

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.

Civil rights and abortion groups demand the communications platform offer end-to-end encryption and a blocking/reporting feature to secure messages and address harassment
Today, a coalition of 93 groups sent a letter to Slack calling on the company to protect its users by offering end-to-end encryption for messages, and to add blocking and reporting features to help protect users from harassment. The signers include abortion rights, digital rights, racial justice, and other civil society groups, as well as privacy-focused businesses.
The letter, hosted at MakeSlackSafe.com, points to attacks on abortions and bodily autonomy in the US as a specific threat under which people’s personal messages are being targeted by law enforcement. While Slack says that it only provides user data to law enforcement when it is legally required to do so, in states where abortion is being criminalized, law enforcement can and will use subpoenas to force Slack to hand over the internal messages of abortion funds, abortion providers, and reproductive rights organizations, as well as private individuals who use Slack to message friends, family and coworkers.
The letter also highlights broader attacks on human rights, stating that “in the US and around the world, governments are using data and digital communications to target human rights defenders and people exposing human rights violations, including political nonprofits, activist networks, journalists.” Signers argue that end-to-end encryption is a key feature for ensuring user messages cannot be accessed by Slack, hackers, snooping bosses, or law enforcement.
In addition to offering end-to-end encryption to secure messages, the groups call on Slack to offer tools to stop harassment on the platform, specifically blocking and reporting features, which they note are available on the vast majority of communications tools. With online harassment of workers on the rise (especially since the shift to remote work in response to the COVID-19 pandemic), Slack’s refusal to add a tool to allow people to block other users or report content is unacceptable.
“Slack is falling short in terms of the most basic guardrails for platform safety and privacy, which could have seismic implications for users. End-to-end encryption keeps people safe, and safety must be a built-in feature on all of our platforms. By not addressing this security flaw, Slack is aiding the criminalization of abortions and other expressions of bodily autonomy. As a leader in the online messaging space, Slack has to do more than just run nice PR campaigns claiming to support reproductive rights, they must ensure user safety is inherent in their tech.” Caitlin Seeley George, Campaigns and Managing Director at Fight for the Future.
“Slack has become one of the most popular communications tools of our era. And with that popularity comes responsibility — responsibility that Slack is currently neglecting. Slack must protect its users and catch up with many of its peers by offering common sense safety features, like the option for end-to-end encryption.” Reem Suleiman, U.S. Advocacy Lead at Mozilla
“For years, Slack has said it doesn’t need a block button because it is just a workplace tool and that would cut down on meaningful conversations. I have been advocating for one basic feature, blocking, since 2019, to make Slack safer. Slack isn’t just a workplace tool, it’s used by all different kinds of people, communities, and it’s also used in workplaces. It’s important to emphasize one thing here: harassment happens everywhere. It happens between families, friends, across strangers, and it also happens in the workplace. Blocking is a necessary tool to help mitigate harassment; it’s something users need to create their own safety, especially in the workplace, but in any community. Better security and privacy, privacy tools make people safer. Now is the time to press for what I call: seatbelts of online safety, which are necessary tooling and product features every product, software or infrastructure should have. End to end encryption, blocking, muting, and reporting are those necessary features; we need to think of them as the kinds of safety requirements that airbags and seatbelts provide for cars. We need to shift our thoughts away from thinking of these solely as additional features, but as necessary and required functionality to create and maintain a healthier web. The time is now to remake our web to include this functionality and every product. It’s time for Slack to really commit to safety and user health; these features make that happen.” Caroline Sinders, founder, principal researcher, Convocation Research + Design
“A key component of collective action is communication. We all deserve to know our communications are safe. Workers, consumers, friends, and activists need end-to-end encrypted communications platforms with safety features like blocking, muting, and reporting. I’m hopeful that Slack will take this responsibility seriously and offer these important safety features for users.” Charlotte Slaiman, Competition Policy Director at Public Knowledge
“We are in strong support of mainstreaming encryption and urge messaging platforms to adopt encryption as a way to safeguard people’s human rights. Encryption is not just a matter of privacy, it is a fundamental tool to enhance trust in digital communications. For an organization that yields as much power as Slack does through their popularity and reach, there is a responsibility to keep their users and community safe. We call on Slack to prioritize the adoption of encryption to ensure that messaging apps remain a powerful tool for empowerment, freedom, and the protection of human rights online.” Isabela Fernandes, Executive Director, the Tor Project.
“Ranking Digital Rights’s standards call on companies to protect users’ private communications. While we believe that all chat communications should be encrypted, at the very least, users should have the option to turn on end-to-end encryption. While Slack has some protections in place, these do not extend to end-to-end encryption for messaging. Our 2022 Big Tech Scorecard found that most messaging services, ranging from iMessage to Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger, Skype, and Kakao Talk, did provide options for end-to-end encryption. QQ and WeChat, however, both from Chinese company Tencent, failed to do so. Had we ranked Slack, it would have failed, alongside Tencent’s services. We believe Slack can, and should, do much better.” Anna Lee Nabors, Ranking Digital Rights
“In a time when our personal freedoms and rights are under threat, it is crucial to hold Slack accountable. The lack of end-to-end encryption in Slack exposes our private messages to various entities, enabling potential harassment, union-busting, suppression of political activism, and even criminalization of essential choices like abortion. With the rise of repressive laws and increased surveillance, the privacy of our communications has become paramount, especially for marginalized communities. End-to-end encryption ensures the protection and empowerment of individuals, allowing us to navigate a post-Roe US with dignity and autonomy.” Perry Toone, Thexyz
“As a workplace tool that many employees can’t opt out of using, Slack users need control over their exposure to abusive and harassing messages. Because of its real-time delivery and the current inability of the platform’s users to block or mute other users, Slack can be a hothouse for bad behavior. It is in the interests of employers and the platform itself to empower users to control their interactions with illegal or distressing content and the ability to keep their personal conversations private. Mechanisms like muting, blocking, reporting content and encrypted direct messaging should be standard operating procedure on the social Internet,” Tracy Rosenberg, Oakland Privacy
“As an organization that uses Slack to run our campaigns and communicate as a team it is vitally important that the platform be safe and private so that we can do our work to prevent war and violence. Political and human rights activists in the United States and around the globe that use Slack face increasing risks to their freedom and safety because of the use of online surveillance, harassment, and repression, and we expect Slack to take measures to protect them and the important work that they do. We call on Slack to implement end to end encryption and measures to prevent harassment so that its customers can do their work to build more democratic and just communities.” Amy Frame, Director of Data and technology, Win Without War
“At Malloc, we firmly believe in safeguarding the privacy and security of communication for all individuals. That is why we are joining the call to make Slack safe. In an era where personal freedoms and marginalized communities are under threat, it is crucial that we advocate for end-to-end encryption in workplace messaging platforms like Slack. Protecting the privacy of direct messages is not only a matter of personal liberty but also vital to ensure the safety and well-being of employees, activists, and vulnerable communities. We stand united in demanding stronger privacy measures to safeguard confidential conversations and protect the fundamental rights of all individuals.” Maria Terzi, Co-Founder & CEO – Malloc Inc.
In addition to delivering this letter, Fight for the Future has placed sidewalk decals outside Slack’s offices in San Francisco and Denver, has a billboard in the Bay Area, and is running digital ads targeting Slack and calling for end-to-end encryption. The group is also running a broader campaign calling on all messaging platforms to Make DMs Safe by implementing end-to-end encryption by default.
Letter and full list of signers:
Dear Slack,
We are businesses, organizations, communities, and individuals who depend on tools like Slack to connect online. We are activists organizing for change; journalists who communicate with sources and about sensitive stories; nonprofits providing care and support for our communities; companies that need to streamline our processes and share ideas; students, creators, gamers, alumni, artists, athletes, and other communities that use the Internet to connect with people all over the world.
Slack has put the security of our communities in danger by not taking steps to ensure user safety. Safety should be a built-in feature of all technology, so we are calling on you to protect your users by providing the option to enable end-to-end encryption for messages to protect our privacy, and to add blocking, muting and reporting features to help protect users from harassment.
In the US and around the world, governments are using data and digital communications to target human rights defenders and people exposing human rights violations, including political nonprofits, activist networks, journalists. For many of these groups and individuals, Slack is an absolutely vital communication tool, but it could also become the basis of government targeting, repression, censorship.
For years, law enforcement has monitored marginalized groups—including BIPOC, immigrants, social justice activists, and sex workers—through their online communications and through other forms of surveillance. Personal communications immediately became a target for criminalizing abortion seekers and providers after the reversal of Roe v Wade. Security experts and human rights organizations have sounded the alarm about this abuse and point to default end-to-end encrypted messaging as a first and best step companies can take to protect targeted communities. End-to-end encryption is crucial for protecting people from anti-human rights attacks on their bodily autonomy and personhood.
Despite critiques from journalists and privacy experts, Slack has not publicized any plans to offer end-to-end encryption. Instead you’re choosing to prioritize profit over users’ privacy and safety.
In addition to unencrypted Slack messages, the absence of functionality to address harassment over Slack puts users at risk. Whether for work, volunteering, or other social communities, many cannot opt out of using Slack. With workplace and online bullying and harassment on the rise, disproportionately impacting marginalized people who might not have other resources or feel comfortable reporting harassment to HR departments or other moderators, Slack must take responsibility to ensure everyone is equipped with resources to defend themselves.
The vast majority of communication tools give users the ability to mute, block, and report people. Adding these features is a simple, commonsense way to offer more protection from harassment on Slack.
Right now, Slack is falling short in terms of the most basic guardrails for platform safety and privacy. At this political moment, this can mean life or death for some people online. We call on Slack to go beyond statements and put into action its commitment to human rights by implementing basic safety and privacy design features immediately.
Signed,
Abortion Access Front
Access Now
Accountable Tech
Aspiration
Associação Portuguesa para a Promoção da Segurança da Informação
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action
Catholics for Choice
Center for Digital Resilience
Chayn
Climate Mobilization Project
ClimateAction.tech
Convocation Research + Design
Dangerous Speech Project
Den Frie Vilje ApS
Derechos Digitales
Digital Defense Fund
DNS Africa Media and Communications
Electronic Frontier Finland – Effi ry
Endora
Equity Forward
European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL)
Fight for the Future
Forward Together & Forward Together Action
Free Press
GLAAD
Glitch
Gotham City Drupal
I Need An A.com
If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice
IFEX
Jane’s Due Process
JCA-NET(Japan)
Kairos
KRYSS Network
Lawyering Project
LAYLO
Majal.org
Malloc Inc
Media Alliance
MediaJustice
Medical Students for Choice
Mozilla
MPower Change
Myntex Inc.
National Abortion Federation
National Institute for Reproductive Health
National Network of Abortion Funds
New Eden welfare promotion foundation
New/Mode
NTEN
Oakland Privacy
Open Data Charter
OpenMedia
OPTF Ltd
Our Justice
Patient Forward
Pixels for Humans
Point of VIew
Privacy & Access Council of Canada
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
ProboxVE
ProgressNow New Mexico
Public Knowledge
Quiet
Ranking Digital Rights
Reproaction
Reproductive Health Access Project
Rinascimento Green
RootsAction Education Fund
RosKomSvoboda
Salmonberry Tribal Associates
Seeding Sovereignty
Sex Workers Project @ The Urban Justice Center
SHERo Mississippi
State Innovation Exchange (SiX)
Superbloom Design (previously Simply Secure)
Surveillance Technology Oversight Project
The Tor Project
The Womxn Project
Thexyz
Ubunteam
UltraViolet
United We Dream
USOW
Utah Abortion Fund
VoteProChoice
We Testify
Win Without War
Women’s March
Woodhull Freedom Foundation
World Wide Web Foundation
X-Lab
Ymoz
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"These massive facilities are sucking up precious water resources, paving over farmland, driving climate change, and disrupting the fabric of communities," said one supporter of the new legislation.
Two of the leading progressives in the US Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, announced legislation on Wednesday that would impose a nationwide moratorium on the construction of new artificial intelligence data centers amid mounting concerns over their insatiable consumption of power and water resources, impacts on the climate, and other harms.
Sanders' (I-Vt.) office said in a press release announcing the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act that the construction pause would remain in effect "until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment."
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are set to formally introduce their legislation at a press conference on Wednesday at 4 pm ET.
Food & Water Watch (FWW), which last year became the first national organization in the US to call for a total moratorium on the approval of new AI data centers, celebrated the first-of-its-kind bill and called on other members of Congress to "move quickly to sponsor, champion, and pass" it. FWW's groundbreaking call for a national AI data center moratorium was later echoed by hundreds of advocacy organizations at the state and national levels.
“We need a halt to the explosive growth of new AI data center construction now, because political and community leaders across the country have been caught completely off guard by this aggressive, profit-hungry industry," Mitch Jones, FWW's managing director of policy and litigation, said in a statement Wednesday. "It has yet to be determined if—not how—the industry can ever operate in a manner that sufficiently protects people and society from the profusion of inherent hazards and harms that data centers bring wherever they appear."
“Long before the recent spike in global oil prices, Americans throughout the country were dealing with skyrocketing electricity rates due to the egregious consumption and jolting grid impacts levied by Big Tech’s AI data centers," Jones added. "Meanwhile, these massive facilities are sucking up precious water resources, paving over farmland, driving climate change, and disrupting the fabric of communities. We mustn’t allow another unchecked Silicon Valley scheme to profit off our backs while sticking us with the bill."
In a detailed report released last week, titled The Urgent Case Against Data Centers, FWW pointed to some of the "documented harms caused by AI and data centers," including:
Those harms have fueled massive grassroots opposition to AI data centers, with communities organizing to prevent construction in their backyards. One report estimates that between May 2024 and March 2025, local opposition helped tank or delay $64 billion worth of data center projects across the US.
That opposition has pushed local lawmakers to act. According to a tracker maintained by Good Jobs First, "at least 63 local data-center moratorium actions have been introduced, considered, or adopted across dozens of towns and counties," and "some 54 have already passed."
At the state level, Good Jobs First counted "at least 12 in-session states with filed data center moratorium bills this cycle," and noted that some governors have taken or floated executive action to slow or pause AI data center build-outs.
But the Trump administration is trying to move in the opposite direction.
In a national policy framework document unveiled last week, the White House urged Congress to "streamline federal permitting for AI infrastructure construction and operation" and called for a prohibition on state regulation of AI.
Jim Walsh, FWW's policy director, slammed the White House framework as "more of the same nonsense we’ve been hearing for months" and warned that "more data centers mean more climate-killing fracked gas power plants poisoning our air and water, and more stress placed on local communities’ precious water resources."
"The only prudent course of action when it comes to AI," said Walsh, "is to halt the explosive growth of new data center construction now, so that states and communities have the time needed to properly consider their own futures."
"How much death and destruction is enough before they’ll do the right thing and act to end this war?”
The Republican-controlled US Senate voted late Tuesday to block a resolution aimed at ending President Donald Trump's disastrous, illegal, and deeply unpopular war on Iran as the Pentagon approved a deployment of Army paratroopers to the Middle East, the latest escalation in a conflict the White House claims has already been won.
The latest war powers resolution, led by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), failed to advance by a vote of 47-53, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) joining every Republican except Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) in opposing the measure. If enacted, the bill would have forced the withdrawal of US forces from hostilities against Iran.
Murphy said in a statement following the vote that the consequences of the US-Israeli war on Iran, now in its fourth week, "are stunning in their scope: higher prices for American businesses and American families, a potential global recession, the wasting of billions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and new conflicts in the region that didn't exist before the war began."
"If our Republican colleagues will not do their duty, if they are going to engage in an effort to hide the consequences of the war, if they are going to refuse to ask questions of our incompetent national security leaders at the White House, who have waged this war without planning for the foreseeable consequences, then we will force a debate and a vote on this floor," said Murphy. "This war is not going to make more sense the longer it goes.”
The vote came hours after Trump, speaking from the Oval Office, declared that "this war has been won" even as his administration ordered around 2,000 soldiers from the US Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to begin deploying to the Middle East, heightening concerns that the president intends to launch a ground invasion of Iran.
“We’re keeping our hand on that throttle as long and as hard as is necessary to ensure the interests of the United States of America are achieved on that battlefield," Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday, amid reports that the administration is considering plans to "occupy or blockade" Iran's Kharg Island—which processes the vast majority of Iran's oil exports.
The New York Times reported that the new troop contingent "includes Maj. Gen. Brandon R. Tegtmeier, the division commander, and dozens of his staff members, as well as two battalions, each with about 800 soldiers."
"More of the brigade’s soldiers could be sent in the coming days," the Times noted, citing unnamed officials. "Taken together with some 4,500 Marines already en route to the region, the deployment of the elite Army forces brings the total number of additional ground troops dispatched to the war zone since the conflict started to nearly 7,000."
Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council, said late Tuesday that "with a possible ground invasion of Iran being planned that would trigger mass casualties and deepen a global economic and strategic crisis, only 47 senators upheld their duty to the Constitution and the American people who overwhelmingly oppose this war."
"The blowback of this war is only beginning and will continue to mount—for US interests, the global economy, and the people of Iran," Costello warned. "Those 53 senators who voted to allow the war to continue should make clear: Do they support this war escalating? Do they want Donald Trump to commit troops to a war that they don’t even have the courage to authorize? And how much death and destruction is enough before they’ll do the right thing and act to end this war?"
While the company plans to challenge the decision, the state's attorney general said the figure "should send a clear message to Big Tech executives that no company is beyond the reach of the law."
Democratic New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez and other child advocates on Tuesday celebrated a state jury's landmark verdict against Meta, despite the social media giant's plans to fight the decision requiring it to pay $375 million in civil penalties.
"The jury's verdict is a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta's choice to put profits over kids' safety," said Torrez, who had accused the company behind Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp of violating the state's Unfair Practices Act. "Meta executives knew their products harmed children, disregarded warnings from their own employees, and lied to the public about what they knew. Today, the jury joined families, educators, and child safety experts in saying enough is enough."
The Associated Press highlighted that "the landmark decision comes after a nearly seven-week trial, and as jurors in a federal court in California have been sequestered in deliberations for more than a week about whether Meta and YouTube should be liable in a similar case."
Torrez said that "New Mexico is proud to be the first state to hold Meta accountable in court for misleading parents, enabling child exploitation, and harming kids. In the next phase of this legal proceeding, we will seek additional financial penalties and court-mandated changes to Meta's platforms that offer stronger protections for children."
"The substantial damages the jury ordered Meta to pay should send a clear message to Big Tech executives that no company is beyond the reach of the law," he added. "Policymakers and law enforcement officials across the country can help make this verdict a turning point in the fight for children's safety. This is a watershed moment for every parent concerned about what could happen to their kids when they go online—and this victory belongs to them."
Josh Golin, executive director of the nonprofit Fairplay, welcomed the verdict. He said in a statement that "we've known for years that Meta enables the sexual exploitation of children. Now, that has been proven by a jury."
"As an organization that fights to protect children from Big Tech's deadly business model, Fairplay thanks Attorney General Torrez for his leadership in taking Meta to court," Golin continued. "Between this case and the ongoing trial in Los Angeles, parents, survivors, and state officials are doing their part to hold Big Tech accountable. Now, it's time for our leaders in the US Congress to get off the sidelines and pass the Senate's version of the Kids Online Safety Act to force these companies to change their addictive and dangerous product designs."
As Common Dreams has reported, while a diverse coalition supports the Kids Online Safety Act, civil rights groups have also expressed concerns about the legislation. Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, warned last year that "the overbroad language in KOSA and similar legislation risks censoring everything from jokes and hyperbole to useful information about sex ed and suicide prevention."
Amid celebrations over the New Mexico jury's decision on Tuesday, Meta said in a statement that "we respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online."
NBC News noted that "separately, Meta is facing thousands of lawsuits accusing it and other social media companies of intentionally designing their products to be addictive to young people, leading to a nationwide mental health crisis. Some of the lawsuits, which have been filed in both state and federal courts, seek damages in the tens of billions of dollars, according to Meta’s filings with financial regulators."