The stage version looks identical to Bluesky, including the look and the placement of the icons.

Europe might unfortunately not have an alternative to protect its democracies. See also here. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/22/experts-warn-of-threat-to-democracy-by-ai-bot-swarms-infesting-social-media

Thank you. Just for clarity: does your comment about it being a fair assessment refer to my comment or to the interview?

😈 Thank you.

BoingBoing today on WSocial.

Here is a Google translated interview with the Greenlandic MP Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam (member of both the Danish and Greenlandic Parliament) in the Italian magazine Espresso today (original here).

Below my reaction:

"Her discourse is very nationalistic, heavily anchored in Greenland’s colonial history, with a strong sense of recourse for wrongs received. She clearly has a painful tooth, which transmits throughout the interview.

While agreeing in principle (colonialism is indeed a deep wound and injustice, and Danes - I know since I lived there - can still be arrogant notwithstanding the Jante Law), she has to make a choice and face the reality of Greenland’s extremely tiny population, similar to that of the small Italian city of Cuneo, therefore of an extremely limited amount of people to be able to act convincingly on an international level.

Greenlandic citizens have at the moment a Danish passport, not a Greenlandic one, therefore they are EU citizens (which she doesn’t mention) while not being part of the EU (which she does), but part of NATO (she mentions this at well).

Are they more protected as EU citizens (with Danish or perhaps Greenlandic passports in the future) or as US citizens (as a territory, which - let’s be real - excludes voting representation in the U.S. Federal government)?

In the end her discourse emphasizes the fact that the dignity of Greenlandic people ought to be recognized, but what if the other future partner/owner couldn’t care less?

I am afraid the Greenlandic people are no stronger internationally (and with regards to the US in particular) than the much larger population of Gaza.

They (the Greenlandic people) will just as easily be ignored and abused in this new US setup as the Gazans are right now and as Greenlanders were historically in the Danish setup (perhaps no longer right now, although some Danish condescension remains).

Many Greenlanders are now considering emigration (moving to Denmark mainly) or simply being sidelined. It is not the moment, I am afraid, for Greenlanders to just adhere to principles, but to simply chose the best option available, while heavily insisting on those results that can be achieved in a very short time period (to avoid being on the menu of the 250th birthday party of the Declaration of Independence on 4 July 2026).

The best thing they could do is to align themselves with Iceland (population 5 to 6 times larger than that of Greenland but facing unfortunately analogous challenges), Canada (same as far as the challenges are concerned) and the EU, and insist on actions on those levels, which she isn’t doing.

I am concerned that her position might be noble in principle, but disastrous in reality."

Dutch media are not inquiring or asking questions about this, as far as I can see. I am flabbergasted.

Thank you. Also really ugly site.

In Italian (where the letter “w” doesn’t exist) it could work: vuvu 😆

We simply don’t know that. I can’t find a website yet, so it is too early to make statements about their use of ActivityPub.

Cristina Caffarra (two “r”'s) is someone to explore though. See my Lemmy post about her.

In the Netherlands, where Kaag is either much admired and quite untouchable (by those in the center) or hated (by those on the right), it definitely is a minefield. I don’t want to express me about that (as I am not from that country). I think in this particular instance which has little to do with the Netherlands, she is throwing her reputation to grabs for a highly contentious initiative. De facto her boss is now Trump (as chairman of that initiative). So far she has not commented, which is also a bit odd.

What concerns me is that with all these letters, statements and actions (and with America 250 coming up), it is becoming very difficult to imagine that he would back down. The situation is dire.

There is unfortunately. 60 countries were invited. Two (Vietnam and Hungary) have accepted. At least two others (Canada and Italy) are considering it.

Still perplexed. It could be a career ruining move. What does this community think her political motivations might have been (I exclude economic/financial reasons, given her history)?

It is the first time that the US targets a select number of EU countries, rather than the EU as a whole. This makes it highly vulnerable to court challenges and at the WTO, unless there is a declared national security emergency because of a direct threat from those target countries (of course beyond a post on TruthSocial).

It is the first time that the US targets a select number of EU countries, rather than the EU as a whole. This makes it highly vulnerable to court challenges and at the WTO, unless there is a declared national security emergency because of a direct threat from those target countries (of course beyond a post on TruthSocial).

Thank you.

Thank you.

I mean as identity of course. Which of all these instances is brandfromEU (covered also in the media) and which is not?