Nothing is safe unless you fully control it yourself.

But your points are more around the legislative issues than the funding which is valid but a separate issue.

On that I’ve been unpicking the tie in mess I got myself into for 2 years now. I have got control over my data but not always things I reference which is where this problem comes in.

Recently a relative died and I’ve seen how a simple non technical person is screwed already due to iCloud dependency etc.

Is it safe if you fully control it? You are subject to pressure too.

There’s an asymptote of safety. You can be beaten with a hose to hand it over if it’s in the cloud or not.

But if it’s in the cloud then they don’t need to beat you with a hose. They just legislate that they can take it and then do it.

My data is safer if they have to beat me with a hose to get it first.

Correction: nothing is safe.

essentially the theory of LOCKSS https://www.lockss.org/ would mean that only controlling something yourself cannot keep it safe from the threat of destruction.

There are just different metrics of safety - there is also safety from revealing, and that is probably most safe if you control it all yourself, even though that increases risk of destruction and loss.

The government doesn’t fund any of those services. None of that stuff is under threat from trump.

I think you're correct? Those services seem unrelated to what is going on and I thought I was missing something.

The current government has shown they're more than willing to weaponize the DOJ and other departments against people and speech they don't like.

See the AP News incident this week where the White House banned AP from the WH press pool for publishing the words Gulf of Mexico. Seriously.

Or the weaponization of corruption charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams.

Private companies will not be exempt from the fascist retaliation. If Apple or Microsoft is hosting something they perceive as a threat, they will exert pressure to take it down - constitution or laws be damned.

Eric Adams alleges the charges were brought against him by the Biden administration for political reasons. They were dropped by Trump's administration. How does that show that Trump is weaponising the DOJ? Surely the opposite is true.

The White House press pool thing has nothing to do with the DOJ or the justice system generally.

Dropping charges against your political opponents is not a hallmark of fascism. There is ZERO evidence of Trump putting pressure on third parties to take anything down.

On the other hand, the Twitter files proved that the Biden administration was pressuring Twitter to censor stories it didn't like, and it did the same with Facebook.

> Eric Adams alleges the charges were brought against him by the Biden administration for political reasons.

Sp what if he "alleges" that. The question is whether he is corrupt.

> Dropping charges against your political opponents is not a hallmark of fascism.

Of course not, dropping them against yourself and your movement is. As in "he who saves the country can violate no law", in the words of Trump.

The charges are not fully dropped. They can be brought up again at any time.

AG Pam Bondi and Emil Bobe are openly admitting they are using this to pressure Eric Adams for political loyalty. It's straight up weaponization of the DOJ, don't be daft.

Read the letter from the acting prosecutor Danielle Sassoon who was pressed by the top of the DOJ to drop the charges. This is conservative, Federalist society, attorney who clerked for Scalia, by the way. Trump is using the charges for a quid pro quo. Tell me with a straight face this is not corrupt.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/24535586...

And I didn't say the DOJ kicked the AP out, I said other departments. But it shows you the admin wants to punish orgs for freedom of the press. There's no defending kicking out one of the most reputable news orgs for using the words Gulf of Mexico. Petty tyrants.

Same with Trump's incessant lawsuits against news orgs that report on him. Including a pollster who didn't provide him favorable numbers.

Same with their orders of to strip publicly funded research of wrongthink by removing references to race, orientation or gender.

This admin is actively suppressing speech including in private organizations at a scale we haven't seen before. And this is only in the first month

> do these make something a target for cessation of funding and possible seizure?

Yes, there's a general funding purge in process, causing uncertainty about outstanding NSF grants. OP mentioning DEI specifically might be in reference to e.g. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/2/cruz-led-investigatio...

Some earlier discussions on that one in particular:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43048077

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43046466

Tao made some remarks on what this means in practice here: https://mastodon.social/@[email protected]/1139100739588910...