I don't like it and I wasn't consulted about it. Given it is supposed to be representative of a united humanity or something like that, I'd be interested to know what proportion of the 8 billion people were consulted in its creation.
I think it starts with social coercion, intimidation, exclusion, economic pressure and ostracism long before it builds into the confidence to take more overtly violent measures. I don't know him, but it certainly appeared as though he succumbed to these pressures, given the timing of things. I hope people doing these things take some time to reflect on their actions and how closely they follow a dark path we've seen before.
I just want to quickly jump on what you said about Linus. I know a lot of people look at his change and see it as a "growth moment", but my view is that he was forced to change by a growing body of people who take relatively extreme actions against those not seen to be towing the line. There was another group of people like this in history. We rightly condemned that evil group and their actions, and we were once more tolerant and open-minded towards one-another as people. I miss those days.
You have every right to take the content offline, or to put any technical barriers you desire in place to access it - but that's about all you should be able to do.
If you don't want to lose money and don't feel confident that you can protect your content with technical measures, best to take your stuff off the internet.
In a lot of circumstances, that is exactly the case. What the open source license stops is redistribution under terms that violate the license, not usage itself. An individual can very well take your open source code, make any changes they want, compile and use it for their own purposes without adhering to the terms of your license - as long as they don't redistribute it.
Sure, you'll never get rid of all misleading information; however, without advertising the volume of shit will reduce radically, as much of the modern internet is built around profiteering and get rich quick schemes (influencers), which breed swathes of hopeful emulators.
I think most sensible people are quite competent at ignoring the bullshit, so I would love it if there was less bullshit to wade through to get to the nuggets of useful information which are out there. For those too stupid to look past misleading information, there's no helping them anyway.
Back in the old days, people would share useful information in the internet of their own accord. That still happens a lot today, too! In my opinion, most of the stuff that's ad-supported is not worth my time, as the "content creator" is trying to sell something or otherwise has an angle they're pushing. How can I trust what they have to say when I know they're only doing it to make some money? They will be less interested in helping me than helping themselves!
I think if you take ads away from the internet, you'll also take away a lot of the bullshit and inaccurate or misleading information. If no-one is making any money off of it, you'll be left with largely relevant information.
The internet today is like a free to air television network, but I remember a time when it was nothing like that.
You might have a wider audience if you put in on the app store. I only install very well-known software outside of the app store. For anything more niche, I need it to be on the app store to offer some assurance that it is not malicious and that sandboxing is enforced.
You couldn't be more wrong about me. In-fact I did not vote for Trump and have always been in the centre, between the republicans and the democrats. Shockingly I'm considered right wing by the left and left wing by the right, albeit moreso by the left. I'm exactly who both parties should be targeting when they want to win an election and while I couldn't bring myself to vote Trump, the democrats certainly didn't sell me on Harris.
I have observed from the sidelines how both sides behave towards one another and while there are some extremists on the right whose behaviour is utterly shameful, I have noticed that a significant number of moderate people on the left have grown utterly intolerant of conservatives over the last decade and they'll vocalise their disgust and even go as far as lodging complaints with employers or writing negative reviews about businesses, outing and harassing people whose views they disagree with. While the extreme right tend towards violence, what those on the left do is equally disgusting, yet they do it with a false sense of righteousness.
I think the other poster was just being polite, trying to have a discussion about the left's misuse of the term fascism, yet failed to account for the degree of intelligence required to understand such nuance. So let me spell it out for you all, you are misusing the term and on the odd occasion that one of you actually checks the definition, you view it through your own biased lens, rather than reading the complex description thoroughly. You cherry-pick some terms and twist others around to suit your own dogma, with the intended goal of using it to villainise the enemy.
If you replace nationalism with partisanship, in very many ways the modern left is far more closely aligned with the vile components of fascism than the republican party, or even Trump supporters. The left have done everything they can do vilify anyone who disagrees with their core beliefs, which they hold are a matter of morale superiority and to which, in their minds, no person of moral substance could ever find disagreeable.
By very definition, conservatives are conservative. When they disagree with someone, they continue to treat them respectfully and move on with their lives, comfortable in the reality that there exists people around them with very different beliefs than their own. The left, on the other hand, do no such thing and yet look in the mirror and convince themselves that they're the better people in all this.
Trump less won this election than the democrats did lose it by arrogantly putting up a candidate with strong ties to the current unpopular administration and whose other policies and attributes did not appeal to the swing voter.
Why cherry-pick per-capita when what matters to the climate is actual output, not output per capita. Lets take Australia, as an example, their total co2 output is around 1% of the world's co2 output. If Australia ceased producing all of its co2, it wouldn't make much difference at all. Per capita figures are just a waste of everyone's time.
Have you heard of Brave? It's a great browser with a built-in ad blocker founded by Brendan Eich, one of the co-founders of Mozilla and the creator of Javascript. I'm not a shill, I swear - I just think it's a great initiative that should be more well known than it is.
The unpaid dev who produces something of value to users of Firefox. Removing the addon doesn't hurt him, and may hurt Firefox if people switch to Brave over this. Mozilla need to make changes to their review process or risk losing users.
And problems like this could still have been avoided if their system required review by a second party before blocking an addon by a developer of good standing who has addons with a huge number of users.
Sure, the individual doing the check might be incompetent, but that doesn't mean that Raymond needed to be bothered by Mozilla about it - they could have handled it internally instead.
I care. I'll probably just switch to Brave instead of either installing this manually (risky) or using the full-blown addon (risky). The value proposition for Firefox has just diminished.