Keep Track

Decentralize the shit out of this, please. Make sure their tech-heads know that the document itself is unkillable. It'll always pop up somewhere else.

This is a fantastic idea, at least in some form.

The category of information could stand as much defining as possible. I like where it's going, laying out lies and dog whistles and incorrectly defined terms.

The first column in a table is labeled "reality", in black lettering, and it says, for example, "I will underpay you and you will sing my praises for it", and the second column is labeled "fascist lie", with words written in red, and in red letters it says "personal responsibility". Lead with the truth. Eye is drawn to the truth, so maybe red is bad if it draws the eye, even though it's also the color for "incorrect". These are the choices that matter.

You could refine those substitutions to make a little fascist translator. Maybe re-write key lines of relevant speeches in translated form.

Just riffing. Whatever it becomes, make sure you state the facts in a way where you actually communicate them, as opposed to some idiot headline like "jd vance says (random lie)", helping the lie instead of helping the truth.

Very much like this idea, in a lot of variations.

My inclination is, focus up. You'll have sticking power through focus more than being an all in one shop. Maybe. If you feel a strong pull otherwise, then maybe not.

This sounds interesting. I think the possible technical/legal/organizational problems could be overcome pretty easily. I personally know nothing about "resisting" or anything like that, so wouldn't be able to contribute. I feel a lot of information is already published in some form or another by many other disparate groups, and it may be useful to aggregate and link it all in one place. I think it may be hard to nail-down the scope of the project, and stuff like what are acceptable forms of resistance to write about. Some people may suggest joining grifter organizations, or federal honeypots, or whatever other crazy organizations there are out there. I think a lot of "resistance" is ephemeral ATM, like the protests being organized by random groups, and is only useful information for a limited time (though I guess it could be useful to keep it, and maybe try to record estimated turnout and stuff like that).

I guess the biggest problem I see is that some content may be commentary or opinionated, and you'd probably want to enforce what opinions are acceptable. Or, you could try to do the Wikipedia, neutral POV thing, somehow. For instance, AFAIK, the implied plan about banning trans information is just conjecture at this point, and I'm not sure it would hold up to standards like Wikipedia has (I do believe this is a plan Republicans have in mind though). However, if rules are too lax, people could end-up posting outlandish conspiracy theories. So, not sure the best way to thread that needle.

In addition to vk6flab points,

• How do you get enough "reporters" to write the pages?
• What does your vison of a topic look like?
• How do you see this having an impact on these incidents?

It would not be hard to set up, but I think spreading the word, then maintaining it (if it becomes a target) could be a huge amount of overhead. I like the concept, I'm just wondering if there is a lower threshold way to make this happen. (Different platform, lowering the scope, etc.)

Interesting idea. How would you:

1. Validate content?
2. Prevent defacement?
3. Protect against lawsuits?

I'm asking because it's likely that you'd soon run into these issues.