Granted, I'm not the world's biggest Resident Evil fan. The only one I've played in full was Resident Evil 7, a grimy Texas Chainsaw Massacre-inspired ordeal that's about as close to disconnected from the series' convoluted overarching plot as it gets. — Read the rest
The post Resident Evil fan film is just as spooky as the games appeared first on Boing Boing.
Zach Cregger’s Resident Evil adaptation is currently in theaters, but another smaller adaptation is also arriving this month from a former Walking Dead star.
and here we go. my short film BIOHAZARD hits youtube this wednesday, 10/14. can’t wait for y’all to see it. check out my exclusive interview with @IGN from the link in my bio for all the info.
— chandler riggs (@chandlerriggs) October 12, 2026
any resident evil 7 fans here? pic.twitter.com/ESt20l3cMq
Chandler Riggs has grown up quite a bit since his long run as Carl on The Walking Dead came to a close, but now the actor is attaching himself to another beloved franchise.
Riggs has been working on a short film called Biohazard that adapts some of the most iconic moments from the open hours of Resident Evil: Biohazard. The short film runs roughly 20 minutes and debuts on YouTube this week.
Riggs plays Ethan Winters in the unofficial short film and will offer Resident Evil fans a closer look at the characters face than they got during the original game, which was almost entirely in the first-person from Ethan’s perspective, aside from a few segments.
According to Riggs the short film was aiming to release before Zach Cregger’s Resident Evil adaptation hit theaters, but things didn’t quite come together in time to hit that goal. Instead, the short film debuts on October 14.
Riggs spoke with IGN about the project and shared details about the process around deciding to show Ethan’s face and how to handle that aspect of the adaptation:
“We’re trying to do so much else super faithful and true to the game, but this is a huge aspect that we are breaking from it. But there isn’t really another good way to tell [the story] in a live-action format. I was going back and forth like ‘Okay, could we do first person the whole time? Could we avoid getting his face in or anything?’ But the more we went back and forth on it, the more I was like, ‘I mean, if we are going to do this and are going to appeal to a wider audience — more than just the people who played the games — then we’re going to have to break those rules. It was very intimidating. Hopefully people are okay with it.”
The teaser trailer is definitely high-quality and it looks like a faithful adaptation with strong acting and a good sense of building suspense. It should be very exciting to watch the whole short film later this week and see how film and gaming fans react to the this take on the franchise.
Be sure to check back soon for lots more Resident Evil and video game movie news and updates.
The Biohazard short film will be available on YouTube starting October 14, 2026.
The post Ethan Winters Has a Familiar Face in Resident Evil: Biohazard Fan Film appeared first on VICE.
In the sixth and final installment of Paul W.S. Anderson’s original “Resident Evil” film franchise, the writer-director — known for his abrasive, nu-metal vulgar auteurism — raises a middle finger of sorts to his detractors. Over 17 years and thousands of poor reviews, Anderson’s adaptations of the beloved Capcom survival-horror video game series became somewhat famous for pissing off critics and diehard game fans alike. The bulk of Anderson’s sprawling vision chose to forgo the games’ shadowy zombie story for high-octane thrills and compelling (if clunky) commentary on corporate greed, biological warfare, AI and identity. His “Resident Evil” films are unapologetically ambitious and undeniably imperfect, much like their human lead, Alice (Milla Jovovich), whose sole mission is to retain her humanity in a world eating itself alive. In charmingly symbiotic fashion, neither Alice nor Anderson himself is willing to give up on their mission without a fight.
As if Anderson were taking a victory lap to celebrate the impressive feat of making six films in a series that was horribly reviewed but terribly financially successful, a flashback sequence in 2016’s “Resident Evil: The Final Chapter” closes the sextet’s loop. In the scene, set just before the events of 2002’s “Resident Evil,” executives at the diabolical Umbrella Corporation gather to discuss the world’s impending end. Nuclear war is a real possibility, climate change is inevitable, famine and death are on the horizon. Umbrella’s answer? The T-Virus, a mutagenic pathogen that will bring an undead plague across the Earth, leaving it free for Umbrella’s higher-ups and other wealthy patrons to inhabit once the zombies are safely eradicated. “We will emerge onto a cleansed Earth,” says Umbrella CEO Dr. Isaacs (Iain Glen), “one that we can then reboot in our image.”
(Dušan Martinček/Columbia Pictures) Austin Abrams in “Resident Evil”
Everything has become so hyper-personalized and algorithmic that viewers subconsciously watch media looking for themselves. But that is the great joy of Anderson’s “Resident Evil” films: They are so remarkably stylized, so absurdly over-the-top, so referential and deferent to Anderson’s own inspirations, that they’ve become singular visions.
Here, Anderson’s message is clear: Whoever has the power controls the image. And if one doesn’t like that image, they’re free to fight back. But to know what they’re fighting for, one must first understand what they’re fighting against, engaging with the enemy rather than dismissing it.
That idea has been rattling around my mind after seeing Zach Cregger’s new “Resident Evil,” itself a reboot made in its creator’s image. Cregger’s film is more faithful to the spirit of the original games, with uncertainty and plenty of monsters just around every dark corner. The movie trades the gun-slinging Umbrella defector Alice for a medical courier named Bryan (Austin Abrams), who finds himself completely out of his depth when a routine delivery mutates into something much more horrifying.
“I’d rather watch a movie starring a schlub who’s out of shape and never fired a gun before,” Cregger told Polygon of his adaptation. Unlike Alice, Bryan is the audience stand-in: the average guy who responds to a mind-boggling, impossible situation as clumsily as you or I might. Critics and audiences responded in turn, taking an immediate shine to Bryan’s doofiness and contrasting it with Alice’s purposeful, goal-oriented approach to a zombie apocalypse. One review called Cregger’s movie “different and much better than the other ‘Resident Evil’ movies,” which were termed “depersonalized zombie sludge.”
I find that to be the trouble with the way people watch and talk about films these days, as if a movie’s merit is defined by whether or not it reflects the viewer. Everything has become so hyper-personalized and algorithmic that viewers subconsciously watch media looking for themselves. The line between art and commerce has blurred so much that people unintentionally conflate all visual media with advertising — if they can’t see themselves in it, they’re not buying it.
But that is the great joy of Anderson’s “Resident Evil” films: They are so remarkably stylized, so absurdly over-the-top, so referential and deferent to Anderson’s own inspirations, that they’ve become singular visions. The mere fact that there are six increasingly wacky installments should be enough to warrant curiosity. And yet, Anderson’s “Resident Evil” has always been the butt of the joke, brushed off largely because his movies dared to be different when people wanted more of the same.
Perhaps that’s rich, given just how much DNA the original “Resident Evil” franchise shares with the “Matrix,” “Mad Max,” and “Alien” franchises. And I’m no fool; having seen all of Anderson’s “Resident Evil” films, I know they are not created equal. Some, like the fifth installment, “Retribution” — which reorients the series to a much more salient, focused place — stand head and shoulders above others. But not every “Matrix,” “Alien,” “Mad Max,” or other film franchise movie shares the same quality as its in-universe peers, either. While one might argue that those are original titles of distinguished quality, it’s unfair to write off “Resident Evil” simply because it’s a game adaptation. After all, Anderson’s most fascinating ideas merge the immersive structure of gaming with the spectacle of filmmaking, and he’s one of the few filmmakers who has successfully pulled off such an audacious combination.
Want more from culture than just the latest trend? The Swell highlights art made to last.
Sign up here
From the start, Alice is the viewer’s avatar, at once a skilled security operative and someone with no memory of their past. She, much like the person behind the proverbial controller, is dropped into a world quickly becoming overrun by a viral plague with no idea what to do. Press A to jump. Press X to shoot. Press Y+X for the combo move. Because we learn alongside Alice — only watching instead of playing — Anderson forges a connection between the viewer and the character on screen without running the analog cable that connects a controller to a console, as Cregger seems keen to do. Anderson’s “Resident Evil” protagonist is not a projection of any specific viewer. Rather, she’s the film’s embodiment of a lawful good, pre-programmed to fulfill her mission linearly without getting lost in the big, open world.
Vulgar auteurism doesn’t necessarily suggest that a film is as “good” as others of its ilk, only that the film earnestly explores ideas as enduring as those in any formally rigid, awards-bait film. Anderson’s “Resident Evil” franchise — with all of its ruminations on identity in the tech age, artificially intelligent warfare, corruption and greed — certainly fits that bill.
Maybe that can feel stifling for some viewers. Across six films, Alice rarely faces a challenge that she can’t overcome. Even the endings feel like save points, with Alice respawning at the start of each consecutive movie with another mutated monkey on her back.
For me, that’s where Anderson’s series gets its draw. Alice is placed in an impossible situation with no say in the matter, and no choice but to fight her way out. As she progresses through the level-by-level (or, in this case, film-by-film) structure, the knowledge she acquires informs her identity and reorients her spirit. Alice’s humanity is defined by her total rejection of the manufactured digital world and the havoc its creators wrought. Her quest is not to defeat all of the monsters, but to always remember that every zombie was, like her, human. That’s how she holds onto her soul.
But no matter how noble Alice’s mission is, her consistent character is no match for Anderson’s heavy hand. His “Resident Evil” films are as gratuitous as they are ridiculous — often repetitive and typically predictable. I’ve never found that to be a barrier to entry, especially for something so balls-to-the-wall exciting as these movies. The merits of so-called vulgar auteurism are often debated among film fans. But to say that no filmmakers are working in mainstream, high-flying, big-budget action with real artistic value negates the principle of filmmaking as an art form. Just because something doesn’t fit into the regressive limitations of “good” and “bad” doesn’t mean that it has no worth. Assertions of vulgar auteurism don’t necessarily suggest that a film is as “good” as others of its ilk, only that the film earnestly explores ideas as enduring as those in any formally rigid, awards-bait film. Anderson’s “Resident Evil” franchise — with all of its ruminations on identity in the tech age, artificially intelligent warfare, corruption and greed — certainly fits that bill.
We need your help to stay independent.
I find that I’m beating this drum daily, trying to convince people that thoughtfully engaging with art they don’t immediately like or understand is a worthwhile practice. But we’ve reached a moment in media consumption where reputation is practically insurmountable. It’s become more difficult to convince people of “bad” media’s merits, to encourage them to see with eyes other than their own. I stumble into these moments all the time, waxing poetic about misunderstood and misread films like Halle Berry’s “Catwoman,” or claiming Zack Snyder’s “Sucker Punch” is a bold feminist text and not 110 minutes of CGI-laden misogyny. In all my years of picking apart films to grasp why they appeal to my senses, I’ve watched others’ curiosity decline, especially in the face of someone else’s passion. Now that Cregger’s “Resident Evil” looks and feels a bit more like the classic games, I fear the effusive reaction will drown out Anderson’s franchise’s nutty strengths forever.
Of course, not everything has to be highbrow and meaningful. Some things are silly, and will be just fine remaining that way. But it’s the inclination to bang the gavel and move on that irks me. With AI images bleeding into the real world at a pace none of us can keep up with, there’s human marvel to behold in Anderson’s madness. These are films of strenuous work and daring vision, even when their execution doesn’t always match up with those big ideas. Analyzing what works and what doesn’t, instead of dismissing the whole thing outright, is a free and life-affirming way to connect with the world and its people. Investigating everything further — following Alice down the rabbit hole and fighting alongside her to preserve what makes us human — might be laborious at times, sure. But it just might be one of the last ways to save our souls.
Read more
about horror worth taking a closer look at
The post We got the original “Resident Evil” films all wrong appeared first on Salon.com.
Maybe it seems weird that AI bosses won't stop publicly rending their garments about the terrible potential of their products, from the jobspocalypse that will ensue when AI can do our jobs better than us, to the impending moment when the word-guessing programs learn too many words, wake up and turn us all into paperclips.
It seems weird that they won't stop fretting about this terrible potential – until you realize that every public pronouncement about this terrible potential is also a public boast about its potential, period.
That's very, very important, because all AI really has is potential. Actual, existing AI is useful at the margins, if you're already a skilled practitioner who can discern correct from incorrect outputs, and if you integrate AI judiciously so that it doesn't overwhelm your ability to pay attention to those outputs and apply your discernment to them:
https://pluralistic.net/2026/07/28/hitl-ers/#ai-ai-oh
In other words, AI is mostly a novelty, a heavily subsidized toy that produces little more than distraction. Where AI does produce value, that value is comparable to a plug-in, a new feature for your word processor or image/sound/video-editing package that might help you do your job somewhat better, or it might not.
That doesn't make AI useless, it just makes it a normal technology: useful for some, useless for others, capable of being abused and likely to waste a lot of time when used unwisely:
Normal technologies are fine. But normal technologies do not warrant the massive economic and political commitments that have been bestowed upon AI: a trillion dollars in the past year alone, and the world's civil servants fired en masse and replaced with AI:
https://pluralistic.net/2026/05/13/vibe-governance/#k-hole
The people who have committed our society and its resources to an all-or-nothing bet on AI will tell you that AI is the everything machine, but when pressed, they will confess that AI is about to become the everything machine, for example, once AI starts doing AI research, a thing that AI cannot do:
https://www.normaltech.ai/p/ai-agents-cant-yet-do-open-ended
This is a civilizational act of Magic Underpants Gnomery, and every day that it goes on is a day when more economic, climate and political costs of AI are imposed on all of us. Scientific journals, open source repositories and even science fiction magazines are being overwhelmed by slop, whose perpetrators and apologists insist that soon, AI will realize its potential and the slop will be transformed into gold.
That's why AI bosses are so committed to talking up AI's destructive potential: because destructive potential is nonetheless potential. The moment we stop believing in that potential is the moment that we stop supplying AI companies with bales of cash to shovel into their money-furnaces so that they can afford to sell hundred dollar bills for a dollar each to Elon Musk cultists who want to generate child porn and pictures of Sonic the Hedgehog with giant boobs.
AI does have destructive potential. It has the potential to destroy the productive economy when an AI salesman convinces your boss to fire you and replace you with chatbots that can't do your job:
https://pluralistic.net/2025/03/18/asbestos-in-the-walls/#government-by-spicy-autocomplete
AI has destructive potential because bosses are trapped in a prisoner's dilemma where none of them can admit that the money they've spent – and the jobs they've destroyed – chasing AI has been wasted, and so other bosses bet even harder:
https://pluralistic.net/2026/08/01/dare-snot/#i-will-fucking-piledrive-you-if-you-mention-ai-again
AI has destructive potential because the data-center bubble has convinced credulous town officials to throw out environmental and planning review, seize people's home and farms, and carpet the countryside with giant data centers (many of which will never be built):
https://www.404media.co/people-hate-datacenters-survey-finds/
AI has destructive potential because it is consuming scarce water and energy and emitting gigatons of carbon:
https://www.404media.co/even-the-u-s-government-says-ai-requires-massive-amounts-of-water/
This is the destructive potential we need to be hammering at, because this isn't the kind of destructive potential that translates into productive potential that will someday make the AI bet pay off. Quite the opposite: this is all about the potential of AI to destroy the economy and consume your retirement savings:
Just as importantly: we have to stop amplifying tech bosses' chosen narratives about their products' destructive potential, because this helps them raise more money and do more terrible things. Bernie Sanders needs to stop insisting that the US government should own 50% of the money-losingest corporations the world has ever seen and start talking about how they will not get a government bailout when their investment bubble bursts. We need to stop talking about AI "haves" who will enjoy the awesome potential of AI, and AI "have-nots" who will fall behind.
We need to stop talking about "AI safety" and the possibility of "rogue AI" destroying the world. When an AI company's security tool "escapes containment" and hacks someone else's servers, we need to ask the company "Why do you suck so bad at building secure sandboxes for your hacking tools?" rather than "Why are your hacking tools so amazingly powerful?"
Above all, we need to stop talking about AI as exceptional. AI is normal. A normal technology has some uses, but isn't useful for all things and all people. A normal technology isn't inevitable, it's something you decide whether you want to use or not.
Treating AI as unexceptional is the best way to halt the destructive march of AI companies and their impact on jobs, the climate and the economy. But treating AI as unexceptional requires that we stop talking about AI as if it were exceptionally evil. Yes, some people who use AI experience severe mental problems, but that's not because AI is a Lovecraftian horror that destroys your brain and your capacity for rational thought if you use it. It's not a basilisk. AI is like a carny ride that triggers cardiac events in riders who never knew they had a problem because they never experienced those particular g-stresses – it's not something that induces vulnerability, it's something that triggers vulnerability:
https://pluralistic.net/2026/06/03/mission-space/#gsd
Using AI doesn't make you evil, nor does it risk your sanity – no more than doing any of the other dangerous, compromised, unsustainable things that constitute our daily lives in this fraught moment. The world will be better off when the AI companies are bankrupt and their servers are sold off at ten cents on the dollar – but using those servers to run open models in modest, careful ways won't infect you with their wickedness. They are not stained with communicable sin. They're just computers. They are unexceptional.
One way for a technology to be normal is for it to be produced and marketed by an awful corporation that wants to do terrible things. This isn't to say that "all technologies are dual use, and you have to take the good with the bad." That's the inevitabilist argument of vulgar Thatcherites who insist – as Margaret Thatcher did – that "there is no alternative," and we have to accept their abuse if we want to reap the benefits of the technology.
The normal way to deal with this is to reject vulgar Thatcherism in favor of heroic Gibsonism, thundering William Gibson's rallying cry, "the street finds its own use for things," as we seize the means of technology and use it in the ways that benefit us, while restricting, banning, or blocking the uses that harm us:
https://pluralistic.net/2026/03/17/technopolitics/#original-sin
To treat AI as exceptionally evil is to elevate the mediocrities who run AI companies to super-villain status, a status in which they positively revel. A serial liar like Sam Altman will someday trip over his own dick and end up in a cell for securities fraud – unless we keep exalting his evil to Satanic scale, in which case he might make himself "too big to jail":
https://time.com/article/2026/05/26/sam-altman-ai-job-losses-openAI-/
Altman is a con-man and a stock swindler, not a super-genius. The more we describe his products as possessing a special kind of durable evil that will endure even after his company fails and he is condemned to history's ash-heap, the more we help Altman raise money for his chatbot Ponzi. Normal technology isn't a cursed artifact. That's something you find in a lich-king's tomb. We need to stop helping Altman burnish his reputation as a lich-king and stop treating AI like it's magic.
There's a technical term for the kind of tech criticism that inadvertently helps tech bros sell their swindle: "criti-hype," Lee Vinsel's term for "tak[ing] the sensational claims of boosters and entrepreneurs, flip[ping] them, and start talking about 'risks'":
https://peoples-things.ghost.io/youre-doing-it-wrong-notes-on-criticism-and-technology-hype/
In other words, to commit criti-hype is to repeat the marketing claims of people like Sam Altman and then add, "(and that's bad)" in parentheses at the end. These guys – these terrible, mediocre, boring-ass losers – are bullshit factories, ejecting fountains of nonsense about AI. The right way to criticize them is to point out that they're lying – not to repeat their lies as warnings.
Hook and Squeeze https://data4democracy.substack.com/p/hook-and-squeeze
#25yrsago Dot-com crash toilet paper https://web.archive.org/web/20010822220826/http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-6908350.html
#25yrsago Associated Press says a single sentence excerpt is not fair use https://web.archive.org/web/20050717075914/http://www.infoanarchy.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/8/17/202249/240
#15yrsago German Pirate Party poised to win first federal election https://torrentfreak.com/german-pirate-party-on-course-to-election-win-110820/
#15yrsago Understanding the Nym Wars https://epeus.blogspot.com/2011/08/google-plus-must-stop-this-identity.html
#15yrsago Journalism school teaches students pre-digital newspaper production techniques https://journoterrorist.com/2011/08/02/paperball2/
#15yrsago 90 percent of US net users don’t know from crtl-F https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/crazy-90-percent-of-people-dont-know-how-to-use-ctrl-f/243840/
#15yrsago Bruce Sterling’s Augmented Reality project https://web.archive.org/web/20110827010512/https://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2011/08/augmented-reality-science-fiction-writer-becomes-augmented-reality-developer/
#10yrsago Woman sues cops because they destroyed her empty house, thinking a suspect was hiding in it https://www.techdirt.com/2016/08/19/woman-sues-after-police-destroy-her-home-during-10-hour-standoff-with-family-dog/
#10yrsago US Army committed $6.5 trillion in accounting fraud in one year https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army-idUSKCN10U1IG/
#10yrsago Candid Republican operators admit that voter ID laws are about disenfranchisement https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/when-politicians-tell-truth-voting-restrictions
#1yrago Become unoptimizable https://pluralistic.net/2025/08/20/billionaireism/#surveillance-infantalism
Melbourne: Enshittification at the Wheeler Centre, Aug 25
https://www.wheelercentre.com/events-tickets/season-2026/cory-doctorow-enshittification
London: AI and the Enshittification of the Media, NUJ (Sep 2)
https://www.nuj.org.uk/learn/ems-event-calendar/ai-and-the-enshitification-of-the-media.html
Brighton: The Reverse Centaur's Guide to Life After AI with Carole Cadwalladr (Brighton Dome), Sep 8
https://brightondome.org/whats-on/LSC-cory-doctorow-the-reverse-centaurs-guide-to-life-after-ai/
London: The Reverse Centaur's Guide to Life After AI with Riley Quinn (Foyle's Picadilly), Sep 9
https://www.foyles.co.uk/events/enshittification-cory-doctorow-riley-quinn
South Bend: An Evening With Cory Doctorow (Notre Dame), Oct 6
https://franco.nd.edu/events/2026/10/06/an-evening-with-cory-doctorow/
Victoria: Munro's Books (Oct 20)
https://www.munrobooks.com/events/6113620261020
Vancouver: BC Policy Solutions Gala, Nov 12
https://bcpolicy.ca/gala/
Technofeudal Enshittification (Fucking Cancelled)
https://www.fuckingcancelled.com/p/technofeudal-enshittification-with
Who The Machine Serves (EFF)
https://archive.org/details/effecting-change-who-the-machine-serves
Speculative Fiction for Social Change II (Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff)
https://pocketcasts.com/podcast/cool-people-who-did-cool-stuff/08cbb840-a6ae-013a-d8aa-0acc26574db2/part-two-cory-doctorow-on-speculative-fiction-for-social-change/937e8800-9404-45a6-b5e3-90ebee2cfaea
Speculative Fiction for Social Change I (Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff)
https://pocketcasts.com/podcast/cool-people-who-did-cool-stuff/08cbb840-a6ae-013a-d8aa-0acc26574db2/part-one-cory-doctorow-on-speculative-fiction-for-social-change/15ad467c-0832-44c9-91ea-59defd783dba
"Canny Valley": A limited edition collection of the collages I create for Pluralistic, self-published, September 2025 https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/04/illustrious/#chairman-bruce
"Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It," Farrar, Straus, Giroux, October 7 2025
https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374619329/enshittification/
"Picks and Shovels": a sequel to "Red Team Blues," about the heroic era of the PC, Tor Books (US), Head of Zeus (UK), February 2025 (https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865908/picksandshovels).
"The Bezzle": a sequel to "Red Team Blues," about prison-tech and other grifts, Tor Books (US), Head of Zeus (UK), February 2024 (thebezzle.org).
"The Lost Cause:" a solarpunk novel of hope in the climate emergency, Tor Books (US), Head of Zeus (UK), November 2023 (http://lost-cause.org).
"The Internet Con": A nonfiction book about interoperability and Big Tech (Verso) September 2023 (http://seizethemeansofcomputation.org). Signed copies at Book Soup (https://www.booksoup.com/book/9781804291245).
"Red Team Blues": "A grabby, compulsive thriller that will leave you knowing more about how the world works than you did before." Tor Books http://redteamblues.com.
"Chokepoint Capitalism: How to Beat Big Tech, Tame Big Content, and Get Artists Paid, with Rebecca Giblin", on how to unrig the markets for creative labor, Beacon Press/Scribe 2022 https://chokepointcapitalism.com
"Unauthorized Bread": a middle-grades graphic novel adapted from my novella about refugees, toasters and DRM, FirstSecond, April 20, 2027
"Enshittification, Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It" (the graphic novel), Firstsecond, 2027
"The Memex Method," Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2027
Today's top sources:
Currently writing:
"The Post-American Internet," a sequel to "Enshittification," about the better world the rest of us get to have now that Trump has torched America. Fourth draft completed. Submitted to editor.
A Little Brother short story about DIY insulin PLANNING
This work – excluding any serialized fiction – is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. That means you can use it any way you like, including commercially, provided that you attribute it to me, Cory Doctorow, and include a link to pluralistic.net.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Quotations and images are not included in this license; they are included either under a limitation or exception to copyright, or on the basis of a separate license. Please exercise caution.
Blog (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):
Newsletter (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):
https://pluralistic.net/plura-list
Mastodon (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):
Bluesky (no ads, possible tracking and data-collection):
https://bsky.app/profile/doctorow.pluralistic.net
Medium (no ads, paywalled):
Tumblr (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):
https://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/tagged/pluralistic
"When life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla" -Joey "Accordion Guy" DeVilla
READ CAREFULLY: By reading this, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
ISSN: 3066-764X
Login