441–450 of 472 posts
The same kind of posts happened when zuck changed the private policy of whatsaap a few months ago, everyone was migrating to Signal. Who uses signal now?
This was the event that pushed me to go XMPP only for messaging. Pulled in my family and some friends. Internet standards without vendor lock-in is now a requirement for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure: > Trump provided a lot of engagement and popularity to the platform, so banning him was igealogy-driven and was very much against their business interests. You either have those engagement numbers or you don't. Which is it? You either know how much advertising revenue he generated -or- how much he drove away. Or you don't. You either have evidence that banning him was against their business interests or you are…
So can't provide a link, and with your lie exposed, went into to panic mode, trying to pass your (false) assumptions as a claim I never made, ok.
Cute copying me with "panic mode". I appreciate the imitation.
Didn't you resign a few comments ago? Or was that another false claim?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not having trouble finding Facebook data. Did you get that idea from me asking you to back up your own claims? Yes paywalls are easy to bypass. It's also a reasonable choice to respect them.
Don't mistake a stagnant market for a dying one. If stagnant equalled death then Japan's economy would have been poor long ago. > I'm not having trouble finding Facebook data. Did you get that idea from me asking you to back up your own claims? You've asked me repeatedly about geographic and demographic data that Facebook (and plenty of 3rd party data mining sites) post publicly. If you actually care just compare it…
I didn't claim Facebook is dying in the West. That's you putting words in my mouth.
I liked Mastodon when it first came out. But nowadays it’s seems to be more like a Left wing version of Gettr. Wouldn’t use either.
You mean Mastodon.social the instance not Mastodon the protocol right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Project Veritas has a long history of deceptive editing and outright manufactured reporting, so I wouldn't trust any report you see out of them.
Commentary aside, the video does not lie. Also the entire unedited interview is available.
Ok, but what video? You didn't give any links.
> Also the entire unedited interview is available.
Where? People keep claiming unedited video is available but no one can produce a link to such video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a tired and often parroted talking point used to dismiss literal hours of continuous footage of execs rambling on and on about enacting their political agendas in the workplace.
It's another form of gaslighting people into not believing their own eyes & ears...
How are we supposed to believe our eyes and ears when you haven't provided any links to video for us to watch?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Accessibility is important, but once you build a wheelchair ramp into a building, the ramp builders have nothing more to do Okay, now see how well that wheelchair user can use the elevators and bathrooms. Do you have braille signs everywhere someone goes? Does your building have ambient features which are difficult for people with sensory processing issues? Are there controls which are hard for people with limited…
The building analogy is no longer suitable if you're suggesting the ramp suddenly fails to accommodate new wheelchair designs. The wheelchair design should be your new focus of scrutiny. If the new wheelchair fails to conform to EXISTING ramps found everywhere, the wheelchair is the problem, not the ramp. Ramps are built according to a strict building code. Your suggestion the ramp might need modifying in only the Tw…
This is like saying you don’t need ML specialists because it’s just math, or that we don’t need those expensive security people because Accenture told the CIO they could us experts any time we need them.
Accessibility is far more than just “can a screen reader produce text for this element” — starting from the fact that there are many accessibility concerns to which the issue of media forms is irrelevant but going much deeper into how you organize that information. Even if we ignore the prevalence of non-text content, Twitter isn’t a single chunk of prose but the much harder problem of a lot of complex elements which update frequently. You can’t treat this as some quarterly exercise where a consultant runs a scanner - there’s a lot of behavior which must be designed in and tested continuously.
When you talk about meeting outside users, yes, that’s good. Guess which team organizes that? Guess which team makes sure you get representative users? Guess who helps make sure developers and designers get the training and time they need?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people I know have the opposite ideology from their parents, who had the opposite ideology of their own. Many people change their ideologies throughout life, as incentives and personal experience pushes them (e.g. having a bad experience with a certain political party can often sour you to their whole ideology). It's true that I don't live in America, so maybe there is a difference, but you definitely are not de…
Studies suggest that genes play a significant role, and obviously there's an environmental component (ie your upbringing, for which your parents are very important but many other factors play a role, too). Hence you generally take on the ideology around you, even if that may slowly shift between generations (but it seems that people also simply have a different mindset at 20 vs at 40, so when you ask them at 20, they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The source is Project Veritas. Why not go to their website and take a look? There have been a whole bunch of cases where they got Twitter staff on record to say damning things. And no, it's not out of context. The statements are in context and speak for themselves. You can watch the videos or listen to the recordings to hear it for yourself. If you want to argue this source isn't valid, you need to prove it, because…
> Why not go to their website and take a look? Sure. Given links I'll do that. I just did right now since you are the first person to actually provide links. The claim was: > literal hours of continuous footage None of the links you provided come even close to that claim. They are FULL of cuts. Many of them don't even include the question that was asked! And even you took quotes out of context. The quote "Twitter doe…
You want people to transcribe every word for you now? I already did the web searches and wrote out snippets for you, so the topic of each video was clear. You could have done those things yourself which is why I'm the first to dish it up; it seems uncharitable to get mad about it and now accuse me of trying to manipulate you!
No relevant context was lost or hidden here. You've added more parts of what one guy said in one case, but that stuff isn't relevant to any point anyone is making in this thread. The discussion started with someone questioning the claim that Twitter employees had radical political beliefs. The Veritas videos were cited as evidence to the contrary and clearly prove the case - one of the employees literally claims Twitter staff were "commie as fuck".
It seems that you accept this original claim is true and are now arguing about something different - that you support their justifications. But their justifications for their radical politics was not a topic in this thread. Not writing out every word isn't an attempt to hide anything, as you saw, because the video is right there - with links for your convenience - ready for you to watch it, and, if you wish, start a separate discussion about their motives.
"Folks can watch uncut videos themselves and make up their own minds"
Only if they're willing to at least do a web search to get started!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me it is much, much simpler. I invest a lot of my time in putting content and thoughts onto a platform. If I doubt the future of a platform and already find the status quo questionable, I am just not as motivated to put in the time to do something on there. I guess for many people twitter was a platform they wanted to get rid of for a while, this is just a trigger to convince the others as well.
> For me it is much, much simpler. I invest a lot of my time in putting content and thoughts onto a platform. Maybe you should invest your time productively instead
And no worries, I am more productive than most people would find normal, but thanks for your "productive" comment.