I was interested in it but at the end of the day Dorsey got Twitter into its initially mediocre state, and he’s endorsed RFK Jr. as well as Musk’s purchase of Twitter. So should I really expect it to be any better? I’ll keep an eye on it but my expectations aren’t terribly high.

This principle exists to shield the people from their government. It is not intended to be (and has never been) a protection for someone’s social status or reputation.

The real question is how much would I accept in payment to use Twitter. It’s probably not a lot, but it surely is not negative.

I don’t think it’s that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.

If a person’s reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?

If the company you’re representing would prefer you didn’t, then sure.

Let’s use another example, if someone was a big supporter of fascism and was wearing a hat or mask that said, “save fascists”, would you prefer the store couldn’t prevent them from wearing that?

How bad would the phrase have to get to change your mind?

The statement itself shouldn’t be political in its sentiment, but obviously the organization exists and it has its own policy positions, events, advocacy, and I can go to their website to donate. I think it’s fairly obvious which one Whole Foods would be concerned with.

Poor diet, alcohol abuse, and tobacco use can all certainly be attributed to corporate malfeasance in at least some part.

I get incredibly anxious about her finding incriminating things that I didn’t do and I know don’t actually exist, but what if they do somehow?

I don’t think anyone would confuse military service with freedom.

No problem meaning they shouldn’t care about not being able to wear it? Or that the French government shouldn’t care in the first place?

Probably exactly what has been reported. Putin waited for things to settle, weakened Wagner troops by taking their weapons and splitting their numbers, then they killed leadership. Occam’s razor certainly points to this.

But, of course, the way it was done certainly leaves the door open for conspiracies.

Every time I see it I can’t get past how hideous it looks. I just don’t get it…who’s the target demo for this thing? They’ve already been beaten to market by non-absurd looking trucks, how big could their market actually be?

The issue of climate change is routinely one of the most important issues for young people, so perhaps she played a role in that.

The question itself is pretty useless because how could we possibly quantify a single activist’s contribution to a global issue?

I think they’re suggesting an aggregate feed from some number of concurrently logged in users.

Quit playin’ games with my heart

Joining lemmy.world. Internet is world wide web. Become WorldWideLem.

I don’t know what will happen with Twitter. Maybe it succeeds, maybe it fails, maybe it just keeps humming along in mediocrity. But what I do know is that wherever it ends up, there was surely a much simpler way to get there.

Twitter is on a mission to become the world’s most accurate real-time information source and a global town square

I think these are both admirable goals, however I don’t believe they can exist in the same space. A town square is open to false informations as much as it is truth.

They’re setting themselves up for failure if that’s their north star.