I thought the same. Now plataforms have a target audience to focus. The accounts move, the artists have to follow, the rest has a reason to move as well.

I agree there’s abuse, but there are laws:

Article explaining the laws used as support / Article with historical precedent.

Both in Portuguese.

There’s the possibility Starlink will refuse the order to block Twitter. I don’t use one of the major providers, so I’m still unaffected. I just learned there are twenty thousand registered smaller ones.

It makes sense with the target audience you mention. Would it be possible to provide a transcription? I used to put a link to a free service with the YouTube videos I shared, but it was terribly formatted.

I opened the video on my computer to see if it was a small screen issue. I listened to half then muted the other half. Some personal thoughts, but looking for accessibility guides would be best.

• Any reason for embedded subtitles? I think being able to customize them to your own comfort would help.
• The extra information / notes should be bigger. I think that’s what I usually see. I might have had issue with complete sentences instead of key ideas.
• Present the note before the explanation, that way I have some sense of where you are going.
• Speak a little slower or add some pauses between sentences or ideas. This is the first video of yours that I thought the subtitles were too fast, but it will help with your board format.

Tried one last time full screen on my computer, but still the same problems. Information overload.

Just a note on the video format. I usually watch without sound and I’m glad for the subtitles, but it’s hard to follow what you’re saying and looking at the notes you put on the board.

I hadn’t realized how skeptical I was of even genuine attempts from big organizations until I got repeatedly surprised by how they were integrating everyone instead of the usual segregation. Their recommendation for people to not wear strong fragrances shows me that education is a simple accessibly tool that should be deployed more often.

Hello there. I assume you have good intentions with your comment, but I read it as if you were talking to an idea, not a person. A person has feelings that they want to express and be validated. Treat the wound before discussing how to prevent it.

You offered a solution, disengaging, which is nice. I also believe we have a responsibility to ourselves. The problem that I want to point out is you might not have asked yourself the question: "Why don’t they leave the situation? " Can you think of a reason? There must be, we can even ask if necessary. You see, what’s non essential in my life might be very important for someone else.

About space and fairness. This is not a childish dispute. You have the right to your space. In practical terms, they will follow you home and take it from you if you let them. I’m not being hyperbolic. They don’t want you to exist anywhere and will follow you everywhere. Beehaw is a gated space that so many people disapprove, but that serves a very specific purpose, being a safe space, because hiding and isolating yourself from the world is not good to your mental health either.

I was talking about how we always have this type of discussion frequently with my therapist earlier today. It’s always nice to pause and remind ourselves and those outside of our philosophy. One thing that I’d like to add is we might not be(e) nice sometimes because of personal circumstances. We are having a bad day and a comment will trigger a reaction that would be uncommon or we might be aggressive without provocation.

In cases we feel the need to hit back, I’d advise postponing the response by at least one hour. Give yourself time to clear your mind and think things over. And if you are the target of users having a bad day, reminding them that they are not be(e)ing nice is the alternative. Asking questions is the best. “Did I offend you?”, “Did I say something wrong?”, “I don’t understand what the issue is.” Even if they keep the aggression, they will point to the specific issue that needs to be worked on, or prove they don’t want to discuss genuinely.

Does it really work like that? I would say that they are not trying to fool any test, just getting harder to be detected. The goal being looking completely realistic.

I just now realized that your vote means nothing if the majority of the group you’re assigned to voted differently, and it means little when with the majority. I’m not from the US and I thought I had understood the modular voting system and the issues with only two great parties, but their combination is horrifying.

People don’t seem to grasp how terrible doxxing can be. It’s easy to distance yourself from the consequences when everything happens online and all is forgotten within a day or two. If you call the police to deal with a problem, you should expect violence. In a similar way, expecting to make people accountable when you sick an angry anonymous mob on them is foolish. Violence is the most likely result.

I hate the term and the fact it became widespread. Unfortunately, mass adoption also means it will mutate and evolution will follow its course.

The obvious solution on X’s side is to ID everyone that wants to post anything. And remember that the obvious solution doesn’t have to be the best solution, a good solution or, even, a real solution at all.

I’m from Brazil and a little confused. What I found is that people in the US pay for a software that simplify the process of filing taxes. Free options would be more difficult or inconvenient. But I also read it is already possible to file taxes for free, as people are eligible, which I can’t wrap my head around.

Here, as fast as I can remember, the only software comes from the government, from the time of floppy disks (provided free of charge) and Java. You can always pay a company to do that for you, but it’s so simple for the majority that we are basically consenting with the use or validating the information they already had.

Maybe people are not really choosing, just going with the only option they know/ remember. If they have to choose from a menu, the first option is very likely and I imagine randomness would be involved.

He was, uh, totally asking for it.

I’ll admit that I got confused. If you visit the site, the article is a response to the research that says women also hit men. I’d argue they simply chose stories of men beating women, flipped the gender and wanted people to be outraged.

Telegram is the same. It’s the app people will migrate to because it’s the app people learned to use when WhatsApp can’t operate for some reason. Not many people there. People here are overly attached.

For the people who suggest users just change apps. Imagine I just ban all your current forms of text communication (you can still have e-mail), but only you, your family and friends will keep their ecosystems. Do you care you won’t talk to them anymore? Can you convince them to use a new app? Does it affect your life beyond social interactions? Is it worth making your life harder?

The article didn’t go in the direction I expected. Theoretically, open source software can be fixed by experts outside of the main company, but it would be very niche. The expert would need to be familiar with the specific hardware at least, have varying degrees of medical knowledge and have access to the individual in need in some cases.

Forced updates and treating medical software as no more special than a game is the problem when dealing with apps. Tag medicals apps and make it so that system updates have to be manual or go through warnings before being deployed. Offer the option to go back to a version that previously worked. Create regulations to make companies liable for malfunctions.