The vitriol over this topic is humorous. We charge our phones and watches daily, nobody is losing their minds over that. However, asking for the mouse to be plugged in one night a month is outlandish and absurd.
The best part is that this minor issue overshadows the real issue: the ergonomics are terrible. I have large hands and simply can not hold onto the thing properly. Narrow and flat is poor design for something you need to get a grip on to slide around.
It’s hard to have a discourse on a topic if you insist that the scope of that topic must by default be infinite.
X isn’t being threatened with litigation because they’re freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses; they’re being threatened with litigation because they are a billion dollar business sustaining themselves by selling ads along with content that Brazil argues was misinformation and hate speech.
On the topic of freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses: it may be moral in some extreme examples to defy the government, but there are means of doing that completely removed from the scope of microblogging on a corporate behemoth’s web platform. For example, there is an international organization who’s sole purpose is perusing human rights violations.
I don’t think it’s the responsibility of X to know the laws of every country; I expect them to respect the wishes of other countries when it is brought to their attention if they want to continue doing business there.
Also, I think we both know that the misinformation we are talking about here has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The context of the linked article clearly indicates that harmful mistruths leading to harmful actions is the subject here.
I’m not sure why it’s so tempting to think of internet content as a special entity that defies otherwise established rules. Maybe it’s simply because no special effort is needed today to get the content across the border?
Regardless, we aren’t talking about your geocities page, we’re talking about billion dollar businesses. Would it be appropriate to take your physical storefront across international borders and insist that the government there should have zero say as to what products you sell? If not, why is it appropriate to do the same with web content? X is selling content in the form of ad distribution, countries should get to decide if that content is appropriate for distribution.
I’m going to challenge your assertion that you’re not talking about what should be considered harmful by pointing out that you are loading your argument substantially by asserting that people need “help” protecting them from “harmful” censorship. Remember that the issue addressed in this thread is Brazil banning X for its promotion of misinformation and hate speech.
Censorship isn’t harmful by default. It is ok to ban people from shouting “fire” in a theater for example, because the shout may result in real harm. Now you can argue that some censorship may be harmful because of its impact on society, such as the removal of books from school hampering fair and complete education or banning research texts that expose inconvenient truths.
But, again the issue here is specifically an attempt to ban misinformation and hate speech; are you going to make an argument that these things are a positive to the community and should be defended as a moral imperative? Frankly it’s a pretty silly stance to take.
Define “harmful censorship”. I would argue—strongly—that censoring hate speech and misinformation is a public service.
I also think that any service (twitter) refusing to abide by the laws of a country (Brazil) has no place in that country.
We routinely censor content to placate China; like, all the time.
I believe each country should get to have a say in what is permissible, and content deemed unacceptable should be blockable by region. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say “well it’s on the internet so it’s untouchable” simply because the server is in another country.
Disinformation campaigns are specifically designed to undermine the reasoning capabilities of people by inveigling them into believing (usually emotionally provocative) falsehoods, turning them into misinformation conduits in the process.
It’s like saying that meth should be legal because reasonable people should just chose not to use it, ignoring the social and mental health issues that drive people to consume it against their best interest.
Sometimes the right thing to do is to cut off the head of the snake before it can bite you.
Not a nurse but I worked a lot of manual labor jobs that had me on my feet moving all day (e.g., home renovation work) and I can say that your body eventually gets used to that kind of work and the soreness becomes a persistent dull ache that honestly isn’t bad. Kinda like if you just work out daily.
Nursing may be different, and my experience may not apply, but I would think that you will get used to it.
Honestly the only thing I never got used to was standing in one place at retail work. Standing all day in the same spot is not natural and the body rejects it.
All good reasons to make a decision, I’m not trying to sway anyone in a direction.
I just feel bad when people see drama in a community and wonder if that thing is “safe”. I’ve seen this kind of thing many times before in other communities—PERL, Python, Ruby, Rust, etc—and it never seems to lead to sweeping changes the normal user would notice. It’s pretty safe to assume that day-to-day users of thing can just carry on if they don’t care about the community upset.
It’s probably wise to simply ignore the drama. Open source seems to invite this at the “top” for whatever reason, but for the casual user there is usually little to no impact.
Unless you’re trying to be a top contributor to nix, I would just carry on with normal usage and all the current drama will blow over.
Tribespeople became so addicted that Marubo leaders, fearing that history and culture — which is passed down orally — could be lost forever, they have now limited access to the internet for two hours each morning, five hours each evening, and all day Sunday.
That is still so much internet, we would probably all be healthier following that guideline.
If we’ve just met, not at all.
If we’ve been best friends for 10 years, that would sting a little.
Physical media today isn’t really much better though, increasingly frequently all a disk gets you is a license to activate a digital copy anyways, with a “must be online for first play” requirement.
Learning to work the clutch and feel the friction zone is a more difficult skill than some want to admit.
Learning to drive a motorcycle was a bit overwhelming, I remember my instructor talking about applying the brakes with right hand and foot while disengaging the clutch with the left hand and downshifting with the left foot… and thinking “how the hell is anyone supposed to keep track of all that!”
I do miss my stick shift though, it was more fun to drive even if less practical.
Definitely fire, without it none of the other inventions happen afterwards; though I guess we didn’t really invent it as much as we learned to harness it.
I’m not sure that a protection against changing the default browser with third party programs (maybe without the user knowing) via the registry is the evil thing being depicted here.
The way I read this article is that this is a move for compliance with the new digital markets act and I’m not seeing the maliciousness.
Willing to be wrong, I haven’t used Windows regularly for like 20 years.
Worcestershire sauce in tuna. It is delicious.
I want my ICQ and my IRCs and my “you’ve got mail” and my horrible screeching that means I will be online soon back.
I’m not even kidding. Give me back my 90s internet.
I was also born in ‘84; the 90’s were pretty rad though for a kid so the doom and gloom didn’t really start until around 9/11 for me.