Why would you share screenshots of death threats? That's like taking a screenshot of a picture of animal abuse that was posted on Facebook and reposting it. Of course it will get you blocked.
"Sorry, our site is unavailable in your country right now."
In any case I suppose it's a cultural thing. I've seen in the US they have ads for really invasive drugs on the telly, so I suppose Americans visit pharmacies all the time, that's why they became convenience stores? Or maybe the other way around, they are convenience stores so they can get Americans to buy drugs more often? Anyway, offtopic.
>becoming financially independent in the US is a matter of years [2], not decades
(European here) I don't care about being financially dependent on the state, because the state is not my enemy. The state gave me healthcare, the state gave me a free education, the state takes care of stuff. I don't care about "freedom".
The main website reeks of social justice, and take a look at the rules of mastodon.social (the primary instance) if you want something to laugh at: https://mastodon.social/about/more - All the big instances are exactly the same, and I guess if you make a more "free" instance, the big instances will completely ban your instance from theirs, so it won't be of much use. So federation doesn't really solve any censorship problems.
Mastodon is as politically aligned as Gab.ai. Someone should create a Twitter clone that isn't politically aligned, now that would be a step forward :P
>to display/not display ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in a particular place of worship, religion or tenet, such as the "Christian Church," "Sikhism," "Hinduism," or the "Bible."
It says "such as"; I'm interested if this list includes "synagogue" or "Torah". Is there any place the entire list is included?
That is funny. The reason I don't follow tech people on Twitter is that they spend all day posting about left-leaning US politics, feminism, LGBTQ-whatever, etc. which are things I couldn't care less about.
That's one of the bad things of social media: you want to read about tech or movies or sports or whatever so you follow someone in the field but you also have to read his political opinions, see pictures of his kids, see the latte he just ordered, etc. Insufferable.
That's especially bad. If XYZ and 7 other people I follow also follow ABC, I surely know of ABC's existence, and I don't follow him because I don't want to. The last thing I want is seeing his tweets in my timeline!!
As I said above, I believe this will be some kind of emergency measure to discredit handpicked tweets that have an enormous amount of retweets or made by specific users with an enormous amount of followers. It doesn't matter if it doesn't scale because it won't be used at scale.
I doubt you'll get right-wing stuff, this looks like it will be handpicked by some human, and only enabled for tweets they deem too controversial. i.e. Alex Jones says something, and then some human at Twitter HQ slaps a CNN tweet and a Snopes article next to the tweet without any permission from Alex Jones.
But in truth I don't really care if they want to shove tweets from nazis or communists or liberals or potato salads in my face. I only want to see what I follow. Is that too much to ask for?
>One solution Twitter is exploring is to surround false tweets with factual context
I quit Twitter because they started choosing for me what they show me. Before it was all what I chose to follow in chronological order, nowadays you get lot of other stuff that you didn't ask for. It's a salad of content. And now they want to add even more unwanted stuff. Way to go.