Turns out a rich person can just buy a social media platform and fuck with elections and stuff.
Turns out a rich person can just buy a social media platform and fuck with elections and stuff.
Because crypto just has such a stink on it.
It may well be a reasonable solution for this specific problem, but still... no one is going to get behind this.
Ok kiddo, I'm just gonna tell you the brutal truth.
Everyone likes the cheap stuff China makes, but we're not comfortable with how they run things, so every time we're reminded that they're going to be the dominant global super power by 2100 we freak out a bit.
Conversely, Muslims killing Muslims in a country that doesn't make anything we want isn't that important.
I'm not saying this is how things ought to be, but it is how things are.
This was always the conspiracy. I don't really buy it though. Having firefox' user base default to Google search is worth something.
Define "the internet" though...
If you're expecting "the internet" to fill your cup with joy then sure, that's probably not going to work out.
That said, there's plenty of good bits that make life a lot easier.
There's never been any consensus that I'm aware of. All the suggestions are cringey.
We're just users.
Well if you don't care what I think why bother with the propaganda?
You're right to be skeptical, just this particular grift isn't as obvious as it seems.
You've misunderstood my concern.
I despise Trump and this vapid weirdo.
I suspect that if a MAGA idiot was posting in this way users would be quick to point out that it's not appropriate for a news community.
That said, I don't want to make a big deal out of it. Do what you like.
This is the solution.
All names have problems but this one has the least.
Ok so after a quick read it looks like they bundled some software which allowed third parties to eavesdrop on https traffic with a fairly trivial hack?
I've had lenovo laptop's forever. I could be described as a fan boy. I'd never heard about this. It's never nice to hear that something you're a fan of has problems like this.
I guess the only mitigating factor is that it wasn't intentional on Lenovo's part.
That's not really true.
For a lot of people who are suicidal, a psych ward is precisely the right place for them. There are appropriately trained people to develop a treatment plan, and appropriate facilities to prevent a suicidal person from harming themselves.
I absolutely acknowledge that being taken to a psych ward against your will is going to be traumatic for anyone. I also acknowledge that in some cases the patient might end up feeling worse than they did before they went.
However, I'm certain that you can acknowledge that taking someone to a psych ward against their will is often the only way to prevent them harming themselves.
"These migrants living in poverty have manageable and treatable health conditions!"
God this article is annoying to read.
What did Vance actually say ?
Did he say something analogous to "I admit that I created the pet-eating story about immigrants" ? Who knows?
I've never queried my parents intentions or motivations.
They weren't great parents nor were they terrible. I think they did their best given their resources, knowledge, and societal norms.
I have however managed various mental health issues most of my adult life, and I know that most issues which make me miserable, would not make me miserable if I were not already miserable. For example, when I'm stressed and miserable I tend to get fixated on things happening at work and stress about them a lot more than is really warranted.
I can't say I can relate to how OP feels, but I feel as though, if my dad told me I was an accident and unwanted or whatever that might change how I feel about him, but it wouldn't really change how I feel about me.
For any person alive today, if you followed your ancestry back even just a handful of generations I'm sure there are unwanted pregnancies.
What does this business do? Is it just a shitcoin? The archive link only has half the article.
What you're describing just isn't compliant with tax law in any jurisdiction I'm aware of.
Any commentary I've heard is talking about Pennsylvania. It's critically important to a win, and fracking is critically important to voters there.
That said, can't it be both?
I'm sure both campaigns have accepted donations from loads of shady industries. Crypto is a salient example.
Money wins elections, and the race being as close as it is I don't care where the dems are getting their money from.
I find myself saying this a lot, but if the left was going to win a convincing victory, they would have some scope for more progressive policy. There isn't any room, and they don't have that mandate.
These are certificates that a company purchases to show it is buying renewable energy-generated electricity to match a portion of its electricity consumption – the catch, though, is that the renewable energy in question doesn’t need to be consumed by a company’s facilities. Rather, the site of production can be anywhere from one town over to an ocean away.
If I understand this correctly, a tech firm with a data centre in Melbourne could buy RECs from Helsinki, pocket the certificate, and on-sell the energy to someone who needed it in Helsinki without the certificate?
"Fact checking" only those articles you disagree with is editorialising.
No it's not. You personally might like it but if it were the consensus people would use it and this question wouldn't be asked every week.
Sorry mate, this is just plain wrong.
People are there because they have complex medical conditions which require specialist personnel and facilities.
Yes it can be scary and expensive, but it's the best way to manage a shit situation.
I hate trump as much as the next guy but I have to wonder whether it's appropriate to editorialise posts like this?
Like linking to an article, and then providing a rebuttal in the post body. I mean it's funny as hell in this case, but would it be more appropriate as a comment?
Mad respect to flyingsquid, prolific poster, commenter, and active mod. No rules being broken of course. I'm just concerned it might not be the right practice for a news community.
If it were a conservative perspective with MAGA editorial I sure wouldn't appreciate it.
Corporations are legal entities, but they do not have the same rights as people.
Trump said Thursday that Walz has "had a terrible career" and called him "a weird guy," adding that Harris was "weird in her policy."
I love this so much. His best retort is "no, you're weird!".
Um so pumped to see him lose the ejection, and then go to jail, and then become irrelevant, and then die.
Just want to point out that this woman made a mistake and expressed remorse.
The guy who's trying to be pres, deliberately and knowingly stoked this fire for his own benefit.
Investors have instead treated the stock as a proxy for the market’s bet for a second Trump administration
Exactly.
That said, only an idiot would hold any at present. Guaranteed those shares will be worth less after the 20th than they are now.
One, day... some adult is going to think "that fucking cunt ass bitch lied to me about the rice".
It's great that the admins are putting so much effort into getting this right.
Sadly, I don't think this is the way. Adding this to the ToS means you admins will always be in the centre of every unwinnable situation that arises.
You need a committee to deal with these issues on a case by case basis. There are many advantages to this:
I don't want to be critical of the ToS because someone has put a lot of thought into it, but the most charitable thing I can say is that its unlikely to serve its intended purpose.
Everything in the US is so god damn partisan.
How can the fucking postal service be republican?
And... why is there no democrat stuff?
My personal view is that the bot provides a net negative, and should be removed.
Firstly, I would argue that there are few, if any, users whom the bot has helped avoid misinformation or a skewed perspective. If you know what bias is and how it influences an article then you don't need the bot to tell you. If you don't know or care what bias is then it won't help you.
Secondly, the existence of the bot implies that sources can be reduced to true or false or left or right. Lemmy users tend to deal in absolutes of right or wrong. The world exists in the nuance, in the conflict between differing perspectives. The only way to mitigate misinformation is for people to develop their own skeptical curiosity, and I think the bot is more of a hindrance than a help in this regard.
Thirdly, if it's only misleading 1% of the time then it's doing harm. IDK how sources can be rated when they often vary between articles. It's so reductive that it's misleading.
As regards an open database of bias, it doesn't solve any of the issues listed above.
In summary, we should be trying to promote a healthy sceptical curiosity among users, not trying to tell them how to think.
My take:
Americans are either republican or democrat.
If you're a republican then you're going to vote for your guy. They see everything he does as just bullshit and bluster. "He says things to rile up the lefties but that's just his brand." They see the legal issues as politically motivated, or "maybe he's a bit dirty, but all politicians are".
I think it really is that simple. The vast majority of the population is not making a decision of whom to vote for based on their research regarding each party's policies. They will just always vote the way they've always voted.
This article is bullshit.
Republicans don't actually think that.
Even if it's hyperbole, it's still a shitty thing to say.
Tomorrow: a new mothership!
Gross.
Anyhow I think this just gave Swift's endorsement a lot more reach.
Oh man, I'd nearly forgotten about small dick energy guy.
This thread is a mess.
users: "bot is awful"
mod: "ok so it's not terrible so that's good"
I swear these guys sit down every morning and make a list of all the messed up shit they've done, then issue a press release saying the dems did all that stuff.