Well I assumed it was the crybaby hiding behind his mommy since it’s his chatbot.

But now that I think about it, the manbaby in the leaky diaper is just as fragile, so it’s possible that it all started with him boo-hooing to the crybaby.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other…

Such a fragile little manchild.

Of course they’re ideological.

Seriously, did nobody else connect the dots back when Trump tried to strongarm Congress into raising the debt ceiling before he even took office?

He’s NEVER had even the slightest intention of actually reducing spending. In fact, he plans and has planned since even before he took office to not only increase it, but to increase it even more than Congress is willing to go along with.

This isn’t complicated.

Mm… that makes sense.

I knew there had to be something there, and specifically related to the prison-for-profit system and the kickbacks they pay judges, but I couldn’t figure out an angle that made it especially advantageous to imprison kids.

And yeah - that does fit.

Hmm… I wonder why.

Broadly, it’s safe to assume that sentencing kids means the judges get bigger kickbacks from the prison industry. Why though? Do the prison contractors charge the government more for kids? Or do the corporations pay the prisons more for child slaves? Or what?

Surfaces?

It’s been there all along - it’s just been routinely ignored by the legacy media.

That said - there is a sort of interesting meta-topic here.

It’s arguably likely that there’s a relatively powerful and serious opposition to Trump coming together, simply because the NYT is so craven and cowardly and ethically bankrupt that there’s basically no way that they’d publish something like this unless there was somebody other than Trump that they could suck up to by doing it.

For whatever that’s worth.

This is a coup.

In a way, doesn’t that mean that it would be more accurate to say that the bot stopped being rogue and went legit?

I’ve never understood how or why this is an issue.

Shortly after Spez’s petulant AMA, I ran across a link for Lemmy. org. It looked interesting, so I followed it. I poked around a bit, and it still looked interesting, so I picked an instance and created an account. I played with it a bit, then I went back and found a different instance that looked interesting and created an account there too. And I just kept reading and posting, just like I’d done on Reddit (and half a dozen different sites before that). Some instances came and went and I lost some accounts and created others and eventually settled into a few that I like best, and just read and posted and didn’t leave. The end.

But it seems that every time I turn around, someone’s going on about the hardships of moving to a different site and all the difficulties to be overcome and yadda yadda yadda, and I just don’t get it. At all.

I sure as hell hope I’m not the only one who thinks that the alternative explanation is even worse than the original.

All I know is that Kagi triggered my scam alarms from the start, and moving into the browser market just made them ring even louder.

What “us?”

I’m going to be right there alongside her, on my way to an execution too.

And so are you.

I wonder how she’s going to feel about this choice a few years down the line, when President-for-life Trump orders her execution.

And if the world were a just place instead of a twisted shithole designed to maximize the privilege of a relative few wealthy and empowered parasites, you could work fewer hours, make the same or even more money and afford a house.

But instead the system has been warped so that you have to work long hours for insufficient pay and still can’t afford a decent life, and all so that a relative few executives, board nembers, bankers, investors and politicians can siphon off the bulk of the wealth you generate so that they can buy more houses and bigger yachts.

No - actually I was talking worldwide. Russia’s just a notable example.

And I would say that all of the things you listed are, directly or indirectly, consequences of the fact that wealthy authoritarian parasites have warped societies to their benefit regardless of the harm done to others, so are actually examples of exactly what I’m talking about.

News flash for wealthy authoritarian parasites around the world, because you all seem ignorant of this fact:

Declining birthrates are a direct result of the simple fact that more people all the time decide that they have no desire to bring children into this world, and that in turn is a direct result of the fact that you’ve turned this world into a warped, corrupt, toxic, authoritarian shithole.

You have no one to blame but yourselves.

And I guarantee that billionaire Larry Ellison blithely believes that he’ll be exempt - that all of this surveillance will just be used against the little people. And he’s almost certainly right.

So… Meta’s “plan” is to dodge responsibility?

Gee whiz… I sure never saw that coming…

If he’s trying to say “Biden wanted this but Trump already started it”

Which “he?”

Zuckerberg blames it exclusively and entirely on the Biden administration.

that tells me BOTH parties requested it. Hence, if you don’t like Biden because of this, you don’t want Trump either. And of course, vice versa. In short, this policy is not unique to either party or administration.

Exactly, but that’s explicitly not what Zuckerberg is saying. He’s saying that it was entirely and exclusively Biden, which is a lie.

Why did Zuckerberg choose now to make this announcement and publicly reveal the inside play?

There’s actually a tidbit that the author notes that points at the obvious reason for it.

In his letter to Congressional investigators, he flat-out said what everyone else has been saying for years now.

In 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content…

The author then goes on to say though:

A few clarifications. The censorship began much earlier than that, from March 2020 at the very least if not earlier.

What’s significant about that? Trump was president then.

So Zuckerberg is rather obviously trying to pin entirely on the Biden administration a set of policies that were already in place under Trump.

To what end? Obviously to do the same thing he did in 2016 and 2020 - to overtly promote Trump.

This particular one certainly not coincidentally plays into the whole Republican narrative that the Democrats are oppressive and dishonest, which in turn is meant to provide a context for their intention to dispute the election results when Trump loses. Zuckerberg is simply doing his part to further that narrative.