Jentu

joined 3 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (4 children)

It's always been my opinion that anonymity makes people more aggressive and more willing to partake in antisocial behavior. A person in a car could have their trip extended by 2 seconds before someone else decides to endanger their lives because they see "slow car" instead of "real family on a road trip".

For stalkers, just have an option to lock down the account. Like, block the stalker and make your account inaccessible to those who aren't already your friend/follow you. With anonymous accounts, there's nothing stopping bypassing any moderation attempts by creating another account unless you do an IP ban, which can also be bypassed. Moderation and especially auto-moderation can be subject to silencing topics and voices the parent company of the social media platform deems shouldn't be talked about.

But if your real name is attached to any number of sensitive topics, getting doxed suddenly becomes a major issue. If Reddit is half full of psyops campaigns, political campaigns, marketing campaigns, what's stopping the people who use these sort of tactics from doxing and threatening you directly to prevent dissent directly from the source? I can only imagine what happens to all those people who have basic walkthroughs for Nintendo emulation only to have hired mobs show up to their door to break their knees within the week. Or a conservative government find a reason to jail (or worse) someone asking about abortion options.

So if you can't be anonymous and talk about sensitive topics without it resulting in rage and propaganda and you can't have your name attached to sensitive topics without it resulting in a risk of doxing or violence, what's the answer? I honestly have no idea. :/ Maybe it will always be a fact that there will be both anonymous websites in addition to websites attached to people's real names.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

So democrats should adopt even more conservative views to avoid attack ads? Maybe they should focus on what the democratic base wants rather than the opinions of people who would never vote democrat.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

I hear that's what historians are saying

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

All those people who weren’t motivated enough to vote this time won’t hear your scapegoating of muslim voters. You’re just shooting the messenger.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think Cheney cost Harris any voters because the vast majority of people who didn't vote for Harris probably don't know and don't care who Cheney is. But celebrating the Cheney endorsement is a symptom of a campaign that is thoroughly unexciting and establishment. People who don't follow politics aren't word-of-mouth'd into being excited for something new and hopeful. Instead of democrats' excitement about the promises of a new candidate, the only word on their lips was Trump, which won't work a second time if the apolitical person's world didn't change negatively the last time trump was president.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Democrats don't have to say any slurs to uphold a racist/sexist system. Send out a memo condemning racism while increasing police funding and surveillance. Tokenize people in their cabinet with a smile and a hashtag while bombing, destabilizing, and plundering the global south. Our hierarchical and white supremacist systems are so embedded in our society, it's assumed to be the natural order of things.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I’m still using a (Son) dynamo Busch and Müller light from a decade ago on my touring bike. It’s so reliable and the beam pattern is better than on my car. I also have schwalbe marathons and ortlieb panniers on that bike. Such a good setup for a bike built like a tank. It might be fully German if it wasn’t a Fuji with a Shimano groupset and Brooks saddle.

view more: ‹ prev next ›