"Some of us go further, and even change our names, sexual orientations or genders."
Excuse me? I guarantee that no one "changes" sexual orientation or gender.
Worse, the writer compares and one's very identity to "hairstyles, careers, relationship statuses, and flirtations with fringe political movements."
I have no idea what was written beyond that because I stopped reading -- because I cannot gloss right over such incredibly ignorant, dangerous statements.
How was this hard slap in the face to the LGBTQ+ community not caught and edited or deleted?
I'm surprised, deeply dismayed, and wondering if I mistook what I thought was Techdirt's unwavering support for LGBTQ+ people.
Or was it just overlooked by the editors? And will it be corrected?
No, Josh Lowenthal, shame on you for letting your kids have unbridled access to the Internet. The rest of us are not your kids' f*cking babysitter, and we won't be punished for your lousy parenting. Maybe you should quit working, Josh, and stay home to parent your children.
How about because it infringes on my right as an adult to view whatever the hell I want without permission from a bunch of holier-than-thou moral arbiters?
You want to "protect children"? Instead of trying to make the rest of us live like a bunch of Carmelite nuns, be a parent and say, "No, Sonny Jim, you may not access Pornhub."
How hard is that?
Unless, of course, all this "Think of the children!" crap is just that -- crap -- and an excuse to get in another shot about imaginary "groomers."
But that's not your intention at all, is it?
Is it?
"And that user unfriendliness, in some weird way, acts as a moderation tool in its own right, by keeping communities somewhat smaller."
Not weird at all, but true -- and it also irritates the hell out of those of us capable but unwilling to invest our time and efforts into learning yet another new thing -- at least not until we learn if this new thing is going to stick around or suddenly go out like so much flash paper.
I see gatekeeping. And I'm not so sure I trust any platform under the rule of the guy who said he was certain Elon Musk was The One to usher Twitter into a new utopian paradise. Or something.
Mute still lets them see your posts. That's not good enough. By blocking, you not only remove them from your line of vision, but you remove yourself from their crosshairs. Without blocking, Twitter is unmanageable for people in the crosshairs every minute: LGBTQ+, POC, women, Jews, atheists, Muslims, and everybody else who isn't a Musk fanboi.
So this is how how he's going to get rid of any remaining marginalized folks still hanging around. Twitter is unusable without blocks -- unless you enjoy being harassed by genuine Nazis and other trolls who delight in causing discord and distress.
You know, the ship that's been docked in Long Beach for decades? Yeah, well, back in the 1990s, when everybody was building a website for the first time, the Queen Mary website actually stated that it was prohibited to link to the site. Yes, you read that right: prohibited to post a link to their website on any other website. I have no idea why (or what the "or else" might have led to), but I'm sure the misguided thinking behind it used the same ludicrous illogic and/or anti-tech paranoia driving these ridiculous link tax bills.
The billionaires are gatekeepers to AI because they fear economic democratization.
Why, if you or I could live comfortably without fear of being replaced and ruined at any moment, Elmo's bunker inside Twitter HQ would be worth less! And its owner would be less special! Somehow!
That's the way it works with everything, folks, from money to civil rights: People don't want you to have the same things they have because they think they'll somehow be poorer because of it.
It's bullshit, and it keeps all boats from rising, but that's how people think.
"Well, ideally the working classes will be, let’s say… living on a farm upstate where they can run and play all day."
Excuse me? Correct my understanding if it's mistaken, but exactly what are you saying here? That the working classes are a bunch of "useless feeders" that should be put down like sick dogs, or what? Because that's exactly what it sounds like.
In a few short years, this ad bar thing will be featured in some clickbait listicle titled "What Were These Crrrrrazy Inventors Thinking?!?!" right alongside Google Glass and lawn darts.
And... "Sit down"? Who are you, my dad?
"The queers"? Wow. Just wow. And do you speak for the author?
"Change sexual orientations or genders"?
"Some of us go further, and even change our names, sexual orientations or genders." Excuse me? I guarantee that no one "changes" sexual orientation or gender. Worse, the writer compares and one's very identity to "hairstyles, careers, relationship statuses, and flirtations with fringe political movements." I have no idea what was written beyond that because I stopped reading -- because I cannot gloss right over such incredibly ignorant, dangerous statements. How was this hard slap in the face to the LGBTQ+ community not caught and edited or deleted? I'm surprised, deeply dismayed, and wondering if I mistook what I thought was Techdirt's unwavering support for LGBTQ+ people. Or was it just overlooked by the editors? And will it be corrected?
Introduce her to the freecasters -- Pluto, Tubi, Crackle, Freevee, etc. -- and see what she thinks.
You can't shame anyone who has no sense of shame. Karl Popper (and I) would agree with your first sentence, though.
No, Josh Lowenthal, shame on you for letting your kids have unbridled access to the Internet. The rest of us are not your kids' f*cking babysitter, and we won't be punished for your lousy parenting. Maybe you should quit working, Josh, and stay home to parent your children.
Yacc, is that you?
How about because it infringes on my right as an adult to view whatever the hell I want without permission from a bunch of holier-than-thou moral arbiters? You want to "protect children"? Instead of trying to make the rest of us live like a bunch of Carmelite nuns, be a parent and say, "No, Sonny Jim, you may not access Pornhub." How hard is that? Unless, of course, all this "Think of the children!" crap is just that -- crap -- and an excuse to get in another shot about imaginary "groomers." But that's not your intention at all, is it? Is it?
"And that user unfriendliness, in some weird way, acts as a moderation tool in its own right, by keeping communities somewhat smaller." Not weird at all, but true -- and it also irritates the hell out of those of us capable but unwilling to invest our time and efforts into learning yet another new thing -- at least not until we learn if this new thing is going to stick around or suddenly go out like so much flash paper. I see gatekeeping. And I'm not so sure I trust any platform under the rule of the guy who said he was certain Elon Musk was The One to usher Twitter into a new utopian paradise. Or something.
Huffman essentially told Reddit: "Calm down. And you should smile more."
Mute still lets them see your posts. That's not good enough. By blocking, you not only remove them from your line of vision, but you remove yourself from their crosshairs. Without blocking, Twitter is unmanageable for people in the crosshairs every minute: LGBTQ+, POC, women, Jews, atheists, Muslims, and everybody else who isn't a Musk fanboi.
So this is how how he's going to get rid of any remaining marginalized folks still hanging around. Twitter is unusable without blocks -- unless you enjoy being harassed by genuine Nazis and other trolls who delight in causing discord and distress.
Reminds me of the Queen Mary.
You know, the ship that's been docked in Long Beach for decades? Yeah, well, back in the 1990s, when everybody was building a website for the first time, the Queen Mary website actually stated that it was prohibited to link to the site. Yes, you read that right: prohibited to post a link to their website on any other website. I have no idea why (or what the "or else" might have led to), but I'm sure the misguided thinking behind it used the same ludicrous illogic and/or anti-tech paranoia driving these ridiculous link tax bills.
The billionaires are gatekeepers to AI because they fear economic democratization. Why, if you or I could live comfortably without fear of being replaced and ruined at any moment, Elmo's bunker inside Twitter HQ would be worth less! And its owner would be less special! Somehow! That's the way it works with everything, folks, from money to civil rights: People don't want you to have the same things they have because they think they'll somehow be poorer because of it. It's bullshit, and it keeps all boats from rising, but that's how people think.
Say again?
"Well, ideally the working classes will be, let’s say… living on a farm upstate where they can run and play all day." Excuse me? Correct my understanding if it's mistaken, but exactly what are you saying here? That the working classes are a bunch of "useless feeders" that should be put down like sick dogs, or what? Because that's exactly what it sounds like.
The locks.
First thought: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. Second thought: Ghost Ship warehouse.
There are no consequences for the rich. Not anymore.
In a few short years, this ad bar thing will be featured in some clickbait listicle titled "What Were These Crrrrrazy Inventors Thinking?!?!" right alongside Google Glass and lawn darts.
You're missing the point.
The law is unconstitutional. We need to kill it, not make accommodations for it. You keep playing their game, and you'll end up without a VPN too.
Maybe it was written by ChatGPT, which usually appears far more introspective, empathetic, and intelligent than many police officers. (I said "many.")