J Miller / is on Nostr

Advancing open knowledge and civic technology

PhD in Public Policy, M.S. in Technical Communication. Research focused on science and technology policy, especially scientific workforce and university research centers.

Current interests: open science, including science as a human right and multilingual science. Also an active civic tech volunteer with current / recent projects in open government and open data.

Posts will include policy, politics, and propaganda awareness content.

GitHub: https://github.com/JMMaok
Wikiversity Open Syllabus: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/UNESCO_Recommendation_on_Open_Science
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5459-6733

Last Notes

2024-07-09 00:38:55

- reply

The most important part of your post is ‘Trump didn’t keep a visitor log …’

2024-07-04 21:45:47

- reply

From a communications perspective, I think they really should be putting the DO and DON’T next to each item. You just don’t want people reading that imperative sentence « Leave kids in car. » 🫣

2024-06-07 23:19:29

- reply

A couple of leads focused on the fake accounts aspect https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/12/more-bogus-embedded-tweets-in-our-stories/ and https://www.cgai.ca/inthemediaapril62018

2024-05-24 20:08:50

- reply

Good point. Although that is not a change from the current law or the law pre-COVID. Apparently that has been illegal in NC all along. This law would, however, add some penalties if a crime were committed while wearing religious coverings. Seems like additional grounds for a constitutional challenge.
There is a minor exception for religion during actual rituals or observances, with permission of the local government.

2024-05-24 18:22:47

- reply

Side note re: North Carolina
A law needs to pass both houses and either be signed by the Governor or override his veto. This has only passed the Senate. The House has paused the bill. This does not mean we are out of the woods. *However* it would be typical and fairly savvy politics to focus all the attention on the medical masks, concede that at the last minute, and more easily get the other anti-protest measures they want.

2024-05-24 18:15:31

- reply

On the other hand, the Bill of Rights does say that, essentially, people have freedom unless there is a law passed through the various federal, state, or local governments limiting that freedom. We do start out with the right to wear masks. The tremendous dysfunction comes in that we have a) the legacy of the masked KKK and b) enough legislators and voters who would consider legislatively banning medical masks in the context of an abysmally managed pandemic. 2/2

2024-05-24 18:10:10

- reply

An overly sincere response for folks outside US.
Not to deny the general dysfunction well-described in other replies, but in a sense it comes down to literal words of the 2nd amendment to our Constitution, part of our Bill of Rights, dating back to the origin of the U.S. The words are “the right to keep and bear arms.” And there’s a whole history of interpretation of that by the courts. It’s hard legally to take away the right to protect oneself *with arms.* 1/2

2024-05-15 19:44:28

- reply

They are spouting the most blatant nonsense about discretionary enforcement, like “this isn’t about Grandma wearing a mask to the store.”
Obviously I’m hoping this doesn’t pass, although I believe Rs can override a veto so it sure might.
Another area that really doesn’t seem clear is how “in public” would be defined. It seems like it would collide with ADA definitions of public in some cases, for people covered by ADA.

2024-05-15 19:36:27

- reply

There is an exception for wearing occupational masks, along with several other exceptions. They explicitly remove the health exception, though.
This is outrageously dumb. Part of me thinks it is a distraction to get the rest of their anti-protest provisions through. Like opposition will need to waste energy fighting this absolute nonsense. But also I’m not sure I’d put this mask ban past them either. Sigh.