So what is the reason for doing it that way?

Are you free tonight? Because I don’t have any money.

Turns out when Zuckerbot was talking about “allowing more speech on the platform”, he just meant more slurs.

“May be on shaky legal ground”

The law clearly states that Tiktok is banned and should be made inaccessible. The president cannot unilaterally change the law. They even got a lawyer to explain this to them.

Regardless of what you think of the ban, there can be no doubt about the fact that this is what the law says. No matter what Trump claims. If journalists show this level of misregard for truth and the rule of law, things are going to become much worse.

The revolution will not be televised.

Remember how the Titan sub used a game controller and everyone called them out? I think I’d still feel safer.

Putin couldn’t care less about the support from some random programmers. Be realistic, what do you expect them to do? Take up arms? Protest and get imprisoned? Vote in the sham elections?

Targeting random civilians in hopes of political change is the strategy of terrorists.

So then you agree that there is no reason to be “glad” about this?

And how exactly is banning these contributors supposed to stop the invasion? These people have no control or culpability.

Not my idea of a good date, but to each their own

“I dropped my fair share of hard Rs back then”

Such is the fate of hypercentralized spaces. The fediverse fixes this.

I don’t see how this is so difficult. Given the choice between a narcissistic billionaire or an independent, accountable government commission that’s bound by the rule of law, I’ll choose the latter every time.

RCS is walled off by design, so that users are dependent on Google and their phone carrier. If they wanted an open standard they would have adopted something like XMPP.

Reserved for future use

A lot of people seem to have forgotten this, but the American constitution was actually written by god and passed down by Moses over 2000 years ago.

It’s not. Image hosting sites have existed for decades. Websites are not liable unless they have actual knowledge of illegal content and ignore takedown requests. Stop fearmongering.

I don’t want to get into the mess of the government defining what is or isn’t against the law

What does that even mean

While it’s stupid that ISPs are using their monopolies to screw consumers, the concept of data caps is not as stupid as you might think.

You’re not just paying for the connection between you and the ISP, but also all the other data links that get your internet traffic to its destination. For example, those cables across the ocean are owned third parties and they charge money for every byte that goes through. It wouldn’t be unreasonable for ISPs to pass that cost to users.

Furthermore, most links are overprovisioned in order to keep costs down. For example, if you assume that users only use 10% of their bandwidth on average, that means you can fit 10x as many people on a connection (or maybe 8x to account for peaks). This does mean that users should be discouraged from using their full bandwidth for long durations, otherwise the network operators can’t overprovision as much and have to invest more in infrastructure.

For the last time: these language models are just regurgitating what people have said. They don’t analyze or reason.