The abortion ban is leading to dangerous delays in care that is leading to an uptick in maternal death. Which is exactly what patient advocates warned would happen.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Matt Webb]

I love this:

"Slowly, slowly, the web was taken over by platforms. Your feeling of success is based on your platform’s algorithm, which may not have your interests at heart. Feeding your words to a platform is a vote for its values, whether you like it or not. And they roach-motel you by owning your audience, making you feel that it’s a good trade because you get “discovery.” (Though I know that chasing popularity is a fool’s dream.)

Writing a blog on your own site is a way to escape all of that. Plus your words build up over time. That’s unique. Nobody else values your words like you do."

Fun fact: I started my first startup, the open source social networking platform Elgg, after my university employer told me, verbatim, "Blogging is for teenage girls crying in their bedrooms." I've been pro-blogging both long before and long after it was cool.

So sure, blogging might never be mainstream. But it can also be leading edge: a way to demonstrate what ownership can look like. A place to own your words by every definition of the word "own".

Everyone should have a blog. Everyone should write on their own terms. I want to read everyone's reflections; understand their worldviews from their perspectives, from a space that is truly theirs.

As Matt says:

"I evangelise blogging because it has been good to me.

[...] You should start a blog. Why? Because, well, haven’t I just been saying?"

There's no better time to start than now.

#Indieweb

[Link]

[Alissa Quart in Columbia Journalism Review]

This article cuts right to the core of why media is failing to connect with mass audiences in America. It doesn't report from a perspective that they can identify with - largely because it doesn't hire people like them.

What would working-class media look like?

"It would be one where economic reporters are embedded in blue-collar communities and neighborhoods rather than financial districts, and source networks built around people with direct experience instead of outside analysts. Centering inflation coverage around wage stagnation rather than the stock market and written for people who live paycheck to paycheck. Healthcare reporting would be conducted by those who have experienced medical debt. Labor reporting that represents workers not as mute sufferers but as true experts. Housing that is considered from the perspective of the renter, not the landlord or developer."

Because:

"While Americans in polls report historically low levels of trust in the media, it could be in large part because much of the press hasn’t been speaking to the concerns of their everyday lives."

The piece goes on to laud people from working-class backgrounds like Heather Bryant, who I think is a voice that every newsroom needs to be listening to. Instead, journalism is often a very inward-looking, upper middle class endeavor; people who grew up with nannies and went to private school are overrepresented while people who grew up on income support and had a traditional state education are underrepresented. And because richer people are better targets for advertising buys, ad-supported publications chose to chase them.

In this vacuum, another kind of media has erupted to meet the needs of a disconnected audience:

"This brings us to where we are today with faux-prole Republican journalists, a kind of social-class kitsch of Rogan-ish dudes on barstools with podcasts."

Exactly. This moment requires fundamental change that is about reforming every part of journalistic culture - not just to be more focused on who the audience actually is, but to be more representative of them. That means creating the conditions that allow working-class journalists to stick with it, providing support and training structures that don't assume independent wealth, and truly internalizing the industry's shortcomings on this front.

On that last point, I don't know how optimistic I feel that real change is possible. But we should try.

#Media

[Link]

[Allison Hantschel in DAME]

Hand-wringing over people leaving overtly unsafe spaces like X to find communities that are actually enjoyable to hang out in (like Mastodon and BlueSky) is absolute nonsense.

"With that user growth, mostly from liberals disgusted with Musk’s nonstop promotion of conservative disinformation, came criticism that people were merely seeking out an ideological “echo chamber” to reinforce their views.

They’re complaining that Americans are underexposed to fresh new ideas like “non-white races are inferior” and “trans people shouldn’t exist” and “we should hunt the poor for sport” and without algorithmic pressure will suffer without such content. They’re upset that they’re not allowed to promote their toxic work into the eyeballs of people who aren’t looking for it."

Let's put it like this. If you're at a party and it's full of assholes, it's quite reasonable to leave and go to another party. There's no law that says X is the social networking platform for everybody (at least, not yet). There's nothing that says you have to be on Facebook or Instagram. Everyone gets to use the law of two feet to find a community that's comfortable for them.

Hantschel puts it like this:

"There’s no obligation to stay where you find nothing useful or interesting, and there’s no homework assignment that requires you to allow people to ruin your experience. You’re not required to spend a certain number of hours a day engaging with hateful people, or even people you just dislike, in order to accumulate Intellectual Diversity Points."

What these commentators are really complaining about: they spent well over a decade building up followings on these platforms and now people are looking elsewhere, rendering their investment moot. That's just too bad.

#Technology

[Link]

[PJ Onori]

I can't disagree with anything here:

"Web 2.0 seemed like such a great idea in a more innocent time. We’re at a point where it’s only prudent to view third-parties as guilty until proven innocent. Not as some abstract, principled stance, but for our own direct benefit.

Now, more than ever, it’s critical to own your data. Really own it. Like, on your hard drive and hosted on your website. Ideally on your own server, but one step at a time."

We still have a lot of work to do to make this easier and cheaper. Owning your own domain costs money; running web hosting costs money. Not everyone can afford that, and this kind of self-sovereignty should be available to all: if only wealthy people can own their own stuff, the movement is meaningless.

But the principle is right. We are being exploited, locked down, pigeonholed, and forced into templates of someone else's making. We can do so much better.

#Indieweb

[Link]

[Matt Binder at disruptionist]

Just in case you thought he was still all about free speech:

"Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, is currently banning links to “Signal.me,” a URL used by the encrypted messaging service Signal. The “Signal.me” domain is specifically used by the service so that users can send out a quick link to directly contact them through the messaging app."

Signal, of course, is the encrypted chat app that is used by anyone who wants to have conversations with freedom from surveillance - including activists, journalists, and, as it happens, public servants who have either been fired or are under threat of it. As the article points out:

"Signal has been an important tool for journalists over the years as really one of the few services that are truly private. All messages are end-to-end encrypted, everything is stored on device, and no content is kept on any Signal servers in the cloud. If a source wants to reach out to a reporter and be sure their communication would be as confidential as possible, Signal is usually one of the primary methods of choice."

This includes public servants blowing the whistle on DOGE. So it's weird that X is blocking it. But given Musk's activities in the current moment, maybe not surprising.

#Technology

[Link]

[Mastodon]

Mastodon doesn't have quote posts, but is finally adding them after years of pressure. It's a harder decision than you might think - which is made clear by this excellent post by the team.

In order to help mitigate potential abuse, the team has imposed three main requirements:

• You will be able to choose whether your posts can be quoted at all.
• You will be notified when someone quotes you.
• You will be able to withdraw your post from the quoted context at any time.

Some Mastodon clients fake support now by showing a post in a quoted context whenever it's linked to from another post, but this doesn't have any of the aforementioned properties, and therefore is more susceptible to abuse. And ActivityPub, as yet, doesn't have a great way to represent this either.

So it makes sense that it's taken a while: Mastodon wants to do it correctly to preserve community health, and do it in a standard way that other Fediverse participants can use, too.

I appreciate the transparency and approach. I'd love to see many more updates in this vein.

#Fediverse

[Link]

[Joe Wilkins in Futurism]

The job market in the tech industry has been brutal for a little while now, and doesn't show signs of getting easier.

"Of all the workers devastated by the carnage, former tech workers in Silicon Valley are having a particularly rough go of it.

The region's former software engineers and developers — whose jobs were previously thought to be ironclad — are now having to contend with a fiercely competitive job market in one of the most expensive housing markets in the world."

Silicon Valley - which, here as in a lot of places, is incorrectly used to mean the San Francisco Bay Area - is in a bit of a pickle. Mass layoffs have driven down salaries, so many tech companies are quietly firing swathes of workers and re-hiring those seats in order to lower their costs. That's before you get to the actual downsizing, which has sometimes been significant.

And at the same time, living costs are sky-high, and house prices are all but unobtainable. When so many peoples' wealth is tied to the equity in their home, there are two possible outcomes: a significant drop in wealth as prices decline (particularly as fired employees flee for more affordable climes), or a significant increase in inequality as prices continue to climb. Either way, that doesn't look good.

That's a societal problem, but it's also a problem for the tech industry. Who can afford to found a startup when base prices are so high? The demographics of founders are narrowing to the already well off, forcing other founders to look elsewhere.

The solution will have to involve more help (potentially including more startup funding for a wider set of founders) or better jobs in the area. Otherwise Silicon Valley will continue to lose talent to other parts of the country and the world. Tech companies are trying to get their employees to return to the office to counteract this effect, but it simply won't be enough; no RTO policy is compelling enough when you can't afford to buy a house and bring up a family.

That's an opportunity for other ecosystems, but it's one that they will need to intentionally pick up. To date, smart tech ecosystem strategies in other parts of the world have been few and far between - not least because they aim for a similar level of talent density as Silicon Valley rather than embracing a remote, distributed culture.

I openly miss living in the Bay Area and may return in the future, so I have skin in the game. I'm curious to see what happens here.

#Technology

[Link]

[Jon Pincus at The Nexus of Privacy]

There's an argument that one reason Elon Musk bought Twitter was to reduce its effectiveness as a platform for progressive organizing. Whether you buy that or not, it's clear that the new set of social networks are fertile ground for new and existing movements to make progress.

The question is: how? Jon is an experienced organizer and is here to help out:

"The Nexus of Privacy is planning a series of online discussions and video/phone calls focusing on organizing on decentralized social networks. There's a range of topics to cover, including looking at the tradeoffs between the different platforms for different use cases, brainstorming how organizers can leverage these platforms, easy ways to start exploring, and ways for groups to move as a whole."

There's a form to express interest (which uses CryptPad to support anonymity, which is both new to me and seems like a great platform in itself). If you're interested in organizing using decentralized social networks as a tool, these sessions look like they'll be a good resource.

#Fediverse

[Link]

[Miriam Eric Suzanne]

Every single word of this piece resonated for me, from the underlying discomfort to the realization that AI as it currently manifests reflects a kind of fascist mindset in itself: an enclosure movement of culture and diversity that concentrates power into a handful of vendors.

This is true of me too:

"Based on every conference I’ve attended over the last year, I can absolutely say we’re a fringe minority. And it’s wearing me out. I don’t know how to participate in a community that so eagerly brushes aside the active and intentional/foundational harms of a technology. In return for what? Faster copypasta? Automation tools being rebranded as an “agentic” web? Assurance that we won’t be left behind?"

I think drawing the line between "tech" and "the web" is important, and this piece captures exactly how I've been feeling about it:

"“Tech” was always a vague and hand-waving field – a way to side-step regulations while starting an unlicensed taxi company or hotel chain. That was never my interest.

But I got curious about the web, a weird little project built for sharing research between scientists. And I still think this web could be pretty cool, actually, if it wasn’t trapped in the clutches of big tech. If we can focus on the bits that make it special – the bits that make it unwieldy for capitalism."

So this post made me (1) feel less alone (2) like I want to be friends with its author. This is a fringe feeling, unfortunately, but if enough of us stick together, maybe we can manifest an alternative.

#Technology

[Link]

[Sergey Bogdanov]

This is a story about parenting, but also about the importance of considering context inclusively. We've all heard about the Stanford marshmallow experiment, but:

"Kids from wealthier families waited longer than kids from low-income families. Not because they had more self-control, but because their environment made waiting feel safer. If you grow up knowing there will always be food on the table, waiting for an extra marshmallow isn’t a big deal. But if your life is more uncertain, grabbing what you can when you can make total sense. It’s a survival skill, not a lack of discipline."

It's not just about socioeconomic background; it's also, as the article points out, about building a culture of trust. That's important in families, but also in companies, and everywhere.

"So what’s the takeaway here? It’s simple, really: as parents, we set the tone. Our actions, promises, and reliability shape how our kids see the world. Are we building an environment where they feel safe enough to wait? Or are we teaching them that they need to grab what they can, when they can?"

What can we change to create emotional safety? How can we let them know they're protected? It really matters, in all walks of life.

#Parenting

[Link]

[Jennifer Gerson at The 19th]

Musk has been seen with his child, X Æ A-Xii (or "Lil X" for short), at press conferences. But, as Jennifer Gerson notes here, it's not just a photo op.

"Musk, a father of 12, is an avowed pronatalist, or someone who believes declining population rates are a major concern and has committed to work to remedy this by having as many children as possible. He sees part of his life’s work as repopulating the planet with as many children — and exceptional children at that — as possible."

It's also a wild double standard. Imagine the chorus of conservative mocking if a woman had done the same thing. That's not to say that children shouldn't be normalized at work - they really should - but what's happening in the current moment is hardly a symbol of radical inclusion.

"Pronatalism requires that people who are able to carry pregnancies — mostly women — be pregnant for large periods of time. These pregnancies can have a major impact on women’s participation in the workforce and economic mobility."

Finally, as Gerson points out, it's certainly worth mentioning that pro-natalists aren't just in favor of any kind of baby. They're heavy eugenicists, with a focus on certain characteristics, including retrograde ideas like potential IQ. Might this also include, in Musk's case, the 14 words? I couldn't possibly say.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Social Web Foundation]

The Social Web Foundation has joined the W3C:

"SWF joins CDT as one of the few civil society organizations that comprise the Consortium. SWF’s membership in the W3C underscores our commitment to promoting an open and federated social web, and our alignment with the W3C mission to develop web standards through community consensus that ensures the long-term growth and accessibility of technical specifications that are openly licensed."

More forward motion for the open social web as a core part of the open web itself. This is also very good news:

"In terms of concrete ongoing work, we look forward to bringing end-to-end encryption to direct messages in ActivityPub, developing groups on the social web, supporting data portability with ActivityPub, making discovery of ActivityPub objects and their authors easier."

These will all make the open social web safer, more flexible, and easier to build on for new platform entrants. Let's go.

#Fediverse

[Link]

[Sarah Perez at TechCrunch]

This was a very nice surprise to see:

"Automattic confirmed to TechCrunch that when the migration is complete, every Tumblr user will be able to federate their blog via ActivityPub, just as every WordPress.com user can today."

ActivityPub is the open protocol behind Mastodon and Pixelfed, among others. Threads and Ghost have also been steadily adding support.

Given the long tail of ActivityPub and the simultaneous rise of Bluesky, which is connected to the ActivityPub network via Bridgy Fed, the future of the open social web is very bright. It is the future of all social media. This is another great milestone along the road.

#Fediverse

[Link]

[Oneofthelibrarians at LibrarianShipwreck]

Some advice about how to survive this era from LibrarianShipwreck, one of my most favorite blogs on the planet:

"So, uh, it’s pretty bad out there! You are probably trying to figure out what the hell to do about it. Here are some words of advice, from wisdom gained through a couple decades in the trenches. Hope it helps."

Some of these are things that I am very bad at, including prioritizing physical health / ability. I think there's also a lot to say in favor of this:

"The Western, and especially USAian, mythos of the singularly special hero is a load of hooey. Don’t fall into that trap. Even when we occasionally do have individuals who make an outsized difference, if you need the thoughts in this post you are almost certainly not positioned to be that person. And that’s ok!"

What these times need, in other words, is co-operation, mutual aid, community, and allyship. American culture, as the piece says, is oriented around rugged individualism; while we all have individual rights, including the right to self-identity, the right to safety, the right to freedom of speech and thought, and so on, it's community that will set us free.

Jerry Springer was a cultural grenade who in some ways paved the path to where we are, but he got one thing right: he signed off every day with the mantra, "take care of yourselves, and each other." That's the spirit.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Judd Legum and Rebecca Crosby in Popular Information]

The removal of banned terms on both internal and external government websites is going more stupidly than one might have expected:

"One example included a job listing page for the Department of Homeland Security that removed language about maintaining an “inclusive environment.” The Post also found examples of words being removed that had nothing to do with DEI, such as a page on the Department of the Interior’s website that boasted of its museums' “diverse collections,” removing the word “diverse.”"

And:

"The memo acknowledges that the list includes many terms that are used by the NSA in contexts that have nothing to do with DEI. For example, the term "privilege" is used by the NSA in the context of "privilege escalation." In the intelligence world, privilege escalation refers to "techniques that adversaries use to gain higher-level permissions on a system or network.""

The whole enterprise is silly, of course, but this is an incredibly bad way to go about it. Words have meaning, and sometimes you need to use them. A global search and replace isn't a perfect way to revamp the whole apparatus of federal government.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Iker Seisdedos interviewing Judith Butler in EL PAÍS English]

Judith Butler is as on-point as ever:

"Q. It wasn’t just Trumpism. Some Democratic voices say it’s time to move beyond the issue of trans rights in areas like sports, which affect very few people.

A. You could say that about the Jews, Black people or Haitians, or any very vulnerable minority. Once you decide that a single vulnerable minority can be sacrificed, you’re operating within a fascist logic, because that means there might be a second one you’re willing to sacrifice, and a third, a fourth, and then what happens?"

This is exactly it. I've also heard voices say that there should have been less discussion of racial equity: less Black Lives Matter, less 1619 Project, less discussion of systemic inequality. It's nonsense, and as Butler says, it's a road that leads us down an inevitably fascist path.

The whole interview is very much worth your time: nuanced and well-considered.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Jessica Kutz at The 19th]

USAID's defunding will lead directly to women's deaths:

"As of 2023, 67 percent of contraceptives supplied through USAID went to Africa, where some of the leading causes of death for girls and women are related to pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections like HIV. According to an analysis by the Guttmacher Institute, if no contraceptive care is provided by USAID in 2025, that will lead to about 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and over 8,000 deaths related to pregnancy and childbirth complications."

The article goes on to detail efforts in countries like Afghanistan, Senegal, India, and Nigeria. The idea that we should simply rug-pull these efforts is ludicrous: it sends a clear message that we no longer care about the well-being of people overseas, and that we don't think their quality of life is important to us or affects us. This is an obvious, profound mistake.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Mica Rosenberg, Perla Trevizo, and Zisiga Mukulu in ProPublica, co-published with The Texas Tribune]

This is a beautifully-designed co-production between ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, illustrating the immigration policies that Donald Trump enacted on day one. These encompassed dozens of policies that were revived from his first term, as well as seven new ones that hadn't been tried before.

"In order to provide a glimpse of the enormity of the changes that are underway, ProPublica and the Tribune identified nearly three dozen of the most impactful policy changes set in motion by the orders signed on the first day. Most were pulled from the playbook of Trump’s previous presidency. Others are unprecedented."

The new ones are pretty stark, including:

"Ending and clawing back funding from organizations that support migrants: Seeks to stop or limit money to nongovernmental organizations that provide shelter and services to migrants released at the border, as well as legal orientation programs for people in immigration proceedings."

And, of course much has been written about the unconstitutionality of:

"Seeks to end birthright citizenship: Attempts to end birthright citizenship of children born to parents either illegally in the United States or under a temporary legal status, something Trump had only said he wanted to do in his first term."

It's useful to have these written in one place, in an easy-to-digest form, together with updates on what's happened since. The news can feel like a deluge, and aggregating the updates into something parseable is important.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Natalia Antelava in Coda Story]

This is a useful framework for thinking about ongoing harm.

"It was 2014, and I was standing in the ruins of Donetsk airport, when a Russian-backed rebel commander launched into what seemed like an oddly academic lecture. Between bursts of artillery fire, he explained an American political science concept: the Overton Window – a theory that describes the range of policies and ideas a society considers acceptable at any given time. Politicians can’t successfully propose anything outside this “window” of acceptability without risking their careers. “The West uses this window,” he said, smoke from his cigarette blowing into my face, “to destroy our traditional values by telling us it’s okay for me to marry a man and for you to marry a woman. But we won’t let them.”"

And that's the real, lasting impact of Trump and his worldview:

"As transactional relationships replace values-based alliances, as oligarchic control displaces democratic institutions, as the unthinkable becomes routine – the transformation of our societies isn’t happening by accident."

What will undoing this take? How can we shift the Overton Window back towards inclusion, communities, and compassion? How can we get to the mutualistic, integrated society we need to reach, and say goodbye to this disgustingly retrograde conservatism for good?

#Democracy

[Link]

[Dan Hon in MIT Technology Review]

The always-brilliant Dan Hon on DOGE:

"We’re seeing in real time that there are no practical technical measures preventing someone from taking a spanner to the technology that keeps our government stable, that keeps society running every day—despite the very real consequences.

So we should plan for the worst, even if the likelihood of the worst is low."

The suggestions that follow - identifying risks, working together, standing up and saying "no" - are all sensible and needed.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Gil Duran in The Nerd Reich]

Curtis Yarvin's influence is felt again:

" In an essay on his paywalled Substack, he imagined a second Trump presidency in which Trump would enable a radical government transformation. The proposal will sound familiar to anyone who has watched Musk wreak havoc on the United States Government (USG) over the past three weeks."

As Duran points out, none of what's happening right now is exactly new or a surprise:

"What surprises me most is how the political press generally fails to inform the public that Musk is taking a systematic approach, one that has been outlined in public forums for years. (Some press outlets, like the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, are owned by billionaires keenly interested in kowtowing to Musk and Trump.)"

For many people, the myth of American exceptionalism may be so deeply in their bloodstream that they simply can't imagine our institutions falling to this. But of course they can: this is the country that gave us McCarthyism and Jim Crow. it's happening in plain sight.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Avi Asher-Schapiro, Christopher Bing, Annie Waldman, Brett Murphy, Andy Kroll, Justin Elliott, Kirsten Berg, Sebastian Rotella, Alex Mierjeski, Pratheek Rebala and Al Shaw at ProPublica]

My colleagues at ProPublica have published the largest list yet of who is actually involved in DOGE:

"While some have been public about their involvement, others have attempted to keep their roles secret, scrubbing LinkedIn pages and other sources of data. With little information from the White House, ProPublica is attempting to document who is involved and what they are doing."

This is a living document: ProPublica is still reporting. As the article points out:

"We are still reporting. Do you have information about any of the people listed below? Do you know of any other Musk associates who have entered the federal government? You can reach our tip line. Please be as specific, detailed and clear as you can."

The whole list is worth reviewing.

#Democracy

[Link]