Autistic people who announce when they're going to masturbate make all other autistic people cringe for being so incredibly unaware and making the rest of them look weird.
My brother is autistic and this is the type of autistic person who is hated by other autistic people. This is why autistic people hate mentioning it, because they get lumped in with these people.
I find it to be a lot better since it allows multiple employees to cover many registers, but at the same time I'm very skeptical of technology that leads to less social interaction. Eventually we're going to get to a point where people will literally skip meals if it means they have to interact with someone.
There has been an increase in blatant racism and prejudice. I don't know if those users eventually get banned. If the right takes any action against blatant hate speech, shitheads like Tim Pool will start crying and denounce the platform as not allowing free speech. If they allow "free speech," then the shitheads eventually drive all the normal people off the platform. The only good thing is that Twitter already has a left wing population, so as long as they can maintain that, it should avoid turning to shit. It was also a mainstream platform so hopefully that should maintain the normie population.
Sites like Lemmy instances are better at allowing a wider range of "free speech" because as long as the instance population is large enough to keep the shitheads a minority, they can stick to their own subs and generally keep the bullshit quarantined.
Cultural conservatives (including many leftists) believe that social liberals are a danger to themselves. That's not a precedent that you want to start.
Walkable cities would be an absolute hellhole, but not for the reasons that conspiracy theorists are claiming. Packing everyone in densely enough to make everything walkable will be a hellhole.
We need affordable options for transportation. Bad weather and the cold also require enclosed vehicles that can't tip over.
Plenty of organizations would likely jump in. Someone could make a site alleging the bad thing that happened as the result of Google Chrome and that pretty much tanks the entire case. It would be very hard to prove reckless disregard for the truth when there's a website that alleges the claim. Furthermore, someone could simply write the code and distribute it, and every site displaying it would have grounds for displaying it.
All someone really has to do is find one thing that could potentially be a vulnerability in Google Chrome and they have grounds for making a scary notice about it.
It could also be made very hard for them to win. All someone has to do is make a site making that claim and their ability to win will be gone. Any defendant can claim they read that site.
Youtube advertising is absolute trash. It's already bad enough to sit through ads when you don't even know if you want to watch the video. Their ads consist of fake Joe Rogans with tts voices advertising scams.
People could start configuring their sites to ban Google Chrome. Give a scary message that says something like "Google Chrome is not allowed on this site for your protection. Google Chrome has severe vulnerabilities that allow for easy infection. An autistic teenager was falsely convicted of selling CP after being infected and now must register for life."
People would switch away from Google Chrome incredibly fast if website owners started posting that.
I've heard that halal bacon is better.
It's beef.