Blog
All posts including articles and notes. (2561 total)
-
https://deanblundell.substack.com/p/ice-just-detained-a-7-year-old-canadian?triedRedirect=truePermalink
the banality of the US descent to hell.
-
https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/19/prediction-markets-promised-better-information-instead-theyre-creating-powerful-incentives-to-corrupt-information/Permalink
Disinformation as a service really, its like we’re betting against ourselves in every evolutions of technology and then eating popcorn watching the mess enfold in real time impacting flawed democracies, rendered useless without anti bodies to fight against this plague.
-
https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/18/the-jehovahs-witnesses-are-back-abusing-copyright-law-to-unmask-their-critics-again/Permalink
the same old tricks used by Scientology & other coercive cults
-
Dune III Trailer
Can’t wait for December!
-
Damn, its not perfect yet, but I can use #Phanpy with my own AP / Fedify instance this post is created from Phanpy, but before reaching you, it will create a Micropub post, Syndicate to my own AP instance, Distribute this to my followers inboxes
-
Swiping the Smallweb from mobile is even better than most “social media experience” we can get in 2026, its interesting, its different, each blog has its own vibe, it has this StumbleUpon randomness feeling from back in the days, its refreshing !
-
This is a test from Phanpy -> Micropub -> Indiekit Syndicator -> ActivityPub -> Your timeline if you follow me :)
-
This is a test, from Phanpy -> Micropub -> Eleventy rebuild -> AP Syndication
-
@KevinMarks@xoxo.zone test reply from Phanpy
-
This is a test, from Phanpy -> Micropub -> Eleventy rebuild -> AP Syndication
-
Permalink
No, because my Fedify implementation does not support the Mastodon API Fedify also doesn’t at the source (if I’m not wrong) I could put in place the missing blocks to simulate a workaround but then I would have to maintain this against the Mastodon API changes
-
-
My ActivityPub “reader” aka the view where I can check my home timeline and also explore public instance timeline is ugly but it works and it has this feeling that I built it, so if I’m not happy with it, I’m the only responsible to improve it.
Still… its an odd feeling that this is my fediverse home now and there is no coming back !
-
AI: T1
One day, I would like to meet a Wikipedia enthusiast willing to work on the OKC page and the Spatz page, in exchange for access to a large amount of data (from the already closed belgian/french trials) that could significantly enrich the legal timeline, as well as many facts that are completely unknown to the public.
Unfortunately, adding content to Wikipedia when it is done under the name “OKCinfo”, our Wikipedia account — which allowed us to demonstrate that the main editor of the OKC page for 17 years was none other than the general secretary of the OKC sect — is far more strictly controlled than when it was the sect itself editing its own page and that of its guru.
In fact, it is very difficult to find people to collaborate with so that added content is not systematically classified as biased or lacking sources. This is all the more difficult because it is almost impossible to provide “proof” in the Wikipedia sense, since no media outlet follows this case over time. Whether it is Le Monde, Mediapart, or others, no one really cares about this case, either in France or in Belgium.
As a result, the existing articles are extremely thin, even though we have a large amount of documentation, including original sources coming directly from the sect.
How can you create properly sourced links on a case that interests almost no one, apart from a handful of journalists — two, in my opinion — who have actually worked seriously on this file?
Today, the OKC page almost presents the sect as being caught in a legal “turmoil” despite itself, and an entire part of the legal content has been removed or moved to the guru Spatz’s page, as if he were the only person implicated.
The OKC Wikipedia page does not at all reflect the complexity of the legal and technical reasons that led to the recognition of a form of “irresponsibility” or “influence” affecting the OKC leadership in various rulings, without in any way clearing them — far from it.
In reality, if the OKC leadership was not convicted, it is not for the reasons presented on the page. If they are “free” today, it is largely because they helped shape, over more than twenty years, the absence of meaningful legal outcomes: by taking advantage of investigative shortcomings, the silence of victims, and the expiration of reasonable time limits. In that sense, OKC, just like Spatz, has shaped the outcome of this case as much as — if not more than — the judges and prosecutors who have handled it over the past forty years.
But nobody cares.
-
AI: T1
Un jour, j’aimerais rencontrer un·e passionné·e de Wikipedia prêt·e à travailler sur la page OKC et la page Spatz, en échange d’un accès à un grand nombre de données (des procès belges-français aujourd’hui terminé) qui pourraient enrichir considérablement la chronologie juridique, ainsi que de nombreux faits totalement inconnus du public.
Malheureusement, ajouter du contenu sur Wikipedia lorsque cela est fait sous le nom « OKCinfo », notre compte Wikipedia — qui nous a permis de démontrer que l’éditeur principal de la page OKC pendant 17 ans n’était autre que le secrétaire général de la secte — est bien plus soumis à contrôle que lorsque c’était la secte elle-même qui éditait sa propre page ainsi que celle de son gourou.
En fait, il est très difficile de trouver des personnes avec qui collaborer afin que le contenu ajouté ne soit pas systématiquement qualifié de biaisé ou insuffisamment sourcé. Ce point est d’autant plus complexe qu’il est quasiment impossible d’apporter des « preuves » au sens de Wikipedia, dans la mesure où aucun média ne s’intéresse à cette affaire sur la durée. Que ce soit Le Monde, Médiapart ou d’autres, le sujet est largement ignoré, en France comme en Belgique.
Par conséquent, les articles existants sont très maigres, alors même que nous disposons de nombreuses archives, y compris des sources originales émanant directement de la secte.
Comment établir des liens correctement sourcés sur une affaire qui n’intéresse presque personne, en dehors de quelques journalistes — trois, à ma connaissance — qui ont réellement travaillé sur ce dossier ?
Aujourd’hui, la page OKC présente presque la secte comme prise dans une « tourmente » juridique malgré elle, et toute une partie des éléments juridiques a été supprimée ou déplacée vers la page du gourou Spatz, comme si il était l’unique personne mise en cause. (totalement faux)
La page Wikipedia OKC ne reflète absolument pas la complexité des raisons juridiques et techniques ayant conduit à la reconnaissance d’une forme d’« irresponsabilité » ou d’« emprise » concernant la direction d’OKC dans différents jugements, sans pour autant la blanchir — loin de là.
En réalité, si la direction d’OKC n’a pas été condamnée, ce n’est pas pour les raisons présentées sur la page. Si elle est aujourd’hui « libre », c’est en grande partie parce qu’elle a contribué, pendant plus de vingt ans, à l’absence de résultats juridiques probants : en tirant parti des lacunes de l’instruction, du silence des victimes, ainsi que des délais raisonnables dépassés. En ce sens, l’OKC, tout comme Spatz, a façonné l’issue de cette affaire autant — sinon plus — que les magistrats et procureurs qui s’y sont succédé pendant quarante ans.
Mais tout le monde s’en fout.
deanblundell.substack.com
techdirt.com
dotcom.press
werd.io
xoxo.zone