I read the article, but nothing can convince me the discord execs aren’t purely thinking of how ways to further enshittify.

It applies. The Microsoft requirements are different than the standard requirements. Stricter in some ways, but more lenient in others.

It’s like Infinite Jest, just an alternate timeline.

He’s not saying this because he has influence with Microsoft directly. He’s doing it because he’s Brian Eno and he will be heard, and because of the respect he’s earned amongst his peers, he will be heard by people with even louder voices. So Microsoft and other companies and consumers will hear. Hopefully with enough acts like this, companies are shamed enough that it affects their bottom lines enough that they stop supporting genocide.

I have a lifetime nebula. I’m probably about 2/3 of the way to it being positive value, but it’s such a good service that I don’t mind.

I really wish dropout had a lifetime option.

This is a big hit to gaming. Polygon was a reliable source and employed a lot of knowledgeable and passionate writers and creators. It had its critics because it didn’t cater to gamergate, but for most of us that was a good thing.

Valnet has blown up many sites before to make unreliable content farms. They practically invented the business.

I hope the laid off writers at Polygon are able to make something like 404media.

I’m confident leadership whipped the votes hard on this one, probably as a futile show of unity. That’s where the blame lies.

It would indeed be nice to see a few democrats resisting attacks on the constitution and such but in the house a small number of voices cannot block legislation like in the senate.

I would also like to hear an explanation from AOC just to understand the politics of not acting as the singular democratic “no” vote here. But I’m not going to hold her to task given the obvious failure of leadership.

Right? Imagine being the white man chosen to go to the moon based on skin color and gender, knowing that more qualified astronauts had been passed up and that you are effectively propaganda. That would not be a great moment.

There is bad clickbait out there and we do have to remain skeptical. So much is actively harmful.

To dismiss good content because it seeks an audience is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Indeed, by dismissing higher quality content as clickbait you can unintentionally elevate the true clickbait by putting them on the same level. I’m sure you don’t intend this.

Headlines, titles, thumbs don’t really matter if the content is valuable. This video really was pretty good! I’d rather 14 y/o nerds or whoever watch this than some SpaceX worship or whatever other similar junk might be out there.

An important part of media literacy is understanding sources and context. This YouTube creator is anything but clickbait on the topic of orbital mechanics.

Yeah for sure. And regardless, I know some great security engineers who are ADHD.

It’s yet another systemic issue, reflective of wider systemic issues. It’s not helpful to place the blame or demands on individuals.

In 10 it was possible to turn it all off and leave it off. In 11 it’s almost impossible to do so.

This seems unfairly dismissive of someone who’s proved themselves time and again. The article might not be about what you wish it was about but it’s insightful about the topic it covers.

In that case, I suggest you stop throwing dirt at GN.

Activity Pub is a very popular way to decentralize.

With political uncertainty around centralized meteorological data infrastructure, it makes sense to continue the process of decentralization. The underlying APIs can be changed in the future if needed.

Peer review is false security, so much bad and fraudulent science gets through, but due to the stamp of authority people are less skeptical. Additionally it’s harder to publish good science.

There’s a lot of people who understand this better than me who can explain it. Here’s one starting point. https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

Forbes, for many years, has been mostly written by freelance bloggers. Some is very high quality (some is not) but it’s not like an editor in a newsroom is asking for these stories.

They have journalists on staff still but they write a minority of what Forbes publishes online.

Not to defend Google because they violate privacy in many ways, but they absolutely do not share that level of data with partners. This is not some ethical decision. The data is just far too valuable to Google. Google is extracting as much value as they can from users, advertisers, and publishers, and if they sold access to the data itself, publishers and advertisers could begin cutting out Google. Instead Google gives advertisers a lot of control over what users to target, and uses the data inside a black box to show those ads.

Google is hoarding your data and using it to show you ads with minimal built-in opt-outs. But they aren’t sell your data.

They also have a book about human evolution. 😵