• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Musk buys Twitter II

Rolfe said:
Click to expand...
Article is paywalled and the Washington Post does not play nicely with curl and elinks. I was, however, able to read it by clicking on Firefox's "reader view" before the paywall's Javascript kicked in.

Bluesky doesn't appear to be dying. But it currently has a shortage of conservative opinions, which can easily lead to an echo chamber.

In fact, Bluesky's easy access to "mute account" and "block account" actions can certainly turn it into an echo chamber for users who wish to use them.
 
Blue Mountain said:
Bluesky doesn't appear to be dying. But it currently has a shortage of conservative opinions, which can easily lead to an echo chamber.
Click to expand...
The article says that Bluesky’s posts are dropping, and there is no end in sight, because people post on stuff on Bluesky for political reasons (anti-Musk), but also post on X (in order to get readers). Over time, they post less on Bluesky, and more on X.

Obviously, Bluesky can become an echo chamber when haters can’t post there, which is the general idea.

In Denmark, all government agencies post on X, because they mindlessly continue after Twitter was turned into X, and became a haven for extremists. This forces anyone who want to follow whatever the police of government ministries have to say, to also use their X account. I’m not aware that any are starting to use Bluesky.
 
Blue Mountain said:
Article is paywalled and the Washington Post does not play nicely with curl and elinks. I was, however, able to read it by clicking on Firefox's "reader view" before the paywall's Javascript kicked in.
Click to expand...

That's a good tip, thanks. I used "view source" which also works, but this article was a pain because there were a lot of links in the text.
 
There's a certain amount of irony in talking about how dead a microblogging platform is or isn't on a web forum.
 
Blue Mountain said:
Article is paywalled and the Washington Post does not play nicely with curl and elinks. I was, however, able to read it by clicking on Firefox's "reader view" before the paywall's Javascript kicked in.
Click to expand...

I have now actually tried that and it worked brilliantly. I thank you, it's something that simply hadn't occurred to me. I wish I'd realised years ago!
 
Some people said it worked with archive.org, but I've never been able to get that to work for anything. I'll be interested to see if it works with The Times, and other papers who prevent View Source from working.
 
Just because, Musk vomited some stupidity again. This time, Elon Musk has an idea for a new political party—that already exists.

“A new political party is needed in America to represent the 80% in the middle! And exactly 80% of people agree. This is fate.”
Click to expand...

That's totally moronic from the start, of course. Going a bit further to address that more directly...

Eighty percent of Americans agree on only a handful of policies, like having the Food and Drug Administration inspect food or requiring car companies to submit accident data on self-driving vehicles—and Musk is adamantly against the latter. But when it comes to more expansive party-defining policies, like those around abortion rights or health care, an 80% consensus very rarely exists.
Click to expand...

Musk also seems to be rather against the former, really. He's apparently complained about FDA red tape where such didn't exist and he sabotaged the FDA like he did pretty much the entire government, which had serious impact on food inspections. Still, we could be "kind" and reduce that 80% to 60% and see what are we looking at then? Maybe Musk will have a little more to grasp onto?

A party of the 60% would increase taxes on billionaires and large corporations, raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and pour more federal funding into affordable housing. Its economic agenda would also expand antitrust enforcement against Big Tech and advocate for stricter environmental regulations, even if they cost jobs and dent the economy. This hypothetical party would prioritize expanding wind and solar power over fossil fuels, and it would want to tax corporations based on how much carbon they release. Hell, this party would even favor making power plants completely eliminate carbon emissions by 2040.

A party of the 60% would support abortion being legal in most or all cases. It would see the government as responsible for ensuring all Americans have health insurance. It would strongly support Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act. It would want to pour billions into research for women’s health and cap yearly out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs on all insurance plans. It would support creating a public option for health insurance and lowering the enrollment age for Medicare from 65 to 60, though it wouldn’t be sold on Medicare for all. Nonetheless, this party would increase benefits for Social Security and Medicare.

A party of the 60% would believe it’s too easy to legally obtain a gun in the U.S. It would fight for banning assault rifles and implementing universal background checks and red-flag laws.

A party of the 60% would want to provide free college tuition to low- and middle-income families and free breakfast and lunch to students at public schools. It would maintain that kids should be required to get vaccinated in order to attend public school. And while the party wouldn’t have a solid stance on school vouchers, it would support increasing funding for public schools over putting that new money into private-school vouchers.

A party of the 60% would support protecting access to contraception, legalizing recreational marijuana, implementing universal paid family and medical leave, increasing food assistance for low-income families, setting term limits for Supreme Court justices, and providing many types of foreign aid, especially when it comes to donating food and medicine.
Click to expand...

Hmm. That all sounds suspiciously like what the party that Musk has been pointedly fighting against supports and what the party that Musk pointedly fights for seeks to prevent or destroy. Hence, **** you, Musk, and your pathetic political pretenses.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Just because, Musk vomited some stupidity again. This time, Elon Musk has an idea for a new political party—that already exists.



That's totally moronic from the start, of course. Going a bit further to address that more directly...



Musk also seems to be rather against the former, really. He's apparently complained about FDA red tape where such didn't exist and he sabotaged the FDA like he did pretty much the entire government, which had serious impact on food inspections. Still, we could be "kind" and reduce that 80% to 60% and see what are we looking at then? Maybe Musk will have a little more to grasp onto?



Hmm. That all sounds suspiciously like what the party that Musk has been pointedly fighting against supports and what the party that Musk pointedly fights for seeks to prevent or destroy. Hence, **** you, Musk, and your pathetic political pretenses.
Click to expand...
Anyobdy who say's they want to set up a "centrist" party the ordinary man will vote for simply wants to set up a far right party.
 
The Don said:
Not least because a centrist party would be considerably to the left of the current mainstream Democratic Party.
Click to expand...
Every time a centrist politician or faction has taken power in a party, they've driven it to the right. The most well known centrist in history was Franz von Papen, and he was the midwife to nazi Germany.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom