You know, I might have agreed with you a few years ago, but then Manifest v3 happened. AKA: Let's kneecap ad-blockers in Chrome for no benefit to anyone but Google. Anti-consumer products are a red flag.

Clearly, it's a monopoly, because v3 is going to affect other browsers. This is because Google calls the shots for the entire web. Web standards go where Google goes. Chromium is no alternative to this unless someone forks. Even Mozilla will have to contend with it. You should see the list of things on Bugzilla that require adopting "chrome-like behavior" or even spoofing the user agent because a website won't admit that it will run fine on something that isn't Chrome.

There is no choice in browsers if web servers and code are built for a monopoly browser. We've barely gotten over Internet Explorer, and I don't want to go back.

A definition of monopolistic behavior is a company that makes clearly uncompetitive product decisions that are anti-consumer, because the consumer has no alternatives. In a free-market, that doesn't happen. Manifest v3 doesn't happen. Browser functionality isn't crippled for the benefit of inverted totalitarianism. A competitor provides an unhindered user experience, and the uncompetitve, anti-consumer product eventually tanks.

So no. No, you're wrong. Sell the thing and force them to compete.

I'm guessing we're using English here.

Is it possible that the fundamentals, the linguistic nuts and bolts, of the English language lead to left-leaning bias?

What opinion does an LLM output in Arabic or Korean? Spanish?

LLMs could conceivably be useful in determining the unconscious biases of language itself. Semantics actually matter.

I know it, because I speak more than one language, and each one subtly or not-so-subtly changes my outlook on life.

Unless you're talking about left-wing fascists. They exist.

Yeah, those tariffs/trade wars are inciting a slew of "this company is raising prices" "this company is accelerating their downstream supply line" articles.

There's actually a bigger mess than AI out there rn.

Oh god. Mod parent and OP funny, even if it is ACs. So true.

I was gonna say Facebook is more like garbage dumps, waste producing industrial plants, and commercial farmland (both mega livestock and corn/soy fields) where their runoff enters our water supply and poisons us all. We wouldn't accuse any of them for a lack of "ethics." That's the kind of pass Facebook gets.

So, mostly, I think you have the receiving body of water incorrect as well as the source of the slop.

4, Insightful? Here's what's on the front page right now:

1. Micron SSDs
2. Meta and AI benchmarks
3. Indian Laptops
4. Bluesky *You are HERE
5. US AI progress vs. China's
6. Dire Wolves (news for nerds)
7. Forever Chemicals (news for humans... and nerds)
8. Framework Laptops
9. GPMI vs. HDMI/Displayport
10. Waymo privacy issues (stuff that matters)
11. UK Online Shopping Laws (also stuff that matters)
12. The "weight" of the Internet (news for extremely nerdy nerds)
13. Apple supply line changes to beat tariff regimes
14. Trump tariff news

So let me see here. Bluesky appears to be about a tech platform, and none of y'all can take a joke, so you're turning it into a flame fest.

All the way on the bottom is Trump tariffs, and fully three of the tech articles (Micron, Framework, Apple) are reactions to them. So I guess that also qualifies as "stuff that matters." Though I'd prefer to not hear that moron's name ever again, he is one of the most powerful people in the world.

The problem with Slashdot is its audience and, as my low UID may make credible to you, that has gone very downhill in boiling frog fashion. I think it's mostly because social media has trained people in social media tone and expectations, in a place that used to be about geeks talking in measured and reasonable tones (ie: Not social media, with exceptions for occasional cranks and Usenet-esque flame wars).

Plus, there are troll farms, and they definitely post here. Both real people and bots. Don't feed the trolls.

So, we have a social media tone here. The problem is the whole Internet, not Slashdot. Slashdot has merely received the fallout, and its front page is still mostly on topic, if a little left-leaning sometimes.

Editors, great work. Audiences, hold the line. Let the trolls be trollin and us be strollin.

You had your chance. You should have posted this as an "Anonymous Coward."

Ah well, this place really is dead. A sense of humor somewhat above, but not quite as funny, as Bluesky.

COWBOY NEAL!

It's the only way to make your tv smarter than oneself, though. Hook that thing up! Be dumber than an appliance! /s

...and here I was salting my crops. Thanks for explaining this to me! Do you have literature I can read about which sources of information are bad? I'm trying to improve my media literacy.

Also, did you know, you can use motor oil to fertilize your lawn? /s

It's perfectly rational. The messaging is hostile at this point. Most people want hostility out of their lives.

As a communications person, I have long advocated that the level of channel saturation, and the ever increasing number of channels in inappropriate places (like gas pumps), and the volume increases, and everything else...

Well, that means that traditional advertising has failed. Years ago. If someone can't hear you, you shout at them. If they still can't hear you, you shout at them in places they don't expect, like the library, in church, and while they're in the bathroom. You increase the number channels. Very innovative, to the point of hostile.

And what that means, if anyone in the industry remembers COMM 101, is your audience doesn't want to hear what you have to say. An advertiser is having to go to these extremes specifically because their messages are not being received.

The traditional ad industry is an emperor without clothes, and I'm convinced it's on the verge of collapse. It's running on inertia and boomer CEO clients who don't know better now.

There are no "not smart" TVs. At least not where I live (the United States).

Every single flatscreen TV has an OS now. Are you running a CRT? Maybe you mean only an idiot connects a smart TV to the Internet?

Note: I define TV as something with an antenna jack that can pull broadcasts from the air with an appropriate antenna. This now requires a smart digital decoder in the US. If you're instead talking about a monitor, well, that 1) ain't a TV, and 2) Likely also has an OS.

Why does this matter? If some corp is dumb enough to pay for product placement on a screensaver I'm not going to begrudge a TV or device maker fleecing a sucker.

SPOILER ALERT: Nobody watches a screensaver.

I mean, that's the point. A screensaver activates to prevent screen burn-in because media is paused or you're on idle the fixed screen main menu. I have a Roku, and I never noticed this "new low" in the half second I go from seeing the screensaver to pressing the home button.

I am against ads - and pay for premium streaming to avoid them - but this criticism is absurd.

(Now someone talk to Paramount+ about their "ad-free" tier where they feel it is okay to advertise their own stuff and not give a skip option before videos. Max does it too, but you can always hit "skip." That is not an ad-free tier, guys. You're doing it wrong.)

I'm pretty sure one of the most "secure" things you can do is airgap the machine by not connecting it to the Internet. Indeed, it could be said that the Internet is the source of all security issues.

Nevermind though. Exit with Internet, activate, remove all Internet. Mission accomplished.