I think you have forums confused with microblogs.

I presume I’m supposed to care, but I dont, and I don’t know why anyone would.

So… Meta’s “plan” is to dodge responsibility?

Gee whiz… I sure never saw that coming…

Just be patient.

With all due respect, fuck the normies. The fediverse is better off without them.

People on every single relatively small forum ever in the history of the internet have gotten frustrated and angry when other people do that, because it’s spammy.

Do you not know the history of the term “spam?”

It’s from a Monty Python skit

That’s what the front page of a forum (or the inbox of an email account) looks like when someone “spams” it - like “spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam.”

If he’s trying to say “Biden wanted this but Trump already started it”

Which “he?”

Zuckerberg blames it exclusively and entirely on the Biden administration.

that tells me BOTH parties requested it. Hence, if you don’t like Biden because of this, you don’t want Trump either. And of course, vice versa. In short, this policy is not unique to either party or administration.

Exactly, but that’s explicitly not what Zuckerberg is saying. He’s saying that it was entirely and exclusively Biden, which is a lie.

Why did Zuckerberg choose now to make this announcement and publicly reveal the inside play?

There’s actually a tidbit that the author notes that points at the obvious reason for it.

In his letter to Congressional investigators, he flat-out said what everyone else has been saying for years now.

In 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content…

The author then goes on to say though:

A few clarifications. The censorship began much earlier than that, from March 2020 at the very least if not earlier.

What’s significant about that? Trump was president then.

So Zuckerberg is rather obviously trying to pin entirely on the Biden administration a set of policies that were already in place under Trump.

To what end? Obviously to do the same thing he did in 2016 and 2020 - to overtly promote Trump.

This particular one certainly not coincidentally plays into the whole Republican narrative that the Democrats are oppressive and dishonest, which in turn is meant to provide a context for their intention to dispute the election results when Trump loses. Zuckerberg is simply doing his part to further that narrative.

Just the opposite. I’m the one who goes off to do something else at family gatherings because they just talk and talk and talk.

Though it’s not so much that they talk so much as that it’s just the same stuff over and over - alternately, my brother slavishly regurgitating right-wing techbro quasi-libertarian bullshit and my mom reciting in excruciating detail some anecdote that’s maybe vaguely related to the topic at hand and that she’s told countless times already, because it’s her go-to every time something in that vicinity comes up.

And what I wouldn’t give to know them less well…

I like wool, but I don’t currently own any. It’s of very limited use, since it itches abominably.

It strikes me though - I should keep my eyes open for a good, heavy wool cardigan. In the winter, I wear some number of t-shirts/henleys plus a chamois shirt and a hooded sweatshirt, then some top layer - either a down vest or coat. A big, heavy wool cardigan would work well for that top layer too.

More, definitely.

Even in the summer, as soon as I can get away with it, I go to a second layer. I prefer two light layers over one heavy one.

100% cotton in layers.

I like loose clothes - baggy chinos or cargo pants (or shorts made out of old pants that have started ripping out at the knees) and t-shirts, henleys, chamois work shirts, zippered (never pullover) hooded sweatshirts and down vests. I add layers in the fall (I generally max out at six in the dead of winter) and subtract them in the spring.

Yep - I figured this was just anon hoping for a different answer from a different audience.

Again, your intent doesn’t matter and there was no social cue that you missed. The girl clearly expressed her view and you didn’t do her even the simple courtesy of believing her. That’s not what friends do. That’s what stalkers do.

Autism as an excuse can only go so far. When you go past the point at which you simply fail to pick up on non-verbal cues to the point at which you dispute and disregard other people’s clearly stated preferences, it no longer applies. That’s not autism - it’s antisocial personality disorder. You’re not just failing to understand what other people expect, but refusing to treat them as beings with rights. You’re treating them as mere objects rightly subject to your will and your preferences.

“Anon’s” opinion on whether it’s creepy or not counts for absolutely nothing.

Again, it wasn’t a social cue and “anon” didn’t miss it - girl directly expressed her opinion and instead of accepting it, “anon” argued against it, then ignored it That’s not only creepy, but borderline abusive.

Creepy.

she calls me creepy and to stop stalking her

That’s not a social cue - it’s a direct expression of a preference. And anon didn’t miss it - he ignored it.

Probably an odd take, but this is actually something I sort of like about this timeline.

I keep getting this amusing visual image of actual people tiptoing away and giggling and shushing each other, as somewhere in the background, the site they used to be on is nothing but corporations showing ads to bots posting to bots.

Yes - that’s exactly what it is. Vichy Twitter is to historical Twitter as Vichy France was to historical France.

I stole it myself, so you’re welcome to it.

I have no idea who originated it, but from the first time I saw it, I haven’t used anything else. It just so perfectly sums it up.

So there are only two possibilities - either Vichy Twitter is such a poorly run site that it crashed on its own, or it’s such a poorly run site that it’s not prepared to deal with being DDOSed.

I don’t believe that my approval or anyone else’s is at all relevant.

My position is that there’s only one person who has the right to decide whether or not it’s acceptable to trade sex for money, and that’s the person entering into the trade. Assuming that all other contractual requirements are met - they’re of legal age and acting of their own free will and so on - it’s just as much their right to trade sex for money as to trade ditch digging or code writing or coffee brewing or meeting taking for money.

(edited for clarity)