Removed by mod

In what world is suggesting one army should attack another army not a “call to violence”?

Your rulings are just complete nonsense. There’s no consistency. You’re just applying it based on your own whims. One of which seems, based on how you’re applying it, to be “genocide is ok when it’s done to brown people”.

So is saying “Ukrainian should beat the Russian army” “removable”, then?

Speaking of Russian propaganda, is saying “Russian soldiers invading Ukraine should be killed” also bannable?

anyone should be killing anyone else

Or, apparently, causing property damage 🤦‍♂️

But we’re not talking about killing people. We’re talking about killing an organisation. If someone had said “death to Apple”, that is not the same as “death to Tim Cook and all his employees”.

Wait, you can’t even say a group should be eliminated? Not even people, but a group‽

Is “defund the police” also a bannable offence now?

So I take it then, that any comment even vaguely in support of Israel will be removed as against the TOS? Because surely advocating in favour of genocide, even indirectly, is far worse than criticising the organisation actually committing that genocide?

Running shirts tend to be made of nylon or polyester. Unfortunately I tend to hang on to my clothes a very long time so all the tags are worn away and I can’t check, but I’m pretty sure all my running shirts are one of those.

Cotton is particularly bad because it chafes and it hangs on to sweat rather than wicking it away.

Of natural fibres, you probably want wool. I’ve particularly heard good things about merino wool. But avoid cotton for running.

Fuck that is an awesome design.

Shame it (a) appears to be cotton (not the material I want to be running in), and (b) is sold out.

Happy cake day!

They didn’t even do the most basic of work to attempt to put forward a front of journalistic integrity. They didn’t give Vylan a chance to respond to the article.

Why is the open source Chromium ranked worse than Google Chrome? Like sure, it’s not gonna go very high, but it deserves better than that.

Yeah I think this one became particularly tricky and wormed its way into a lot of people’s minds even who would otherwise be wary of it, because even Labor and the Greens stood in favour of it (with some minor tweaks), due to poor tech literacy.

Happy cake day!

I’d be happy for the Australian government to take them to task over this one. But I’m afraid you’ve fallen for Murdoch propaganda with the journalism thing.

They weren’t “using our journalism”. They provide a direct benefit to the news organisations. It’s a mostly symbiotic relationship, with people going to Google and Facebook because it’s a good way to find news that interests them, and news organisations being funnelled traffic directly to them for free. But honestly, if money should be flowing in any direction, it’s to Google and Meta. The financial benefit for news organisations of the existing relationship is far greater for news organisations than it is for Google and Meta. People would still be Googling things and sharing on Facebook even if news didn’t make up part of that.

Jeff Jarvis is a great thinker and communicator in this space, and he moderates a great discussion on the topic here. About 34 minutes into the video they hear from a QUT professor who is pretty scathing towards the NMBC.

I remember spending hours tinkering with Linux in my bedroom as a kid

I feel like the environment of subject-specific forums and IRC chat that Millennial geeks grew up with is very different from the centralised, generic, algorithm-driven social media that Gen Z grew up with, and non-geeky Millennials, Gen X, and Boomers adopted in the late aughts & '10s. That was really the best of what social media could do, with far fewer of the unhealthy downsides.

Late last year Australia passed a ban for the use of social media of under-16s. In principle I think this is a really good idea.

Unfortunately they rushed it through without any thought as to how it would actually work in terms of age verification. It’s now been 6 months, which means we’re 6 months away from when it’s supposed to come into effect, and we still don’t have any idea how it’s actually supposed to work. But the principle behind it: the idea that social media is actually really not healthy for our brains, especially at a young and vulnerable age, is a sound one. And there’s only more and more research coming out to support that.

Omg thanks for linking that thread. The amount of removed and deleted content on Lemmy is so frustrating. I hate the fact that removed or deleted posts also completely nuke all the comments on it.

Reddit’s approach is so much better in this respect. A removed post removed the OP’s text, but if it’s a link post the link remains, and all the comments remain.

Reread the comment you replied to. Not one word of it was in there accidentally.

Oh yes, that’s a very good point, actually. That actually seems such a fundamental use case that you could almost justify it being available without a permission.

Maybe, but I’d like to see a concrete example of how they are “designed to talk to each other” that couldn’t be achieved by the extension just reading the DOM.