The issue isn’t unsubscribing itself, it’s how they sell / have sold your information. I can unsubscribe, but the next campaign that buys that list from whatever sources they sold it to is just gonna start sending me crap again.

Susinct and savage. I like it.

For what it’s worth, I think the community is doing just fine at pointing out that a direct link to DeSantis isn’t presently verifiable, and it is creating reasonable discussion.

Honesty award

Good.

Signed - a grumpy former network admin.

I’m mostly joking and for those wondering why it matters, we’re out of public IPv4 addresses and ISPs are starting to go IPv6 only in some places. From the post:

New ISPs in my country are IPv6-only because there is no new IPv4 space to be provided to them. They do have a over-shared IPv4 address by CGNAT but due to the oversharing, it is unstable and not rare to be offline. For these companies, the internet access is stable only in IPv6.

Yup, I do this too now

And with that $1 donation, you will be on every campaign email donation list for the Republicans from now until the end of time. Word to the wise: If you ever give your email address to a campaign fund (republican, democrat or otherwise), make sure its an email you don’t care about or can shut down. No matter how many times you unsubscribe, they just sell your list to the next campaign and use a slightly different name/email/organization to get around spam laws. I made the mistake of donating to a campaign once. Their overzealous and borderline illegal email marketing is what has made me decide to never donate again.

While this $20 for $1 might sound good, especially in the humorous context of taking that $20 gift card and donating it to an opponent, I’m not willing to give my info to a republican campaign and assume they’re going to do the right thing and only use it for campaign related activities. Next thing you know, my name will be on the next FCC astroturf campaign about how I hate net neutrality.

I’d say a significant decrease in valuation just before IPO is some consequence. Not enough to truly impact Spez personally mind you, but it’s something.

I’m more satisfied with my experience here personally. I don’t scroll for hours, I read a couple articles, maybe comment on them and move on. If I come across something interesting that isn’t already posted in my community here, I’ll actually post it because it might actually get some engagement.

One reddit, my post would either be removed by overzealous mods or generally ignored. I had one instance where I posted a question on r/askScience. I searched before I posted but couldn’t find a post that asked the same question. A mod removed it saying that it was too similar to other posts. When I asked which post it was similar to, the mod said “You need to search for yourself, we aren’t librarians” then muted me for 10 days so I couldn’t respond. The sheer ego trip of the matter just appalled me. I thought that a community about scientific inquiry would be a bit more open, but nope - just as toxic as every other sub.

Valid theory. Twitter was getting a lot of attention for their work to reduce the spread of misinformation and blatant racism. Both things that the republican party and their supporters seem to be firmly opposed to. It might therfore make sense to delegitimize the platform while giving a megaphone to the people who were previously being censored or fact checked.

I always say “follow the money” which is why I couldn’t figure out Elon’s motives in all this. It doesn’t make sense to buy a company then intentionally tank it’s value. But it might make sense in terms of people in power controlling another media outlet to broadcast and reinforce their narrative.

It all started as a stock market manipulation scheme. Now that “Daddy” told him he had to make good on his commitments, he’s throwing a tantrum and saying “well, if I’m forced to buy it, I own it. And if I own it, I can do whatever I want with it. So I guess I will can just do this!” and he proceeds to destroy it. Just another spoiled brat rich kid who doesn’t like being told what to do.

This comment has nothing to do with the content of the article. You’re posing in a community to discuss politics in general. If you have an issue with any particular point the article makes, feel free to explain.

I personally agree with the perspective that we shouldn’t elect people who make claims about infectious disease which are easily refuted by science.

Kennedy this week drew backlash for asserting without evidence that COVID-19 was “ethnically targeted” — a claim infectious disease and ethics experts refuted. Kennedy was caught on video by a reporter saying Chinese people and Ashkenazi Jews were not targeted as much as other races, including Black and white people.

Assuming you meant the part about adding a label. Sorry, I missed that one. Updated the title to what I think should comply.

National party leaders for the first time acknowledged Kennedy’s disruptive presidential bid with sharp criticism…

It’s a notable change from their previous approach, in which Democratic leaders and party officials hoped Kennedy would simply fade away on his own.

I don’t know why they would think ignoring him was ever the way to go. Have they learned nothing? I understand the inclination to avoid giving him any extra attention, but ignoring the problem does not make it go away. We’ve seen how radical speech gets attention nowadays.

Then again, nothing democrats say will change the trajectory of his campaign. His followers do not care whether or not what he says is true or anti-semetic so long as it agrees with their world view.

I grieve for our country.

They literally tried to postpone it until after November 2024. The DOJ wanted to start in December this year. Canon seems to have split the difference.

All completely missing the irony that forced speech is antithetical to free speech that patriots love so much.

They don’t care about the users who are making a fuss. In fact, they want those users to leave. They want the complacent social media users who can be easily monitized.

It isn’t “arbitrary” though. ActivityPub is just a baseline protocol that supports interoperability. Apps like Lemmy and Kbin build upon that framework, but also implement their own unique features and interfaces.

There’s definitely value to being able to specifically search for Lemmy instances or things coming from Lemmy as much as any other fediverse app. But to your point, that could be handled through a filter on a much larger whatever set of data.

The stance from this author sounds like someone who doesn’t want to have a dozen social media accounts. If only there was a way to have one account that could participate across a wide variety of sites. We could call it… The togethercosmos!

Is this particular individual the unfit mother?

They simply don’t care. They don’t see the problem with it, and no matter how you explain it, privacy is just never a priority for these people.