clonedhuman

I find, as time goes on, that more and more sites are breaking over relatively minimal privacy protections in my browser.

OH NO THIS IS THE SOCIALISMS!!!!!111

Everyone knows this is all bullshit, right?

Continuing the long trend of major tech companies making everything they touch worse.

A lot of these articles that specify one particular group (whether by age, race, or whatever) facing hardships with employment often fail to mention that it's EVERYONE facing hardships with employment.You could probably say something like 'Adult men who dress as babies summer employment headed for its worst year...' or any other subset of humanity in the U.S.

This is a systemic problem, not an identity-based one (unless you're already rich and connected).

lol what

Billionaires are eating everything.

Soon the entire internet will be custom made for the most stupid people among us.

Holy shit

There are some decent FOSS VoIP platforms already. I'm just waiting for one that will register phone numbers like Google Voice does.

Reading a book is like letting someone else think with your brain.

This can be good.

It can also be bad.

The best part is that we can choose which books we read.

Is this about ublock origin?

I didn't click on it. I don't think I want to. I bet it's about ublock origin because I don't see any ads on any websites already.

Yeah. It's all about what changes, what doesn't, and when and where those changes occur. Stability and novelty.

AI bots already make up a significant percentage of users on most social networks. Might as well just take the mask off completely--soon, we'll all be having conversations (arguments, most likely) with 'users' with no real human anywhere near them.

Part of the problem here is that you're abstracting the actions of a handful of relatively powerless people to a principle: "People whose opinion I don't like can be banned from society." The 'I' here is, from your framing, the 'left' or something.

Strawman. The fired people you're talking about weren't banned from society by the people pointing them out on the internet. If someone's on an international flight yelling racial slurs and causing a commotion, and someone else publishes video of that person yelling racial slurs on an international flight, it's not the people commenting on the video who fired that person from their job. It's their employers. What would be the alternative? No one takes video of the person yelling racial slurs? Or, if the video is posted, no one comments on it? Or, maybe, the person yelling racial slurs could simply avoid losing their employment by not yelling racial slurs on a flight full of people with their phones out? Or maybe the employer could choose to ignore the negative publicity and keep the person on staff despite the risk to their revenue? Who exactly is the responsible party here?

I generally find it pointless to point out that 'right' perspectives suffer from a lack of practical logic--pointing out the fundamental irrationality of a position rarely changes the mind of the person holding that position. But, your position ignores power differential between people--your argument is a matter of 'principle,' but this isn't fundamentally about principles.

Is your argument then that a person yelling racial slurs on a full airplane shouldn't have their employment threatened by their behavior? That their employer shouldn't fire them?