It is unfortunate that a great part of the internet enshittified so intensely and rapidly. Spez appears to be a bad person, it is also unfortunate that so many people refuse to migrate to better platforms. Let’s not make our whole identities being mad about it.

Is “So much for the tolerant meth” not already perfect?

Okay yeah, now that you’ve said it I can see that too XD

If you squint this is a weird shrine to a fictional marriage between Elvis and Britney Spears

1. Don’t use SSDs for a server…
2. They make SATA M2 adapters
3. Seriously are you putting sata SSDs in your NAS? Don’t…

An online message board is a type of social media yes. The Wikipedia definition seems solid:

“Social media are new media technologies that facilitate the creation, sharing and aggregation of content (such as ideas, interests, and other forms of expression) amongst virtual communities and networks.”

Other people are unjustly over incarcerated isn’t a reason to over incarcerate more people

Again

Did a questionable but overblown refusal to address Palestine/Israel, and followed the algorithm to do documentary style content which is much less followable by a lot of people. Not aware of anything else.

What!?

So many companies and environmental damage just to get investors to dump money into terrible ideas.

Lol they don’t care, they don’t follow precedent, that is one of the major reasons they are winning so decisively.

Huh? Why not?

Most likely what the minor did to need to be physically restrained is covered by privacy laws.

I do a peanut butter vanilla oatmeal fiber meal smoothie in lieu of breakfast. It’s tasty and filling and slows my digestion down for the rest of the day. It’s a custom recipe mostly.

Tell me you’ve never been a professional driver without telling me.

I do not believe for a second that the two things are objectively equal, saying they’re the same kind of thing doesn’t make them the same thing. Just because you are claiming to not be able to tell the difference between two kinds of “hateful speech” does not mean there isn’t an objective difference. This is the same kind of nonsense free speech absolutism argument you see ad nauseum online, that you either can’t have consequences for any kind of speech or live with consequences for all kinds of speech. It’s nonsense and usually isn’t even in good faith.

There is a difference between a political commentator who makes their living spreading rhetoric that is hateful to the countries government and is travelling with the intention of spreading that rhetoric directly and some random travelling for leisure who said some shit on social media that was hateful to the countries government. There is also something to be said for if the rhetoric is actually causing measurable harm to large numbers of people vs if the rhetoric maybe hurt a handful of peoples feelings or seemed embarrassing to the administration.

No but we can make them significantly less effective, less rapid and less legitimate.

That would require the democrats to act as an actual opposition party, which they have basically never done.

EDIT: I apologize, I must make a correction, the democrat party did act as an actual opposition party from approximately 1861 until the early 20th century, but I don’t think anyone should cite that as a proud example.