Violence must be organized and accountable to be just. Non-violence is always preferred, and is always the initial approach.

But if there is a credible threat, defensive violence is OK as long as whoever is being violent accepts whatever accountability may come.

I’m conflicted about it, but the fact is one reason the US has been so successful in leading the world in relative peace (as compared to WWII and before, not compared to the ideal) is because we have so much capacity for violence in our back pocket.

“Talk softly and carry a big stick.”

Hmmm maybe we should ignore #1 and focus on #5 then

This is Zuck’s characterisation. No direct quotes. No attachments (that I’ve seen). He calls it pressure. He says they wanted to censor “satire & humor.” In fact this BS letter is what the original article quoted.

If Mastodon wins out in the long run the only reason will be persistence.

All these other “like Twitter but ______” micro blogging or whatever sites only stay viable while they’re profitable.

If Bluesky or Threads become (net) unprofitable, they’ll die. Mastodon is already unprofitable, so that can’t kill it.

I think we could compete with #1 just by word of mouth.

For #2 some person or group needs to develop a Mastodon app (FOSS obviously) that has a “just do this part for me” option, probably automatically enabled.

#3 is on us. We have to do what we can to make Mastodon (and Lemmy) more open and accepting without falling pretty to the paradox of tolerance.

#4 is hard… Although I think if Mastodon follows or tries to replicate the “early” Facebook user experience where most or all of the content people got was from people they follow, that could be better. The only challenge is that algorithms tickle our anger/hate/disgust impulses to drive and maintain engagement. That’s some very strong “lizard brain” stuff.

So… let’s get going y’all! :)

I love how he just uncritically and with absolute credulity accepts excerpts from a letter written by Zuck with no supporting evidence, no examples of what “pressure” looked like, etc.

I can’t believe these people are still so butt hurt about the perfectly reasonable actions taken by the US and State governments and governments worldwide in response to a once in a century global respiratory DEADLY pandemic that killed millions and millions of humans.

And as far as FB (and other social media) goes, fuck em. And fuck the users. Types of speech can be illegal. Defamation (lying about someone) and false advertising (lying about a product or service) can be illegal even though it’s definitely speech. These have “lying” in common, which to me implies there must be something about lying (specifically misrepresenting reality) that weakens typical 1st Amendment protections.

But it’s clear what this guy is most sad about is the traffic he got while his article about Woodstock going on during a lull in the comparatively mild pandemic that was “active” at the time (no meaningful H3N2 activity in the US at the time) went away when FB rightly changed the algorithm to not boost his stupid irrelevant “analysis.”

But people like the writer of this article are either too addled by conspiracy galaxy brain or too committed to lying for money to care that they could really hurt people with their bullshit.

This guy needs to go to something less harmful like selling homeopathic tinctures or lying about the moon landing or flat earth or something.

Yeah but we’d have to redo the Senate completely - definitely a Constitutional amendment - and expand the House (I think they can just add seats) to reduce or eliminate the power of land ownership on our government’s composition.

Or change the Senate to a House Of Lords kind of model. Still an amendment.

Which means the short term solution is all anti MAGA people have to band together and stick together until MAGA dies off. Then maybe the Republican Party can be reborn to be more like it was in the 70s (but hopefully with less bigotry). This rot started with Reagan, so we have to go back at least that far.

(This would also free up religious people to find the candidate and party whose policy goals match their most important beliefs instead of the other way around.)

Well ok but you’re pointing out the authoritarian avalanche in the Republican Party, not American politics writ large.

I think people like AOC and Max Frost (and heck, Tim Walz) show that it’s possible for there to be progress. We just have to want it. Also we have to learn to ignore trump and his ilk instead of giving them equal time.

If "disagree with* can be interpreted as “irritates me”

“Not gonna lie” “If I’m being honest” “To tell the truth” (older)

Ugh.

They’re such idiomatic crutches. Just fucking talk. Say what you’re gonna say. If you need an “um” just say that. Don’t waste my brain’s clock cycles interpreting those phrases only to realize they’re meaningless…

I use it if it’s already in use, but if I’m starting a new design I try to avoid “Master” and I really try to avoid “Slave”

reddit had given into the “work the refs” strategy of the American right wing. That artificially elevated the voices of the right and suppressed the voices of the left. It’s actually the case when you look at surveys and voting behaviors that right wing ideas are abysmally unpopular.

So when we’re on an actually free platform that doesn’t have an “engagement” based algorithm driving anger and division, with no one putting their thumb on the scale (or people who try getting defederated), “leftist” ideas come up.

The confusion reflected in the OP is the obvious outcome of the post Fairness Doctrine “both sides” media landscape. There really aren’t as many right wing people as left wing. We are legion.