Maybe Facebook can create an AI that also sends thoughts and prayers to whoever needs it. It's also probably easier because most people remember why they need the thoughts and prayers.
ya. At 26-70 accounts you don't even need a VPS, there are free VPNs, free temporary emails, and temporary phone numbers you can buy. this could be any angry chinese person or a teenager.
Being anti-china gets people riled up. I'm guessing it's the same in China when they want to divert the attention.
50 western accounts on <chinese-social-media-site> said 'China Bad' at the same time.
Russia asked to block Putin's rivals apps. Google and Apple complied. The only people who could side-load it were Android users. I guess that's good for Democracy, right? because Apple said so…
You know what, you got me there. Cloudflare is free at any time to add "don't bully people into committing suicide" to its list of rules, at least that way the rule can be applied fairly instead of in a reactionary way.
8.In hindsight, it's easy to give advice to others on their flaws than making it a reality on your own. Making a list really sells it to people.
9.Stop making products, start writing personal development/marketing books that contain things that seem obvious in your head but you've never really tried it yourself.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
other distributions don't have those problems because they have no where near the user base.
serious information is for people who crosscheck their information, academically through books or through additional research. No place on the Internet is for serious information on it's own.
Several of the alternative video distribution systems can be self-hosted since they are based around P2P video distribution (PeerTube uses webtorrent, odysee uses LBRY) so it will be possible to get around censorship as long as the network providers keep from colluding with the censors to keep out content which does not fit the desired narrative. Even if they do there are ways to get around this censorship but this makes it harder for normal users to access the content.
That bit about serious information being for people who cross-check information etc. would work if they were allowed to access all sources, something which is made difficult by certain viewpoints being blocked by several of the largest distribution platforms.
What you say about "no place on the 'net being for serious information on its own" is not necessarily true, as long as the above conditions are met - i.e. no network-level censorship - it is possible to present an overview of the current level of understanding on a subject. This used to be the case in scientific journals, nearly all of which are available online. The SARS2-pandemic made short shrift with this reliability when many of the journals started to align with the desired narrative, sometimes by simply refusing to publish studies which went against the narrative [X], sometimes by actively publishing false studies [1,2].
[X| here there would be links to papers on the seemingly proven efficacy of Ivermectin, the potentially useful nature of Hydroxychloroquine, the "statistical certainty" of the virus having escaped from the Wuhan institute of virology, etc. Alas, there are no such links since the journals refused the articles even though they were written by people with a proven scientific background and came with a bevy of evidence. Had the articles been published they could have been discussed in the open and their contents thereby proven or disproven without fear of retribution or cancellation since the works appeared in well-known and -respected journals. Now this is impossible, those who try to bring up articles published in less well-known journals or aggregators like arXiv often find themselves accused of quackery - which was the purpose of forcing those articles to be published there. For the respected journals this is a case of 'mission complete but reputation tarnished'.
no one is stopping you to pay for this superior alternative to 'clunkier' offerings. but to say he came up with the 'solution' is disingenuous.
I'm seeing people saying 'this is amazing. I will pay for this' without even having tried it or any alternatives. I don't know about you but doesn't seem natural.
