They weren’t, it was just the example at the furthest end of the spectrum. But your framing of “if it was REALLY bad, Twitter would ban it” can not be the solution. We have legitimate governments tasked with governing based on the will of the people, it’s not better to just let Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg decide the law.
We don’t dislike government censorship of CSAM. it’s all a spectrum based on the legitimacy of the government order and the legitimacy of the tech billionaire’s refusal to abide.
Here’s the thing about nation state governments. They can pass laws. It’s kind of the main thing they do.
It wasn’t like a law banning X. They were Court ordered to do something and they didn’t do it.
Could that happen in other countries? I mean sure but not the way you’re implying.
I paid $100 for a massive 1TB hard drive when they first came out years ago. Thought a TB was essentially unlimited and wasn’t sure if it could ever be used.
What a crazy advancement to get to 8TB the size of your pinky nail.
But either the government blockchain can get forked/modified by people with enough resources, in which case it’s not reliable, or it is certifiably controlled by the government in which case there’s no point to it being blockchain.
Turns out the one thing Blockchain is good at, building out decentralized strings of commonly agreed upon immutable transactions, is actually not that useful. For small items we need an “undo” button because people make sloppy mistakes or get scammed, for large items we want the government to act as enforcer of the property (house, dollars, car) in question so it doesn’t actually help us to decentralize.
On the other hand, might also be good for Firefox to not be 86% funded by the maker of its top rival (Chrome).
If the Trump campaign paid for it as an ad, I’m not upset by it assuming anyone else could have paid to promote an alternative political candidate.
If it’s an in-kind donation to the campaign, that’s troublesome.
Damn. Sorry to hear about that emotion a soulless corporation is having.
Do you think there’s a real link between furries being gay, like the type of person who is a furry just tends to be disproportionately gay and online?
Or a sociological link like people who are open enough about sexual preferences will tend to be open about all of them?
Or a news bias link like plenty of hackers are gay but you don’t hear about it, but if they are
Or is this always just the one gay furry hacker group?
It’s an older meme sir, but it checks out.
And Trump just copied the slogan from Reagan anyway.
Yeah it’s sort of like accusing a presidential campaign of being “all about gaining political power”. Of course that’s the goal. That’s not the metric by which you should judge its actions.
I honestly don’t understand the math of not releasing movies and un-releasing games. People say tax purposes but I’d think streaming is essentially pure profit, hard to imagine not being able to make 20% of your money back or whatever credit you get for taxes.
What a refreshing meme use. Makes me want a beer actually.
Again, sure, but dressing with a feminine aesthetic is not a kink any more than being goth is a kink. People don’t have to abide by your gender norms.
As long as we’re careful here. People can be however they want to be. If you’re saying people shouldn’t be making memes that assume all people are like them, yes. If you’re saying living how they want is “involving everyone else in your kink” we’re getting into iffy territory.
Libby app.
Reddit is like this too on the app. Some of the worst algorithm recommendations I’ve ever seen. “You like (your local city subreddit), you might also like (some city you don’t live in subreddit).” Why?
The worst is that is has ruined my porn account because it doesn’t recommend NSFW subs so I have to scrape past random unrelated garbage like the Pokémon card valuation subreddit and /r/cement, I counted and it went 40 posts between NSFW posts once. On my account that is exclusively subscribed to NSFW subs.