denise: Image: Me, facing away from camera, on top of the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome (Default)
Case: Netchoice v Wilson, 3:26-cv-00543, (D.S.C.)

Netchoice's litigation page: Netchoice v Wilson

Netchoice filed the motion for preliminary injunction on March 9. It isn't available on the docket in RECAP yet (and I'm over my threshold for PACER fees that will get refunded for the quarter, or else I'd put it there!) but it is available on Netchoice's litigation page: Motion for Preliminary Injunction. They haven't included the declarations, but here's Dreamwidth's declaration as filed, authored by yours truly. Because of the wild incoherence of so many of the provisions of this law, many of which were new because a lot of states have switched to using different model legislation, I had to write almost all of our declaration for this one from scratch (while recovering from a lumbar puncture, lying flat on my back in bed: never let it be said I am not completely extra about the lengths to which I will go to fight against this bullshit), so much less of it will look familiar than usual, but boy was I mad.

We'll let you know when the judge makes a ruling on the PI! And three cheers as always for the Netchoice team and for the outside litigation counsel team, who is Lehotsky Keller Cohn for this one and who put in massively heroic effort to get this filed as fast as possible thanks to the law taking immediate effect.

The List of Shame

Mar. 9th, 2026 04:22 am[staff profile] denise posting in [site community profile] dw_advocacy
denise: Image: Me, facing away from camera, on top of the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome (Default)
People frequently ask us about whether their specific US state is trying to enact a social media age verification law so they can call their state representatives and yell at them about it! I have had "build a system that will let me easily update this without having to do so manually, categorizing these bills by status, what problems they have, and what we'd do about them if they pass" on my want-to-do list for a really long time, but until I can, here's the current list of bills I know about.

This (very long, sigh) list is accurate to the best of my knowledge as of 8 March 2026, but it may not include every bill that's been introduced in every state. (I've used a few different lists plus my own "searching until I got too depressed to continue" to assemble it, excluding laws I think have absolutely no chance of passing but including laws where I think there's still even a slight chance.) If you know of one that isn't on the list, please let me know in the comments!

These are state laws only. I'm concentrating on those because you can find lists of bad federal bills more easily, but all the lists of state bills I know of are industry-gated or limited-distribution. If you don't have a preferred source for finding out about bad federal legislation about the internet, Bad Internet Bills (from Fight for the Future) and the EFF Action Center are a great place to start!

This list is only counting social media bills; I am not including bills that don't apply to us because they're modeled on the app store/OS age signal model legislation or bills that deal with age verification for other services like chatbots or "AI companions", because I'd go completely off the rails and resort to just screaming incoherently when the list passed a hundred items. I will try to update this at least quarterly, or whenever the Magic 8 Ball says there's a rapidly moving bill that you need to yell at people about.


The Current Hall of Shame )
jadelennox: El Diablo Robotico (btvs: robot)

I am enjoying this Clarkesworld subscription. Snail mail once a month full of stories! And my favorite part of the subscription has been the recurring Morag and Seamus stories by Fiona Moore (all free online). I believe it's every one of her Clarkesworld stories from "The Spoil Heap" on. The list on the site is reverse chronological, so if you want to read in order, scroll down to "The Spoil Heap" and read up from there.

While very different, they remind me in vibe of Naomi Kritzer's "The Year Without Sunshine". One of my difficulties with some hopepunk is that it can ignore hard truths—which, I admit, is sometimes what I want! But like "The Year Without Sunshine", the Morag and Seamus stories don't pretend mutual aid can create Abundance™️, or outcompete bad and selfish actors, or defeat natural disasters, or solve medical and ability needs, or create entire post-scarcity planets or large societies where goodness reigns. In fact, the Morag and Seamus stories specifically roll their eyes at people who think we can achieve fully automated luxury gay space communism.

They're just about people (and possibly robots) figuring their shit out, in myriad ways. Some are helpers and some aren't; some make family in all kind of ways; nobody's sure what the future holds. Helpers beget helpers, greed begets problems, the world moves on, Morag and Seamus grow potatoes in Wales.

jadelennox: El Diablo Robotico (btvs: robot)

I was writing up a navel-gazing post about grief (tl;dr turned out I think "oh MM would like that!" more often than I would have suspected) and it somehow spiraled into how I could make beautiful and accessible no-Javascript footnotes CSS given the Dreamwidth CSS restrictions. This resulted in me, among other things, reading the DW codebase to see all the CSS restrictions, and then finally after a couple of hours getting my perfect CSS, even though it's completely useless because it will only work when reading in my journal style.

(ETA: That's only because I'm being a perfectionist about placement for the purposes of this exercise, and DW doesn't allow absolute positioning in inline HTML.)

(Also even making this post resulted in me reading the code for Perl's Text::Markdown since I couldn't remember which code block syntax it used.

Hyperfixation FTW!

CSS, FWIW )

jadelennox: Doctor Who: Adric's broken star for mathematics (doctor who: adric)

by Gabrielle Calvocoressi

Do not care if  you bring only your light body.
Would just be so happy to sit at the table
and talk about the menu. Miss you.
Wish we could bet which chilis they’ll put
on the cubes of tofu. Our favorite.
Sometimes green. Sometimes red. Roasted
we always thought. But so cold and fresh.
How did they do it? Wish you could be here
to talk about it like it was so important.
Wish you could. Watched you on the screens
as I was walking, as I was cooking. Wished you
could get out of the hospital. Can’t
bring myself to order our dish and eat it
in the car. Miss you laughing. Miss
you coming in from the cold or one
too many meetings. Laughing. I’ll order
already. I’ll order seven helpings, some
dumplings, those cold yam noodles that you
like. You can come in your light
body or skeleton or be invisible I don’t even
care. Know you have a long way to travel.
Know I don’t even know if it’s long
at all. Wish you could tell me. What
you’re reading. If you’re reading.
Miss you. I’m at the table in the back.

 

(via.)

Victory in Virginia!!

Mar. 3rd, 2026 08:17 am[staff profile] denise posting in [site community profile] dw_advocacy
denise: Image: Me, facing away from camera, on top of the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome (Default)
On Friday, the judge hearing our VA case issued a preliminary injunction preventing the state from enforcing Virginia's SB 854 against any Netchoice member (which means us!) while the lawsuit proceeds. Judge Giles's ruling is a little technical in places and covers a number of legal issues that I keep meaning to get around to explaining someday so folks can have a better grasp on the kind of things they'll see argued in cases like these, like strict scrutiny and associational standing, but the end result is still pretty clear, I think: the judge agrees Netchoice has made a strong enough showing right from the start that the law is unconstitutional to block the state from doing anything to enforce it until the full case can be heard.

This is only the beginning of that particular fight and we still have a ways to go, but it's great news for us, for all our users from Virginia, and for the internet as a whole. Three cheers for the Netchoice team and the outside litigation counsel, who are Clement & Murphy for this one! The full docket in RECAP: NetChoice v. Jason S. Miyares, 1:25-cv-02067, (E.D. Va.).
siderea: (Default)
I have been kicking around a post idea for something like a year or a year and a half, but I've been torn between wanting to write it as a post (and tell you things) and wanting to ask for solutions.

Mr. Bostoniensis and I have been trying to consolidate our household, and the Brave New World of the Internet is... not facilitating this. Vendor after vendor, platform after platform, is organized around the concept of a single user account. Even when company accounts nominally allow multiple user accounts, typically one user account is the real user account and the other has restricted access.

For instance, when setting up joint financial instruments, we split up the work: I would set up the joint bank accounts, he would set up the joint credit cards. We subsequently discovered that he can't access the statements and tax documents in our nominally-joint bank account's online portal, and I can't have an independent login at all for our allegedly joint credit cards that show up on my credit report.

This is infuriating. What we want to happen is that he and I have equal full access to the accounts we share, such that either of us can do what needs to be done on them, which I thought was a pretty normal approach to, well, life. I did not think heterosexual marriage was some sort of weird counter-cultural edge-case, and it offends my software developer soul to be reduced to sharing usernames and passwords.

But that is exactly the case, and I would just hold my nose and do it, except for one thing.

Two-factor authentication.

If I want to be able to two-factor into an account that uses his phone number, I have to access his phone. Something best done while he is not asleep, which, unfortunately, is precisely when I am most likely to want to be paying bills or doing online shopping. Likewise, if he wants to two-factor into an account that uses my phone number, he'll need access to my phone. Which, honestly, he could probably slip into the room and grab off the charger while I'm asleep – which is precisely when he'll be wanting into those accounts – but that does him no good if say I were out of town or in the hospital or some such.

And more and more 2FA is becoming mandatory. You can't turn it off. (Or in the notable case of one of our credit cards, you can turn it off. It will two-factor you anyways, but the account settings assure you it's off.)

Two-factor authentication is stupid and awful for so many reasons, but it has only recently dawned on me that one of them is that 2FA is intended to keep anyone else from logging in to your account and I actually want someone else to log into my account. Legitimately, I think.

So.

Obviously, the Bostoniensis household requires some sort of telephony solution such that:

• text messages (SMS) sent to a single phone number propagate to two cell phones; *

• either of the two cell phones can originate text messages from that single phone number which is not the phone number of either of those phones; **

• and the phone that didn't send the reply gets a copy of it, so it can stay in sync with the convo; ***

• voice calls sent to that single phone number propagate to one, the other, or both simultaneously of the two cell phones, depending on a on-the-fly configurable schedule of when which call goes where; ****

• either cell phone can originate a voice call that will appear to come from the shared number; ****

• ideally, both cell phones could conference into the same call with a third party, but that's a bonus;

• must be compatible with Android phones, an probably needs to support iOS as well; we'd love a solution that also supports web and/or MacOS desktop access, but that's a bonus.

I am looking for recommendations for solutions that (are known to) meet this specification. There are lots of solutions for small businesses, but r/smallbusiness drags a lot of them for filth, and also we're cheap and don't want to pay a fortune, especially for a lot of businessy services we don't need like the ability to spam-SMS 10k prospective customers an hour or (all the rage right now) deploy an AI receptionist or surreptitiously surveil our customer service agents' work for quality and training purposes or integrate with Salesforce.

Also, crucially, a lot of these services seem to be based on a phone tree model, where each handset gets its own extension, and I'm really unclear how that would work with automated voice-call 2FA. Not well, I am guessing.

So what I am looking for is knowing recommendations that can answer from direct experience as to whether a solution will support our intended use case.

Has anybody else even tried to solve this problem? Or does everybody else just accept that financial instruments, online retail accounts, and virtual services can only really belong to one member of a couple at at time?

This seems like something there should be an obvious commercial service for, targetted at families, but the only one I found no longer is in the Play store and also may be wholly defunct.

As a side note, this isn't only relevant for couples. It's relevant to all sorts of multi-adult households, from polycules to multigenerational households. It is of particular relevance to people with aging elders who might want to be able to get into the elder's accounts to help them from afar. Especially adult siblings of aging parents, where no one sibling should be the only person stuck with all the administrative work. It's surprising that I haven't found a commercial solutions to this yet, and wonder if there already is one everybody else already knows about.

* Necessary to allow either member to receive a 2FA text message when either one initiates a log in.

** Necessary in the case we want to revoke texting permission to a third party by "text STOP to end".

*** Necessary not to engage in an inadvertent Abbot and Costello routine.

**** Necessary because every once in a while a 2FA system will barf on texting VOIP numbers, and only successfully get through with automated voice call 2FA. Also it would be nice for one of our other use cases – the "get Siderea's doctor's office to call back and make sure a human answers no matter when they do" use case – for there to be one number that rings through to both of us. But also necessary that we can schedule it not to ring when one or the other of us are asleep, while still ringing through to the other. I need to be able to 2FA at 2:00 A.M. and Mr. B very much needs my doing so not to cause his phone to ring.

***** Maybe not strictly necessary, but there's a lot of systems that react poorly, or at least with more scrutiny, to customer calls about accounts other than the ones associated with the number the call is coming from. It would be better if we just only ever called NStar from the number they have on record for us, but that means we need to be able to originate voice calls from the same number we'll be using with them for security purposes.


Edit: I'm really hoping for a non-Google, commercial solution.
Page generated Mar. 14th, 2026 11:38 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios