"letters to the editor" curated by employees would become a part of their business model and regular contributions would go away? Why would that assumption be incorrect? I wouldn't run a website where a casual user having a moment could result in my imprisonment. I would only allow non-lbtq content that didn't mention race or immigration, as the chilling effect there is real. A DA would for sure come after me if my site became influential.
I don't think there are enough dangs to effectively curate much of the internet, and scaling it back by how much would be the result? 95%? That is before settling on definitions of effectively curate I suppose.
"Effectively curate" here simply means "willing to take legal responsibility for" (although in practice I assume there would be an insurance policy involved because that's just how things are done).
Yeah for sure, I see what you were saying. Changing that part might not achieve the desired effect though is what I was saying. Context dependent on the site here of course, but in a general sense I could see meta et al. being nonplussed by this to a significant extent.
Really seems like western europe is sandwiched between fascist trends that have taken hold, diverting their own via brexit's failure - maybe something to do with how yellow vests were received in france too? Sure seems like Europe dipped its toes in the water for awhile and is changing its mind.
Defending my own shared identity, I have to repeatedly mention how bifurcated our society is. We are still trying to get out of the water.
People with gender dysphoria exist. THey are not marginalised: they have the same rights as every other person has. It is not bigotry to not participate in their gender performance, because gender performance is not an innate characteristic, as already mentioned to you in the comment you're replying to.
Mostly I think that's because it's pretty obvious smart phones, and the applications that inhabit them, have been a net negative for adults and children.
reply