

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457
A group of prominent privacy, civil liberties, and human rights organizations have launched SecurityPledge.com, a major new campaign calling on tech companies to take concrete steps to protect their users in the wake of widely reported abuses like the harvesting and manipulation of Facebook data conducted by Cambridge Analytica. The site asks Internet users to add their name to an open letter calling on tech companies to take the data security pledge and make needed changes to ensure their users' data isn't used against them.
"Tech companies need to change," reads the headline on the site, backed by the 18 Million Rising, the American Civil Liberties Union, Demand Progress, Coworker, Color of Change, Fight for the Future, and Sum of Us, grassroots groups that represent millions of people. The pledge outlines a detailed set of technological and policy commitments that tech companies must make in order to "ensure the Internet is used to expand democracy, not undermine it."
Specifically, the pledge calls for companies to:
The organizations behind the campaign will encourage users to flock to services that have taken these steps and avoid those that haven't until they do.
"The internet can be made a tool for transformational change for the better," said David Segal, Executive Director of Demand Progress, "but it can also be used for the extraction of sensitive private information and manipulation towards the benefit of large corporations or for social control by governments. The major online platforms are facing a reckoning: How they respond in this moment will help determine whether the utopian vision that inspired so many internet pioneers and users stands a chance of becoming a reality, or whether companies will ignore the public interest turn the internet against its users towards the end of private benefit."
"This is a watershed moment for the Internet," said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her), Millions of people now understand how their data can be weaponized and used against them, and they are demanding change. Cambridge Analytica is just the tip of the iceberg, and this problem doesn't begin and end with Facebook. If the largest tech companies take the steps outlined in the security pledge, it will change the course of human history for the better, and protect billions of people's basic rights."
"It's time that companies take steps to ensure that using their products doesn't mean that users have to sacrifice their rights," said Neema Singh Guliani, ACLU legislative counsel. "The way companies treat data can affect whether you are wrongly excluded from job or housing ads because of your gender, targeted for dubious financial products, or have your security compromised. Many companies have for too long ignored their obligation to treat data responsibly, prevent information from being used to discriminate, and provide users' full control over how it is handled."
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026“Just a question to the BBC,” said the documentary's executive producer. “Given you dropped our film, will you drop us from the BAFTAs screening later tonight?”
The makers of a documentary about Israeli attacks on healthcare workers and infrastructure in Gaza won a prestigious BAFTA award on Sunday—and they used their acceptance speech to lash out at BBC for refusing to air their work.
The film, "Gaza: Doctors Under Attack," was originally scheduled to be aired by the BBC in early 2025 before the network announced in June that it would not be releasing the documentary because it had "come to the conclusion that broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality."
Shortly after, the documentary was picked up by the UK-based Channel 4 and aired in July.
UK journalist Ramita Navai, the main reporter of the documentary, criticized the BBC for declining to show the film, which she denounced as a political decision.
“Israel has killed over 47,000 children and women in Gaza so far," Navai said. "Israel has... targeted every single one of Gaza’s hospitals. It’s killed over 1,700 Palestinian doctors and healthcare workers. It has imprisoned over 400 in what the UN now calls a ‘medicide.’ These are the findings of our investigation that the BBC paid for but refuses to show. But we refuse to be silenced and censored."
🇵🇸🇬🇧 A Gaza documentary the BBC paid for and refused to air just won a Bafta.
The filmmakers used their acceptance speech to call out the BBC directly.
Presenter Ramita Navai:
"We refuse to be silenced and censored."
The BBC then edited portions of her remarks from its own… https://t.co/xLRLfdLV6W pic.twitter.com/K8pYhOzJTd
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 11, 2026
Ben de Pear, the film's executive producer, also pointed the finger at the BBC as he accepted the BAFTA award for best current affairs television program.
"Just a question to the BBC,” said de Pear, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “Given you dropped our film, will you drop us from the BAFTAs screening later tonight?"
As reported by Al Jazeera, de Pear after accepting the award also praised Palestinian journalists Jaber Badwan and Osana Al Ashi, who contributed on-the-ground footage for the documentary at the risk of their own lives.
"[We] woke up every day wondering if the two journalists on the ground were still alive," de Pear told reporters backstage.
The Trump administration has conducted more than two dozen surveillance and reconnaissance flights off Cuba's coast since early February, according to CNN.
US surveillance and reconnaissance flights off the coast of Cuba have surged in recent months as President Donald Trump has issued increasingly belligerent threats to seize the island nation by force.
CNN reported Sunday that the US Navy and Air Force have conducted more than two dozen surveillance flights—mostly of them near Havana and Santiago de Cuba, the country's largest cities—since early February, after the Trump administration invaded Venezuela and kidnapped its president. The outlet noted that "similar patterns, in which ramped-up rhetoric by the Trump administration coincided with an uptick in publicly visible surveillance flights, occurred in the lead-up to US military operations in both Venezuela and Iran."
"The flights are notable not only for their proximity to the coast, which puts them well within range of gathering intelligence, but for the suddenness of their appearance—prior to February, such publicly visible flights were exceedingly rare in this area—and for their timing," CNN reported.
CNN published its story days after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced new sanctions targeting a conglomerate operated by Cuba's military and a natural resources firm, intensifying the United States' decades-long economic war against the island nation.
"Our people already know the cruelty behind the actions of the US government and the viciousness with which it is capable of attacking us," Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said in response to the sanctions. "They understand, just as the rest of the world does, that this is a unilateral aggression against a nation and a population whose sole ambition is to live in peace, masters of their own destiny and free from the pernicious interference of US imperialism."
In a New York Times op-ed on Monday, US Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.) wrote that the Trump administration's "blockade of fuel to Cuba, on top of the longest embargo in modern US history, defies the norms of international law that provide for state sovereignty, nonintervention in domestic affairs and the right of nations to trade freely."
"It amounts to an economic assault on the basic infrastructure of Cuba, designed to inflict collective punishment on the civilian population by manufacturing a humanitarian crisis in which healthcare, running water, agriculture and transportation are no longer available," wrote Jayapal and Jackson, who visited Cuba in April and witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of US economic warfare.
"During our visit, we spoke with a wide range of Cuban citizens—political dissidents, religious leaders, entrepreneurs, and members of civil society organizations and humanitarian aid groups," the Democratic lawmakers wrote. "We also met with the families of Cuba’s political prisoners. Everywhere, there was agreement: America’s blockade must end, and a US invasion must not take place."
Trump has repeatedly threatened a military assault on Cuba in the months since his administration illegally attacked Venezuela and abducted its president.
"Cuba is next, by the way," Trump declared at a Saudi-backed investment summit in Miami in late March. "Pretend I didn't say that, please."
Citing unnamed US officials, The Associated Press reported last week that the Trump administration "is not looking at imminent military action against Havana" as the two sides continued to negotiate a diplomatic agreement.
AP added that the administration officials cautioned "that Trump could change his mind at any time and that military options are still on the table."
"The only thing we have demanded is Iran's legitimate rights," said Esmail Baghaei, the spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry.
A top Iranian official on Monday said the peace proposal rejected by President Donald Trump was a "reasonable and generous" path toward ending the war that the US and Israel launched in late February, plunging the Middle East and global energy markets into chaos.
Esmail Baghaei, the spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, said during a press conference that "the only thing we have demanded is Iran's legitimate rights," accusing the US side of insisting on "unreasonable demands."
Baghaei's remarks came after Trump dismissed the Iranian proposal—a counter to the latest US offer—as "totally unacceptable" in a social media post.
"I don't like it," Trump wrote, without specifying what he found objectionable. The president's reply sent oil prices surging.
"Is our proposal for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz unreasonable?" Baghaei asked in response to the US president. "Is establishing peace and security across the entire region irresponsible?"
The details of the US offer and Iran's counter have not been fully made public, though some of both sides' demands have been divulged in media reports and vaguely outlined by government officials. Trump, who has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran and called the country's leaders "lunatics," told Axios that he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about Iran's response.
"It was a very nice call," said Trump. "We have a good relationship."
Baghaei, for his part, rejected the notion that Iran is the party behaving irrationally. "It is enough to look at Iran's record," he said. "Were we the ones who deployed troops? Are we the ones bullying countries in the Western Hemisphere? Were we the ones who committed assassinations twice during negotiations?"
Citing an "informed source," Iran's semi-official Tasnim News Agency reported Monday that "Iran's text emphasizes the necessity of an immediate end to the war and guarantees against renewed aggression toward Iran, along with several other issues within the framework of a political understanding."
"Iran’s text also stresses the necessity of lifting US sanctions and ending the war on all fronts, as well as Iranian management of the Strait of Hormuz should certain commitments be fulfilled by the United States," Tasnim added. "The necessity of ending the naval blockade against Iran immediately after the signing of the initial understanding is also among Iran’s emphasized demands, the source said."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote late Sunday that it appears Iran is offering to compromise significantly on its uranium stockpile and future enrichment.
"The US demands that the entire Iranian stockpile be shipped out of the country. In the past, Tehran rejected shipping any of it out; it only agreed to downblending it. In its latest proposal, however, it offers to have some of it diluted and the rest shipped to a third country," Parsi wrote. "As I understand it... Iran is also offering to accept an arrangement in which it will not need to enrich uranium at all for 12 years. This is not the 15-20 years Trump originally wanted, but longer than the 3-5 years Terhan originally offered."
"That Iran is willing to pause enrichment at all is a significant concession that I am not sure is fully appreciated by the American side," he continued. "It remains unclear to me why this and the stockpile have become so central in Trump’s perspective. His earlier red line was simply no nuclear weapons... The insistence on shipping the entire stockpile out appears to be another example of Trump allowing America’s red lines to be replaced by Israel’s. It would be a shame if the entire negotiation collapses over this issue."