Good comment! (Sorry, not on here a lot)

An important reminder and a good counter example. That said…this is petty and clearly unethical, and also strikes me as quite a different phenomenon from the kind of open corruption we are talking about with the conservative justices.

I’m not sure. It’s partly just that Alito is a selfish, lonely, bitter, viciously bigoted person. The progressive justices don’t seem to be having a problem following the ethics rules.

Fair enough - I don’t have one. At least not to hand. There has been a LOT of reporting about misinformation, disinformation, and fucked up cultural trends unique to TikTok, but I used that phrase hyperbolically to reinforce my actual point: that it is literally impossible to cite sources on TikTok, making it the only social network where credible, knowledgeable, expert, and authoritative creators cannot in principle be distinguished from hoeseshit.

I stopped playing salt and sanctuary because of the platforming, despite being an ardent lover of souls likes.

I really like minor stat boosting items instead. So rather than giving me an inventory full of potions, give me three or four slots for items that can have a huge range of different bonuses and penalties, and they are pretty minor, but they’re permanent. That way I get to craft a build instead of just being annoyed

I’ve been whining to everyone in earshot about all the puzzles in remnant 2 hahaha

If TikTok starts allowing standard hyperlinks it would dramatically reduce the platform’s peak harm potential. Tiktok’s single biggest problem rn is that it is literally impossible to cite your sources - that’s why it’s the runaway global leader for misinformation. Adding text would help, bringing it back down to regular Facebook levels of social erosion and election distortion.

The most interesting piece of this for me is that the “gender politics index” is an even stronger predictor of Trumpy support than the “modern sexism index.” The gender politics piece is outrage politics - it’s culture-war, cult of victimhood stuff with minimal substantive claims attached. And that’s what most strongly predicts voting preferences.

What that means to me is that, as with everything that makes the news coming out of high profile republicans, their positions are utterly cynical and calculated to induce fear-based rage voting, rather than a reflection of a sincerely held set of moral and cultural beliefs.

If you want slightly less tactical (but even more fun) turn based combat with a lot more RPG, divinity 2 original sin is phenomenal.

… well, for one thing, your numbers are a little bit off there. The US is sent about $75 billion to Ukraine, not $100 trillion.

The aid check situation sucked, but that was very much a congress problem caused by the most conservative Dems (one of whom has since left the party).

More to the point, I feel confused by your answer: what is it that you don’t buy? You genuinely feel there’s a moral equivalence across all politicians?

I don’t agree. This is a very South Park perspective. Yes, all politicians engage in bribery, corruption, and double dealing. No, the parties are not morally equivalent.

Biden has protected his son, but he has consistently displayed an eagerness to help people and to pass useful, popular laws that save lives and shift money downward in the economic pyramid.

Trump passed a tax cut for people with private jets and GW Bush killed 300,000 innocent civilians. It’s insane to pretend there’s a moral equivalence here.

I disagree with your interpretation of the article. They aren’t protesting policy that bends all sex related accounts. They are protesting inadequate and inaccurate enforcement of a policy that, in principal, allows for sex-positive education and bans pornography and trafficking. And the problem is that meta has done a way better job banning healthy and arguably necessary sex-positive education than jt has pursuing trafficking or child porn.

I’m also not sure why you bring up profit. The article does mention finances of one particular kink group, that isn’t the point they were making. They were saying that meta’s business model involves offering a public service - been online social space - and that the company arbitrarily violated their own terms of service by banning a bunch of people seemingly because those people belong to a group the company doesn’t like (i.e. people with non-vanilla sexual interests).

Moderation is hard and the legal questions are complicated (and way beyond me), but I feel like your comment really dramatically oversimplifies and sort of misrepresents what’s at issue here.

This is a really complicated situation. Yes, meta has created the leading platform for sex trafficking (Insta) and FB has similar problems.

However, that barely touches on the issues in play here. For one thing, the platforms have been far more effective at removing sex positive educators than they have at catching adult men using girl’s Insta accounts to sell child porn. For another, a repeating pattern involves major platforms being built by sex workers and then the platforms trying to purge sex work later on (Tumblr, onlyfans). For a third, removing all sexual content from a social space in unhealthy, repressive, and weird, playing into misogynistic and religious social norms and pathologizing one of the fundamental aspects of being human. Pornhub has account verification, for instance, not because of actual concern about trafficking but because of Nicholas Kristoff’s weird christianity-derived hatred of porn.

I understabd why beehaw prohibits sexual content given the legal environment we’re in. But trying to remove sex from social spaces, especially online, is NOT a good or even neutral idea.

I agree that cashing in is at least important part of this. As I understand it, however, past a certain point creating and using LLMs is in fact extremely expensive. That’s why GPT4 limits user interactions, for example. I also think that the more restricted these tools are in general, the better for everyone. It’s absolutely possible to use them in positive ways, but as it stamps they are mostly just flooding the internet with garbage at killing low level content jobs.