I'd reckon the bot doesn't factor that in, since that would mean that a legitimate account could get hacked and start sending out harmful content without it being caught right away.
And I wouldn't really call it incompetence when a proper solution doesn't exist at the moment.
At this point, it’s a public forum subject to common carrier rules.
I want you to think hard about this: what does Twitter carry that would make it subject to common carrier rules?
By the way, nice touch with making it sound like the people who would prefer to have access to this music aren't actually fans.
I’m not saying Nintendo are right, i’m asking why you feel entitled to their music.
Criticizing them for the decision is not the same as feeling entitled to the music.
I know reading is difficult for you, but he literally said in the beginning of the article that Nintendo is well within their rights to do this.
It's not childlike behaviour to criticize a massive corporation for making stupid decisions.
That's still not narrow. Does a joke constitute an attack? Or a critical comment on someone's religion?
Well, you know, if you can't beat them, join them.
Hate speech is narrowly defined as an attack on marginalised people based on race, gender, LGBTQ status or religious belief
That's not narrowly defined. What constitutes an attack?
Unfortunately that necessary level of tech literacy for the general population is probably 20 to 40 years away.
Considering how the education system appears to get worse and worse over time, a tech-literate general population doesn't seem likely to ever exist.
Not to defend the refusal to release the body cam footage, but given that the police didn’t do much, I wonder whether it would be informative as to what went on within the school?
The journalists likely didn't request to find out what went on inside, but rather precisely what went on outside.
This site has become a parody of itself? How so?
My point was that Truth Social’s level of moderation, which is technically bordering on censorship[...]
Only if you take censorship to mean something other than what it usually means.
Singapore alone regularly requests Twitter et al to remove content that offends them.
The implication here is that the US will eventually follow suit, regardless of who gets in in 2024.
Except the the US has the 1st amendment, which means that the government can't just get social media companies to remove content it doesn't like.
who the fuck actually votes into law this complete. unworkable, unreal kind of crap
Politicians who think it'll do something, and who don't understand how internet moderation works.
and what the hell do they get out of doing so?
The appearence of doing something for their constituents.
2A is still a thing.
And is still an option.
But also, people underestimate the value of tenacity and teambuilding (and, indeed, timing and luck). Musk set ambitious goals, and made good hiring decisions; and while the companies did make advances in engineering and manufacturing, I don’t know how much this can be attributed to Musk personally. It can be hard to tell good business sense from genius.
Those are good points. In the book, he does not come off as someone with particularly good business sense, but rather someone who is willing to smash his head against a problem until it's solved, even if he's told that it's not feasible.
But he does surround himself with some very bright engineers, which his success has also depended on.
I’m less convinced Musk is a genius; what’s the basis for such a conclusion?
In my case, his biography written by Ashlee Vance. His self-taught skillset, his thinking process and his way of problem-solving seem indicative of a genius to me.
Sure, his companies got started at the right time, but in the case of SpaceX and Tesla, the success was also because of the way they changed manufacturing and production processes. For Tesla, it also helped that Musk was more ambitious than other EV companies at the time.
Google just lost a defamation case in Australia for 515,000 from a guy defamed on yt videos.
No section 230 yet they still exist in Australia.
Are you seriously this dense, or are you just acting really well?
That fine is 0.0006% of Alphabet's profits last year. They couldn't give less of a fuck about the existence of section 230.
You can be a genius and still make stupid decisions. Musk is a prime example.
Odd that Google is still in Australia even without Section 230, isn’t it?
Loads of countries have no section 230-equivalent, and Google still operates there. So how is it odd, exactly?