• 0 Posts
  • 29 Comments
Joined 2 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年7月16日

help-circle



  • I wasn’t trying to be rude. It just seemed like you were suggesting the preventative injectable could be worse than AIDS itself, and I was genuinely asking why that would be scarier.

    I’m sorry you’ve had such a rough experience with HIV treatment. That sounds genuinely awful. But just to clarify, the medication being discussed here is preventative, not treatment after infection. It likely has a different side effect profile because its purpose is prevention, not management of the disease.

    If anything, your experience actually makes the case for a reliable preventative even stronger.

    I understand where you’re coming from based on what you’ve been through, but I think we’re talking about two very different situations.


  • Tipping isn’t gratitude, it’s a system that lets corporations avoid paying workers a living wage. The barista earns a few bucks an hour, relying on tips to survive because the company doesn’t want to pay them fairly.

    It’s not the barista’s fault. The corpos’ use them as leverage to perpetuate their shitty behavior. If you don’t tip, they suffer, not the business. That’s emotional blackmail dressed up as generosity.

    If we keep tipping just to hold the system together, it never has to change. Real change would mean companies paying fair, livable wages up front, even if it makes the coffee more expensive. I’m fine with that and I feel others should be too.

    Tipping should be a “thank you”, not a lifeline.

    If we truly cared about baristas, we wouldn’t just tip, we would be be advocating for a better system that doesn’t force them to depend on tips to survive. A mass refusal to participate in this broken model is the kind of disruption that could force companies to actually pay fair wages.

    Instead, we keep tipping because it feels easier and safer in the moment even though it traps workers in a cycle of dependence. I get it. It’s uncomfortable to stop doing what feels like the right thing. But sometimes, real support looks like pushing for change, not maintaining the illusion of it.






  • 17 years of marriage this year. 21 years together.

    This morning, we were cuddling, and she asked, “Do you think other couples love each other as much as we do?”

    I said, “I hope there are lots.” Then we made out, had sex, and started the day—I went grocery shopping while she cleaned the kitchen. When I got back, we put everything away, made out again in the kitchen, and now I’m stretched out on a freshly made bed while she watches TV.

    I know, it sounds disgustingly perfect. And honestly? It is. This is my life, every day, with the woman I adore more everyday.

    If you’re reading this, I just want you to know—this kind of love exists. It’s real. But it’s not luck. It’s something you build, something you protect, something you choose every single day.

    It’s worth it.



  • Skepticism and awareness don’t require absolute certainty—they require recognizing patterns, weighing evidence, and applying critical thinking. Intelligence agencies, cybersecurity experts, and investigative journalists don’t operate with perfect knowledge of every individual actor; they analyze behaviors, tactics, and known strategies to assess likely influence operations. That’s exactly what I’m doing here.

    What’s not up for debate is whether bad actors are present in online spaces. There is overwhelming, verifiable evidence that state-backed influence campaigns, misinformation networks, and coordinated propaganda efforts exist and are active on most notable social platforms. This isn’t speculation; it’s been extensively documented by cybersecurity researchers, investigative journalists, and intelligence agencies across multiple countries. The only real question is to what extent they are influencing a given conversation on Lemmy in particular, not whether they are here at all.

    Dismissing these concerns simply because I can’t produce a list of every bot and handled account is shortsighted. That’s like saying misinformation campaigns don’t exist unless you can personally name every individual behind them. The research I shared—along with extensive documentation from reputable sources—makes it clear that these operations exist. Ignoring that reality doesn’t make it go away.

    You keep labeling this discussion as “spreading FUD” without engaging with the substance of the argument. But dismissing any discussion of manipulation tactics as paranoia actually discourages people from critically assessing how online spaces are influenced. If you disagree with my conclusions, that’s fine. But refusing to acknowledge the undeniable presence of organized misinformation efforts while insisting that discussing them is somehow harmful only serves to shut down necessary discourse.


  • Pointing out patterns of manipulation isn’t the same as accusing individuals of bad faith. Influence operations are well-documented, and recognizing when engagement follows known tactics is about awareness, not personal attacks. If someone is engaging in good faith, discussing these concerns shouldn’t be an issue. Still, I believe it’s more prudent to acknowledge and warn others about the presence of bad actors on the platform than to ignore the reality that they exist.


  • I’m advocating for awareness and critical thinking, not paranoia. The New York Times article I shared outlines how influence operations have grown more sophisticated, with bots and handled accounts leveraging LLMs to mimic real engagement while derailing or inflaming discussions. Recognizing these tactics isn’t about dismissing individuals—it’s about understanding patterns of manipulation that have been well-documented. Identifying bad-faith engagement isn’t an ad hominem attack; it’s a necessary part of critical discourse. If you disagree, that’s fine, but ignoring the issue doesn’t make it disappear.