Nate Cox

The vitriol over this topic is humorous. We charge our phones and watches daily, nobody is losing their minds over that. However, asking for the mouse to be plugged in one night a month is outlandish and absurd.

The best part is that this minor issue overshadows the real issue: the ergonomics are terrible. I have large hands and simply can not hold onto the thing properly. Narrow and flat is poor design for something you need to get a grip on to slide around.

It’s hard to have a discourse on a topic if you insist that the scope of that topic must by default be infinite.

X isn’t being threatened with litigation because they’re freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses; they’re being threatened with litigation because they are a billion dollar business sustaining themselves by selling ads along with content that Brazil argues was misinformation and hate speech.

On the topic of freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses: it may be moral in some extreme examples to defy the government, but there are means of doing that completely removed from the scope of microblogging on a corporate behemoth’s web platform. For example, there is an international organization who’s sole purpose is perusing human rights violations.

I don’t think it’s the responsibility of X to know the laws of every country; I expect them to respect the wishes of other countries when it is brought to their attention if they want to continue doing business there.

Also, I think we both know that the misinformation we are talking about here has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The context of the linked article clearly indicates that harmful mistruths leading to harmful actions is the subject here.

I’m not sure why it’s so tempting to think of internet content as a special entity that defies otherwise established rules. Maybe it’s simply because no special effort is needed today to get the content across the border?

Regardless, we aren’t talking about your geocities page, we’re talking about billion dollar businesses. Would it be appropriate to take your physical storefront across international borders and insist that the government there should have zero say as to what products you sell? If not, why is it appropriate to do the same with web content? X is selling content in the form of ad distribution, countries should get to decide if that content is appropriate for distribution.

I’m going to challenge your assertion that you’re not talking about what should be considered harmful by pointing out that you are loading your argument substantially by asserting that people need “help” protecting them from “harmful” censorship. Remember that the issue addressed in this thread is Brazil banning X for its promotion of misinformation and hate speech.

Censorship isn’t harmful by default. It is ok to ban people from shouting “fire” in a theater for example, because the shout may result in real harm. Now you can argue that some censorship may be harmful because of its impact on society, such as the removal of books from school hampering fair and complete education or banning research texts that expose inconvenient truths.

But, again the issue here is specifically an attempt to ban misinformation and hate speech; are you going to make an argument that these things are a positive to the community and should be defended as a moral imperative? Frankly it’s a pretty silly stance to take.

Define “harmful censorship”. I would argue—strongly—that censoring hate speech and misinformation is a public service.

I also think that any service (twitter) refusing to abide by the laws of a country (Brazil) has no place in that country.

We routinely censor content to placate China; like, all the time.

I believe each country should get to have a say in what is permissible, and content deemed unacceptable should be blockable by region. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say “well it’s on the internet so it’s untouchable” simply because the server is in another country.

Disinformation campaigns are specifically designed to undermine the reasoning capabilities of people by inveigling them into believing (usually emotionally provocative) falsehoods, turning them into misinformation conduits in the process.

It’s like saying that meth should be legal because reasonable people should just chose not to use it, ignoring the social and mental health issues that drive people to consume it against their best interest.

Sometimes the right thing to do is to cut off the head of the snake before it can bite you.

Such as? If you have a reasonably priced OLED dumb tv with HDR and 120FPS up your sleeve you will be my favorite internet friend.

Game consoles.

I wish there were more high quality dumb TVs. Most of the dumb TVs I can find today are both very expensive and lack the features I’m looking for like HDR and 120hz+ frame rates.

I know the argument is that the privacy invasions are subsidizing the cost of the TV but I have yet to see non-anecdotal evidence of that and suspect that the price of the TV would be the same either way because the market will only support so much expense.

Tribespeople became so addicted that Marubo leaders, fearing that history and culture — which is passed down orally — could be lost forever, they have now limited access to the internet for two hours each morning, five hours each evening, and all day Sunday.

That is still so much internet, we would probably all be healthier following that guideline.

I’m not blaming you for the state of the world, I’m blaming you for taking your fatalist nonsense and using it to try to bring down others with you.

This attitude is what lets the government and big tech get away with so much bullshit.

“Well it’s happening already so crying about it isn’t going to change anything because you know that protest has never ever been effective even once ever and I kinda like the taste of boot anyways so what’s the big deal?”

I’m not sure that a protection against changing the default browser with third party programs (maybe without the user knowing) via the registry is the evil thing being depicted here.

The way I read this article is that this is a move for compliance with the new digital markets act and I’m not seeing the maliciousness.

Willing to be wrong, I haven’t used Windows regularly for like 20 years.

I would argue that the new answer is still bad.

The search results were top notch before adding Brave, indicating to me that they aren’t really needed.

“People complain about all of them” is probably a factual statement, which is why evaluating each source independently is valuable. I don’t think it justifies completely dismissing criticism.

It is indeed disappointing.

Some interesting moderation choices that suggest a lack of support for the LGTBQ+ community, a business partnership with Brave, and a really shitty take refusing to add help numbers for self-harm related searches.

You can get the cliff notes of it from this post and comment to it: https://lemm.ee/comment/8016834

I’ve been using it as my primary for quite a while, it’s pretty awesome and the development pace is pretty good.

I’m not really a fan of the lead guy, some of the comments he’s made on the forums are less than great, but the product is top notch.

I’m a nix user and I’m disappointed by how apt this comparison is.