STOPπ
USINGπ
XITTERπ
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
531 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
60035 readers
2898 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Maybe we need a Twitter bot. An open source one that many people can run. Use all of the dormant accounts to just constantly remind people that millions have left and they should also.
Like that person in a dream who keeps telling you to wake up
Xit aka exit? So exitter?
Thankfully I never started using it enough to care about deleting my account.
My wife on the other hand... π
The fact that we have so much of our politics in a private company is dangerous.
Musk has the power AND ability to post tweets as if they were from any of the candidates.
Not as a sock puppet. But as them directly.
This is a dangerous ability.
I hadn't considered that. He couldn't get away with it now, but if the orange bad gets back into power and we go full-fash, I definitely think it'd be used against "enemies."
He very much could get away with it now. None of the candidates, as far as I'm aware, have a public key published and none of them have any way of verifying that the tweet is from the account holder.
Sure a tweet from Kamala saying, "I believe we should execute all illegals" might be an easy one.
But think of this more subtle tweet: "The United States believes in the sovereignty of all recognized nations."
We need our politicians to stop using Twitter for official communications.
is this legal in US? that sounds absurd.
and is it legal for a judge to be involved in business?
Legal for the judge to be involved in a business yes. Not ethical for the judge to make rulings about that business but that requires ethics and morals and thanks to Rs even the US Supreme Court doesn't have that.
Below scotus level theoretically judges can censure other judges but idk that process.
and thanks to Rs even the US Supreme Court doesn't have that.
This is why it's so vital to vote. Trump nominated (and got elected) six of the seventeen Fifth Circuit members, the most of any president from Reagan onward for that particular court. GW Bush and Reagan nominated five combined.
The president we elect will get to essentially decide who gets to be in which federal court. So much is at stake, as the judiciary threatens to rot from the top down.
The 3 Supreme Court appointments Trump got (ACB, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch)in his one term was also just shy of Reagan's 4 (william rehnquist to chief, Sandra day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy). Bush jr replaced rehnquist and Sandra with current shitstains John Roberts, and Samuel Alito.
'member checks and balances? America sure doesn't.
This is the US we're talking about; if you've clicked the EULA, it's probably legal for the X janitor to kill you and wear your face as a mask.
Worry about that later. There aren't any consequences for this guy anymore, why should he fuss over legality? If shit gets real ugly just buy a president.
There's a common thing known as "judge shopping". The big wigs and those with enough money can ensure that a trial goes to a court in an area that is likely to be favorable to their interests.
For example, if a company is going to court because of something environmental or anti-worker, they'll try to get the court session held in a conservative jurisdiction.
Some judges are elected some are appointed.
Valve did it first, but to be fair, they had a slightly wider net of just King County courts in general.
I fucking hate Musk, but its interesting to compare and contrast the responses here:
Valve: So amazing and pro-consumer, they got rid of forced arbitration!
Xitter: Is this even legal??
I mean, what Musk is doing is arguably much more insidious because his company isn't actually in that courts district, while Valve is firmly in King County (Bellevue). Still, curious to see such strongly different responses.
People don't care about facts, but feelings. Valve executives don't give a shit about people either and Valve is extremely anti-consumer half of the time, but people love them because feelings.
The number of people who don't realize that half the time Valve has done anything pro-consumer is because they were forced to do so to comply with laws is too damn high. They're definitely not doing most of it out of the kindness of their hearts.
What's your take on what valve has done for linux gaming and how much off it is open source?
That's purely profit driven. The biggest difference to other corporations is that they're privately owned, meaning they can pursue long-term strategies instead of short-term ones. Publicly traded companies have to pursue short term strategies because otherwise investors get itchy and want to sell. Doing something that costs money and will yield results in ten years is a big no-no for publicly traded companies.
Everyone and their mother who makes any computer has to pay money to Microsoft because they put Windows on it. There are only a few outliers, most notably Apple and a few vendors who put Linux or no OS in there.
Valve doesn't pay them shit, meaning they can sell the device cheaper, thus getting more customers. That's the immediate gain. When you provide a gaming OS that you want to offer to others, you're also the one getting paid for providing support. That's the long term profit.
And through it all, as a nice bonus, they stopped being reliant on a single vendor and gained unbelievably great PR from a group of gamers.
True, forgot about that. Anyway, if you want a truly pro-consumer gaming, go to GOG. Not because the company is the best in the world, but because you buy the game, get the game files and you can do whatever with them (not in the legal sense, but who cares).
A number of games on GOG have DRM now. They've also said they'd work on Linux support and that they'd open source Galaxy, but never did.
Nobody is clean.
A number of games on GOG have DRM now
Not single-player ones. Online multi-player itself is kind of a DRM and there really is no way to make it otherwise. Not for a company of GOG size, anyway. And I'd argue that even if Steam made some forced open-server requirement, they would be abandoned fairly quickly.
Theyβve also said theyβd work on Linux support and that theyβd open source Galaxy, but never did.
As I said, not because the company is the best, but because you have access to the game files and can do whatever. I'm under no illusion that they are perfect, but IMO the no-DRM-installers are the single most consumer-friendly move any game store has done. And no one forces them to.
Not single-player ones.
Incorrect.
They've had DRM in single player games on GOG. Hitman was a DRM game on GOG. Cyberpunk had a lot of DRM-lilocked items in game. They retroactively updated Witcher 3 with the same DRM crap.
because you have access to the game files and can do whatever
So long as the game is DRM free, which it isn't always on GOG anymore, yes.
Although that doesn't absolve them of lying about their intent to support Linux or their promise to open source their Galaxy client.
LOL I hope someone destroys Twitter and he goes bankrupt.
I hope someone destroys Twitter
Melon Husk is trying his hardest to make that happen. For some reason people are still using it though.
But my friends are all on there! βThe excuse I hear most often
The other one is:
I'm still on there to throw sand into the gears of the alt-right propaganda machine.
As if the literal dictator of the platform is scared of some mean tweets. SMH
I saw something a couple days ago where someone said they tried switching to Mastodon but they missed their thousands of followers from Twitter.
It's like, have a fucking backbone. Someone has to lead the way.
For real. If they have that many followers, they should tell the followers to move with them, ffs. Tell them which instance you're joining, and while I bet they'd lose some, they'd probably succeed in moving a sizeable portion, and those people would be their real fans anyway.
Considering how many mean tweets he's just blocked people for or erased, he apparently is?
He's not, or he'd change his behavior. As it stands, he can unilaterally ban anyone for any reason, real or imagined.
Him banning or blocking people isn't fear, it's a demonstration of power.
Seems like a reasonable state for steer lawsuits
I would like to steer all my lawsuits to Interdimensionella where all plaintiffs are summarily executed on the spot.
I'd steer all the lawsuits to /dev/null instead.
That's not how that works, Rat.
The law works the way I pay it to.
-Rat
Please don't insult the rats, they're good little critters
The article cited multiple Supreme Court cases that establish precedent, so it just might be how it works.
Donβt ever let conservatives tell you they donβt appreciate fashion. The pride they take in their heels and hats are telling.
It's a fucking shame that he has more money than god and couldn't get someone to help him pick out a cowboy hat that would fit his face. Or tell him when it's backwards. Or have it properly shaped. Or have it customized in any way.
I have no issue with someone wearing a cowboy hat who has never been near a ranch. I have no issue with people who don't know what to do with one but want to wear one. They're practical and can be stylish. I have a huge issue with someone who can afford to have an army of image consultants wearing it incorrectly to pander to idiots who are too cowardly to call him out on it.