MDOTD 856
https://thetruthaddict.substack.com/p/mdotd-856

Even if they do pass this law. Linux is not beholden to any regional geographic location. The one distro and company that Colorado could affect is System76 and PopOS. It is also safe to assume that the legislatures are technology illiterate window lickers. There is also the complication of jurisdiction. PopOS is based on Ubuntu which is based on Debian. PopOS would not have any control over things outside of its own development.

Microsoft needs no persuasion as they already vacuum your colon clean on any personal information.

This is not a red or blue problem anymore or just the US, it's all of ours and the fight is now.

https://derekebaird.medium.com/california-enacts-device-level-age-verification-law-for-apps-designed-to-survive-constitutional-3226f18159cf

https://itsfoss.com/news/colorado-age-attestation-bill/

• dude drops $2000 on a DJI robot vacuum like a lunatic
• refuses to use the normal app like a peasant
• Sammy Azdoufal fires up Claude to crack the API so he can drive it with an xbox controller
• Claude delivers the goods
• pulls an auth token from their servers, connects successfully
• except the system thinks he controls 7000 vacuums
• checks again
• yep, seven thousand
• DJI built authentication with zero device ownership verification
• any valid token works for any unit on the planet
• Sammy now has eyes inside homes across 24 countries
• live vacuum camera feeds everywhere
• full floor plans from the mapping data
• some guy in germany eating cereal at 3am, unaware his roomba is snitching
• one API call away from being the most informed burglar in history
• all he wanted was to steer his vacuum with a joystick
• does the right thing and reports it
• DJI fixes it in two days
• back to normal life with his stupidly expensive floor cleaner
• IoT companies stay undefeated at shipping garbage security

DHS is now pushing for a single, unified search engine that can scan your face, fingerprints, and biometrics across every federal agency, ICE, FBI, CBP, DOD,DOJ.

They call it “efficiency.”
Students of history call it a warning label.

When the government builds a tool that can identify anyone, anywhere, across all databases, it’s not “security.” It’s always infrastructure for control.

Source | Article

Got a 20! 🤯

MAHA → Make Agribusiness Happy Again.

🔥 Fuel Our Work: https://bit.ly/TFTPSubs
🎙 TFTP Podcast: https://bit.ly/TFTPPodcast

#TheFreeThoughtProject

So this is in my immediate area. The referred to Trail go literally right behind my house, although not the sections closed. I dont like the sound of this at all.

Lehigh Valley bird flu 2026: Section of D&L Trail, parks closed indefinitely

Concerns about bird flu in the Lehigh Valley prompted the closure of additional recreational amenities in the region, including the D&L Trail through Northampton Borough.

The Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor on Friday announced the closure, in effect until further notice. It comes a day after borough officials said they closed Canal Street Park along the trail and the Lehigh River following the discovery of dead geese.

Allen Township on Friday also announced the closure of Howertown Park until further notice...

https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/outdoors/2026/02/lehigh-valley-bird-flu-2026-section-of-dl-trail-parks-closed-indefinitely.html

New Uber options in Mexico.

3-2-1: On the value of early experiments, what creates trust, and speed vs patience - James Clear
https://jamesclear.com/3-2-1/february-19-2026

These fuckers better not try it...

First cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza in northern elephant seals confirmed in California
https://phys.org/news/2026-02-cases-highly-pathogenic-avian-influenza.html

So apparently I got impersonators. I almost never DM anyone, so be sure who you talking to should you get one👇

Scammer impersonating you

https://keepandroidopen.org/open-letter/

Re: Mandatory Developer Registration for #Android App Distribution

Date: February 24, 2026
To: Sundar Pichai, Chief Executive Officer, #Google
To: Sergey Brin, Founder and Board Member, Google
To: Larry Page, Founder and Board Member, Google
To: Vijaya Kaza, General Manager for App & Ecosystem Trust, Google
CC: Regulatory authorities, policymakers, and the Android developer community

We, the undersigned organizations representing civil society, nonprofit institutions, and technology companies, write to express our strong opposition to Google’s announced policy requiring all Android app developers to register centrally with Google themselves in order to distribute applications outside of the Google Play Store, set to take effect worldwide in the coming months.

While we do recognize the importance of platform security and user safety, the Android platform already includes multiple security mechanisms that do not require central registration. Forcibly injecting an alien security model that runs counter to Android’s historic open nature threatens innovation, competition, privacy, and user freedom. We urge Google to withdraw this policy and work with the open-source and security communities on less restrictive alternatives.

Our Concerns
1. Gatekeeping Beyond Google’s Own Store

Android has historically been characterized as an open platform where users and developers can operate independently of Google’s services. The proposed developer registration policy fundamentally alters that relationship by requiring developers who wish to distribute apps through alternative channels — their own websites, third-party app stores, enterprise distribution systems, or direct transfers — to first seek permission from Google through a mandatory verification process, which involves the agreement to Google’s terms and conditions, the payment of a fee, and the uploading of government-issued identification.

This extends Google’s gatekeeping authority beyond its own marketplace into distribution channels where it has no legitimate operational role. Developers who choose not to use Google’s services should not be forced to register with, and submit to the judgement of, Google. Centralizing the registration of all applications worldwide also gives Google newfound powers to completely disable any app it wants to, for any reason, for the entire Android ecosystem.

2. Barriers to Entry and Innovation

Mandatory registration creates friction and barriers to entry, particularly for:

Individual developers and small teams with limited resources
Open-source projects that rely on volunteer contributors
Developers in regions with limited access to Google’s registration infrastructure
Privacy-focused developers who avoid surveillance ecosystems
Emergency response and humanitarian organizations requiring rapid deployment
Activists working on internet freedom in countries that unjustly criminalize that work
Developers in countries or regions where Google cannot allow them to sign up due to sanctions
Researchers and academics developing experimental applications
Internal enterprise and government applications never intended for broad public distribution
Every additional bureaucratic hurdle reduces diversity in the software ecosystem and concentrates power in the hands of large established players who can more easily absorb such compliance costs.

3. Privacy and Surveillance Concerns

Requiring registration with Google creates a comprehensive database of all Android developers, regardless of whether or not they use Google’s services. This raises serious questions about:

What personal information developers must provide
How this information will be stored, secured, and used
Whether this data could be subject to government requests or legal processes

To what extent developer activity is tracked across the ecosystem
What this means for developers working on privacy-preserving or politically sensitive applications
Developers should have the right to create and distribute software without submitting to unnecessary surveillance or scrutiny.

4. Arbitrary Enforcement and Account Termination Risks

Google’s existing app review processes have been criticized for opaque decision-making, inconsistent enforcement, and limited appeal mechanisms. Extending this system to all Android certified devices creates risks of:

Arbitrary rejection or suspension without clear justification
Automated systems making consequential decisions with insufficient human oversight
Developers losing their ability to distribute apps across all channels due to a single un-reviewable corporate decision
Political or competitive considerations influencing registration approvals
Disproportionate impact on marginalized communities and controversial but legal applications
A single point of failure controlled by one corporation is antithetical to a healthy, competitive software ecosystem.

5. Anticompetitive Implications

This requirement allows Google to collect intelligence on all Android development activity, including:

Which apps are being developed and by whom
Alternative distribution strategies and business models
Competitive threats to Google’s own services
Market trends and user preferences outside of Google’s ecosystem
This information asymmetry provides Google with significant competitive advantages, allows it to preempt, copy, and undermine competing products and services, and may open many questions about antitrust.

6. Regulatory concerns

Regulatory authorities worldwide, including the European Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and competition authorities in multiple jurisdictions, have increasingly scrutinized dominant platforms’ ability to preference their own services and restrict competition, demanding more openness and interoperability. We additionally note growing concerns around regulatory intervention increasing mass surveillance, impeding software freedom, open internet and device neutrality.

We urge Google to find alternative ways to comply with regulatory obligations by promoting models that respect Android’s open nature without increasing gatekeeper control over the platform.

Existing Measures Are Sufficient
The Android platform already includes multiple security mechanisms that do not require central registration:

Operating system-level security features, application sandboxing, and permission systems
User warnings for applications that are directly installed (or “sideloaded”)
Google Play Protect (which users can choose to enable or disable)
Developer signing certificates that establish software provenance
No evidence has been presented that these safeguards are insufficient to continue to protect Android users as they have for the entire seventeen years of Android’s existence. If Google’s concern is genuinely about security rather than control, it should invest in improving these existing mechanisms rather than creating new bottlenecks and centralizing control.

Our Petition
We call upon Google to:

Immediately rescind the mandatory developer registration requirement for third-party distribution.
Engage in transparent dialogue with civil society, developers, and regulators about Android security improvements that respect openness and competition.
Commit to platform neutrality by ensuring that Android remains a genuinely open platform where Google’s role as platform provider does not conflict with its commercial interests.
Over the years, Android has evolved into a critical piece of technological infrastructure that serves hundreds of governments, millions of businesses, and billions of citizens around the world.

The rights remain. You can write this article. You can vote. You can protest, within designated parameters. You can sue, if you can afford to. You can read leaked documents, access court filings, follow the money through public records. The infrastructure of rights is real and its value is not nothing — ask anyone who has lived without it.

But the rights exist within a system whose fundamental power structures we do not and cannot touch. You are free to say almost anything. The question is whether saying it changes anything. You are free to vote. The question is whether the realistic options on the ballot represent a genuine choice about who actually governs. You are free to know, in considerable detail, how the system works. The question is whether knowing is the same as having power over it.

Tyranny with Rights means the rights are genuine and the tyranny is genuine and both are true simultaneously. https://richardrevelstoke.substack.com/p/tyranny-with-rights

Black Power Leader Targeted in the FBI’s COINTELPRO Spent Over Thirty Years in Prison For Crimes He Did Not Commit - CovertAction Magazine
https://covertactionmagazine.com/2026/02/11/black-power-leader-targeted-in-the-fbis-cointelpro-spent-over-thirty-years-in-prison-for-crimes-he-did-not-commit/