"oh but the Fediverse will never become mainstream if we don't do this"
Literally don't care. My feed has so much awesome content from intelligent and creative and funny people I don't need a barrage of bore from a bunch of pre-programmed flesh robots. That doesn't add anything for me.
Literally don't care. My feed has so much awesome content from intelligent and creative and funny people I don't need a barrage of bore from a bunch of pre-programmed flesh robots. That doesn't add anything for me.
I have a conception of anti depressants as emotional morphine.
If you have a giant gash, morphine will help it stop hurting, but you've still got a giant gash, and it'll bleed out or get infected so you need to treat it or the patient will die even if they don't feel any pain.
If you don't feel any pain, you will go swimming with that gash, or go for a hike with two broken legs. Not healthy.
If you have a giant gash, morphine will help it stop hurting, but you've still got a giant gash, and it'll bleed out or get infected so you need to treat it or the patient will die even if they don't feel any pain.
If you don't feel any pain, you will go swimming with that gash, or go for a hike with two broken legs. Not healthy.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WH5xOTtFq_M
For real. Good guys are bombarded by messages saying women probably don't want them and they're bad people for assuming they do. As a result, good guys will always err towards assuming they're imagining things.
For real. Good guys are bombarded by messages saying women probably don't want them and they're bad people for assuming they do. As a result, good guys will always err towards assuming they're imagining things.
Important to remember that although some Republicans have found the benefits of Freedom, they're still the ones who were doing the same thing the woke are doing with respect to banning speech they don't like just a generation ago.
Apparently in a recent study, 51% of Canadians claim they'd vote to become a republic and drop ties to a monarchy if a referendum happened.
When Elizabeth was the queen, I would have leaned slightly royalist, and with Charles as King I probably lean slightly Republican, but I'd be fine either way.
When Elizabeth was the queen, I would have leaned slightly royalist, and with Charles as King I probably lean slightly Republican, but I'd be fine either way.
I recall that many of these groups are funded by oil companies.
Probably because insane people destroying art to advocate for genocide are good optics...for the other side.
Probably because insane people destroying art to advocate for genocide are good optics...for the other side.
So... funny story...
I was making this post with a bunch of famous Dick pics, but I couldn't think of other famous people named Dick, so I decided to search for "celebrity dick".
It was at that point... that I realized... I fucked up. Don't search for that if you're looking for pictures like the ones below. It won't work.
I was making this post with a bunch of famous Dick pics, but I couldn't think of other famous people named Dick, so I decided to search for "celebrity dick".
It was at that point... that I realized... I fucked up. Don't search for that if you're looking for pictures like the ones below. It won't work.
If we all knew everything already there would be no need for discussion.
That goes for me too. I'd stop having discussions online if I felt like I had stopped learning anything from it.
That goes for me too. I'd stop having discussions online if I felt like I had stopped learning anything from it.
The original intent was to promote content moderation. They wanted to make sure that platforms were safe to moderate objectionable materials. Just take a look at the name of the act, the communications decency act.
One thing to keep in mind is that the Fediverse isn't just an American thing, and CDA 230 is only an American law.
That being said, people mistakenly think that CDA 230 protects platforms from the consequences of free speech that occurs on them, but that's not accurate: It protects platforms from the consequences of moderation, both by protecting them from liability for moderation and for protecting them from liability for failing to moderate.
Prior to CDA 230, two cases tested liability in the case of platforms mdoerating or not moderating their content.
CompuServe and Prodigy both offered online forums, but CompuServe chose not to moderate, while Prodigy did.
CompuServe was sued over content on their forums, and the case was dismissed. Prodigy, however, got in trouble. The judge in their case ruled that “they exercised editorial control — so you’re more like a newspaper than a newsstand”.
I suspect that in many cases around the world the law would look the same, since it doesn't make sense to hold for example a 7-11 liable for the content of the newspapers they sell.
That being said, people mistakenly think that CDA 230 protects platforms from the consequences of free speech that occurs on them, but that's not accurate: It protects platforms from the consequences of moderation, both by protecting them from liability for moderation and for protecting them from liability for failing to moderate.
Prior to CDA 230, two cases tested liability in the case of platforms mdoerating or not moderating their content.
CompuServe and Prodigy both offered online forums, but CompuServe chose not to moderate, while Prodigy did.
CompuServe was sued over content on their forums, and the case was dismissed. Prodigy, however, got in trouble. The judge in their case ruled that “they exercised editorial control — so you’re more like a newspaper than a newsstand”.
I suspect that in many cases around the world the law would look the same, since it doesn't make sense to hold for example a 7-11 liable for the content of the newspapers they sell.
Unfortunately, many people have been cheering for the crushing of dissent because it's been policies they agree with being dissented against.
Unprincipled people never imagine that it may someday be things they agree with being crushed.
Unprincipled people never imagine that it may someday be things they agree with being crushed.
I've written about something similar, that really what "freedom of religion" is, is an appeal to morality. In the 18th century, religion still made up the bulk of someone's moral foundation, so if you're given some latitude based on your religion, that means you're free not to participate in things that are fundamentally immoral to you.
In this way, the reduction in religion has led to a fundamental dissolution of one of our fundamental rights because while there is a freedom of religion, there is no secular equivalent. This means that in losing religion, we've also lost a fundamental right to appeal to deeply held moral beliefs and refuse to follow laws we feel unjust.
In this way, the reduction in religion has led to a fundamental dissolution of one of our fundamental rights because while there is a freedom of religion, there is no secular equivalent. This means that in losing religion, we've also lost a fundamental right to appeal to deeply held moral beliefs and refuse to follow laws we feel unjust.
I've heard the term "anarcho-tyranny" thrown around.
Friends of the regime are never charged as they literally rape and murder, but God help you if you defend yourself, because you'll be tied to a stake and set on fire.
Friends of the regime are never charged as they literally rape and murder, but God help you if you defend yourself, because you'll be tied to a stake and set on fire.
On the upside, at least they're apparently staffed enough to hurl spurious charges at their political enemies.