Should we stop donating to food banks just because USAID got cut? No. These are the institutions we have, right now. Let's do what we can with them.
The US gov could shut them down tomorrow. Illegally, but that's not stopping them elsewhere right now.
So support archive.org, and support backups elsewhere.
I’d love to see it stay around, but maybe we should have competing archivists in different regions
As an example, I checked the Women's Health page and noticed a lot of removals -- the pages on menstrual health and hygiene ([1] vs [2]), or the page summarizing health disease statistics in women ([3] vs [4]). That's just from 5 minutes of glancing through, and there are probably many others.
It is useful to compare the differences between the two sites, but it would definitely benefit from a list of what has been changed. Right now this primarily helps doctors and scientists who need to access data they already knew about (i.e. via bookmarks) but is less useful for observing patterns in what is being censored.
[1]https://www.restoredcdc.org/www.cdc.gov/womens-health/mhh-co...
[2]https://www.cdc.gov/womens-health/mhh-continuing-education/i...
[3]https://www.restoredcdc.org/www.cdc.gov/womens-health/featur...
[4]https://www.cdc.gov/womens-health/features/heart-disease.htm...
We (the general public) know absolutely nothing about why these pages were removed. All we can say definitively is that they are gone.
And spit out baseless speculation too of course.
Ok. I'll count on you to push back on the President if this indeed turns out to be what he wants.
Can we count on you to make up the difference in their paycheck if they're fired for this? Also, is there some reason you couldn't organize this pushback externally, right now?
Any day now surely.
I think Trump's biggest stunt is to convince almost half of American voters is that the cause of their financial problems is not the broken system (of financing higher education and healthcare) nor the top rich people who get richer whereas the poor become poorer, but some magic "Bureaucracy" - basically people like you and me, some of which at some point decided to serve their country rather than get a job in private sector for more money.
I saw this rhetoric of common enemy before, but I never believed people would be gullible enough to believe it. (I say this as a person who believes that periodic review and improvement of functioning of all infrastructure is crucial, but the way you do it is decisive.)
2. 7.6% of americans are LGBTQ - that’s about 26 million people - does the government not serve them as well? Is the government only there to serve some of the people?
Also, 7.6% seems very high, what is this number based on, and in which cases does it really matter what your gender is? In what cases does the information need to take your gender into account, unless it's about specific organs, which are either masculine or feminine?
7.6% is based on the google results for “percentage americans lgbtq” - if you want to know more about that number you can find more on said search engine. Is there a number you have in mind where the gov no longer has a responsibility to serve them?
> In what cases does the information need to take your gender into account, unless it's about specific organs, which are either masculine or feminine?
You’re confusing gender and sex. Gender is a description of social and cultural traits - sex is the one relating to organs and chromosomes. But either way, taking down pages about women’s health because of a law that claims to have the goal of protecting women is just dumb.
And btw, all genders are imaginary. Like many things, gender is made up.
If you are a woman that identifies as a man, then you will know that you are biologically a woman, and that the medical advice for woman applies to you.
Fundamentally, what is happening is not removing inclusive language. It’s removing useful documents because they contain words that are not allowed to be spoken anymore. Setting aside your feelings about binary gender - imagine this was about some cultural group: goths or birders or whatever. Would it not be concerning that the gov was trying to eliminate any acknowledgement that birders exist?
A page with advice for lgbtq travelers had “LGBTQ” changed to “LGB”. That’s not removing references to gender that had been forced in to be inclusive. That’s trying to erase actual people from the official record. Not wanting them to exist. If that doesn’t alarm you, idk what would.
I don't see how it's a big problem in our society that medical texts aren't explicitly acknowledging the existense of "other genders" when it's not even relevant.
Why don't we focus ourselves on real world problems?
I'm not necessarily supporting that they're changing stuff back now, but I'm also not necessarily supporting the changes in the first place. I think it's a silly fight between idealists in opposite camps. And to be honest, I think the idealists in the opposite camp had too much of a run, and it went way too far, and now the other side is trying to win back some ground, and of course they also exaggerate and go too far. But maybe we will eventually end up in in the balanced middle. So in that sense I'm not too worried about these changes. Also because I don't think it's a very important issue anyway compared to the many issues going on in the world. I think LGBT people are living in the best time ever. I think there is more acceptance, recognition and tolerance for that, more than ever before. So I don't understand why some people are pushing this forward so much as if it is a major issue. If you let the current trend continue, it will get better by itself. Now that they are pushing for it so much it actually works contraproductive, as you can see. Many people now are fed up with all these changes where we need to make a special arrangement for these people. But that is actually the opposite of equality. So I can understand that many people are getting fed up with it and want to get rid of it.
So I don't see a threat here. I don't think that there are many people that actively wants to erradicate the LBGT movement, of course there are always extremists, but it's not the majority. People just want that we can live our lives without having to take someones preferred pronoun into account all the time. We want to do our work, we don't want to be a personal therapist for every LBTQ person.
The fact only that this abbreviation is being updated all the time because some new group feels excluded itself shows how pathetic this whole thing is. Why can't we just say that we are all human, and be done with it? Why would I care if some document from the government names me by my biological gender? That doesn't define who you are.
You know you can make a problem out of anything if you want. I could be upset because my preffered color is green and I want the letters to be in green font. And I can start a whole religion based on that and get many people all worked up about the fact that they're receiving letters where their preferred color is ignored. It doesn't sound that weird actually, now in these times. 20 years ago it would have been a joke.
It's an explicit goal of Project 2025 to take rights away from queer people.
> CDC webpages currently note that the "CDC's website is being modified to comply with President Trump's Executive Orders." Specifically, the CDC has been purging its website of topics related to diversity, gender identity, and LGBTQ issues. In addition, CDC researchers have been ordered to retract papers submitted to journals that use words or phrases like non-binary, transgender, LGBT, pregnant people, and more.
Ive heard HIV and contraception related information was also removed [2].
> Among the many pages that remain down are Health Disparities Among LQBTQ Youth, Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of Vaccine for Mpox Prevention, and Fast Facts: HIV and Transgender People.
Other government sites [3] had similar purges for different topics:
> The Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York alleges the agency illegally scrapped essential webpages without public notice last month, after USDA Director of Digital Communications Peter Rhee ordered staff to archive or publish “any landing pages focused on climate change.”
[1] https://www.medpagetoday.com/obgyn/generalobgyn/114078
[2] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/public-health/removal-pages-cdc-w...
[3] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/climate...
I'm usually not a bigot but that one is dumb
Bigot – a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
The capacity for pregnancy is not confined to individuals with a female (46,XX) chromosomal pattern. The real world is complicated, and intersex people can be born with a (46,XY) karyotype or mixed (46,XX) and (46,XY) karyotypes as a result of chimerism. People with Swyer syndrome (46,XY) develop female reproductive anatomy (a uterus and fallopian tubes) but do not produce eggs. However, pregnancy can be achieved with donor eggs and assisted reproductive technology.
So here's the question: Are you devoted to your first opinion, or are you capable of acknowledging that the medical community may have had legitimate reasons, grounded in actual biology, to choose a more inclusive word?
( For example, no gametes are produced in 85% of individuals with streak gonads )
The whole human sex | gender thing seems superficially clearcut but the real world edge cases are messy AF.
The aspect I personally find confusing is that the exceptions are relatively rare .. human births are straighforward enough for 98% of births, and of the 2% that pose a challenge the really curvy edge cases are rare (but real).
Why then do some people seeming lose their collective minds over real but rare occurrences and attempt to hammer every triangle into either a round or a square hole?
I have a purely empirical observational view of the world at large, forced a priori prescriptiveness at odds with the world seems more than a little flat earthy.
There are messy edge cases. Not all people have 8 fingers and two thumbs, but we don't say digit count is on a spectrum because some people are born with more or less, or that some people have had digits amputated.
The vast, vast majority of people are not messy edge cases. And some of them find language like "pregnant people" or "people with protates" awkward and vaguely dehumanising as opposed to the more understandable and specific terms: "women" and "men".
Yet, "what should have been produced" is no better. Everytime I hear it, from you and anyone else, it sounds like numbskulls all too pleased at themselves for what they believe is a clever definition, without realizing it's merely "because I said so".
Maybe I'm missing something, and one day I will hear it differently. Not many such things change for me after years. Maybe I'll win the lottery, too.
Since you mentioned fingers... I used to know a shop teacher who adamantly wouldn't count themselves among the 10-fingered, and would give you a safety lecture if you brought it up. Just like that lecture would ignore your joke about opening soda cans and proceed into a near-diatribe that, 30 years later, is still an effective reminder on machine safety, this exemplifies the crux of the gender terminology problem: you're focusing on the wrong thing.
Why are you so insistent on telling other people about their bodies, to the point of declaring to them what their body "should have produced"?
You appear as the middle-schooler that thought youself clever, and your close group of friends seemed to agree, but most everyone else is trying to ignore you. This only became a problem when that close group of friends started stealing lunch money, saying it "should have" been given to them.
So how can we determine what "should" be from a scientific basis if all study of these outliers is policed and censored like this?
This seems to be missing the point that would and should are objective vs whatever YOU and yours decided... Almost universally decided by religious or cultural dogma ... And not biology or science
The law and government doesn't get to decide this, as you say, it just is. How the law reacts to the scientific fact of the sex binary is a different matter.
Anyways I'm done with this conversation, the whole point was to tease out how absurd and non objective your argument was and I think I have achieved that well enough for others to read for themselves whether this circular logic makes sense or is just to rationalize bigotry.
Of course, they (meaning people who identify different than you think they “should”) also hand-wave everything away. The difference is they are… them. Their opinion on their identity is more important.
And if anything those who insist of forcing this newspeak onto others by attacking anyone that doesn't go along also fit your definition of being "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".
In the context of a loose generalisation that's pefectly fine.
However in the context of delivering public services to insist that all humans have two arms and two legs with five fingers/toes each with no exceptions is just wrong.
The term "pregnant women" is all that is necessary to describe pregnant women.
The term is perfectly inclusive. It includes everyone it should, women, trans men, etc, and nobody it shouldn’t, like raccoons.
Your term isn’t like that, which is why nobody uses it. Well, I bet vets might use it, it might make sense there.
So, the term "pregnant women" is sufficient.
The question then shifts to why you believe your interpretation of their identity is more valuable than their interpretation of their identity. This is where people really struggle to make their logic consistent. In my opinion, your interpretation is inherently less valuable because, well, you aren't them.
One may wish to look to some one true objective truth. It does not exist. Women and men is not clear-cut and has never been clear-cut. There are those who may have a uterus, ovaries, and XY chromosomes. Or testes and a vagina, with XX ovaries. Or maybe ovaries with XXY chromosomes.
We can hand-wave these people away, sure, but remember - you're competing with a perfectly inclusive term. If you hand-wave those people away then you admit your term isn't perfectly inclusive and is therefore worse, so we're back at square one.
Can you find one true external factor that determines a binary gender for every human who has existed, may exist, or is currently existing, with no exceptions? You may be tempted to answer - but I should warn you, it can, and will, be trivially disputed.
Or, you can skip all of this "pursuit of truth" nonsense and just say "pregnant people", which DOES encompass anyone who is pregnant and who has existed, or may exist, or is currently existing.
Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman. The mere utterance of words does not alter that material fact.
Also worth considering is just how contradictory it is for her to try to identify into a sex class that is, by definition, incapable of being pregnant.
Uh, no. Just according to you. “Woman” isn’t easy to just say like that, there’s no one definitive way to tell who is a woman.
I notice you didn’t point to any objective truth, most likely because you can’t. I think this conversation is way over your head, and I’m not going to try to convince people who do not have the mental capacity to understand what I’m saying.
Or, we can look at this from the other direction. Male sexual development does not result in a female reproductive system. Therefore this person is not a man.
You can perform this exercise of logic with any species that has individuals with different reproductive roles. For example: consider a chicken. This chicken lays eggs. From this we know that this chicken has a female reproductive system. Therefore this chicken must be a hen, not a cock.
Men cannot be pregnant, which is obvious from the fact that male sexual development does not produce a female reproductive system.
The term "pregnant people" is not just unnecessarily obfuscating but also linguistically erases the group of people who can actually be pregnant - that is, women.
(for reference: https://www.cdc.gov/womens-health/mhh-continuing-education/i...)
You can do the same thing without a tld of course: <original domain>.pubmirror.com (or whatever you want to use) is just about as easy despite an extra dot. My personal fqdn is even shorter than ".usgov"! The hard part is recreating/mirroring all the stuff.
IRC on the other hand....
It’s a major contributor to the fragmentation of the internet into information black holes along with the other “social” media.
It’s the wrong tool to organize an effort to maintain an open access repository of information.
I find IRC much easier, but I haven't used it in about 15 years.
not only domestic unfortunately. For 3 years Russian trolls were posting everywhere that US will abandon Ukraine like it happened with Afghanistan and Iraq, and today Trump stopped all the military aid to Ukraine, even the stuff that was already in Poland moving toward the Ukrainian border.
For that to happen, the US economy will need to collapse (likely, given the tariffs, dismantling of governments, alienation of all trade partners, and multiple incoming pandemics, including measles, bird flu and ebola).
However, the US will have to be a democracy in 12-24 months, and all of Trump’s actions suggest he thinks that’s unlikely.
And yet there always seems to be a stark contrast between what conservatives state they voted for versus what studies bear out in that regard. Basically every election in my politically aware history has come down to "the economy" and yet conservatives can see all time highs across many metrics and decry something as a "bad economy" and immediately switch positions as soon as their guy is elected even though nothing material has changed around the economy. Just like it was never about the price of eggs in the latest election. The price of eggs is just the most politically correct thing they could latch onto to justify their votes. All talk of egg prices went silent despite the price of eggs continuing to rise. It's almost like something else was the primary issue all along.
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/18/2016-election-race-class...
So it is accurate that for this subset of people, inflation has been destructive, in an absolute sense but especially in a relative sense. And it's this subset of people that broke for Trump, educational polarization is at an all time high and the racial purity of Trump's base eroded with Hispanics entering the coalition.
It is not inflation. Inflation is something they latch on when convenient.
Dems performed well among the people that benefited from inflation -- boomers who owned homes and the college educated who own assets.
Republicans performed well among the people who were harmed the most by it. Hispanics, and those without college degrees.
Incumbents everywhere, left or right wing, are falling because of inflation.
Broadly speaking, Trump claims that he has the power to tell any executive agency to not do anything under the "unitary executive" theory. Whether this holds or not is up to the courts to determine, but unless and until there is a stay, the executive agencies have to follow the EO.
This was following the deletion of the NLEAD database
Some people lick the boot by force, some do it because they like the taste of rubber. Do not confuse the two, they are VERY different.
https://www.vox.com/23899688/2024-election-republican-primar...
https://dailyboulder.com/lifelong-republican-receiving-death...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/27/republicans-...
German election official with about one and a half decades of experience here: That's helluvalot disturbing. This is mafia mentality, this is shit I'd expect out of Belarus (or Russia proper), not out of the US. At that point it might be a valid statement to say that China has fairer elections - they only got one party but at least to common knowledge at least the officials aren't getting direct death threats!
How can y'all expect fair elections to happen when there will be no one left to count, record and certify the votes and results?
In the 18th to 19th century American administrations weren't squeamish to outright use the army to gun down riots or insurrections. Influenced perhaps by the very literal "reading of the riot act" as an official threat to shoot entire crowds as an accepted thing. Attempt death threats to public officials then and the only question was if you would be shot or hanged for doing so. The appetite for that has been lost over time, perhaps related to Kent State and Tienanmen Square changing the optics from 'strong authority restoring order' to 'depraved psychopathic tyrannical government'.
Not that we need that level of violence, all that is really needed to is to give the Secret Service standard of treatment for death threats to the president handed down to all other lesser officials. If being tracked down and arrested was an absolute certainty instead of something they could think they could get away with.
https://archive.cdc.gov/#/details?url=https://www.cdc.gov/co...
> Politics (from Ancient Greek πολιτικά (politiká) 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of status or resources. — Wikipedia
It's about 6 pages so I won't copy it here, but this was guidance for doctors on issues like HIV prevention, contraception, fertility, and other issues, as well as datasets on which localities are most vulnerable due to social and environmental factors, and guidance on recruiting diverse populations for clinical trials.
Per the about page, which is linked right at the top of restoredcdc.org:
“ We are developing code to pull CDC pages which were archived by prior to January 20, 2025. Similar archives have been created by the End of Term (https://eotarchive.org) project and are hosted by the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org). The individual pages are archived, but links between them are broken and the pages are not easy to locate through web searches. Therefore, we will re-build the links between the pages, to create a site that can be navigated the same way the pre-January 21, 2025 CDC site. The only changes we will make on these pages is to add a header that indicates that this site is not a CDC website.”
I trust that this is true, but a cursory browsing through 2024 outbreaks, for example, shows the same information.
To your parent poster's point, it would be nice to have a damning example like "look at this thing that was taken down." Maybe such examples belong somewhere else, but it might help dissuade skeptics.
edit:
- “The Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance System”
- “Data and Statistics” for “Adolescent and School Health”
- “The Social Vulnerability Index”
- “The Environmental Justice Index”
- “PrEP for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the U.S.: 2021 Guideline Summary”
- “HIV Monitoring”
- “Getting Tested for HIV”
- “National ART Surveillance System (NASS)”
- “CDC Contraceptive Guidance for Health Care Providers”
- FDA webpages on “Study of Sex Differences in the Clinical Evaluation of Medical Products”
- “Diversity Action Plans to Improve Enrollment of Participants from Underrepresented Populations in Clinical Studies”
[1]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69608613/doctors-for-am...
This is retaliation against the CDC for implicitly saying you can protest racism in the streets, but cannot attend Thanksgiving with the extended family.
For the downvoters, prove me wrong. Many conservatives have never forgiven the CDC for this. And yes, it’s not reasonable, but when the CDC says vaccines are safe after a stunt like that, the gut response is to be contrarian.
Instead, we've heard things like, “In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.”
(FWIW I'm pretty far left and I think that COVID restrictions broadly made sense. I also believe that the protests had valid causes and would be perfectly reasonable if not for that whole ongoing epidemic thing.)
However, to the point about credibility among conservatives, even some drive-in Church services were shut down: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/08/08/cor...
I think if crowded outdoor marches were deemed safe, a drive-in church service should have as well.
Also how do we know we can trust whoever is running this site? Compared to the Internet Archive which has a long track record of reliably mirroring any page requested or crawled.
https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2022/i-almost-got-banned-h...
> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.
This is such a cliche, people have been saying it for almost two decades at this point.
https://www.reddit.com/r/devops/comments/diduoy/hacker_news_...