Fight it? Bad idea. That's the wandering spider's way to say "back off! I'm going to jump on your face, bite you, and you'll die an agonising death! I'm serious!!"
If the Brazilian government had actual laws against the issue with Xitter /'ŹÉŖtÉ/ - i.e. the fact that it's a Nazi nest - it wouldn't be on again. However Moraes did it through some bloody convoluted way, that stinks "ackshyually" from a distance; first obsessing over that Monark clown, then the representative, then a fine that amounts to pocket money for both sides. As a result, it's on again, "yay" /s
The key here is that legislations (not just the Brazilian one; I'm talking on general grounds) need to distinguish between
a platform that transparently conveys the discourse of its users, thus not being responsible for what they say; and
a platform that opaquely "suggests" you what you "should" be seeing, through an algorithm that you cannot reasonably modify, thus being liable for what it shows you
Faecesbook and YouTube fall into the later, but Xitter specially so, as Elon Muppet's personal soapbox.
So, let's give a round of claps to Dickhead for the Effort and Good IntentionsĀ® /s.
"By 'free speech,' I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law,"
Cut off the crap. You were probably babbling this on the grounds of that "first amendment" crap that holds no grounds outside USA.
Bolsonaro and his supporters praised Musk for refusing to block accounts
Of course he did. He might not be himself eligible any more, but odds are that whoever will compete for the Republic's Party Liberal Party in 2026 will be basically his meatpuppet. People often compare this shite with Trump, but they forget to mention that, unlike Trump, Bolsonaro is not braindead.
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva previously said that businesses in Brazil must follow local laws and that the country is "not obliged to put up with Musk's far-right ideology just because he is rich."
Lula, you're only there because you're less worse than Bostonaro. Now go drink some booze and shut up.
Or, in a deeper aspect: they're pretty good at regurgitating what we interpret as bullshit. They simply don't care about truth value of the statements at all.
That's part of the problem - you can't prevent them from doing it, it's like trying to drain the ocean with a small bucket. They shouldn't be used as a direct source of info for anything that you won't check afterwards; at least in kitnaht's use case if the LLM is bullshitting it should be obvious, but go past that and you'll have a hard time.
Redirects your search to Google. You can put it anywhere in the search; for example !g how do i shot web, how do i shot web !g and how do i !g shot web will all land you into Google.
There are other 13k (yup) bangs like this. Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Yahoo, Quora, most gaming wikis, etc. A few sites (like Google and Bing) have multiple bangs, that land you directly into a specific page (e.g. !bv searches Bing videos). More info here.
There are 9001 things going on at the same time. I'll list four that I believe to play a role.
[Pseudo-]anonymity: the consequences of your behaviour won't haunt you afterwards ā you're freer to act as you want, sometimes at the expense of the other person.
Community size: our RL communities are effectively rather small, we're bound to interact with the same people over and over, so we monitor our interactions with them a bit better.
Lack of context + assumers: petty fights often pop up because some trashy person assumed = made shit up based on what someone else said, and the other got understandably pissed. This happens IRL too but there's less room for the assumer to do so - as contextual clues help to dictate the correct interpretation of what the other said.
Asynchronous communication: people slight each other all the time, but offline you'll only notice it when it's too late. Online however you can re-read what someone else said, notice it, and then reply.
Personally I believe that my behaviour online isn't too different from offline. People often notice that I have a short fuse towards stupidity; including saying equivalent to "go lick a cactus", "cut off the crap" or "not wasting my time with you". As in, I'm a bit of an arsehole online, but so I am offline, you know?
Exactly! (Plus bitcoin mining. Same deal, really - a flawed tech with some potential and some use, but that does not justify the associated environmental harm.)
Of course, tech bros like Schmidt won't like the solution.
And if the underlying tech improves in such a way that it stops being fined, it stopped being part of the problem.
Or alternatively fine (yes, fine; not just "tax") heavy energy sinks, to the point that they're unable to run, and use the money to address climatic issues now.
But it's easier to wallow in a mix of nirvana fallacy (either solving the climate issue altogether, or doing jack shit) + wishful belief ("AGI is cooooming! Praise AGI!"), right?
This wouldn't even stop the development of model-based generation, mind you. Only force it towards smarter approaches, that don't boil down to "needz moar [parameters | training data | cranks]!" brute-force.
But nah. I'm supposed to treat it as a devil or as an angel, right? And this specific muppet is treating it like an angel talking about the First Coming of AGI.
I'd say that it's possible but extremely unlikely. Acc. to Doctorow enshittification requires three things:
"Consolidation" - i.e. the corporation gets too big and powerful
"Unrestricted twiddling for them" - i.e. using power to prevent being legislated on.
"Total ban on twiddling for us" - i.e. enforcing the legislation to prevent competition.
The Fediverse is designed in a way that it's more resistant to #2, as inter-operability decreases the cost of switch for users - if you see an entity (person, corporation, group, whatever) twiddling too much it's relatively painless to pack your things and leave.
However, I believe that if an instance consolidated so much power in #1 that it's enable to enforce an "it's me or them" on the users, even the Fediverse could be enshittified. And by "so much power" I don't mean something like Lemmy World, I mean a couple orders of magnitude bigger than the rest.
The bot is 1m old. Just wait until it gets suspended for "multiple, repeated violations of the content policy" (translation: "don't you dare to shoo the botters! Bot = activity!").
You do realise that language variation is normal and expected, and it doesn't make any of the underlying varieties intrinsically "better" or "worse" than the others, right?
Hereās that video with Jeremy Clarkson thatās shows some of the issues with american English
My source is a 1min comedy video taking the piss out of vocab differences
You are being a bloody muppet. And given that it is not the first time, I won't waste my time further with you, go lick a cactus.
Japanese uses sarcasm ("needling" through words) and irony (a statement conveying its opposite) heavily, perhaps even more than English does. The problem is that how you convey sarcasm and irony changes from language to language, and Japanese relies heavily on context to do so.
I'll give you an example: in English you can show deference towards a person using Mr., Ms., or similar. If I were to do this here, and wrote something like "Mr. Appoxo", it would sound weird (as there's no reason to show deference), but not insulting.
In Japanese however this would be interpreted as ironic and belittling towards you. Specially if I used a "stronger" honorific like -ę§ / -sama.
![Lvxferre [he/him]](https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/333d03a0-bcae-434b-a8d1-7dfd18962d20.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Fight it? Bad idea. That's the wandering spider's way to say "back off! I'm going to jump on your face, bite you, and you'll die an agonising death! I'm serious!!"
[Still cute though. At least from a distance.]