elpool2

The key thing reddit has is subreddits. Maybe they could be implemented using BlueSky's custom feeds?

I use the old.reddit desktop mode on my phone. I can see 20 stories at once compared to 4 on the normal mobile layout (The text is small but still pretty readable). The minute they get rid of old reddit I'll probably just stop using the site.

I don't understand this "can't have it both ways" argument. Moderation on social media is a good thing, it would be less usable without it. It's also good that people can post their thoughts to the world without a bunch of pre-approval by platforms to make sure it's legal (which would be nearly impossible to do well anyway). I also don't see any reason why platforms should be liable for things their users post. The person who posted it should be to blame, as they have the most direct responsibility for it. Overall I see section 230 as mostly beneficial without much downside at all, and the results have been incredibly positive.

Courts shouldn't decide cases based on the viability of a business model, but we can certainly write laws for those reasons.

I don't think so. 230 protects them from liability for the video, and 1A protects them from liability for the recommendation. It would be hard to argue that a recommendation isn't speech.

I can buy this argument. But in practice how much does it matter? It's not illegal to say "you may like this terrorist recruitment video", especially when its just a generic recommendation algorithm making that recommendation.

Yeah but you can't pretend this case had nothing to do with section 230. The question in the petition before the court was "Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations".

It's unclear to me if this only covers "check out mycompany.com for alternative payment options" links, or if your link could be a "Purchase Now" button that goes right to a payment form. If the latter is also allowed, then you could set up a pretty frictionless experiences that completely bypasses paying the 30% Apple tax.

I helped my kid put together a lego kit recently that did something interesting. It was a spaceship but the instructions were kind of a story, and there were parts where it just went “ok, now it needs to go faster, what can you add to do that?”, and there were lots of extra pieces (wings, boosters, other spaceshippy things) to allow for a bit of extra creativity. My kid loved it.

The HiSense TV they recommend underneath "Buy a new TV but don’t connect it to Wi-Fi" is NOT a good choice if you're not going to use wi-fi. It will regularly cut away from whatever you're currently watching and ask you to finish setting up the Google assistant thing. Or sometimes it will audibly say "I'm sorry, I can't find you're wifi connection.." at random times, even though you never attempted to enable wi-fi. There is no way to turn these features off.

When you unlock an item in a battle-pass, you have to hold down the button for about a second to unlock it (and there's a little progress bar animation as it unlocks). This is great! it makes it much harder to accidentally unlock the wrong thing with a single button press. The downside to a wrong click is pretty negligible though, you're probably going to unlock everything in the battle-pass eventually anyway.

But in the "store" part of the app, where you're purchasing things with the "v-bucks" in-game currency (which you've paid actual money for), the purchase was just a single button press. It was very easy to accidentally purchase when instead you meant to press the "back" or "preview item" button. Only recently did they change this to use the same "hold for 1 second" pattern already used in the battle-pass.

If you purchased something in-game with "v-bucks" then you can get your v-bucks back if you still haven't actually used the item in a game yet, or if it was purchased in the last 30 days (up to 3 times). They don't usually refund actual money, as far as I can tell.

It is not pay-to-win. There is no way to use actual money to improve your chances of winning. The only things you can buy are cosmetics, and there are no randomized lootbox/gambling mechanics.

There have been some cosmetics that give a slight advantage (blending in with the background too much), but they're pretty good about updating these to reduce the impact they have. Basically, those articles are complaining about the game being pay-to-win by accident.

Don't get me wrong though. Fortnite does use the psychological tricks described in the video to make you want to buy things, and I'm sure the tricks are very effective at separating kids from their money, so he's not entirely off the mark. I just think it's a bit better than most free-to-play games, and it would have been fair to also call out some of the tricks that Fortnite won't do. I play the game and I feel like I've gotten way more enjoyment out of it than the $10 I spent on a battle pass.

But maybe this is just an indication of how much worse it's gotten in the 3 years since the video was made?

That video on Fortnite seemed a little unfair to me. It's not nearly as bad as the pay-to-win ilk like this Mario Kart game.

There are people who would like the government to outlaw racism/hate speech on social media. The first amendment prevents that. I think r3trohack3r's point is that eroding those 1st amendment rights to outlaw hate speech would be worse than the actual hate speech.

The version with temp variables is also easier to debug.

This is the quote they're referencing:

NATALIE WYNN (the mind behind Control Points, a left wing YouTube channel) I do think that looking at 8Chan is a pretty good case study in what happens when you create a "okay, let's just let people say anything." People are posting child pornography to this website on a fairly frequent basis.

I think you're right. "On the media" was just talking about how having an "anything goes" policy leads to a place where nobody wants to hang out, where people post illegal stuff even though its technically not allowed. Which I think is valid when Musk has previously said Twitter should allow anything legal.

<< You saying 'flat earthers' just picked up their toys and went away is, however, a lie. I am just calling it out.

Do you have evidence of this? I'm not aware of any major deplatforming of flat earthers. There are still flat earth subreddits. Most people seem to think they're stupid and worthy of ridicule but ultimately not that harmful.

Inter Miami FC, the new MLS club owned by David Beckham, uses light pink as a primary color (the only other primary color is black).

It's the difference between a movie critic who carefully critiques movies honestly and one that decides to write a negative review before even seeing the movie. Both of them are being "critical", but in very different ways. I think the NYT probably wanted to be the former but drifted into becoming the latter.

It only matters when you're trying to determine if Musk or someone else at Twitter actually un-banned or un-twitter-jailed someone. If the account was merely restricted then it's possible the account owner themselves did whatever is required to un-restrict their own account (i.e., deleted some offending tweet).

It seems like even if they rule that 230 doesn’t protect this recommended content then it would still be protected by the first amendment (youtube videos unlikely to be “imminent” enough to qualify as incitement).

So what would happen then? Content is still protected by 230, but only if there's no recommendation algorithm, but what about an algorithm that only culls content from an otherwise chronological timeline?

Why would you think that? The law (230) has no requirement that moderation be non-partisan. Or are you making an argument about what the law should be?

I agree, but this is Gonzalez v. Google, which has nothing to do with the Texas law.

It seems like even if they rule that 230 doesn’t protect this recommended content then it would still be protected by the first amendment (youtube videos unlikely to be “imminent” enough to qualify as incitement).

As I understand it, this doesn’t mean rap lyrics can’t ever be used as evidence. It’s still up to a judge’s discretion, this law just provides guidance on how judges should make that call. Such that if the lyrics aren’t really relevant to the case and are only the sort of exaggerated bluster common to the genre then they will be deemed more likely to just prejudice the jury and can be excluded from evidence.

Depends on where you are I think. At my kids soccer games I see lots of coaches and dads wearing Sounders gear.

I also tried "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" but I got back "The brown fox raped the dog quickly".

I see this as basically just making amends for the failures of the PSLF program. This is for the folks who made years of payments expecting to get loan forgiveness after 10 years as promised, only to then be told none of the payments counted because they didn’t read the fine print or simply because of the loan servicer’s incompetence.

What bothers me is that you can already avoid paying the 30% to Apple by using a 3rd party payment processor. You just can’t tell your customers about that option or link to it. So it’s not really a commission on buying digital goods or on use of the App Store. I get that Apple can come up with whatever arbitrary fee structure they want, but when it becomes so divorced from the value you’re actually getting in return it starts to feel pretty anti-competitive.

But the whole point of a sick out is to send a message. I've never heard of a sick out that didn't at least have employees going "oh yeah I'm real 'sick' <wink wink>".