The Pirate Post

The Pirate Post's avatar
The Pirate Post
🛡️ piratepost@poliverso-org.mostr.pub
npub1fr4v...hwts
The Pirate Post is a review of information for those who want to know the initiatives of the Pirates of the world
Florida prosecutor agrees: Photography is not a crime FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: New York, Dec. 18, 2025 — Photojournalist Dave Decker was arrested in November while documenting a protest in Miami, Florida. A coalition of 23 press organizations spoke out against the charges — and this week the prosecutor agreed. The following statement can be attributed to Adam Rose, deputy director of advocacy for Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF):“Journalists have a distinct role at protests. They are not participants, merely observers. A broad local and national coalition said this in unison, and we were glad to see all charges dropped against Dave Decker. Hats off to his attorneys, lawyers for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office, and all the community groups who rallied to his side.“At the same time, that’s a lot of people who had to work on something entirely preventable. I hope law enforcement officers take this to heart: Swearing an oath to protect the community means protecting everyone — including press. This is an opportunity for agencies like the sheriff’s office and Florida Highway Patrol to take proactive steps and review training approaches. Freedom of the Press Foundation is happy to help. “And of course, it would be nice to see an apology to Dave and an offer to fix any of his equipment they damaged.” Read the coalition’s letter: freedom.press/static/pdf.js/we… Please contact us if you would like further comment. freedom.press/issues/florida-p…
Covering protests is a dangerous job for journalists Dear Friend of Press Freedom, Rümeysa Öztürk has been facing deportation for 268 days for co-writing an op-ed the government didn’t like, and journalist Ya’akub Vijandre remains locked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement over social media posts about issues he reported on. Join us today and Dec. 21 in New York City for two special screenings of the Oscar-shortlisted film “Cover-Up” by Laura Poitras — an FPF founding board member — and Mark Obenhaus. Read on for more on what we’re working on this week. We’ll be back in the new year.Covering protests is a dangerous job for journalists As of Dec. 15, the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker has documented 32 detainments or charges against journalists in the U.S. — 28 of those at immigration-related protests — according to a new report released by the Freedom of Press Foundation (FPF) project this week. The report notes how, unlike most years, the majority of journalists were released without charges or had them soon dropped, with law enforcement instead focusing on deterring news gathering rather than pursuing charges. Read the reportStop the deportation of Heng Guan Use our action center to tell lawmakers to stop the Trump administration from deporting Heng Guan, who helped journalists expose the horrors of Uyghur prison camps in Xinjiang, China. He’s exactly the kind of person asylum laws are intended to protect. The next hearing in Guan’s case is Jan. 12. He could be sent to Uganda, placing him at risk of being shipped back to China, where, according to his mother, he’d likely be killed. Write a letter to Congress Sign Up. Take Action. Join our email list to stay up to date on the issues and learn how you can help protect journalists and sources everywhere. Full Name Email Address Subscribe See all newsletters Go to mailing list subscription page Thanks for signing up for our newsletter. You are not yet subscribed! Please check your email for a message asking you to confirm your subscription.The FCC’s declaration of dependence Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr admitted at a Senate hearing on Wednesday that there had been a political “sea change” and he no longer viewed the FCC as an independent agency. FPF Director of Advocacy Seth Stern wrote for The Guardian that Carr’s admission proves the danger of letting a self-proclaimed partisan weaponize the FCC’s public interest standard to grant himself amorphous censorship powers. “Carr avoids ever articulating his vision of public-interest news, forcing anyone seeking to avoid his ire to play ‘Whac-A-Mole.’ … The only discernible rule of Carr’s FCC is ’don’t piss off Trump’.” Read the op-ed hereTrump’s BBC lawsuit is nonsense, like his others President Donald Trump on Monday followed through on his threats to sue the BBC over its editing of his remarks on Jan. 6, 2021, for a documentary. “If any ordinary person filed as many frivolous multibillion-dollar lawsuits as Donald Trump, they’d be sanctioned and placed on a restricted filers list,” FPF said in a statement, noting that Trump has demanded a total of $65 billion in damages from media outlets since taking office. Read the statementUnder First Amendment, Diddy ‘can’t stop, won’t stop’ Netflix documentary Sean “Diddy” Combs is threatening to sue Netflix for airing a docuseries that is, to say the least, unflattering to him. The disgraced music mogul’s cease-and-desist letter claims the series, “Sean Combs: The Reckoning,” uses “stolen footage.” Stern wrote for Rolling Stone about why Diddy’s threatened lawsuit would be a non-starter: the right to publish content that sources obtain illegally is well established. But a series of recent cases nonetheless puts that right under unprecedented attack. Read the articleBody camera footage is for the public The town of Hamburg, New York, claims its police body camera footage is copyrighted despite being a public record. It’s telling people who request footage under New York’s Freedom of Information Law that they can’t share the footage with others. That’s ridiculous, and we wrote a letter to the police chief telling him to stop the nonsense and tell anyone who has received these frivolous warnings that they’re free to share body camera footage as they see fit. Read it hereAsk Lauren anything FPF Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy Lauren Harper joined fellow Freedom of Information Act experts Jason Leopold, ​​Liz Hempowicz, and Kevin Bell to take questions about FOIA and the numerous ways that it’s broken. They teamed up for a Reddit “ask me anything” discussion this week. Read the Q&AFree screening of “Cover-Up” To our New York audiences and documentary film buffs: FPF is proud to host a special screening tonight of the Oscar-shortlisted film “Cover-Up” by award-winning directors Laura Poitras and Mark Obenhaus, followed by a Q&A moderated by our executive director, Trevor Timm. The film chronicles the career of legendary investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. Learn more hereWhat we're reading The Pentagon and the press NPR It’s shameful the Department of Defense is curtailing press access five decades after the Supreme Court’s Pentagon Papers ruling, Harper told NPR’s “1A.” Harper also joined “1A” to discuss how the Trump administration is enhancing its surveillance capabilities. The US supreme court’s TikTok ruling is a scandal The Guardian That TikTok remains available “makes a mockery” of the government’s earlier national security claims that the platform was “an urgent national security risk – and of the court that deferred to those claims.” How an AM radio station in California weathered the Trump administration’s assault on media Associated Press “‘Chilling effect’ does not begin to describe the neutering of our political coverage,” said one former KCBS journalist about the aftermath of Carr’s threats. Defend the press: Brendan Carr has gone too far with attacks on media Courier Read the op-ed we co-wrote with partner organizations demanding the FCC recommit to the First Amendment. Paramount’s Warner Bros Discovery bid faces conflict of interest concerns Al Jazeera Stern explained, “Throwing out the credibility of CNN and other Warner Bros Discovery holdings might benefit the Ellisons in their efforts to curry favour with Trump, but it’s not going to benefit anyone else, including shareholders.” freedom.press/issues/covering-…
Europe’s Next Digital Frontier: Balancing Web 3.0 Innovation with Fundamental Rights Evolution Of the Internet Comparing the internet’s growth to Darwin’s theory of evolution helps explain how it has changed over time, with each stage adapting to the needs, behaviours, and technologies of its time. The initial phase, known as Web 1 (spanning the 1990s to the early 2000s), was characterised by the internet’s primary function as an information dissemination tool. During this period, only site owners managed content, resulting in a read-only experience for users and a unidirectional flow of information similar to a digital brochure. Tim O’Reilly introduced the term “Web 2.0” in 2004, marking a new era as mobile services expanded, broadband connectivity improved, and technologies such as AJAX and HTML5 emerged. The internet became interactive, enabling users to create, share, and engage with content without needing special skills. This change opened new ways for people to communicate and connect worldwide. But as Web 2.0 grew, a few big companies gained significant power and control over data. They decided how information was shared, which voices were heard, and how personal data was handled. Algorithms control every piece of information and opinion. At the same time, many of these platforms rely on business models that depend on extensive data collection, with user behaviour fueling targeted advertising. While these services often appear free, the trade-off is a gradual loss of privacy, autonomy, and control over one’s digital presence. Concerns about this central control, privacy, and reliance on these platforms led to the idea of a new kind of internet, now called Web 3.0. What is Web 3.0? The internet is now moving toward a more user-focused phase, where data ownership is decentralised. Web 3.0 uses technologies such as blockchain and the Semantic Web to return control of data and digital assets to users rather than large technology companies. This change aims to enhance the transparency, security, and personalisation of online experiences. Key Characteristics of Web 3.0 1. Decentralisation Control is shared across networks rather than held by a single company or authority. This means that people need not rely on centralised platforms as much. 2. User control over data and identity Users have more control over their digital identities and personal data, rather than giving that control to platforms by default. 3. Reduced intermediaries Web 3.0 aims to cut out intermediaries by enabling people to interact, share, and make transactions directly, without needing a central platform to manage these actions. 4. Transparency by design Many Web 3.0 systems are designed to make rules, transactions, and changes open and verifiable, rather than hidden within private systems. 5. Permissionless participation Anyone can participate without approval from a central authority, provided they comply with the network’s rules. 6. Resilience and censorship resistance The distribution of data and services increases the difficulty for any single entity to shut down platforms or completely silence users. People often use the term Web 3.0 to refer to technologies such as cryptocurrencies, tokens, or blockchain-based finance. However, the main features listed above also make Web 3.0 useful in many areas, including supply chain management, gaming and the metaverse, healthcare, content creation and social media, intellectual property, and digital identity. ​ How Does Web 3.0 Work – A Brief Sneak Peek At its core, Web 3.0 changes how information is stored and managed. Instead of storing data on servers owned by a single company, information is distributed across networks. The action is cryptographically signed by the user, verified by multiple participants, and recorded in a shared ledger that is difficult to alter. This structure reduces reliance on central intermediaries and makes manipulation or data abuse more difficult, while shifting greater control and responsibility to users. Although the technology driving Web 3.0 is complex, the primary goal is simple: to give users greater control and responsibility. ​ Web 3.0: An Emerging, Yet Unsettled, Part of the EU’s Digital Vision Freedom, Democracy, and Respect for human rights have been the core pillars of the European Union since its inception. These principles have been a centre of discussion whenever policies are framed, and the digital space is no exception. The European Union has signalled a clear willingness to invest in the development of Web 3.0-relevant technologies through official strategies, infrastructure development, and research funding. The European Union is actively shaping the digital world by protecting users, ensuring fair competition, and defending fundamental rights. ​ A Few Examples: The Commission’s blockchain and Web3 strategy outlines policy support, funding programmes, and legal frameworks to foster innovation in decentralised systems. Web 3.0-aligned technologies are being evaluated for identity and credential management and secure data exchange. EU funding programmes support projects on decentralised data, privacy-preserving technologies, and interoperability. (In recent times, 2016-2019, the EU invested 180 million Euros in a project called Horizon Europe, with grants expected to flow in the future as well) Web 3.0 Is Still A probability, Not A Concrete Solution Yet. However, the EU also values legal certainty, accountability, and consumer protection, which can be challenging to achieve in decentralised systems. As a result, the relationship between Web 3.0 and EU policy is still developing, reflecting both a willingness to innovate and a careful approach to potential risks. In this light, it is imperative to understand the complications and challenges associated with Web 3.0. Challenges of Web 3.0: Still in its nascent stage, the technology underlying Web 3.0 is complex and not widely known. Concepts such as private keys, smart contracts, wallets, and decentralised storage are still largely unfamiliar and challenging for non-tech-savvy users. Centralised platforms outperform Web 3.0 due to easier user navigation. Influencing users to shift from a seamless platform to a complex option would require substantial investment in digital education and community building, as well as time. Beneath the layers of immutable privacy structures, due to a decentralised mechanism for data sharing and storage, technologies such as Web 3.0 lack accountability systems. In the absence of a centralised moderation mechanism, addressing harmful or illegal content, misinformation, and responding to abuse becomes challenging. Once the content is stored, its removal becomes nearly impossible. Protocols may be decentralised in theory, but small groups of developers or influential participants still influence many major decisions. This can recreate power imbalances similar to centralised platforms, undermining ideals of shared governance. Although Web 3.0 may be emerging as a technical solution to censorship, it is critical to understand that technology alone cannot address deeper social and political issues. Issues such as governance, community norms, power dynamics, and regulatory compliance require broader approaches beyond code. For less experienced users, the sole onus for online security, privacy, and data management, owing to greater control, could be overwhelming. Looking ahead: between regulation and re-imagining As Europe debates the future of its digital space, organisations such as European Digital Rights reiterate that technology alone does not secure freedom or fairness online. ERDi firmly believes that human rights, data protection, and democratic accountability should be the core of any discussion of new digital systems. From this perspective, Web 3.0 is neither a solution nor a threat in itself, but offers a new avenue of technological experimentation that must operate within existing legal frameworks and fundamental rights. In the current political landscape, EU initiatives such as the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, and ongoing discussions around chat control and the Digital Omnibus reflect growing concern about platform dominance, surveillance, and the limits of the Web 2.0 model. These laws aim to correct structural harms through regulation, but also raise deeper questions about how digital infrastructures are designed and who ultimately holds power over them. In this context, Web 3.0 can be seen as part of a broader conversation about decentralisation and user agency rather than a finished alternative. While its principles resonate with long-standing European Pirate values around privacy, autonomy, and resistance to excessive central control, decentralised technologies also risk creating new concentrations of power if left unchecked. EDRI’s cautious approach emphasises the need for civic interest control, civil society involvement, and robust safeguards. The interaction between regulation and experimentation will likely shape Europe’s digital future. If approached critically and inclusively, discussions around Web 3.0 can help imagine an internet where innovation supports user rights, rather than undermining them. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ europeanpirates.eu/europes-nex…
image image image