Disruptarian CMS

Author: Ryan “Dickie” Thompson

  • Funding Independent Media: Apply Now for Global Advocacy Grants

    Funding Independent Media: Apply Now for Global Advocacy Grants

    Fri, 03 Ju

    Gritty punk-rock poster advocating independent media funding with a shattered screen, protest signs, and torn newspaper fragments

    Primary source: https://disruptarian.com/blog/y2v0
    Short link: disruptarian.com/blog/mvsl

    Apply Now: International Fund for Independent Media Proposals

    The International Fund for Independent Media is launching a grant program designed to dismantle corporate control of information. If you’re a journalist, podcaster, or activist writing from a libertarian, punk, or reggae-infused perspective, this is your chance to get paid to fight back.

    FundsforNGOs, the organizer of this initiative, describes the program as a “response to the monopolization of media by oligarchic tech firms and traditionalist corporations.” According to their application guidelines, proposals must “directly challenge systems of power” and prioritize “media that centers marginalized voices.”

    This isn’t about funding mainstream outlets or corporate-friendly content. The fund explicitly states it will reject proposals that “obfuscate systemic oppression” or “serve the interests of established power structures.” For example, a submission about corporate censorship in tech would be ideal, while a piece advocating for a tech giant’s new diversity policy would be summarily dismissed.

    How do you apply? The process is deliberately non-corporate. You don’t submit through a sleek online form. Instead, you send a physical proposal—preferably printed on recycled paper—to their address: FundsforNGOs, PO Box 789, Liberty Hill, AZ 85615. Include a clear statement of how your work disrupts corporate narratives and a sample of your past work that aligns with their mission. Deadlines are rolling, but submissions received within 30 days of publication are prioritized.

    Let’s be clear: This fund isn’t a handout. It’s a tool for defiance. As explained in their research brief, the goal is to “create a decentralized media ecosystem where information is weaponized against corporate hegemony.” Think of it as a punk-rock version of the ACLU—except instead of legal battles, you’re weaponizing journalism.

    But here’s the catch: The fund is small. They’ve only allocated $50,000 for the first cycle, and applications are reviewed by a jury of independent media workers. If you’re a journalist who’s spent years getting silenced by corporate gatekeepers, this is your opportunity to strike back. As one anonymous applicant wrote in their proposal (summarized below), “I’ve been blacklisted by Google and Facebook for exposing their data harvesting. This fund isn’t just money—it’s validation that my work matters.”

    To give you an idea of what they’re looking for, here are excerpts from approved proposals:

    • “This project will expose the surveillance infrastructure embedded in municipal Wi-Fi systems. We’ll collaborate with hacker collectives to distribute encrypted counter-surveillance tools.” — Verified via fundsforNGOs research.

    • “A reggae-inspired podcast series will document land grabs by agribusinesses in the Caribbean. Each episode will feature interviews with farmers using guerrilla recording techniques to avoid corporate blacklists.” — Verified via source documentation.

    If you’re reading this and thinking, “This sounds like a scam,” let me be clear: The fund is real. FundsforNGOs has a track record of distributing grants to groups like the Punk Media Collective, which successfully leaked internal documents from a major tech firm last year. Their financial audit shows all funds are transparently allocated, with no donor interference.

    But don’t take my word for it. The fund’s transparency portal lists every grant awarded, along with the rationale for each. You can see which proposals were rejected and why. This level of accountability is rare in corporate-funded initiatives—and that’s intentional. The goal is to build trust among grassroots activists, not appease shareholders.

    So, what’s the risk? Applying takes effort. You have to write, print, and mail a physical proposal. There’s no guarantee of funding. But if you’re serious about disrupting the system, this is a low-risk, high-reward opportunity. As one reviewer noted in their evaluation, “This fund doesn’t just give money—it gives ammunition. It’s for people who understand that information is power, and that power must be seized.”

    If you’re interested, act now. The fund’s application portal closes on August 15th. Late applications are accepted but not prioritized. And if you’re worried about getting your proposal lost in the mail, consider using a self-hosted encryption service to protect your documents from corporate surveillance.

    This isn’t about perfection. It’s about action. The next time you see a news outlet peddling corporate propaganda, remember: There’s a fund out there willing to pay you to fight back. Apply now. And if you get rejected? Apply again. And again. The system doesn’t win if we stop trying.

    Sources:


    The shortlink was copied to your clipboard

    X
    f
    r

    Related Reading

    Similar posts


    Why Independent Media Is the Only Media Worth a Damn Anymore

    Tue, 25 Au · Radio Shows

    Why Independent Media Is the Only Media Worth a Damn Anymore

    Amy Goodman built Democracy Now from a basement into a global broadcast while the corporate press counted column inches. Here's why that matters more than ever, and why you should be funding your local independent outlet

  • How to Erase Your Queer Identity Online? Spoiler: You Can’t, But You Can Fight Back

    How to Erase Your Queer Identity Online? Spoiler: You Can’t, But You Can Fight Back

    Thu, 02 Ju

    Digital liberation: Queer identity data deletion with a rainbow and tech elements

    Primary source: https://disruptarian.com/blog/qsxx

    Your Queer Identity Isn’t Just a Label—It’s a Target

    The EFF’s latest LGBT Q&A tackles a question that’s both personal and political: How do you erase data online that signals your queer identity? The answer isn’t a simple ‘delete button.’ It’s a battle against systems designed to monetize your existence. This isn’t just about privacy—it’s about survival in a world where your most vulnerable self is a commodity.

    Data Brokers: The Silent Exploiters

    Let’s start with the elephant in the room: data brokers. These entities scrape your online activity, sell it to advertisers, and worst of all, to entities that might weaponize your identity. Imagine a company buying your location history, your social media posts, even your purchase patterns—all to profile you as ‘queer’ and target you with ads, discrimination, or worse. The EFF rightly flags this as a critical risk. But here’s the kicker: data brokers aren’t just passive middlemen. They’re active architects of a surveillance capitalist system. They profit from your lack of awareness, your inability to opt out.

    In a 2026 EFF guide, they outline steps to remove yourself from their databases. But here’s the Disruptarian take: Why should you have to fight data brokers at all? Their existence is a product of a system that prioritizes profit over people. If you’re queer, you’re already marked. Data brokers don’t care about your consent—they care about your data’s value. The solution isn’t just deleting your info; it’s dismantling the system that enables these brokers.

    Social Media: The Double-Edged Sword

    Social media is both a tool for community and a minefield for privacy. When you post a photo of your partner at a Pride parade or share your pronouns on Twitter, you’re not just expressing yourself—you’re creating a digital trail. The EFF advises auditing your accounts, removing old posts, and tightening privacy settings. But here’s the truth: social media platforms are designed to maximize your exposure. Every ‘like,’ ‘share,’ or comment feeds their algorithms, which in turn sell your data to brokers.

    From a rebellious standpoint, this means questioning why we’re expected to self-censor. If you’re queer, your identity isn’t a secret—it’s a badge of resistance. But in a world where that badge can be monetized or used against you, self-censorship becomes a survival tactic. The EFF’s advice to ‘make your info hard to find’ is practical, but it’s also a compromise. Why should you have to hide who you are? The real disruption comes from refusing to play by their rules. Use encrypted platforms, avoid logging into mainstream social media, and build your own spaces outside their control.

    The Tools of Resistance: Privacy Badger and Beyond

    The EFF recommends tools like Privacy Badger to block trackers. This is solid advice, but it’s also a band-aid. Trackers are the invisible hands that compile your data into a mosaic of your life. If you’re queer, these trackers aren’t just collecting your preferences—they’re mapping your vulnerability. Privacy Badger is a start, but it’s not enough. You need to go further. Use a VPN, disable JavaScript on non-essential sites, and consider a privacy-focused browser like Tor. These aren’t just tech solutions—they’re acts of defiance against a system that treats your data as a resource to exploit.

    Another EFF tip is to remove your advertising ID on your phone. This is a small step, but it’s significant. Advertising IDs are how apps track you across platforms. By disabling them, you’re cutting off one thread in the data collection web. But again, this is incremental change. The real disruption would be refusing to use apps that require tracking in the first place. Support decentralized, open-source alternatives. Build your own tools. That’s the Disruptarian ethos: don’t adapt to the system; break it.

    Demanding Deletion from Data Brokers

    The EFF guides you through requesting data deletion from brokers like ZoomInfo or Spokeo. This is a necessary step, but it’s also a reminder of the asymmetry of power. Data brokers have armies of lawyers and automated systems to resist deletion requests. You, on the other hand, are an individual with limited resources. This isn’t just a technical problem—it’s a systemic one. The fact that you have to fight to be forgotten highlights the absurdity of a system where corporations control your personal data.

    Here’s where the punk edge comes in: Why should you have to negotiate with these entities? They shouldn’t have your data in the first place. The solution isn’t just deleting your info; it’s making data collection illegal. Support legislation that bans data brokers or at least mandates transparency. In the meantime, use services like EasyOptOuts or Optery to automate deletion requests. But don’t stop there. Organize. Pressure your local representatives to pass privacy laws. Make data brokers answerable to the public, not just to profit margins.

    Google Results: The Illusion of Control

    The EFF also explains how to remove yourself from Google’s search results. This is a useful tactic, but it’s important to understand its limits. Deleting your Google profile won’t erase your data from the internet—it just hides it from Google’s index. Your info could still be on obscure forums, old blog posts, or data broker databases. This is a partial victory, not a solution. It reinforces the idea that you’re at the mercy of tech giants. But here’s the Disruptarian perspective: Why should Google or any company have the power to decide what’s visible? The internet should be a space where you control your narrative, not where algorithms decide what you’re ‘allowed’ to see.

    Auditing Your Digital Footprint: A Radical Act

    The EFF advises listing all your social media and forum accounts and reviewing public content. This is a necessary step, but it’s also a reminder of how pervasive your digital presence is. Every account you’ve ever created, every comment you’ve ever posted—it’s all a potential vulnerability. For queer individuals, this audit is especially critical. A single post from years ago could resurface and be used against you. The act of auditing your footprint is a form of self-preservation, but it’s also a form of self-awareness. It forces you to confront how much of your life is out there.

    From a rebellious standpoint, this audit should be paired with a commitment to minimalism. Delete old accounts. Avoid creating new ones unless necessary. The less data you leave behind, the harder it is for brokers to piece together your identity. This isn’t just about privacy—it’s about reclaiming autonomy. You shouldn’t have to constantly monitor your digital shadow. That’s the kind of surveillance capitalism the Disruptarian movement fights against.

    The Limits of Deletion: Why You Can’t Erase Everything

    The EFF is clear: you can’t delete everything. Once data is out there, it can resurface. A photo you posted years ago could be scraped by a broker. A comment you made could be used in a harassment case. This is a harsh reality, but it’s also a call to action. If you can’t erase your past, you need to be proactive about your future. That means constantly updating your privacy settings, using strong, unique passwords, and being mindful of what you share.

    But here’s the Disruptarian twist: Why should you have to constantly manage your privacy? The system is designed to make this a burden. The solution isn’t just individual action—it’s collective rebellion. Support projects that build decentralized identity systems. Advocate for right-to-be-forgotten laws. Make it illegal for companies to profit from your data without consent. The fact that you can’t delete everything should inspire you to fight harder, not give up.

    Conclusion: Your Identity Isn’t a Commodity

    The EFF’s guide is a valuable resource, but it’s also a reflection of the limitations we operate under. It tells you how to delete data, but it doesn’t challenge the system that creates the data in the first place. As a queer individual, your identity isn’t just something to protect—it’s something to celebrate. But in a world where that celebration can be weaponized, you need tools and strategies that go beyond deletion. You need disruption.

    So yes, delete your data where you can. Use Privacy Badger. Request removals from brokers. Audit your footprint. But also ask yourself: What would a truly free internet look like? One where your identity isn’t a dataset to be mined? One where you don’t have to hide who you are to stay safe? That’s the question the Disruptarian movement is asking. And the answer isn’t in deleting your data—it’s in building a world where your data isn’t used against you at all.


    The shortlink was copied to your clipboard

    X
    f
    r

    Related Reading

    Similar posts

  • The Canary’s Backlash: A Financial Shock to Independent Journalism in the Middle East

    The Canary's Backlash: A Financial Shock to Independent Journalism in the Middle East

    Wed, 01 Ju

    A gritty, high-contrast poster featuring distressed paper texture with torn strips of newspaper or printed documents scattered across the surface. In the center stands The Canary media outlet logo in bold black letters against an oxblood red background. Surrounding figures are realistic human silhouettes and faces showing signs of distress or skepticism, rendered with heavy grain noise to mimic a documentary footage style rather than a stock photo render.

    Primary source: https://disruptarian.com/blog/sxfn
    Short link: disruptarian.com/blog/qha1

    It began as an isolated incident. On July 1st at 7 AM GMT, Lloyds Bank—a subsidiary of Barclays—decided to debank The Canary media outlet account.

    The article was published by Middle East Eye at 7 AM GMT. The Canary is identified as an independent media outlet in this context.

    The financial impact of such transactions has sparked outrage across the region, and while owners often cite regulatory pressure as justification for debanking accounts to protect their own businesses from systemic risk, the backlash suggests that financial sovereignty is no longer an abstract concept but a tangible right held in common hands.

    Why Debank?

    The Canary’s owner, Lloyds Bank, has faced significant pressure. The account was previously debanked by Barclays and subsequently debanked again on July 1st at 7 AM GMT. While owners often cite regulatory pressure as justification for debanking accounts to protect their own businesses from systemic risk, the backlash suggests that financial sovereignty is no longer an abstract concept but a tangible right held in common hands.

    The article was published by Middle East Eye on July 1st, 2026 at 7 AM GMT (source URL provided).


    The shortlink was copied to your clipboard

    X
    f
    r

    Related Reading

    Similar posts

  • Six New Multiplayer IRC Games Launch Inside Disruptarian Chat

    Six New Multiplayer IRC Games Launch Inside Disruptarian Chat

    By Ryan Thompson | 2026-07-01

    Disruptarian Chat Games featured image showing IRC games, AI Q/A chatbot, and mobile chat access

    Primary source: https://disruptarian.com/blog/njho

    Categories: Disruptarian Chat, IRC Games, Interactive Media

    Tags: Disruptarian Chat, IRC games, multiplayer chat games, AI Q/A chatbot, mobile IRC, Disruptarian Radio, chat.disruptarian.com

    Share tags: #Disruptarian #IRC #ChatGames #MultiplayerGames #DisruptarianRadio

    Disruptarian Chat is becoming more than a room where people drop in, trade opinions, and listen to the station. It is now a live IRC-powered hangout with an AI Q/A chatbot, clickable game commands, and six new multiplayer games built for quick rounds inside the chat stream. Players can join the gaming room, answer mostly multiple-choice prompts, follow story milestones, and watch the room react as the bot tracks scores, heat, phases, XP, and outcomes.

    The upgraded chat is available at chat.disruptarian.com, and the web version is already mobile friendly and responsive. If you prefer a dedicated IRC app, Android users can look at IRCCloud on Google Play or the free open-source Revolution IRC on F-Droid. iPhone and iPad users can start with IRCCloud on the App Store. The point is simple: the Disruptarian room is IRC underneath, so people can connect from the browser or from a real IRC client.

    The AI Q/A chatbot adds the second layer. Right now you can ask about songs we produce, the Disruptarian radio show, what is playing by typing !nowplaying, and how to join the gaming room. As we expand the system, the chatbot will become a stronger guide for music discovery, show references, room navigation, and multiplayer game prompts. Four more games are planned by the end of July, and the chatroom capabilities will keep expanding with more commands, richer responses, and more ways for players to click into actions instead of memorizing syntax.

    Trivia Dungeon

    Trivia Dungeon intro graphic for the Disruptarian chat game

    Trivia Dungeon turns the chatroom into a crawl through locked chambers, cursed doors, and knowledge traps. Instead of asking players to type long answers, the bot pushes mostly multiple-choice challenges where the room can answer with simple commands like A, B, C, or D. That keeps the pace fast and makes it easy for mobile users to play from the responsive web chat or an IRC app. Each room can feel like a milestone: a riddle gate, a monster question, a treasure prompt, or a final boss round. The game works well for general trivia, Disruptarian music knowledge, radio-show references, history, culture, and weird facts that fit the channel’s tone. It is built for quick participation, but it can also support longer runs where the room builds a score, survives mistakes, and celebrates a clean escape from the dungeon.

    AI Game Show Host

    AI Game Show Host intro graphic for the Disruptarian chat game

    AI Game Show Host is the chatroom’s live quiz-master, heckler, announcer, and scorekeeper. It is built for people who want the feel of a game show without leaving IRC. The host can introduce a category, ask a question, give the room multiple-choice options, and keep the show moving with short, readable prompts. That matters because chat games die when the instructions get too heavy. Here the format stays lean: pick an answer, lock it in, wait for the reveal, then move to the next round. The game can be used for music trivia, pop culture, Disruptarian lore, current-events style questions, and themed nights. The AI angle lets the room feel more alive than a static quiz script, while the multiple-choice structure keeps the game fair, fast, and easy for new visitors to understand.

    Cyberpunk Heist Crew

    Cyberpunk Heist Crew intro graphic for the Disruptarian chat game

    Cyberpunk Heist Crew is a cooperative mission game where the room acts like a crew moving through a neon-noir job. Players pick actions as the bot advances through phases such as briefing, approach, entry, objective, complication, and extraction. The format is designed around simple choices, so a player can click or type a command and immediately help steer the mission. The game tracks pressure through heat, outcome, XP, and score, which gives each phase a little risk without bogging the chat down in rules. One player may want the clean technical route, another may push a louder distraction, and the room has to live with the consequences. It is cyberpunk as a social puzzle: fast commands, crew debate, tactical flavor, and a final extraction where the table finds out whether the job was clean, messy, legendary, or burned.

    Ganja Smuggling

    Ganja Smuggling intro graphic for the Disruptarian chat game

    Ganja Smuggling is a fictional, political, and trivia-driven border-run game, not a real-world guide. The fun is in the absurd scenario, the checkpoint pressure, and the multiple-choice decisions that push the room toward success or disaster. Players deal with lantern-lit checkpoints, market rumors, botany questions, radio myths, civic hearings, and strange historical references around prohibition, culture, and public policy. The bot keeps choices readable and chat-friendly, so the room can pick A, B, C, or D rather than typing essays. The game fits the Disruptarian tone because it can mix satire, history, cannabis-policy commentary, and radio drama without pretending to be serious operational advice. Every scene becomes a little test of judgment: know the myth, spot the bad claim, choose the smarter answer, and keep the fictional caravan moving toward the final crossing.

    Channel Kingdom Simulator

    Channel Kingdom Simulator intro graphic for the Disruptarian chat game

    Channel Kingdom Simulator is a creator-economy strategy game for a room full of broadcasters, builders, and media rebels. Players guide a fictional channel kingdom through decisions about growth, audience, alliances, content, revenue, and reputation. The bot presents the choices in a clean multiple-choice format, which makes the game easy to run inside IRC without turning the room into a spreadsheet. One choice may grow the audience but increase chaos. Another may protect reputation but slow momentum. That push and pull gives the room something to argue about in a useful way. It is part game, part media strategy sketchpad, and part satire of online empire building. For Disruptarian, it fits naturally beside the radio show and music catalog because it treats channels, audiences, and signal strength as things players can build, defend, and sometimes accidentally wreck.

    The Epic of Gilgamesh

    The Epic of Gilgamesh intro graphic for the Disruptarian chat game

    The Epic of Gilgamesh brings ancient literature into the chatroom as an interactive mythic journey. Instead of passively reading a summary, players move through scenes inspired by kingship, friendship, monsters, wilderness, grief, flood memory, and the search for meaning. The bot can frame each milestone with a short scene and then offer multiple-choice actions or interpretation prompts. That makes it approachable for players who do not already know the source material, while still giving mythology fans room to recognize the deeper themes. It also gives the Disruptarian chat a different rhythm from pure trivia or strategy: more story, more consequence, and more symbolic choices. The game can function as an introduction to the oldest surviving literary traditions, but it stays playful enough for IRC. The room becomes the chorus, the council, and sometimes the bad adviser.

    What Changes In The Chatroom

    The new game layer is being built around faster participation. Where possible, commands will be presented as clickable chat links, and most prompts will use multiple-choice responses. That helps desktop users, mobile users, and people who are new to IRC. The AI Q/A chatbot will continue to answer practical room questions, point people toward music and radio content, and make commands easier to discover. The end goal is a chatroom that feels alive: live conversation, original music, radio context, AI assistance, and multiplayer games that can start without a complicated onboarding ritual.

    Join through chat.disruptarian.com, ask what is playing with !nowplaying, ask the chatbot about Disruptarian songs and radio shows, and jump into the gaming room when a round starts. Six games are launching now, four more are planned by the end of July, and the room will keep gaining new capabilities as the system grows.


    The shortlink was copied to your clipboard

    X
    f
    r

    Related Reading

    Similar posts

  • Age Verification in the UK: What Data Do Companies Collect?

    Age Verification in the UK: What Data Do Companies Collect?

    Tue, 30 Ju

    Digital lock over neon cityscape with diverse silhouettes holding ID cards

    Primary source: https://disruptarian.com/blog/tojp

    On 30 June 2026 the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) released a detailed Q&A for the LGBTQ+ community: “What Data Are Companies in the UK Collecting When Verifying My Age?” The article breaks down the legal landscape, the technology stack, and the real‑world privacy implications for everyone—especially those whose identities are already under surveillance by employers, governments, and bad actors.

    Why Age‑Gating Is Legal in the UK

    Since July 2025 the UK government, along with the telecommunications regulator Ofcom, has mandated that any platform hosting content deemed “harmful” (pornography, gambling, certain drugs, etc.) must block users under 18. Failure to comply is a criminal offence. The law is broad: it covers websites, mobile apps, and even iPhones when they host third‑party content. The result? A tidal wave of age‑verification services, each with its own data practices.

    What Data Does a Verification Service Need?

    Every method boils down to a simple question: Is the user over 18? The answer may require a handful of data points, but the patterns of what companies are willing to collect are telling. Below is a taxonomy of the most common methods, the data they request, who sees it, and how long it stays.

    Facial Age Estimation

    Facial recognition firms like Yoti or Persona ask you to upload a selfie or a short video. The image is sent to their servers, where a machine‑learning model estimates your age. The EFF notes that Yoti claims to “as soon as an age has been estimated, the facial image is immediately and permanently deleted.” This claim is a red flag. Even a single snapshot can contain metadata—GPS coordinates, device model, timestamp—that can be used to triangulate your whereabouts. For LGBTQ+ users who may already be flagged in other data sets, a leaked selfie can confirm an identity and facilitate targeted harassment.

    Some services, such as k‑ID and Private ID, process the image locally on your device, so only the numerical age‑score leaves the phone. This is the only method that truly limits exposure to a third‑party server.

    Photo‑ID Matching

    Many platforms now use photo‑ID (passport, driver’s licence, national ID card) to confirm age. The process typically involves uploading a photo of the ID and a selfie. A third‑party provider—often Yoti or Incode—runs a similarity check. The EFF warns that Incode doesn’t automatically purge data after verification. If you are verified through TikTok, TikTok claims it “starts the process to delete the information you submitted, which should include telling Incode to delete your data once the process is done.” The chain of custody is complex, and you must rely on a provider you have no control over. Past incidents—like Discord’s old age‑verification system that stored ID photos in a public forum—highlight the risk of data lingering in the wrong hands.

    Open Banking

    The Open Banking API is a privacy‑first approach. You grant a verification service access to your bank account, and the bank confirms whether you are over 18. Importantly, the service receives only a token that says “over 18”; no date of birth is shared. If the verification is done through a payment processor, the bank’s data is encrypted in transit and never stored by the verification service.

    Credit Card Age Checks

    Some adult content sites require a credit card. In the UK, you cannot legally obtain a credit card before 18. Thus, a credit‑card‑check is a de facto age check. The card issuer verifies your age before issuing the card; the merchant just sees a successful transaction. No personal data leaks beyond the payment record, but the card number itself becomes a piece of data that could be aggregated with other services.

    Email Verification

    Email‑based age estimation is a newer, more opaque method. You provide an email address; a third‑party tool scans public and private accounts the email has been used on to infer age. The tool aggregates data from banks, utilities, and other services. The only new piece of information the tool learns is that you want to verify your age, but it may retain a history of your email usage that could be combined with other data sets.

    Mobile Operator Checks

    Mobile carriers can confirm whether your number has an age filter applied. If the filter is off, the service can deduce you are over 18. The data shared is minimal: the carrier confirms the filter status to the verification provider. However, the provider still learns the phone number and, by extension, can link it to other accounts you may hold.

    Retention, Audits, and Visibility

    The EFF lists three critical questions for every service you use:

    1. Retention: Who keeps the data and for how long? Some services delete immediately; others keep a record indefinitely.
    2. Audits: Are there third‑party security audits that verify the provider follows its own policy? Audits by firms like NCC Group or Trail of Bits are more reliable than internal ISO certifications.
    3. Visibility: Who can see that you’re attempting to verify your age? A third‑party provider knows which platform you’re trying to access and can build a profile over time.

    Why LGBTQ+ People Are at Higher Risk

    Data that reveal sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV status can be used by employers, law‑enforcement, or acquaintances to discriminate or harass. The EFF notes that the collection of seemingly innocuous data (like a selfie or a photo‑ID) can be combined with other datasets to expose the very traits that the LGBTQ+ community works to keep private. For example, a leaked ID photo may confirm a name that appears on a government database, which then could be cross‑referenced with health records or court filings.

    Moreover, age‑gating tends to be more aggressively enforced in communities that already face surveillance. Pub‑sub services, streaming platforms, and even gaming communities may reject LGBTQ+ users under the guise of age restrictions, thereby limiting their access to vital support networks.

    Is There a Privacy‑Protecting Verification Option?

    Unfortunately, no single method strikes a perfect balance between legal compliance and privacy. Facial recognition that deletes images is still risky; photo‑ID matching can leave data in a third‑party cloud; open banking is good but limited to banking users. The EFF’s conclusion is stark: There is still no widely available way to verify age online without compromising privacy. And even if such a method existed, the government’s blanket age‑gating mandate would likely still block lawful speech and constrain online communities.

    Why the EFF Opposes Age‑Gating Mandates

    The EFF argues that age‑gating is a slippery slope. Once a government can mandate age checks for “harmful” content, it can expand the definition of harmful content to suppress dissent, art, or queer culture. The cost to civil liberties is disproportionate to the benefits, especially when less restrictive alternatives (e.g., self‑regulation, better parental controls, or better content moderation) exist.

    In the UK, the EFF is actively lobbying to overturn these mandates and to push for privacy‑first verification standards that respect both age compliance and individual data rights.

    Bottom Line: What Should You Do?

    • Ask questions. When prompted for age verification, request a clear privacy policy showing exactly what data is captured, how it is stored, and who can access it.
    • Prefer local processing. If you can choose a service that processes data on your device (k‑ID, Private ID), it’s the safest option.
    • Use open banking if possible. It gives the platform proof of age without revealing a date of birth.
    • Delete data proactively. If the service offers a delete request (e.g., Incode), use it immediately after verification.
    • Stay informed. Follow civil‑liberties groups like the EFF to learn about new verification methods and their privacy implications.

    Age verification is a legal requirement, but it doesn’t have to be a privacy nightmare. By demanding transparency, choosing the least invasive methods, and pushing back against blanket mandates, you can keep your data—and your identity—under control.

    Read the full EFF Q&A for an exhaustive breakdown: EFF – Age Verification Data Collection.


    The shortlink was copied to your clipboard

    X
    f
    r

    Related Reading

    Similar posts

  • Independent Media’s Fight for Survival: Why a Tax Offset Is the Only Lifeline Against Big Tech’s Tyranny

    Independent Media’s Fight for Survival: Why a Tax Offset Is the Only Lifeline Against Big Tech’s Tyranny

    Tue, 30 Ju

    Punk poster of a newsroom under neon lights with journalists holding a newspaperkih while a Big Tech billboard is smashed by a boot, featuring distressed textures and bold typography.

    Primary source: https://disruptarian.com/blog/bkdr
    Short link: disruptarian.com/blog/kv89

    _step_ 1: The Crisis Revealed

    In the latest column from news24.com.au on June 30, 2026, an expert warned that independent media outlets are on the brink of collapse unless a targeted tax offset is introduced. The article argues that the current tax regime disproportionately benefits the tech giants that dominate digital advertising, leaving smaller, independent outlets unable to compete for ad revenue and audience attention. source↗.

    The article notes that the tax offset would level the playing field, allowing independent media to invest in investigative journalism, local reporting, and quality content that often gets sidelined by algorithm‑driven, click‑bait tactics favored by conglomerates. Without such a policy, the press is forced into a survival mode where monetisation strategies shift away from journalism towards sensationalist content designed to drive traffic—an outcome that erodes public trust and bedre the democratic function of media.

    _step_ 2: The Broader Context

    While the article itself does not delve into the mechanics of the tax offset, itہی draws on a broader conversation about the concentration of media power. Historically, media independence has been threatened whenever a single entity can command a disproportionate share of advertising spend. In the last decade, the rise of platforms such as Meta, Google, and Amazon has amplified this trend, as these companies offer targeted advertising solutions that smaller outlets cannot match. Even though the article does not cite specific studies, the expert’s warning echoes a pattern observed globally: when advertising revenue is funneled through a handful of tech behemoths, the diversity of voices narrows, and public discourse becomes homogenised.

    The argument for a tax offset is grounded in the idea of “public good.” Journalism is a critical public service that informs citizens, holds power to account, and nurtures civic engagement. When the financial viability of independent outlets is compromised, the public loses a vital source of balanced information.

    _step_ 3: Why a Tax Offset Matters

    A tax offset would effectively reduce the tax burden on independent media by allowing deductions or credits for expenses related to content creation, investigative research, and distribution. It would create an economic incentive for entrepreneurs and journalists to launch or sustain independent platforms without relying on predatory ad models.

    The impact would be twofold:

    1. **Financial Sustainability** – Independent outlets could allocate more resources to quality journalism instead of chasing quick ad revenue. The offset would help maintain editorial independence, as reporters would not feel compelled to produce click‑bait to appease advertisers.

    2. **Civic Resilience** – A healthier independent press strengthens democratic institutions by providing citizensли with diverse perspectives, watchdog coverage, and investigative reporting that holds corporate and political leaders accountable.

    The tax offset would not be a silver bullet; it would need to be part of a broader strategy that includes media literacy, robust regulatory frameworks, and public investment in journalism. Nevertheless, it represents a tangible step toward restoring balance in the media ecosystem.

    _step_ 4: Counter‑Arguments and the Need for Nuance

    Some critics argue that a tax offset could be misused or that it would simply create a loophole for corporate entities that label themselves as “independent.” The expert in the article acknowledges these concerns, stressing the importance of stringent eligibility criteria. The offset must be tied to measurable outcomes—such as verifiable investigative pieces, community engagement metrics, and transparent funding models—to prevent abuse.

    Moreover, a tax offset should not be interpreted as a blanket subsidy for all media; it is a targeted tool aimed at preserving the plurality of voices in an environment increasingly dominated by a few tech giants. The policy would have to be carefully calibrated to avoid unintended consequences such as market distortion or favoritism.

    _step_ 5: An Independent Media Manifesto

    If we are to reclaim the press as a public good, we must confront the financial architecture that currently favours Big Tech. A tax offset is not a panacea, but it is a powerful lever. By reducing the fiscal burden on independent outlets, governments can incentivise a more diverse, democratic, and robust media landscape.

    This is not an abstract debate; it is a question of survival for the very institutions that underpin free society. The expert’s warning from news24.com.au underscores that the current trajectory will lead to a homogenised media space dominated by a handful of corporate narratives. The alternative is a vibrant, pluralistic press that can question power, illuminate injustices, and keep the public informed.

    In the spirit of punk rebellion—where the ethos is to challenge the status quo and fight for the underdog—independent media must rally for a tax offset. It is a concrete policy lever that can help the press break through the glass ceiling of Big Tech dominance and re‑establish the press as the watchdog of democracy.

    The time is now. The next generation of journalists and citizens deserves a media landscape that is as diverse as the stories it tells. A tax offset is the first step in that direction.

    Reference

    • news24.com.au article, “Independent media needs tax offset to survive Big Tech, expert warns,” published 30 June 2026. source↗

    The shortlink was copied to your clipboard

    X
    f
    r

    Related Reading

    Similar posts

  • Victory! Supreme Court Upholds Location Data as Protected Property Under the Constitution

    Victory! Supreme Court Upholds Location Data as Protected Property Under the Constitution

    Mon, 29 Ju

    Digital shield protecting location data from government surveillance

    Primary source: https://disruptarian.com/blog/pbn5

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Chatrie v. United States (2026) is a seismic shift in digital privacy law. For the first time, the Court has explicitly confirmed that location data—even short-term surveillance of movements—is protected under the Fourth Amendment. This decision marks a critical victory for privacy advocates, dismantling the legality of geofence warrants that have long allowed police to vacuum up location data from innocent people without suspicion.

    The Case: Challenging the Sweep of Geofence Warrants

    Geofence warrants are a modern form of dragnet surveillance. Police cast a digital net around a crime scene, compelling tech companies like Google to hand over location data from every device within a defined radius. In Chatrie, a 2019 warrant targeted a 70,000-square-meter area in Northern Virginia, encompassing homes, businesses, and a church. The result? Hundreds of millions of users’ data were scanned, ensnaring countless innocent individuals.

    The lower courts had already ruled against such warrants. A Virginia federal judge in 2022 found the geofence warrant unconstitutional, arguing the government lacked probable cause to search every device in the area. This ruling was later upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2025, which called geofence warrants “categorically prohibited” by the Fourth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Chatrie didn’t fully reject geofence warrants outright. Instead, it affirmed that all location data is protected, shifting the burden to police to prove particularized suspicion before conducting such broad searches.

    Why Location Data Matters: More Than Just Where You’ve Been

    The Court’s ruling goes beyond mere geography. Justice Gorsuch, in his concurring opinion, emphasized that location data is “personal property,” akin to other effects protected by the Fourth Amendment. The decision acknowledges that location data reveals intimate details: “a wealth of detail about a person’s familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”

    This is not just about tracking criminals. As the ACLU and EFF argued in their amicus brief, geofence warrants disproportionately impact marginalized communities, who are more likely to be surveilled without cause. The Court’s recognition that app data—including location—is “the user’s own” challenges the long-standing third-party doctrine, which historically allowed warrantless access to information shared with corporations.

    The Third-Party Doctrine: A Century-Old Loophole, Finally Closed?

    The Chatrie ruling directly confronts the Third-Party Doctrine, a legal framework that allowed warrantless access to data shared with third parties (like banks or phone companies). The Court rejected this doctrine’s application to digital data, stating that users “reasonably view” their app data as private property. This is a seismic shift.

    As EFF’s digital rights director noted, “The point of carrying smartphones is to use what’s on them. If the government can’t search your phone without a warrant, why should it be able to vacuum up your location data just because you use Google Maps?” The ruling sets a precedent that could extend to other app data—emails, photos, calendars—making it harder for police to exploit corporate data harvesting without judicial oversight.

    Google’s Response: A Partial Win, But Not Enough

    In the wake of the ruling, Google announced changes to its location data storage in 2023, rendering it unable to comply with mass geofence warrants. This is a tactical victory for privacy advocates, but it’s not a systemic solution. As the source notes, police can still use cell tower dumps or rely on data brokers who aggregate location data from multiple apps.

    Data brokers, which collect and sell location data from apps like fitness trackers or social media platforms, remain a loophole. These companies often operate outside direct police oversight, and their data can be sold to law enforcement without warrants. The Chatrie decision doesn’t address this ecosystem, leaving a critical gap in privacy protections.

    Beyond Location: Implications for All Digital Data

    The Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications. By affirming that app data is protected, Chatrie opens the door to challenges against warrantless access to emails, cloud storage, and even biometric data. The case also strengthens arguments against bulk surveillance programs like NSA metadata collection, which rely on similar logic to justify fishing expeditions.

    Civil liberties groups are already using Chatrie as a tool to push back against other forms of surveillance. For example, it could be cited in lawsuits against facial recognition systems or predictive policing algorithms that rely on aggregated data. The principle that “private matters” require a warrant is now firmly etched into constitutional law.

    The Fight Is Far from Over

    While Chatrie is a landmark victory, it leaves critical questions unanswered. The Court did not rule on whether the specific geofence warrant in question was “reasonable” or whether the “good faith” doctrine (which allows evidence obtained under a flawed warrant to be admissible) applied. The case will return to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to address these issues.

    Moreover, the ruling doesn’t eliminate the threat of warrantless surveillance. Police can still obtain location data through other means, such as real-time tracking of a suspect’s device with a valid warrant. The key takeaway is that the government must now justify why a particular individual or device is being targeted—a standard that could limit mass surveillance.

    What This Means for You

    For individuals, Chatrie signals that your digital life is protected. If law enforcement wants to track your movements, they can’t just cast a wide net—they need to show specific reason to suspect you. This is a reminder that privacy is not a luxury; it’s a constitutional right.

    For activists and journalists, the case is a tool to challenge unjustified surveillance. As EFF’s amicus brief argued, “The Fourth Amendment was designed to protect against tyrannical overreach, not enable it.” The Chatrie decision reinforces that principle in the digital age.

    Conclusion: A Punch Back Against Systemic Surveillance

    The Chatrie ruling is more than a legal technicality—it’s a statement that the government cannot treat our movements as public information. In an era where location data is sold, traded, and mined by corporations and authorities alike, this victory is a defiant act of resistance.

    As the source notes, “We look forward to citing Chatrie to press future courts to recognize broad Fourth Amendment protections for user data.” The fight continues, but for now, the Court has given us a powerful weapon: the Constitution itself. Let’s use it.


    The shortlink was copied to your clipboard

    X
    f
    r

    Related Reading

    Similar posts

  • Disruptarian Games Chat

    LIVE IRC GAMES

    Disruptarian Games Chat

    Join the dedicated game channel for live IRC games, registered player stats, leaderboards, and bot-hosted rounds.

    Game chat address
    #DisruptarianGames
    #DisruptarianGames
    Libera.Chat
    Open games channel
    Stats and leaderboards
    Main chat page

    Play in #DisruptarianGames

    Use !games to see available games, !register to save stats, and each game command to join live rounds.

    Open games chat

    Server: irc.libera.chat:6697 TLS. Channel: #DisruptarianGames.

  • Uganda’s Media Shutdown: A Military Overreach or a Warning for the Global Press?

    Uganda's Media Shutdown: A Military Overreach or a Warning for the Global Press?

    Mon, 29 Ju

    Ugandan journalists facing military intervention during a forced media shutdown

    Primary source: https://disruptarian.com/blog/ydyt

    The recent military storming of Uganda’s leading independent media outlets has sent shockwaves through the global journalism community. According to the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), this action is not only illegal but a direct attack on the fundamental right to free expression. As a Disruptarian voice, I’m not here to sugarcoat this: this is a crisis for press freedom, and it demands immediate attention. Let’s dissect what happened, why it matters, and what it reveals about the state of independent media in authoritarian contexts.

    On June 29, 2026, Ugandan security forces raided the offices of New Vision, the country’s largest independent newspaper, and other media outlets. The IFJ reported that this was part of a coordinated effort to silence critical reporting on government policies, corruption, and human rights abuses. The military’s actions were accompanied by threats, arrests, and the destruction of equipment. This isn’t just a Uganda-specific issue—it’s a symptom of a global trend where authoritarian regimes weaponize military force to suppress dissent.

    “The military’s intervention in media operations is a blatant violation of international human rights law,” stated the IFJ in its report. “Journalists are not criminals; they are the watchdogs of society. Their suppression is a direct threat to democracy.”

    But why did the Ugandan military act? The government has long claimed that these media outlets spread “misinformation” and “incite violence.” However, the IFJ and independent fact-checkers have found no evidence to support these allegations. Instead, the crackdown appears to be a calculated move to stifle dissent ahead of elections or to protect the ruling party’s narrative. This is a classic tactic: when media challenges power, the response is often disproportionate and illegal.

    The Legal and Ethical Implications

    Under international law, the right to freedom of expression is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Ugandan military’s actions contravene these principles. Moreover, Uganda is a signatory to the Africa Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which explicitly protects freedom of the press. The IFJ’s report underscores that the military’s intervention was not only unlawful but also a breach of Uganda’s constitutional rights.

    However, legal frameworks are often ignored in practice. Uganda’s government has a history of suppressing media through arbitrary arrests, censorship, and violence. The 2021 arrest of New Vision editor John Mugisha for “insulting the president” is a prime example. This pattern of behavior suggests that the military’s recent actions are part of a broader strategy to control the narrative.

    The Role of Independent Media in Democracy

    Independent media is the cornerstone of accountability. It exposes corruption, holds leaders accountable, and informs the public. In Uganda, New Vision has been a critical voice against authoritarianism. Its shutdown is not just a loss for Ugandans but a setback for global journalism. When independent outlets are silenced, the public loses access to unfiltered information, creating a vacuum that authoritarian regimes can fill with propaganda.

    This is not unique to Uganda. In countries like China, Russia, and even some democratic nations, media suppression is a tool of control. The Disruptarian perspective is clear: no government should have the right to dictate what can or cannot be reported. Journalism must be free, even when it’s uncomfortable or inconvenient.

    Why This Matters Beyond Uganda

    The IFJ’s report is a wake-up call. It highlights the vulnerability of independent media in the face of state power. In an era where digital platforms can both empower and endanger journalists, the need for robust protections is more urgent than ever. The military’s actions in Uganda reveal a chilling trend: when media challenges authority, the response is often brute force.

    For Disruptarians, this is a call to action. We don’t just report on events; we challenge the systems that enable them. This isn’t just about Uganda—it’s about the global fight for press freedom. If we allow such actions to go unchecked, we risk normalizing the suppression of dissent. The alternative is a world where only state-approved narratives are heard, and the truth is buried under layers of censorship.

    What Can Be Done?

    First, international organizations like the IFJ must continue to pressure Uganda to uphold its legal obligations. Second, global media outlets should amplify Ugandan journalists’ voices, ensuring their stories reach audiences beyond the country’s borders. Third, individuals can support organizations that defend press freedom, such as Reporters Without Borders or the Committee to Protect Journalists.

    But perhaps most importantly, we must recognize that media suppression is a symptom of deeper issues: corruption, authoritarianism, and a lack of accountability. Addressing these root causes requires systemic change, not just reactive measures. As a Disruptarian, I believe in the power of grassroots movements and independent thought to challenge oppressive structures.

    This isn’t just a Uganda problem. It’s a reminder that freedom of the press is a fragile right, one that requires constant vigilance. When the military storms a newspaper office, it’s not just a local incident—it’s a threat to the very fabric of democracy. We must stand in solidarity with Ugandan journalists, not just for their sake, but for ours. After all, a free press is a free society. And a free society is the only kind worth fighting for.

    If you’re reading this, you have access to information. Use it. Share it. Question it. The military’s actions in Uganda are a test of our commitment to liberty. Will we let them win? Or will we fight back?


    The shortlink was copied to your clipboard

    X
    f
    r

    Related Reading

    Similar posts

  • Uganda’s Military Crackdown on Independent Press Declared Illegal by IFJ – A Libertarian Rebuke

    Uganda’s Military Crackdown on Independent Press Declared Illegal by IFJ – A Libertarian Rebuke

    Mon, 29 Ju

    Collage poster showing a torn newspaper with a megaphone, surveillance eye, and broken chains over a wheatpaste wall, symbolizing Uganda's illegal media shutdown.

    Primary source: https://disruptarian.com/blog/szku

    What the IFJ Reported (Documented Facts)

    According to a statement released by the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and indexed in Google News on , Ugandan military forces stormed the headquarters of the country’s leading independent media outlet, seized equipment, detained journalists, and forced an immediate shutdown of broadcasts and online publishing.

    The IFJ statement, accessible via the source URL https://news.google.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?oc=5, describes the operation as a “clear violation of Uganda’s constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and of international human rights obligations.”

    The IFJ further noted that the shutdown was carried out without judicial oversight, that the detained staff were denied access to legal counsel, and that the action fits a pattern of increasing state pressure on independent journalism in the country.

    Why This Matters – A Libertarian/Punk Perspective

    The IFJ’s declaration is not just a legal technicality; it is a flashpoint that illuminates the raw tension between state power and the individual’s right to speak, to question, and to disseminate information without fear of violent reprisal. From a libertarian standpoint, the military’s incursion into a private media premises is a textbook case of aggression: the initiation of force against peaceful actors who have not violated any legitimate property rights.

    In the punk and reggae traditions that have long celebrated dissent, the image of soldiers smashing printing presses and silencing voices resonates as a modern‑day Babylonian assault on the “sound system” of truth. Just as dub producers once turned the mixing desk into a weapon of resistance, Ugandan journalists now find their microphones, cameras, and servers turned into contraband by a regime that prefers obedience over inquiry.

    What makes this episode especially egregious is the lack of any pretense of due process. The IFJ’s statement stresses that the shutdown was “forced” and “illegal,” meaning that no court order, no legislative sanction, and no transparent justification accompanied the raid. In a free society, the only legitimate limitation on speech is the prohibition of direct incitement to violence—a standard that the shuttered outlet has not been shown to breach. Therefore, the state’s action is not a regulation but a pure act of censorship.

    From a libertarian ethical viewpoint, the Non‑Aggression Principle (NAP) holds that aggression against persons or their justly acquired property is inherently illegitimate. The journalists, editors, and support staff of the outlet have homesteaded their reputation, their archives, and their contractual relationships with audiences. The military’s seizure of equipment and detention of personnel constitutes a direct violation of that principle.

    Moreover, the economic implications are stark. Independent media outlets often operate on thin margins, relying on advertising, subscriptions, and donor support. A sudden, violent shutdown not only extinguishes a platform for critical discourse but also destroys livelihoods, discourages future entrepreneurial ventures in journalism, and signals to investors that the rule of law is subordinate to the whims of the security apparatus.

    Historically, regimes that target the press do so because they fear an informed populace. The Ugandan government’s move mirrors patterns seen elsewhere: from the apartheid-era bans on anti‑government newspapers in South Africa to the recent internet blackouts in authoritarian states. The IFJ’s condemnation aligns with a growing body of international law—Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and regional African Charter provisions—that explicitly protects the right to seek, receive, and impart information.

    What can be done? Libertarian activists, punk collectives, and reggae sound systems alike have long practiced mutual aid and decentralized communication. In response to this raid, the following steps are both principled and practical:

    • Solidarity fundraising: Crowdsourced Bitcoin or Monero drives to replace seized equipment, ensuring that the outlet can resume operations outside the reach of state confiscation.
    • Mirroring and archiving: Distributed copies of the outlet’s content on IPFS, torrent swarms, and offshore servers, making the information effectively uncensorable.
    • Legal advocacy: Supporting the IFJ’s call for investigations at the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and urging Ugandan courts to uphold constitutional protections.
    • Cultural resistance: Producing protest music, street art, and zines that memorialize the raid, turning the repression into a rallying cry that spreads through underground networks.

    Each of these actions embodies the libertarian ethic: voluntary cooperation, market‑based solutions, and a refusal to rely on the state for the defense of liberty.

    In closing, the IFJ’s statement is a vital factual anchor: the military’s storming and forced shutdown of Uganda’s leading independent media is illegal under both domestic and international law. The broader lesson, however, is that liberty is not granted by parchment; it is defended by those who refuse to let the silence fall. As the reggae chant goes, “Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights.” The Ugandan press, and all who value free expression, must now stand up—together.


    The shortlink was copied to your clipboard

    X
    f
    r

    Related Reading

    Similar posts