Specifically, Elon is a child of apartheid.
What sucks is that corporations are very efficient at becoming friends with politicians, especially in the American system which is practically designed to keep them from preventing it until it's too late, and using them to help normalize their sociopathy.
In the interview, Huffman also praised the cost-cutting by Twitter owner Elon Musk, calling the reduced headcount there an example of how a social media site can be profitable without the massive revenue of a company like Google.You're citing freaking Elon Musk's Twitter as your example of how a social media site can be profitable?!? That may be the biggest sign yet that Huffman should be fired.
"But the path forward was obvious for years, it just required shaking off corruption." Oh sure, so simple. If it was that easy to fix corruption in our government we'd be living in a utopia.
Why are so many Democratic politicians so often shown to be so bad at their jobs and so willing to take right-wing think tank nonsense at face value? It can't possibly be that they're really Republicans or otherwise more interested in the appearance of resisting theocratic fascist oligarchy while actually greasing the path to it than actually resisting it, can it?
Even if pornography addiction was a thing, trying to "solve" it by banning pornography is like trying to "solve" alcoholism or drug addiction by banning alcohol or drugs. Wait...
(Psst, I think you start to refer to "Irwin" by last name without introducing her properly first, unless I'm missing something.)
Ah, so that's where they got the idea for how copyright law should be rigged in their favor!
My understanding is that British Summer Time is not the same as Greenwich Mean Time; GMT does not follow DST so GMT and UTC are effectively interchangeable. Which I suppose would mean, from your perspective, that there's no reason to use GMT at all.
They are members of the in-group, they should get to say whatever they want. Journalists and marginalized groups are part of the out-group, they should not get to say anything the in-group doesn't like. You can't get them to see the hypocrisy because at base level, the only thing that matters is whether the in-group is being bound or the out-group is being protected.
Also, from what I understand old-fashioned letters to the editor at local newspapers are still surprisingly effective at reaching congresscritters, maybe even more so than sending messages directly to them, at least if they get published.
What might help the most is to try to find some suicide prevention/"think of the children" groups that can be convinced that the bill could actually hurt children and can be galvanized to organize against it.
And of course, it took a freaking war to get the Thirteenth Amendment passed...
And they wonder why they struggle to win elections against waves at entire modern Republican Party...
But, of course, almost no one wants to speak out against KOSA, because the media and politicians trot out parents who went through a truly traumatic experience, and no one wants to be seen as the person who is said to be standing in the way of that. But the simple fact is that KOSA will not magically prevent suicides. It might actually lead to more.Seems like it should be simple enough to warn about KOSA potentially leading to more suicides rather than less? But of course, the problem isn't just the media's tendency for emotional appeals, but its almost willful cluelessness about the Internet and refusal to platform voices that know anything about it, almost like what they're really trying to do is tear down or subvert the technology that broke their twentieth-century business models...
Masnick makes an appearance presenting the top-comments post! I suppose with how "special" this week has been...
To be fair, you assume they know anything whatsoever about Google and the Internet other than "Google bad".
At this point, I wonder if this ends with Musk saying that yes, he really didn't understand what he was signing, he would have been a fool and an idiot, or else not in his right mind, to sign it if he did, and that since he either didn't sign what he thought he was signing or wasn't fit to soberly and informedly sign it, the whole thing should be nullified. Elon gets out of the deal, Twitter gets out of being run by him and his weird ideas of how to run it (remember those?), Twitter shareholders don't get their $54.20 but don't have to worry about anything being wrong with the company that Elon could present as the reason for cancelling the sale and can tell themselves the whole thing happened because of how mercurial Elon is and nothing having to do with the value of the company itself, everyone wins. The only thing it would cost Elon is anyone having any trust in him being able to competently, rationally, and consistently run a company, anticipate the consequences of his actions, or avoid being taken advantage of by any potential business partners, ever again.
Of course, the people with the real power in society either actually want hate movements to exist, or at least consider them an acceptable alternative to people being able to actually stand up to them. Keep them busy blaming the Jews, darkies, and bitches and they won't be blaming the people that's really to blame for their plight.
There was another theory floating around surrounding Twitter's new rate limits: it coincided with the end of the month and when Twitter's Google hosting bill was due. And if you know how Elon has treated Twitter's bills...