![](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/494acfb3-39b9-4960-a3a1-0b8f8bbf828a.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/2QNz7bkA1V.png)
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.
This is so common it has a name, it’s called banner blindness.
One of the important aspects of interface design is supposed to be not showing alerts for everything, so that when they pop up you feel compelled to pay attention.
Not long ago a nurse killed an older woman by giving her the wrong medicine; she took accountability but called out that the software they use provides so many alerts that (probably unofficial) policy was to just click through them to get to treating the patient. One of those alerts was a callout that the wrong dosage was selected and she zoomed right by it out of habit.