How is chrome going to be funded if it’s broken off?

I, too, would pay. Probably $200/year. What I don’t know is how much we need to keep up development.

Recall how Boris Johnson would mess up his hair before going to talk to the general public. I think it’s impossible to tell if musk is an idiot or just plays one really effectively.

I’m not knowledgeable enough to answer, but I know China’s also going big on RISC-V.

Trump has a game going here where he alienates and punishes our allies, hands control of foreign aid to China, snuggles up to Russia, invites Hungary over for dinner, stops backing Europe militarily, and fits all the War Department warning signs for what to watch for in a dictator in America. That’s the part we know.

Whatever he’s up to, it’s not the status quo. The pressure from the tariffs can just be part of this larger game. As can the annexation threat. But that’s the part we don’t know.

Precrime!

I can only speak for myself, but I refuse to give Google a dime because they’re unfriendly to consumers.

I pay way more in Patreon subscriptions than I would pay for YouTube. I don’t see ads, and the creators make more money from me. And, importantly, Google sees none of it.

I also need one. Our library will print documents for 5¢ per page. Once my Brother HL-2040 craps out, I guess I’ll be going there.

That’s fine, but don’t mistake being jacked in for action.

And mailing lists!

And by “free speech”, we mean you have to publish what we tell you.

Like Louis Rossman said, when piracy provides the best user experience, your industry has a problem.

Typically if the news reports something someone else said and that thing is slanderous, the news station is not held responsible.

Secondly, in general, misinformation is protected speech.

The second they lose protection, that’s the end of that platform. They’re going to get sued into oblivion. The second Lemmy loses protection, that’s the end of that platform.

I agree with you that these sites are awful, but if we’re legislating an off switch for social media platforms, we’re playing with fire.

So big sites would still be on the hook for content their users post? I’m not sure I understand.

lemmy.world (and the entire republishing Fediverse) is protected from the commenter on this post saying “F*CK YOU, ORANGE C*NT” by Section 230. If they lose that protection, there is no way they or anyone else is going to allow any remotely controversial posts. (Except on X, which of course will enjoy special government protections.)

I don’t get a lot of forum posts on my site, but I will absolutely remove the forums entirely if 230 goes away. There’s no way I’m taking on the liability of all imaginable interpretations of everything anyone could possibly say.

Currently companies like Twitter, Meta, Google etc can control what is shown to users and hide behind this protection.

And this is the way it needs to be. Twitter, Meta, and Google run their own sites in the manner of their choosing. If you don’t like it, you can vote with your feet. They have no legal, ethical, or Constitutional requirement to offer their services to all comers. The alternative is some kind of government control of private companies that we really don’t need ever, and extra especially not in the next four years.

Repealing 230 will absolutely damage social media platforms of all kinds (yeah, except X), including the Fediverse. And it will lead to increased restrictions by those platforms, not decreased.

But you couldn’t tell, could you. 😂 I’m keeping this joke alive as long as I can, until Trump gets wind of it and actually does it.

You’re next, New Mexico!

As an American and long time OSM contributor, I also vote extremely no on Gulf of America.

Also no on renaming New Mexico.

Bow!

What’s that sucking sound?