thirtyfold8625

Regardless, there is a contrast between how I have interpreted the article and how I feel about the page as a whole.

The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech.

a global wave of age-check laws threatens to chill speech

You’ve read your last free article.

I expect that they mean to express that they were not engaged with any political system in the past and don’t expect to engage with any party that already exists. It might also express that they will disengage from politics when they determine that they can stop addressing this particular issue (whether that is because the issue was solved or not). Perhaps it helps to be “not tainted by government or mainstream parties’ scandals” (or vice versa).

Consider your audience. “You are part of the problem” (meaning “I am the enemy of the person reading these words”) is probably not what you wanted to communicate. “Collective Shout is part of the problem” (meaning “The person reading these words should help to neutralize Collective Shout”) probably is. Addressing someone that you don’t want to engage in “diplomacy” with is probably a bad idea. You might want to use words such that you address people who you want to cooperate with.

Alternatively, one could go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Tankard_Reist#Video_games

It seems that what was available at https://dubvee.org/post/3788765 is available at https://kbin.earth/m/announcements@dubvee.org/t/1605451/Shutting-Down-on-July-31-This-fediverse-experiment-was-a still.

I don’t think that anyone should be “humiliated”. If someone expresses an idea, it’s likely that they are making use of that idea in their life (or that a reader might start using that idea in their life), so if you think their idea is harmful, it’s surely better to provide an alternative idea rather than only question their dignity. Expressing that someone should “come back when they are better educated” makes me think that you want people to stop making comments as frequently and to read comments more often than they did before. I think that reading more comments can be helpful, but suggesting that someone should avoid commenting deprives us of an opportunity to understand that person better, and if we want to cooperate with someone, it would be better to have a better understanding of them (and if we don’t cooperate with someone, we will probably have to compete with them: “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will”). The only reason I know of to stop engaging with someone is if they’re acting in bad faith: if someone is trying to distract you by trying to get you to make uninteresting comments instead of allowing your attention to be focused on something more productive, it’d be a help to other people to make that clear. In essence, this is “trolling”. Something like Bluesky lists might be useful in that situation. I don’t see how targeting someone to “dump on” is helpful: that seems like a distraction from more productive activities, which is probably exactly what a “troll” wants. I suspect that the best “consequence” in response to harm is to start ignoring someone and to make it easier for other people to ignore that person.

I haven’t had any notably negative experiences while using the Fediverse. Even in cases when someone makes an “aggressive” reply to a comment of mine, if I ask a follow-up question, most people respond genuinely, so I often end up having a productive and enjoyable conversation. The situation is probably different when someone is really mad at you: if someone makes dozens of accounts to spam messages and downvotes, that would be really annoying and would make it more difficult to use the Fediverse productively, and I’ve seen reports of that happening to several people (and that might be what happened to the maintainer of Tesseract). Handling that situation would probably be harder to deal with than while using a centralized service since someone could use various servers to target one person, so there might not be one person who can handle all the spam. Reddit probably has a system to automatically block ingenuine downvotes and spam messages (especially if a particular person is receiving a lot of them), but I’m not sure that the Fediverse has an automatic system to achieve the same results, so it might be down to an administrator or a group of administrators to manually detect disruptive accounts/users. In consideration of how a typical person would view typical Fediverse comments, they would probably be put off by how they are probably more political and violent in nature when compared to those from other services. I’ve seen several comments that quite explicitly expressed “rich people should be killed”, and I’ve seen that at least one was removed by a moderator/administrator. Such comments surely do more harm than good: most people surely prefer to talk to people who aren’t calling for violence and are generally civil. To help with this, it’s probably good to report comments that are outright violent or that would be of interest to an administrator and to downvote “aggressive” comments so that people are more likely to be able to peruse comments without having a bad experience. In general, it’s surely a good thing to provide comments that engage with a post/comment in good faith so that people have something/someone that they can enjoy interacting with, but I don’t often have a thought that is coherent enough to be worth sharing, so I don’t expect this to happen very often.

Dorsey’s new open source messaging app, Bitchat Bluetooth-based

Does that already exist? https://www.privacyguides.org/en/real-time-communication/#briar I’m not sure how “decentralized” it is, but it is probably at least somewhat decentralized.

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor has lost access to his email, and his bank accounts have been frozen.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/trumps-sanctions-on-iccs-chief-prosecutor-have-halted-tribunals-work-officials-and-lawyers-say

I currently see this URL provided by https://thebrainbin.org/u/@Pro@programming.dev and it is not identical: https://us.afpnews.com/article/?were-done-with-teams-german-state-hits-uninstall-on-microsoft,49PM3G2

This seems to be the same article, but uses a URL that doesn’t lead to a page that is essentially blank for me: https://us.afpnews.com/article/?were-done-with-teams-german-state-hits-uninstall-on-microsoft,49PM3G2

For real-time communication, the most suitable solutions are probably documented around https://www.privacyguides.org/en/real-time-communication/ (note that email is not recommended for person-to-person conversations).

When do you think you should allow a child to have an email address? A Fediverse account is basically an email account, except that the primary inbox is shared with a lot of people rather than only one person (and the same goes for any social media account). If you wouldn’t allow someone to use an email address, you probably shouldn’t allow them to use a Fediverse account either.

At least one person who seems interested in the health of children expressed that “delaying children’s access to smartphones until high school and social media platforms until 16” is a good idea. https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/ https://jonathanhaidt.com/social-media/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0MXgA2sSn8

Are you saying that some functionality is not federated but some functionality is?

I suppose my main problem is lack of meaningful decentralization. I prefer to use networks that allow me to contact people using a local public Wi-Fi service or someone’s home internet connection, and I believe it would be expensive or impossible to do that using ATProto without depending on infrastructure maintained by Bluesky.

https://www.privacyguides.org/en/desktop-browsers/

Bluesky and ATProto are not meaningfully decentralized, and are not federated either.

https://www.privacyguides.org/en/vpn/

This seems to be a general overview of (the history of) Bluesky, rather than being focused on “nontoxic social media”

Maybe the author meant to express, “Regardless, if the global system of interconnected computer networks is functioning properly and you have a connection to it, you can host a document on the web.” since a “global system” and “your connection to it” are separate things, and either can have a problem while the other does not have a problem. That’s me being charitable though, and I agree that it’s more likely that they were being redundant.

I also find it interesting that the original sentences reference “the internet” (with a lowercase “i”) rather than “the Internet”. “The word is sometimes still capitalized to distinguish the global internet from smaller networks”, so it’s interesting that the author might be referencing an internet that is not global rather than a global network. They probably are referencing “the Internet” though, since “many publications, including the AP Stylebook since 2016, recommend the lowercase form in every case”.