I think people expect commercial social media networks to be something they can't be -- a kind of commons where you are exposed to the range of views that exist in your community. But that's not what makes social networks money, what makes them money is engagement, and consuming a variety of opinions is tiresome for users and bad for profits. When did you ever see social media trying to engage you with opinions you don't agree with or inform you about the breadth of opinion out there? It has never done that.

The old management of Twitter had a strategy of making it a big tent, comfortable for centrist views and centrist-adjacent views. This enabled it to function as a kind of limited town common for people who either weren't interested in politics, like authors or celebrities promoting their work, or who wanted to reach a large number of mainly apolitical people. This meant drawing lines on both sides of the political spectrum, and naturally people near the line on either side were continually furious with them.

It was an unnatural and unstable situation. As soon as Musk tried to broaden one side of the tent, polarization was inevitable. This means neither X nor Bluesky can be what Twitter was for advertisers and public figures looking for a broad audience.

At present I'm using Mastodon. For users of old Twitter, it must seem like an empty wasteland, but it's a non-commercial network, it has no business imperative to suck up every last free moment of my attention. I follow major news organizations who dutifully post major stories. I follow some interest groups which are active to a modest degree, some local groups who post on local issues, and a few celebrities like George Takei. *Everybody's* not on it, but that's OK; I don't want to spend more than a few minutes a day on the thing so I don't have time to follow everyone I might be interested in. Oh, and moderation is on a per-server basis, so you can choose a server where the admins have a policy you're OK with.

No, there are all kinds of information the government has that are legitimately not available. Sensitive data on private citizens, for example, which is why people are worried about unvetted DOGE employees getting unfettered access to federal systems. Information that would put witnesses in ongoing criminal investigations at risk. Military operations in progress and intelligence assets in use.

The problem is ever since there has been a legal means to keep that information secret, it's also been used to cover up government mistake and misconduct. It's perfectly reasonable for a government to keep things from its citizens *if there is a specific and articulable justification* that can withstand critical examination.

And sometimes those justifications are overridden by public interest concerns -- specifically when officials really want to bury something like the Pentagon Papers because they are embarrassing to the government. "Embarrassing to the government" should be an argument against secrecy, because of the public interest in knowing the government is doing embarrassing things. In the end, the embarrassment caused by the Pentagon Papers was *good* for the country.

All you need to know about RFK's fitness for office is out in public for everyone to see.

Then maybe they have already relaxed the more stringent gun video standards then....or were any of these you watched particularly old videos?

I know I've seen channels like MAC and Sootch , etc complaining they couldn't show this or that without getting strikes...

but there was a major (and predictable) power outage in Lousiana two or three weeks ago that made the national news.

I LIVE in the New Orleans area in Louisiana, and I know nothing about this power outage you speak of....?

I never saw anything about this on local or national news....?

I'd be happy with YouTube, for a start, to relax the mods on gun content...these days they cannot even show a video of disassembling a gun to show how it works or how to clean it...

They ban videos showing someone screwing on/off a silencer these days.....it didn't used to be this strict....

Hey...as long as the earth doesn't go tits up before I'm done with her....I'm good.

Yeah, because "Al Gore" is a scientist. ... right? Maybe you should see what "the Science" is....

You are correct sir!!

I do believe the title of "the Science" has been claimed by one Mr. Faucci....

;)

525 cpm, 105 wpm.

I learned to type back in the day playing Sierra On-Line games, and through the Almeida method. Quiet Aunt Zelda. Willy Sits Exams. Every Dad Cares. Run From Vicky To Get Betty. Young Harry Never Uses Joe's Money. Oh Lloyd Stop. Please.

Thirty some odd years later and I still remember the little mnemonics from a single viewing of the Almeida video.

If I had a rubber for slashdot I could fix this.

In American slang, "rubber" commonly refers to a condom. It's an informal term for a contraceptive device.

Yup...I was confused at him replying he wanted to fuck it safely.....

At this point, I still have no idea what he's trying to say here.....

Look at what recently occured both in Spain and in Louisiana, despite certainly some healthy effort (and planning one would hope) to keep the grid in those areas running fine under difficult conditions.

Not sure what you mean about Louisiana...?

I mean, we've not nothing like Spain hit us....

A few years ago, I believe it was Hurricane Ida that hit and knocked down all transmission lines into the greater New Orleans area....power was out there about a month, but that's Hurricane damage....catastrophic damage to an area which you expect to lose power for a bit.

Are you referring to that or something else which I don't know about.....we've not had anything hit similar to Spain.

A limp vine?

If your microphone is active, it should at least show an indicator light and a top-row icon, I'm pretty sure.

Used to be: ... but does it run linux?

I don't know about your food banks, but here in Canada, they're not run by the government. They're charities. I'm ALREADY paying taxes to try to make sure our government takes care of less fortunate people, and they've failed by foisting that off onto food banks, which are run on shoestring budgets, charity, and luck. What happens when people can't afford to give to the food bank, like when there's a recession?

If it were a government agency that was guaranteed to have affordable/free food so that anyone could at least cover their basic dietary requirements, I'd definitely be agreeing with you here. But it's not. We need to understand that the government is failing us at the most basic level.