In the next stage of the Creative Australia Venice Biennale saga, the federal arts funding agency announced that governance advisory firm Blackhall and Pearl will undertake a review “into the governance and decision-making process for the Venice Biennale 2026.” When the media release was put out there were lots of questions arising as to why the apparent scope of the review did not include the decision to rescind the agreement with artist Khaled Sabsabi and curator Michael Dagostino to present Australia’s exhibition at the Venice Biennale 2026.

According to ArtsHub Creative Australia later clarified that “The review will consider the Board’s decision not to proceed with the artistic team. This forms part of the review into overall end to end processes and governance. It will not consider the merits of the decision.” Even so, there are plenty of other questions to ask.

Dr Ben Eltham asked some good ones. Who specifically is doing the review? Will the Board or CEO step aside during the review? Is excluding the merits of the decision likely to skew the review before it even starts? Richard Watts, writing in the ArtsHub article, also added that the appointed company does not seem to have any prior arts clients.

The announcement comes the day after an open letter was delivered to Arts Minister Tony Burke MP signed by over 400 artists, curators, arts workers, and community members who collectively express a vote of no confidence in Creative Australia CEO Adrian Collette and Chair of the Board Robert Morgan. The signatories are calling for “The immediate reinstatement of the selected team, Khaled Sabsabi and Michael Dagostino, as representatives of Australia at Venice Biennale 2026” and for Collette and Morgan to standdown. They also call for an apology to Sabsabi and Dagostino and a commitment by the agency to ensure no Venice artist is subjected to the same treatment and that the organisation’s Board makeup includes at least 50 percent artists.

What’s worth reading on the announcement and rescinding of Sabsabi’s exhibition at the Venice Biennale 2026:

Appointment of Blackhall and Pearl

Friday 14 March 2025

Creative Australia

Governance advisory firm appointed to review Creative Australia’s 2026 Venice Biennale process

Richard Watts – Friday 14 March 2025

ArtsHub

Exclusive: Letter to the Minister for the Arts, Tony Burke MP: Reinstate Khaled and rebuild trust in Creative Australia

Reinstate Khaled Collective – Friday 14 March 2025

ArtsHub

More to read on the things mentioned in this listing:

Arts & politics ⌇ Artistic freedom ⌇ Creative Australia ⌇ Government arts funding

In an interview with The Australian ⟨ the article is behind a paywall, sorry! ⟩ Adelaide Festival’s outgoing director, Brett Sheehy, has critisied parts of the Australian arts sector for pursuing “selective diversity” at the expense of wider, more mainstream audiences. Sheehy claims, “We have been championing … diversity but it’s been a fairly selective diversity. It’s been a diversity of identity – of gender, sexuality, ability, neuro-diversity, ableism, certainly race,” and asks, “Have we shut out 50 per cent of humanity in our focus on those things? Do we need to start to ­address diversity of religion, ideology, politics, more socio-economic diversity, because the arts do not tend to be … a cheap pursuit.”

Sheehy went on to say that for true diversity ⟨ Sheehy’s words ⟩ in the arts, the sector needs to do more to include audiences from different classes and with different levels of educational attainment. Certainly, when you look at Creative Australia’s Population Segmentation Model there is definitely more work to be done given many of the people Sheehy seems to be talking about are likely to fall into the ‘hard to target’ segments. With low ranks on the Behavioural and Attitudinal Indexes, I wonder what arts products and marketing mixThe unique combination of marketing elements – Product, Price, Place, Promotion, People, Process and Physical Evidence – a company or brand uses to support their marketing efforts. Learn more  → will motivate them to participate? And who is making such products? Given who makes up the more attractive segments – and that authentic representation helps them see themselves on stage and screen – the kind of diversity initiatives Sheehy is decrying make sense.

That said, I do think strategic marketingThe unique ways a company or brand communicates marketing messages to potential customers. Learn more  → decisions such as ticket price and choice of venue play an important part in arts experiences. I don’t disagree that class is largely left out of how the arts thinks about itself. But, I wonder why Sheehy is viewing this as an ‘either/or’? Not every arts product is or should be ‘for everyone’, but more sophistication in arts marketing practice – specifically in the creation of targeted marketing messages – would go a long way to making the majority of arts offers meaningful to different audience segments.

Interestingly, a few weeks ago I wrote about growing concern in the UK that there is a lack of class diversity in arts leadership. I think class diversity here in Australia should be looked at in terms of audiences and the creative workforce recruitment.

What’s worth reading on class in arts audiences:

‘Selective’ identity focus may cost half of audiences: arts chief

Rosemary Neill – Friday 14 March 2025

The Australian

Changing organisations to diversify arts audiences: Summary of findings from national survey

Hilary Glow, Anne Kershaw, Katya Johanson, Abbie Trott, Tracy Margieson, Mark Taylor, Wesley Enoch – 2023

Deakin University

Australian arts organisations have done little to diversify white, middle-class audience, study finds

Kelly Burke – Friday 21 July 2023

The Guardian

More to read on the things mentioned in this listing:

Arts & culture ⌇ Arts & diversity ⌇ Marketing the arts

A naïve look at DOGE would argue the government efficiency agency is supposed to reduce wasteful government spending and removing ‘unncessary’ regulation and bureaucracy to promote efficiency in government. More realistically, it is a bad-faith attempt to reduce the size and cost of government for ideological reasons and to be able to realise promised tax cuts for high net-wealth constituents and US corporations.

As the coals smoulder after the initial slash-and-burn operations we are getting a picture of what the real impacts of DOGE are. As the hardest hit US federal agencies come to terms with what human resources and budgetary cuts means for their ability to deliver on their mandates what is left is not government efficiency. To illustrate, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) felt forced to request a US District Court Judge push back the start of its deceptive conduct case against Amazon, citing “staffing and budgetary shortfalls” as the reason. The matter will seek to determine if Amazon deceived customers into taking out Prime subscriptions and made it near impossible to cancel them once signed up.

While the FTC has since backflipped and now says it is ready to proceed, it had earlier been asking the court for an extra two months. At the time, Amazon didn’t think that was necessary and is likely pleased the case will go ahead on schedule. It is unclear what changed the FTC’s psoition, but it is likely Amazon think the FTC will be the least prepared as possible. It is hard not to see it that way given FTC attorney Jonathan Cohen had told FTC’s attorney, Jonathan Cohen that the DOGE imposed $1 cap on government credit card spending head meant the agency “may not be able to purchase the transcript from Wednesday’s hearing.”

We can expect to see similar issues arise for ther FTC and Department of Justice (DOJ) cases against Big Tech, and at other federal agencies. When this is the operating reality for regulatory bodies, it is impossible to say that DOGE’s actions have made the US government for efficient and effective.

This comes as more questions are raised about the legality of the Trump Administration and DOGE’s actions. Many of these are making their way to court. In fact, according the the US ABC News, the administration is involved in more than 100 lawsuits since Trump’s inauguration – that is three cases for every business day since coming back into office. A comment by Reagan-nominated US District Judge John Coughenour in hearing a matter against the executive order on birthright citizenship is particularly telling:

“It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. There are moments in the world’s history when people look back and ask, ‘Where were the lawyers, where were the judges?’ In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon go dark today.”

Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration is challenging Coughenour’s decision and injunctions ordered in two similar cases against the executive order.

While it may take months or years for the court cases to conclude, the court of public opinion seems to be moving more quickly against DOGE. A recent YouGov poll asking Americans whether different US Government agencies should be expanded, kept the same, reduced or eliminated saw 29 percent of respondents say DOGE should be eliminated, with a further eight percent saying it should be reduced.

Image: A screenshot of results from a YouGov poll about US government agencies and departments. Source: YouGov. © YouGov 2025. View full credit information.

Together that is 37 percent of respondents, up 3 percent from a YouGov poll asking the same question one week earlier. Even as Trump continues to praise Musk’s work – going so far as to say that DOGE’s cost-cutting measures could be Musk’s greatest accomplishment, even outshining his efforts at Tesla and SpaceX – he did reigning in Musk’s authority (even if just a little).

Maybe the worst days of DOGE are soon to be over?

What’s worth reading on the impacts of DOGE on the US federal government:

FTC reverses, says it’s ready for trial on Amazon’s allegedly deceptive sign-ups

Ashley Belanger – Thursday 13 March 2025

Ars Technica

What’s worth reading on sabotage of undersea infrastrucutre:

Trump administration hit with over 100 lawsuits since inauguration

Peter Charalambous – Thursday 6 March 2025

ABC News, ABC News Network

Many Trump Administration Personnel Actions Are Unlawful

David A. Super – Friday 14 February 2025

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Support for DOGE Declining, Poll Shows

Joe Edwards – Thursday 27 February 2025

Newsweek

Trump puts new limits on Elon Musk’s authority amid backlash to DOGE cuts

Nnamdi Egwuonwu – Friday 7 March 2025

NBC News, NBCUniversal News Group

More to read on the things mentioned in this listing:

Amazon ⌇ Big Tech & monopolies ⌇ Big Tech court cases ⌇ Donald Trump ⌇ Elon Musk ⌇ Trump’s assault on the US government

Mark Zuckerberg seems to be taking the proverb ‘the clothes maketh the man’ too literally. His self-styled t-shirts emblazoned with obnoxious classical statements say so much about how he sees himself. Maybe the most telling was the black on black number he wore for the keynote at Meta Connect 2024 which read Aut Zuck aut nihil or ‘Zuck or nothing’.

Image: Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg wearing the Aut Zuck aut nihil t-shirt during Meta Connect in 2024. Source: Meta. © Meta 2024. View full credit information.

Even though the fact that Mark Zuckerberg wants to wear this and other t-shirts like it should concern all users of Meta platforms, I did really enjoy reading about Bluesky CEO Jay Graber throwing shade at Zuckerberg by wearing an parody t-shirt that reads Mundus sine Caesaribus or ‘A world without Caesars’.

Image: A photo of Bluesky CEO Jay Graber wearing a t-shirt that reads Mundus sine Caesaribus. Photographer: Samantha Burkardt. Source: Getty Images/SXSW Conference & Festivals. View full credit information.

Not only does it throw shade at Zuckerberg’s weird obsession with classical phrases and Caesar, but it also sends a clear message about the fundamental difference Bluesky and the fediverse platforms bring to social media: prioritising users over business models. This commitment is coded in:

“If a billionaire tried to ruin things,” Graber said of Bluesky, “users could just leave — without losing their identity or data.” Bluesky’s open protocol gives users the ability to “fork off” the network if needed, Graber added.”

Whether it was the Mundus sine Caesaribus slogan itself, or the wider paradigm-shifting message behind Bluesky, people were picking up what Graber was putting down. By popular demand Bluesky started selling the t-shirt to support the AT Protocol developer ecosystem. They sold out in 30 minutes!

worldwithoutcaesars.com

[image or embed]

— Bluesky (@bsky.app) March 14, 2025 at 4:39 AM

Social media content: Bluesky’s post announcing an online store for Mundus sine Caesaribus t-shirts.

What’s worth reading on Jay Graber’s Zuckerberg parody shirt:

Bluesky CEO: imagine a ‘world without Caesars’

Chance Townsend – Monday 10 March 2025

Mashable

Bluesky quickly sold out of the T-shirt its CEO wore to troll Mark Zuckerberg

Amanda Silberling – Thursday 13 March 2025

TechCrunch

What does Mark Zuckerberg’s shirt say?

Amanda Silberling – Wednesday 25 September 2024

TechCrunch

More to read on the things mentioned in this listing:

AT Protocol ⌇ Big Tech ⌇ Bluesky ⌇ The fediverse ⌇ Jay Graber ⌇ Mark Zuckerberg

With the Chinese government stating its ambition to see China lead the world in AI innovation by 2030 the US–China AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → war is just beginning. OpenAI recognises the threat and has used a response to a Trump ordered Artificial Intelligence Action Plan to express their thoughts and criticise their Chinese competitor DeepSeekA Chinese AI company that caused a stir in January 2025 with two LLMs that challenged Sillicon Valley’s AI dominance. Learn more  →. There’s a lot in their submission but this quote gives you the crux of it:

“… there is significant risk in building on top of DeepSeekA Chinese AI company that caused a stir in January 2025 with two LLMs that challenged Sillicon Valley’s AI dominance. Learn more  → models in critical infrastructure and other high-risk use cases given the potential that DeepSeekA Chinese AI company that caused a stir in January 2025 with two LLMs that challenged Sillicon Valley’s AI dominance. Learn more  → could be compelled by the CCP [the Chinese Communist Party] to manipulate its models to cause harm. And because DeepSeekA Chinese AI company that caused a stir in January 2025 with two LLMs that challenged Sillicon Valley’s AI dominance. Learn more  → is simultaneously state-subsidized, state-controlled, and freely available, the cost to its users is their privacy and security, as DeepSeekA Chinese AI company that caused a stir in January 2025 with two LLMs that challenged Sillicon Valley’s AI dominance. Learn more  → faces requirements under Chinese law to comply with demands for user data and uses it to train more capable systems for the CCP’s use. Their models also more willingly generate how-to’s for illicit and harmful activities such as identity fraud and intellectual property theft, a reflection of how the CCP views violations of American IP rights as a feature, not a flaw.”

Importantly, OpenAI doesn’t provide any evidence that DeepSeekA Chinese AI company that caused a stir in January 2025 with two LLMs that challenged Sillicon Valley’s AI dominance. Learn more  → is subsidised by or controlled by the CCP or the People’s Republic of China (PRC), or that the CCP or PRC has or is likely to ask DeepSeekA Chinese AI company that caused a stir in January 2025 with two LLMs that challenged Sillicon Valley’s AI dominance. Learn more  → to cause harm, violate users’ rights or act in any other unethical way. In many ways, that doesn’t even matter. If OpenAI can spook enough policymakers and the public into believing such things are possible then they will get what they want. And they aren’t shy about saying what that is. They encourage the US government to consider banning DeepSeek’s models and any other model supported by the CCP/PRC. To that end, it is unsurprising (and is very obvious!) that they attempt to position themselves and other US-made AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → in opposition, grouping them using the term ‘democratic AI’.

Another AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → skirmish worth watching is the one emerging between Brave Software and News Corp. ⟨ There’s a bit to this so bear with me! ⟩ It is widely accepted that scraping and indexing web content by search engines is not a copyright infringement and is necessary for search engines to function. As more search services introduce AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → summaries to search results, it begs the question, are AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → summaries also a fair use under US copyright law? Who knows? But a case brought by Brave against News Corp and some of its subsidiaries aims to get an answer.

Brave has initiated the legal action in an attempt to head off potential legal action threatened by News Corp who issued Brave with a cease-and-desist letter for generating AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → summaries of content published on News Corp mastheads’ websites using content scraped and indexed from the sites. News Corp also asserts that Brave is benefiting financially from the inclusion of scraped News Corp content in its search index that Brave licenses to third parties through its Search API.

Brave and News Corp have exchanged fire, with Brave accusing the media giant of “anticompetitive bullying” and News Corp CEO Robert Thomson saying, “There is absolutely no ‘safe harbor’ for piratical, parasitical practices flimsily disguised as traditional ‘search’.” Brave claims that, if News Corp position is allowed it will make it impossible for new entrants into the search engine market.

What’s worth reading on OpenAI’s claims against DeepSeekA Chinese AI company that caused a stir in January 2025 with two LLMs that challenged Sillicon Valley’s AI dominance. Learn more  →:

OpenAI calls DeepSeek ‘state-controlled,’ calls for bans on ‘PRC-produced’ models

Kyle Wiggers – Thursday 13 March 2025

TechCrunch

OpenAI submission to the Office of Science and Technology Policy in response to the invitation for public comment on a US Artificial Intelligence Action Plan

Thursday 13 March 2025

OpenAI

What’s worth reading on the emerging spat between News Corp and Brave:

We did not have Brave clashing with Rupert Murdoch on our 2025 bingo card, but there it is

Thomas Claburn – Thursday 13 March 2025

The Register

More to read on the things mentioned in this listing:

AI (artificial intelligence) ⌇ Brave Software ⌇ ChatGPT ⌇ Copyright & AI ⌇ Copyright court cases ⌇ DeepSeek ⌇ News Corp ⌇ OpenAI

A new tell-all book called Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams, a former director of public policy at Meta, reveals the personality cult behind the social media giant. Given Zuckerberg and Meta have become the new cheerleaders for free speech – or at least Trump’s flavour of free speech – there’s a horendous irony that the company is using a non-disparagement clause in Wynn-Williams’ severance agreement to suppress the book. The company even sought a determination from the Emergency International Arbitration Tribunal to enforce the clause. That determination compels Wynn-Williams to stop promoting the book, do everything in her power to stop its publication, and retract all comments “disparaging, critical or otherwise detrimental” about Meta.

Funnily enough, that determination only mentions Wynn-Williams, and not the book’s publisher, Flatiron Books, an imprint of Macmillan. They have come out hard criticising Meta for trying to censor Wynn-Williams and stating their commitment to the book.

Macmillan Publisher’s response to the arbitration order filed by Meta regarding our book Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams, which released Tuesday.

[image or embed]

— Flatiron Books (@flatironbooks.bsky.social) March 14, 2025 at 4:11 AM

Social media content: Flatiron Books’ Bluesky post in support of Sarah Wynn-Williams and Careless People.

Meta also has been on a PR offensive, reaching out to mastheads such as WIRED to find out if they had heard of it and attempting to debunk it. Of course, it is likely Meta has just initiated the Streisand effect in their efforts to censor Wynn-Williams and the book. I also hadn’t heard of it. I haven’t read it yet, but I have bought a copy of the ebook. No one gets off squeeky clean – Wynn-Williams included – but it does make you wonder why Meta is going so hard to quiet the book?

What’s worth reading on Meta trying to censor Careless People:

Whistleblower’s exposé of the cult of Zuckerberg reveals peril of power-crazy tech bros

John Naughton – Sunday 16 March 2025

The Observer

Meta Tries to Bury a Tell-All Book

Jyoti Mann – Saturday 22 February 2025

Business Insider

Meta Tries to Bury a Tell-All Book

Steven Levy – Friday 14 March 2025

Plaintext newsletter, WIRED

More to read on the things mentioned in this listing:

Big Tech ⌇ Mark Zuckerberg ⌇ Meta