Technology

So it's ok to say that zuckerfucker developed mental illnesses due to excessive zoophile orgies

Fuck Mark Zuckerberg, evil motherfucker.

Rich men have a mental illness and are weird.

Accelerationism is ultimately burning the vulnerable at the stake to try and send a smoke signal, so I think it's hard to say that this is a positive development. We can hope that there is a silver lining here where corporate social media self selects itself out of the general populations' lives, but I think we probably have to be realistic about the low probability of success here and the human cost that is incurred in the meantime

Could?

Wonder how much longer you'll be able to question the impact professional gambling has on the outcome of UFC matches.

It’s America, love and understanding are not things we do here.

Let’s for a second assume it is a mental illness, how does that make the people feel who are experiencing it? Do they feel loved and understood?

"Hate the sin, love the sinner" has been the historical approach far-right evangelicals use to gull parents into conversation therapy for their kids.

Conservatives have adopted much of the same liberalish compassionate language up top and horrifyingly brutal physical, emotional, and sexual abuse on the back end for drug rehabilitation and prison reform.

The American idea of love and understanding is to brainwash them into compliance with social norms, while insisting the torture they're inflicting is a kindness.

I've encountered people disagreeing with ASD ending with D, because people are born, live and die autistic, and also autistic people usually understand each other well enough, it's with non-autistic people where their communication impairment shows, mostly. And rigidity of thought, sensory issues and such can be arguably considered difference, not impairment.

So yes, "mental illness" is an unpleasant thing to say, especially about things which are not developed and treated during one's life.

But this is simply not what the issue is about.

The issue is about moderation of social platforms, that one must choose between "the platform" moderating content by this or that policy.

But in fact this is all gaslighting, bullshit, scam. Because in the era of web forums there were no platforms at all, and moderation was still a thing. Due to bigger load on moderators and those being from the not so huge number of active users of some forum, moderator's rights could be customized very precisely, say, certain kind of discussion certain Alice can be trusted to moderate, and some other kind of discussion not really (due to having a strong opinion), or maybe there's Bob who can be allowed to make warnings and approve new registrations, but can't be allowed to delete messages and ban users.

I wish our government actually regulated these corporations so they are not able to have a tentacle in so many essential technologies.

All of the symptoms of the crushing power of techbro oligarchs are directly tied to failures of govt to regulate.

Every journey needs a first step.

Try to convince some of your contacts to use something else. Repeat until a large chunk of your contacts are available outside WhatsApp, and make yourself increasingly harder to access through WhatsApp and increasingly easier to access on your preferred alternative.

Never has been:

According to the text messages, Zuckerberg wrote, "Yeah, so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard, just ask me. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS."

In response, a friend inquired, "What? How did you manage to obtain all that?"

To which Zuckerberg callously replied, "People just submitted it. I don't know why they 'trust me.' Dumb f****."