
He/Him
Sneaking all around the fediverse.
Also at breakfastmtm@fedia.social breakfastmtn@pixelfed.social
Good night and good luck!
I was expressing how utterly wasteful this article and thread is
You have been given the tools to correct your ill-formed opinion but have refused them. Instead you insist on endlessly spilling the beans on the you problem you have. This isn’t a therapy session. Physician heal thyself!
Sure, you can stay married to your pointless, impotent rage or you could have your concerns addressed.
That’s on you.
You might have missed some important context. It’s probably best explained here in this companion essay.
“Hey guys can you help me disconnect from the fire hose of human joy to appease all the grumps around me?”
We can’t and we won’t.
Raccoon for Friendica is great if you’re on Android.
Twitter’s even worse than that. Sometimes they require login to view a tweet. Sometimes you can see every post on an account. Sometimes there are certain posts missing in a timeline but you can’t know without logging in.
Ridiculously annoying.
For real. Who could ever understand why Dan banned them? It’s a mystery…
Loops was developed years ago as a component of Pixelfed and then shelved before being recently developed as a separate service. It is not 5 years old.
I don’t like China or think it’s a good idea to partner with either of those shitty dictatorships! It’s an interesting interview even if I disagree with the guy and think that proposal is stupid and self-defeating.
Who’s “y’all” in this rant?
Yeah, it’s an interesting read but both of those options are terrible.
I think we may need to reach a new consensus on this: is there still a quiet part?
How would you define “dry texter”? How would a dry texter reply to those messages?
People would be making Molotovs in their kitchens immediately.
As the person asking people to fact check the claims of weird conspiracy theorists, I’m gonna have to ask for your sources on that one.
Edit: For anyone wondering, MBFC is transparent about their funding sources.
Edit2: an MBFC conspiracy theorist just making shit up??? I’m shocked…
I’m awarding you three demerits for a reply that doesn’t make sense. Govern yourself accordingly.
I think that very few of these arguments are being made in good faith. For some people, any bias monitor is a barrier to sharing propaganda as news. Others just don’t understand how to use the site properly. Or use it in a really stupid way anyway. Like this:
Instead of:
Others are like, ‘it’s telling me what to think, man!’ who don’t seem to understand that those pages contain a wealth of information that you can include in your decision-making (or not). They’ve convinced themselves that it’s presented as the one and only source of absolute truth, which is really just something they made up to be angry about. No one but them is making that claim.
There also isn’t another free source that has that info in one place. There’s no better place to quickly find news org ownership info, the country they’re operating in (with links to info about press freedom in that country), and their history of factual reporting. But those people don’t care – they’re just viscerally reacting to the ratings, not reading the reports.
EDIT2: Commenters have some valid criticisms of MBFC.
Here’s another in my “making friends” series of posts.
Commenters DO NOT have valid criticisms of MBFC. They are universally wrong, have no idea how MBFC works, and are too lazy to look it up. The misinfo ghouls among them are happy to repeat lies over and over until people start to accept them.
Some of these people can be pretty convincing but I urge you to actually fact check their arguments. Most of these people are just parroting bullshit they saw someone else say. The “best” of these are basically artisanal, hand-crafted AI hallucinations: high-confidence, syntactically-correct nonsense. Don’t put that glue on your pizza. If someone posts an MBFC link as evidence, click it and read it. Nearly every single time, the link they posted contradicts them and they just haven’t read it.
And ask yourself why no one ever posts peer-reviewed research backing up their claims. It’s a simple reason: it doesn’t exist. Every single piece of academic research on MBFC says they’re wrong. The MBFC conspiracy theorists can’t just ignore that body of research because it’s inconvenient – they need a compelling reason why all research to date is wrong. For their claims to be true, it would require a massive conspiracy between academics, journalists, and media bias organizations because they are all in consensus about what makes good and bad news organizations. It’s loopy, tinfoil hat bullshit.