> They go quiet or form a tiny invite only groups to hide after an attempt to do something good that backfired because their skin is the wrong colour or they aren’t trans.
It really sounds like they accidentally offended someone, the person who was offended was so much so that they couldn't communicate why they were offended, and then your friends misinterpreted the issue.
The issue with all these things is that on right-wing forums these issues are spun from human biodiversity to white nationalism, racial crime statistics to racist rhetoric, concern about pedophilia into homophobia, an obvious lie into support of disproportionately tough policing relative to crimes committed, and, again, racism supportive of police. What is true for alt-right forums that isn't true for others is that hate speech tends to be protected on these private platforms.
If you wanna refer to some "psychological type" you should define it and explain it. Throwing around "X is a sociopath" "Y is the type of brigading that leads to Hitler" without explanation or clarity is crying wolf to the people who will read your comment and associate it with your belief. They could be totally valid analogues! But personally I find it hard to connect self censorship to fascism when the "other side" (subjective) stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overturn a democratic election. Of course, maybe we're doomed on every direction we could turn.
"Psychologically, they are in many ways the same type of person as the Bolshevik and the Nazi."
Congratulations. You just compared the people who want you to stop using racial slurs to the people who killed millions based on their race.
- of course, this is slightly exaggerated, but not really. There's no clarification here and my reading wasn't awaredly malicious. The "wokeists" in the article are abhorrent virtue signalers, absolutely, but "cancelling" someone for (extreme example) a slightly risque joke is totally different from committing mass genocide.
The anti-abuse measures don't convince me. The two most feasible ones (to me!) are the password manager use requirement and displaying a prompt - plenty of sites will just make the user accept the prompt, and plenty of users don't want password managers (that debate exists and both sides see their points of view as obvious, but that's not really relevant here except that they exist).
I'd prefer to see just a prompt for cookie storing in browsers. Preferably something small enough that I don't have to interact with it. No API. Lynx does it decently (prompts for cookie saving before loading the site). The issue with this is the sheer amount of times it'd have to be done (per website! or maybe there can be some defaults? but that could defeat the purpose) and that many sites ironically use cookies to save that the user chose to disallow non-necessary cookies to be saved by the site as per GDPR.
Given that this API intends to fight an already rampant cookie-spam abuse: Why not instead figure out how to determine the admin email of a given site and make the browser automatically send them one message per cookie used, so it floods their inbox? It wouldn't be productive but it would make me feel better. This paragraph is only half joking.
> Poole's 4chan is an anonymous, ephemeral imageboard that is often given the title "cesspool of the Internet." The site is broken up into boards of various topics, and some of the more lawless boards are home to all of the worst characters on the Internet, like school shooters, child pornographers, and racists. It's also the birthplace of a lot of Internet culture, like Rickrolling, lolcats, and, more recently, Pepe the frog memes and the alt-right. The site gave rise to the Internet hacktivist group Anonymous and is often used as a dumping ground for various hacks like the Nintendo Gigaleak. Poole sold 4chan back in 2015, a year before joining Google.
I don't think it's fair to say this without clarifying that a lot of the Q and other deranged stuff started happening after moot left. Nor is Pepe really a recent meme (somewhere I have Pepes saved from like the mid '00s), nor is Anonymous really a group (but that's questionable and a debate that isn't really relevant)... I know there's very little expectations when it comes to reporting on web subcultures but come on, this is common knowledge (maybe that's why it isn't clarified?).
crazy person yelling at cloud incoming. all opinions and i do recognize much of this is completely unrealistic for most users
Personally I learned HTML through General Assembly (though I remember it being free) and didn't really use it for a couple years. Eventually I had an application (in the sense of something to which to apply HTML, not one of those godawful electron webapps) for my knowledge and just fashioned my site out of <P>s, a <TITLE>, and the appropriate <HTML>, <BODY>, <HEAD>, and closing tag.
That's all most people should need! If a webpage is just text without any images it shouldn't need dividers, buttons, sliders, GDPR notices (why the hell are you tagging my browser when I'm trying to read your blog?), or a ton of empty space. If you need margins add a stylesheet and if you need pretty colors that's pretty easy.
I write my HTML by hand, in a terminal text editor, and save and refresh Firefox to view the updated work. And it works! Really well in fact. When I wanna make a new page I just `cp [the smallest file here] [new file]` and change around the title, canonical link, and header. It's lacking in terms of weird meta tags for Twitter and Facebook but I don't really want people linking to my stuff from those useless sites anyway. Every image has alt text, every page works decently in Lynx, and I'm quite happy with it. If you have to spend time on every line of HTML you quickly learn to stop adding useless code to your website.
My grandmother's computer is an old Debian box with nothing more than `ly` (as a DM), xfce, Chicago95, and Firefox. She loves it, though I made a ton of tweaks here and there to make it easier for her to use (specifically a ton of website launchers on her desktop). She got lost in regards to how to use her computer back in the XP>8 transition so it was great to be able to bring her back to that style of desktop and have the system be easier to fix than Windows 8 or 10.
> Linux has systemd, not my favorite thing out there, Windows is privacy nightmare. That left me with 2 major options: Linuxes without systemd (Gentoo, in my case) or BSDs.
Even if you don't like systemd (I don't but I live with it because I never have to interact with it anyway), this is such a weird way to phrase it. Imagine saying "Linux has `apt`, not my favorite thing out there. That left me with two major options: Linuxes without apt (Arch, in my case) or BSDs." Just... change the program. Apparently Arch can switch over to sysvinit just by installing two packages from the AUR (see https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/SysVinit), Devuan exists, et cetera.
Of course, the author was sold on BSD before making this argument - and fair enough, at least it's a free system. But in my opinion it's ridiculous to discount a family of systems because of one common program.
I think the general point is correct but I don't think the businesses are influenced by China specifically. That puts too little blame on us.
Our home-grown flavor of fascism is influenced by Nazi Germany in particular but has far outpaced it by systematically co-opting and diluting any attempts to divert from the status quo. Pride parades are paid for by banks, Black Lives Matter is supported by companies with histories of racial discrimination, hell, the phrase "All Cops Are Bastards" was taken by Liberals to mean "some cops (not your friends) are bastards (but they're good people just forced to do some bad stuff)". The Right has convinced the populace that the Left wants to censor and restrict the people when in reality the opposite is true. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
I think China is still learning to ride the bike of authoritarianism. A truly totalitarian government will seem to its people to be completely democratic.