The issue isn't unsubscribing itself, it's how they sell / have sold your information. I can unsubscribe, but the next campaign that buys that list from whatever sources they sold it to is just gonna start sending me crap again.

Susinct and savage. I like it.

For what it's worth, I think the community is doing just fine at pointing out that a direct link to DeSantis isn't presently verifiable, and it is creating reasonable discussion.

Honesty award

Good.

Signed - a grumpy former network admin.

I'm mostly joking and for those wondering why it matters, we're out of public IPv4 addresses and ISPs are starting to go IPv6 only in some places. From the post:

New ISPs in my country are IPv6-only because there is no new IPv4 space to be provided to them. They do have a over-shared IPv4 address by CGNAT but due to the oversharing, it is unstable and not rare to be offline. For these companies, the internet access is stable only in IPv6.

Yup, I do this too now

Businesses valuations and a business' success overall unfortunately don't always correlate to what the business seemingly has to offer. In this case, reddit is not going to be sold as a community website, but rather a marketing tool.

It's as the saying goes - if the service is free, you're the product. I think there will be a decline in active users and overall engagement, which I suspect might lead to fewer ad impressions. Spez is banking on the fact that eliminating third party apps will make up for that.

So long as there is a critical mass of users - which there will be for the foreseeable future, and so long as Spez only goes half Musk and doesn't turn the site into an alt-right paradise, I see reddit potentially becoming profitable. Advertisers who have been scared away from Twitter/X might be looking to go somewhere safer and might find that in Reddit once all this controversy blows over.

And it will blow over in terms of relevance to advertisers. The API controversy doesn't concern the average person. Even a CEO being a petulant child is barely worth mentioning to most.

Reddit users assumed that the site was for them. Spez has made it clear that it is not, that it is for advertisers. As much as I hate to say it, there will be plenty of people jumping on the Reddit IPO from that perspective.

Oh awesome that's good to know

And with that $1 donation, you will be on every campaign email donation list for the Republicans from now until the end of time. Word to the wise: If you ever give your email address to a campaign fund (republican, democrat or otherwise), make sure its an email you don't care about or can shut down. No matter how many times you unsubscribe, they just sell your list to the next campaign and use a slightly different name/email/organization to get around spam laws. I made the mistake of donating to a campaign once. Their overzealous and borderline illegal email marketing is what has made me decide to never donate again.

While this $20 for $1 might sound good, especially in the humorous context of taking that $20 gift card and donating it to an opponent, I'm not willing to give my info to a republican campaign and assume they're going to do the right thing and only use it for campaign related activities. Next thing you know, my name will be on the next FCC astroturf campaign about how I hate net neutrality.

I still haven't found my favorite way to manage 3rd party games. Heroic seems to be more solid than others but only supports GOG and Epic.

Lutris is very hit or miss for me. It's been useful for some games in my Amazon library.

I've also tried Bottles and it seems overcomplicated unless there was something that I was missing. It might be useful for certain use cases, but may not be necessary.

I'm going to try nonsteamlaunchers next.

I'd say a significant decrease in valuation just before IPO is some consequence. Not enough to truly impact Spez personally mind you, but it's something.

I'm more satisfied with my experience here personally. I don't scroll for hours, I read a couple articles, maybe comment on them and move on. If I come across something interesting that isn't already posted in my community here, I'll actually post it because it might actually get some engagement.

One reddit, my post would either be removed by overzealous mods or generally ignored. I had one instance where I posted a question on r/askScience. I searched before I posted but couldn't find a post that asked the same question. A mod removed it saying that it was too similar to other posts. When I asked which post it was similar to, the mod said "You need to search for yourself, we aren't librarians" then muted me for 10 days so I couldn't respond. The sheer ego trip of the matter just appalled me. I thought that a community about scientific inquiry would be a bit more open, but nope - just as toxic as every other sub.

Valid theory. Twitter was getting a lot of attention for their work to reduce the spread of misinformation and blatant racism. Both things that the republican party and their supporters seem to be firmly opposed to. It might therfore make sense to delegitimize the platform while giving a megaphone to the people who were previously being censored or fact checked.

I always say "follow the money" which is why I couldn't figure out Elon's motives in all this. It doesn't make sense to buy a company then intentionally tank it's value. But it might make sense in terms of people in power controlling another media outlet to broadcast and reinforce their narrative.

The real point is doing something that gets attention. Buying beer just to pour it down the drain is dumb. Buying beer to make a video of you pouring it down the drain then posting that video to social media is protest. The difference is all about how many people see/hear you, and how many other people decide to join your cause.

Likewise, continuing to buy the product after all the protest is hypocritical showmanship, but buying a single 12 pack as a prop and never buying that product again for is boycotting. Keep in mind that the type of people who buy a case or two of bud light at a time are often the type of people who buy that much every week. If enough of those people switch brands, it might create a blip on on the company's radar at the very least.

Now my cynical point of view is that major companies no longer care very much about negative publicity. No matter how many shitty things the company does and no matter how shitty those acts are, people will still buy their product. Boycotting works on smaller companies because you can meaningfully impact their bottom line. That's rarely the case with massive corporations.

It all started as a stock market manipulation scheme. Now that "Daddy" told him he had to make good on his commitments, he's throwing a tantrum and saying "well, if I'm forced to buy it, I own it. And if I own it, I can do whatever I want with it. So I guess I will can just do this!" and he proceeds to destroy it. Just another spoiled brat rich kid who doesn't like being told what to do.

This comment has nothing to do with the content of the article. You're posing in a community to discuss politics in general. If you have an issue with any particular point the article makes, feel free to explain.

I personally agree with the perspective that we shouldn't elect people who make claims about infectious disease which are easily refuted by science.

Kennedy this week drew backlash for asserting without evidence that COVID-19 was “ethnically targeted” — a claim infectious disease and ethics experts refuted. Kennedy was caught on video by a reporter saying Chinese people and Ashkenazi Jews were not targeted as much as other races, including Black and white people.

Assuming you meant the part about adding a label. Sorry, I missed that one. Updated the title to what I think should comply.

This got me thinking a bit, and I had this whole long post written out. Turns out someone else had a very similar idea to what I was about to discuss regarding public/private keys:

https://aumetra.xyz/posts/fediverse-nomadic-identities#introduction

This approach is interesting because I was thinking that you would need a trusted server to host the public certificate. But maybe that isn't the case so long as you keep a copy of your public key. As long as you have your private key, you would always have proof that a post made using your public key was from you. Even if someone tried to impersonate you, they wouldn't be able to sign a post with your private key, which means they wouldn't be able to link their profile to your account. Your public key certificate effectively becomes your identity and your private key signature is your "password" proof that you are the person associated with that public key.

If your main instance goes down, you could use your keys to create an account on another instance (assuming that's permitted). Or you can create other accounts like the article describes.

On its own, this keeps your identity intact, but not your post history. It could be designed that your account on one instance references your account on all the other instances it knows about where you have an account. Then a post history could display data from multiple servers, or at least link back to your profile on your other servers.

But if a server goes offline, your posts do too. I just don't think there's a great way to manage that.

National party leaders for the first time acknowledged Kennedy’s disruptive presidential bid with sharp criticism...

It’s a notable change from their previous approach, in which Democratic leaders and party officials hoped Kennedy would simply fade away on his own.

I don't know why they would think ignoring him was ever the way to go. Have they learned nothing? I understand the inclination to avoid giving him any extra attention, but ignoring the problem does not make it go away. We've seen how radical speech gets attention nowadays.

Then again, nothing democrats say will change the trajectory of his campaign. His followers do not care whether or not what he says is true or anti-semetic so long as it agrees with their world view.

I grieve for our country.

True. It makes me at least think about what other options there are in terms of resiliency for user accounts. Right now we're back to the wild west days of the internet where you might not be 100% sure that your provider is in it for the long haul. There were so many random email hosts in the 90s and early 2000s with vanity domains. Now, it's rare to see anything other than Gmail, outlook, iCloud, or hotmail for personal emails. People congregated around the big companies. That's what worries me about companies like Meta and Twitter getting into the fediverse

While it isn't practical for most users, if you're really that concerned about maintaining control of your user account, you could create your own Kbin instance that's basically just for you. There are hosting services available where you could probably do it for a few bucks a month plus the cost of the domain name. I've considered setting something like this up myself.

Obviously this isn't a viable solution for most people, but it is an option.