I agree with you. I think it’s a bot and thus should be banned, as per the rules.

Just block and move on is okay for trolls and sock puppets. I don’t think that’s a good strategy for bots. You don’t see them any more but they keep posting using bandwidth. They’re building up a profile with engagement that will make it harder to get banned down the line when they start using the account for something worse.

For your own mental health, I would suggest you stop living in this sub.

There are few feces filled salvoes flung at Melon Usk that I would object to. This is not one of them. The question I have though is this: do we need a new Twitter? It had its time in the sun but most people look back at it through rose tinted glasses. Before the takeover by the son of South African emerald mine owners, Twitter was in deep trouble. It had cultural relevance but was a financial flop. It benefited from being the first service of its kind with sufficient reach. I don’t think Twitter would have survived without the Nazi saluting shithead either. Its decline would have been more graceful by comparison. It would have done it without the bullshit tsunami emanating from the top, it wouldn’t have had the money to digitally undress people or other adventures in so-called AI, but I believe it would have faded anyway. People have split up from the one consensus platform to many different ones and making people switch is hard. So coming back now with a new Twitter is like announcing we will electrocute another Topsy next week. That turned heads more than a century ago but we have moved on.

I would demand to see passports if all the phone operators are really Swiss, like promised. And then complain if they’re not.

It is a bugbear for some, irregardless of when the first example was documented. Loose/lose has the potential to be such an annoyance. For some people.

The word “new” can carry a connotation of “recent” but it more literally implies “the latest version.” For all intensive purposes, I did not mean to imply the controversy about the metaphorical use of “literally” was a recent development.

This will literally be the new literally, I guess.

Spelling conventions have taken quite a hit in the age of automated subtitles. We’re devolving to the 1600s where this was more vibe based. I think there is also an element of wanting to show human frailty in content so no one suspects you of pushing slop.

But now they want a court to treat that click as though an 8-year-old knowingly negotiated away her right to have these issues heard. It’s insulting.

In the court of public opinion, sharpen your pitchforks, light your torches, and move on Roblox HQ. This is objectively a silly argument.

Made in a court of law. Where lawyers play by different established rules. Where they are often compelled by those rules to pursue every possible avenue to get the best result for their client. Where they may be held accountable when mishandling their case. Where company execs push their own moral compass out of the way not because they believe this argument but out of a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a clusterfuck of obligations.

My gut feeling is they probably know this argument won’t hold up in court. But it may just knock whatever punishment awaits them down a peg or two.

Whether you like it or not, you have to abide by local laws. You can’t go to Pyongyang and exercise your first amendment rights either. The guy was warned and did this out of spite. Actions have consequences. Whether he just thought he was above the culture and norms as a tourist or whether he wanted to be a martyr for affected tourists everywhere really doesn’t matter. And his fate doesn’t infuriate me at all.

That being said the punishment itself is Draconian and not just mildly infuriating.

We also share half of our DNA with bananas. Therefore, we are also siblings of bananas.

I take issue with the Canadian flag being included here. A leaf isn’t a tree.

The Scunthorpe problem strikes again.

How is this mildly infuriating? If this Weekend at Bernie’s vibe turns out to be true, that wouldn’t be mildly infuriating. If it’s the story of an evil politician clinging to life like dog shit to your sneakers, it also isn’t just mildly infuriating. And if it is the story of an old man surely not long for this world, this isn’t infuriating at all.

Sad.

Could it be the books are wrapped to protect against humidity? This may not be the whole reason why they do it but it wouldn’t be the worst one.

I get she was frustrated. I get this was a joke. You don’t make bomb jokes in line at the TSA either.

She may have overestimated the degree of privacy her DMs had. That’s also on her. Other e2e encrypted services are available to make the crass jokes. But if one of the three recipients had also failed to get the joke, a Signal chat would’ve sufficed to get those deputies showing up as well.

And one shouldn’t expect that a company, even of dwindling importance as Snapchat, won’t do everything in their power to cover their asses. Imagine if this teacher did go amok and they flagged it but did nothing.

I kind of expect this sort of hidden ad shenanigans these days. Which I shouldn’t, of course. But as a result I find it more infuriating to have a link to the “article” next to the already opened very same “article.” Come on, algorithm! That’s just unforgivable.

Yes, I did hear that before.

Eff me, that wasn’t intended!

I am conflicted here. On the one hand, I agree that subtitles would have been nice. On the other hand, I think folks with hearing disabilities get shut out of other content so much that I don’t think this somewhat solitary case makes it good mildly infuriating material. It’s most likely just an oversight. Much less likely a clever scheme to highlight ableism.

This is a problem of their own making having started off so lenient with account usage. In the end, it’s their house and their rules though. Deal with it or set your sails.