Wow. That is a collection of footguns seeking it’s contender.

Sorry that’s spelled jardoughneigh you uncultured swine. Give back that monocle at once!

Jumping in here from the sideline: Just because you have an opinion doesn’t mean that it’s unreasonable to feel hurt by that opinion. Also that opinion doesn’t necessarily mean there is a debate to be had. That opinion can also be transphobic, which would explain both the hurt and the nondiscussion of that idea.

Also I have a hard time following your thoughts here:

I strongly believe freedom and transparency should be over security. I have enough of the censoring, auto filtering of messages, manual approvals and believe they do a lot more harm than good. Perfect examples of that is what many governments try to do with the analysis of all of our private messages, phone and computer contents and media

A) I am pretty sure you mean safety and not security. Having the ability to post or not to post has very little to do with security and might have something to do with the safety of readers, instance maintainers and most importantly, the victims of the csam.

B) equaling moderation on a community to state sanctioned censorship is always a big red flag. Let communities choose their own rules. No community should be forced to accept every post from everyone. You do not have the given right to post to every community just because you want a big audience. You have the right to make your own community and build your audience.

C) neither moderation nor censorship are relared to the government monitoring your private messages. That is an important topic that should be discussed widely and be called attention to. But it’s wildy unrelated.

Oh my god people. This is just a tongue in cheek joke about the ridiculousness of the two comments above me. The first one is either completely made up or pretty much unverifiable if true. The second one is an unreasonable request if the first comment was true because it would obviously endanger the source. It was meant as a test for whether the first comment was telling the truth but it’s completely failing at doing that.

I didn’t post anything besides a snarky comment below yours

Yes. There are a lot of protests against him. It’s just not enough.

I need names and addresses! For… Reasons unrelated to any lethal plans

Because lemmings that try doing it would be pulled in front of a judge if they went public about it afterwards. It would a) just be a single person that would b) face consequences for that action.

Israel on the other hand is a state level actor killing civilians in another jurisdiction. I know it’s just another war crime between many others at this point, but it bears noticing just how little the consequences have become

Sorry how would have a GPL`d aosp helped here? Google would and could still have not published their drivers for the pixel. You’d need pixel drivers licenced by someone different from google to make them publish their changes to the drivers

You could compare that 400k to the median salary, calculate how far that’s off, then apply that ratio to the individual salaries. It’s still just a ballpark number, but it isn’t a terrible way of looking at things

That’s actually something the article talks about. According to the article, assuming women have that “gaze” because men do is the core of the misunderstanding.

I think the whole point was that a female gaze is just way less developed because they aren’t typically the ones observing but the ones being observed. At least that’s what I got from reading the article

I mean there is extensive research on the topic of incentives and how powerful they are. But sure you can go on and believe that humans aren’t subject to being manipulated that way. Have a nice day

People following incentives blah-bkah is people being morons. See also “I was following orders” fallacy applied to army

No? It’s being smart in the system around you. It might be unethical but following the incentives is the easy and profitable option. the incentives are set by the system in which you are living. Capitalism.

Capitalism strives for something? Niice. And I thought “economic system” does not have any strivings

I’m not sure where you got this. Economic, or broader, any social system strives for some kind of goal. Otherwise society wouldn’t have implemented them. In the case of capitalism that goal is return on investments.

Anything has to be enforced because we consistently fail to produce developed and balanced humans. Whatever -ism you try to build around what kind of people we have now, it will fail. So cut the crap about capitalism already

The idea that there could be “developed and balanced” humans that would just resist the drive for profit that dominates our whole economy is just so flawed. We shouldn’t try to make humans that fit the economic model. We should try to make an economic model that fits the humans we have. And the humans we have largely follow the incentives provided by the system, no matter how unethical the outcomes might be.

It’s not people being morons it’s people following the incentives of the system and fulfilling the responsibilities given to them by the companies they work for. Both of those are directly tied to capitalism. Because those “morons” are doing what capitalism strives for: maximizing the return on invested capital.

How exactly do you think that Wikipedia page disputes that companies are incentivised to maximize profit over everything else? It clearly says that

However, the doctrine of shareholder primacy has been criticized for being at odds with corporate social responsibility and other legal obligations.

The social responsibilities have to be enforced from the outside exactly because they are “at odds” with what companies would do without that enforcement.

And how does capitalism have anything to do with it?

Oh that’s a rhetorical question right?

Under capitalism companies have one and only one responsibility: making the most profit from the capital invested in them. This means that the responsibilities of all employees, even/especially those deciding how the company should act, are driven by this directive. A CEO would not be fulfilling their responsibilities to the shareholders if they made decisions that lower their profits without being forced by law to make those decisions.

companies do not exist. Humans do

Companies forwards their directive of maximizing profits to the humans that are employed by these companies.

The concept of responsibility that hard to grasp?

For companies that seems to be case yeah

Have you not noticed that the Windows search has become a meme for being really useful in windows seven and useless in newer versions because it started

1. Searching the web and asking an ai for answers without you wanting that
2. In consequence syphoning out each and every search promt
3. Displaying fucking ads in the fucking search results

And that’s just one example that’s obvious enough to become a meme

BTW: any form of making a Microsoft product worse for profit of Microsoft is enshittification since they have both endusers and sellers of products that only work on windows/in the Microsoft ecosystem locked in with significant costs tied to leaving.

Now that’s something I’m gonna save. And pray that you’re not an agent trying to spread misinformation

Or just 10 billion into the school system? Please? Anything?