alyaza [they/she] @ alyaza @beehaw.org

internet gryphon. admin of Beehaw, mostly publicly interacting with people.

---

Read more

Posts

2,400

Comments

816

Joined

3 yr. ago

Moderating

---

By necessity, Maryam’s reporting process is far from typical—she takes great pains to keep the authorities from knowing who she is, and has to work with a male family member to secure interviews. Sometimes, the process of scheduling an in-person meeting can resemble a game of telephone: she asks her brother to call a male relative of the potential subject to make the arrangements. When she wants to meet with a source in person, she must bring along a man to chaperone. She’ll also ask around to assess if the person she’s supposed to meet can be trusted to keep her identity a secret. “It’s really hard for me,” she said.

Once the piece is ready to be published, Maryam removes all traces of her reporting from her devices, including deleting every email and call log, except for contacts with her immediate family. “If the Taliban checks my phone [and finds something], it will not be good for me. So, I delete everything,” she said. She only publishes the article after she has confirmed again that her subjects are comfortable with everything they’re quoted as saying. “It’s my job to keep her safe,” she said.

How would they even enforce this if the site is hosted in a different state or even country?

you're asking a question they don't care about, which is the first problem here. the purpose is not to have a legally bulletproof regulation, but to cast doubt on the ability of websites like this to operate in Texas without incurring liability and thereby force them to block users from the state or another such action. this is also how most abortion restrictions work in practice: they muddy the water on what is legal, so risk-averse entities or entities without the revenue to fight back simply avoid doing/facilitating the practice in a given jurisdiction or completely move out of state.

is this dubiously legal? yeah, obviously. but it doesn't matter if you don't have the money to pay a lawyer. and the vast majority of these sorts of websites obviously don't--they'd likely need someone to represent them pro bono, which is not likely.

it's unclear how many votes either of these measures would have, but once session begins next year there's really no check besides themselves (and maybe a lower-level court) for what Texas Republicans can pass.

i mean if Roblox is any indication, Valve will probably bend the knee sooner or later. government scrutiny is obliging them to make changes and actually do even basic moderation over there:

The fast-growing children’s gaming platform Roblox is to hand parents greater oversight of their children’s activity and restrict the youngest users from the more violent, crude and scary content after warnings about child grooming, exploitation and sharing of indecent images.

The moves comes after a short-seller last month alleged it had found child sexual abuse content, sex games, violent content and abusive speech on the site. In the UK, Peter Kyle, the secretary of state for science and technology, told parliament: “I expect that company to do better in protecting service users, particularly children.”

RTFA before replying

imo if anything the opposite causality is true: this DOJ was banking on a continuation of Biden in Kamala Harris, and because that is no longer forthcoming they're now trying to get something out the door before the administrative changeover in the hopes it can stick. it almost certainly won't, but most of Trump's appointees are gigamad about "censorship" and they hate Google for "punishing conservative voices" or whatever so it's hardly the most contrived hail mary if so

it is not okay to deadname people for any reason (as everyone under this post already has stated), and if you do this again on the instance you will be banned from Beehaw for at least a week.

Surely it can’t just be because a town name happens to contain “lsd” in the middle of it?

Facebook is a remarkably bad website so i think you'd be quite surprised at how stuck in the past they are over there

As many as one million black-footed ferrets lived on the continent in the late 1800s, but by the late 1950s, the species was presumed extinct. Scientists discovered a wild population in 1964, but even that group died out, and a captive breeding effort failed. Since a second rediscovery of a wild population in 1981, conservationists have worked hard to conserve the species using traditional breeding programs as well as more innovative technologies, including freezing semen and cloning.

One of the challenges conservationists face when tasked with bringing back a species from the brink of extinction is limited genetic diversity, which leads to inbreeding and can make offspring more vulnerable to issues, including hereditary abnormalities, poor reproductive efficiency and increased mortality rates.

The current population of black-footed ferrets—thousands of which have been reintroduced across the western U.S. since the 1990s—is all descend from just seven individuals, except for a few clones and Antonia’s new offspring. That’s a recipe for genetic bottlenecks that threaten the longevity of the species.

Cue cloning. In 1988, scientists had the foresight to collect tissue samples from a black-footed ferret named Willa after she died and preserve the material in the Frozen Zoo at the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance. Willa never reproduced, so her genetic material was not included in the modern ferret population. Her preserved genes contain three times more genetic diversity than living black-footed ferrets do.

this is an interesting discussion that's gone on for long enough and been substantive enough that i'll leave it be, but as an FYI this was a better fit for the Politics section and had it been caught sooner i would have told you to repost it there.

Why are you doing this if you don’t think what happens here matters?

if you think something has to arbitrarily "matter" to be socially valuable to do then there's your problem. in any case, i certainly don't think the value of this platform rests on "people knifing each other about a presidential election they have very little power over the outcome of."

If one takes that attitude, you’re right, you won’t change the world.

i think you're conflating "having value" with "changing the world" when these are two essentially independent qualities. at no point have we ever sought to "change the world" with this (because we're five people running this in our spare time, that's not in our capabilities as people), and from the beginning we've said we'd be content with only a handful of people using this place as long as they get something out of doing it (because that's what we consider valuable, not whether or not this can have sweeping social impact or importance).

because you can play meaningless "what if?" games like this forever. at the end of the day you don't have to be a pessimist to realize the odds of something here changing the world are so minute that it's fine to put a moratorium on certain kinds of posts. you're not going to convince me otherwise. and even in the optimistic scenario: virtually all of what's discussed here, while interesting, is designed to be fleeting and buried. conversations on link aggregators tend to have a shelf-life of no more than a week, and that's not really where you're going to find ideas that make change. here the conversations usually die down after an even shorter period (about two days).

frankly: if the next Lenin or whatever is actually on Lemmy, i'd tell them to get a blog instead of hashing it out in link aggregator comment sections. it's a better use of their time, it's a better place to test and hone their ideas, and they have actual editorial control over everything.

Who’s to say some random comment in a random post on the presidential election doesn’t come up with some incredible idea or solution?

if someone does this i trust they won't limit it to a niche social media website with like 500 users, where it will have no actual visibility and will reach exactly zero actual powerbrokers. i don't think this is a remotely convincing hypothetical, personally, and its logic would extend far beyond talk of the presidential election.

Because these are literal sky scrapers. Fire on a wood structure is a recipe for catastrophic failure. A fire in a large structure could have similar effects to those large high rise condos that collapsed in Florida from poor maintenance.

i think you're operating under 1) an extremely 1800s understanding of how fire-resistant a wood skyscraper would be and 2) a misguided understanding of where fire safety problems tend to come from in most contemporary buildings

wood is not uniquely flammable,[^1] and the vast majority of the problem in a fire is not going to be with the actual wood itself (as is true of steel, concrete, etc.) but moreso with the fact that we make nearly everything that isn't the building itself out of extremely combustible materials and we probably should not do that? as i recall that was the entire problem at Grenfell, where the cladding used was a flammable plastic that rendered any airgapping measures between flats useless and allowed the fire to spread uncontrollably. the fire at Grenfell also reportedly began from a refrigerator that was plastic-backed.

[^1]: it can rather trivially be treated to be fire-resistant--and as the person you're replying to notes has already been tested extensively and implemented in existing buildings to that end, and in multiple locales, just from a brief search on the subject

my understanding is yes that's the general avenue people are researching; there's also the actual energy inputs powering steelmaking that hypothetically can be made greener (currently, it's a process that seems to almost exclusively use fossil fuels because of the very high temperatures needed)

as the article kind of notes steelmaking in specific is very carbon intensive, so we either need to use less of it or decarbonize its production (or more likely a mixture of both). the statistics on this according to Wikipedia are:

As of 2021, steelmaking is estimated to be responsible for around 11% of the global emissions of carbon dioxide and around 7% of the global greenhouse gas emissions.[12][13] Making 1 ton of steel emits about 1.8 tons of carbon dioxide.[14]