TJA! @ tja @sh.itjust.works

Posts

4

Comments

640

Joined

2 yr. ago

So if I myself don't think posts on Facebook should be/are/will be accurate, then it's okay if they are indeed not? So I just have to manage my own expectations to make the new policy okay?

So, what you want us to get from this: it does not matter if the fact checking on Facebook is removed, because there is also no fact checking on lemmy and we are doing fine? Is that right?

Yes :)

🤗

When you write them with an @ in front, you are referencing a user. A community is a Lemmy concept and you have to prepend them with a !.

I mean, the link is still working since only the number in the URL is important. So you can just click on the link and see the full title

They also do not work in Voyager and in the browser they are not even links

Voyager tries to send me to the user with that id, not the community. It seems there are differences.

Ah, but there are still elections in other parts of the world, like Germany, where he is also very active

Yes, but that was still Google's choice. They could have done something for the user but they did not want to

No. Google did it this way so people would blame the EU. They also could just have added more choice to the interface but they rather wanted to remove it to show their users "how bad the EU is".

Same thing with the cookie banners. EU said you should give your users the choice if they want to be tracked. And the companies build these ugly banners so everyone would blame the EU. But they could also just have stopped tracking their users.

To make it even more clear let me rephrase it:

If you want to store sth like that, it would be classified as functional and you wouldn't even need a cookie banner for it.

Only if you want to use it to track people you need to notify them

Thanks so much

WTF

Feminism is a range of socio-political movements and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes.

What is the maximum?

That's a crazy system you have when 90% vote against something and they still win? You should fix that.

I looked more into that.

She did an interview in which she said that she did not like the academia Life but wants to focus on her social media career, which includes of, but also a YouTube channel where she published science related videos

So still doing science stuff, but not pursuing a PhD anymore.

So they were okay with Trump being president?

That sounds strange. Who did all the other people vote for? Why is that other person not going to be president with so many votes?