IDK who that is, but I agree 100%! Let’s not just stop at public money, public code, but let’s go with all science, engineering, etc, should be public.

That’s uplifting though. Thanks for the post.

I don’t get. Why would you want to do this? I understand to run standard os tools, but why? Just curl the page and use tools.

Also i wonder if there’s any kind of vulnerability that can be exploited somehow.

Maybe i’m not understanding though?

Can anyone explain it to me please?

It does sound interesting though.

Interesting… she’s worried these games are like width, but her solution is to find one of her own… ok?

It’s an interesting point she’s making, and while i agree that games can be tedious and do kind of align with a bs job, she can easily limit her kids playing those kinds of games without fear they won’t be able to eat or have shelter.

No one works a bs job because they want to, but because they need the money.

While games are a source of entertainment. So im not really sure the point she’s trying to make here, besides games bad. Yes, they can be bad, but as a parent it’s you’re responsibility to limit that then. And before any one asks, yes i’m a parent.

I’m someone asking a question. And if putting a comment on a post, that allows comments, is hijacking then you’re really not going to like the rest of the internet.

Folks really just can’t be civil on Lemmy apparently huh?

One would assume that a platform that is attempting to promote folks posting things and allows comments that we can have a discussion without attacking each other. But I guess not, huh?

Why does it matter if someone comments on every post? That’s what the platform allows. So you cam either choose to not respond or don’t post. If you don’t agree and don’t want to respond then just downvote.

Personally, I just gave up on c/worldnews. Yes, someone is posting in c/worldnews, yes, they’re from western sources, but how exactly is an article on climate change causing increases in bacterial infection “pro-imperialist propaganda”? If it’s science based, backed by a report by the CDC, then that’s science. Not once has the primary person posting attempted to influence the conversation on posting. When folks are responding to the articles, the person posting states something like they agree with the post or they disagree with the post.

The problem with fact checkers, if they too can be biased and a lot of world news is going to be difficult to verify.

I just had this conversation about things like Snopes and mediabiasfactchecker. I was just told they weren’t reputable sources, just because. There is almost no chain of trust with news sources it seems. At least not one that everyone will agree on, so what can we do?

If you block someone from posting, what’s to stop them from creating new accounts and getting around it?

If you go by the community up/down votes, same thing.

Sadly this is a fact of life on the internet.

One thing we can attempt to do is attempt to be civilized and let’s have an active discussion and not just “YOU’RE WRONG!” Ok… maybe I am wrong, let’s have a discussion as to WHY I’m wrong and where are the sources?

I don’t have an answer to this problem, so honestly I’m staying out of c/worldnews now, because it’s not worth it. I’ll just get my news elsewhere from Lemmy and that sucks, but if we’re not going to have real conversations then this site and technology will just devolve into the absolute cesspool like other places.

And that’s not to say all of other platforms are perfect or imperfect. There’s beauty and ugliness in everything. The technology isn’t implicitly good or evil. How we decide to use it is.

So can we just be grown ups and have real discussions or is this platform just going to turn into another awful place on the web? It’s up to us.

Why is it spam? Because it’s from abc backed by cdc? Or because climate change is fake?

Awesome! Now that is helpful information. Thank you! I will absolutely look into those. I greatly appreciate the help.

So for every single news article you completely research every facet of a company? You have way more patience than i do. But that probably is what it takes on the internet today.

I’d assume once you research a company though that you wouldn’t research it again, you just save yourself time and go based on your original research?

Or do you check up on each and everytime?

Do you have a list of ones you trust?

I’m not insisting anything. How do you verify the website that was given to you in the search engine iz trustworthy?

And internet search providers aren’t biased at all either, right?

There’s so much false info on the internet tout can’t trust any of it. None of them are regulated. in my experience at least snopes and mbfc try to back up their claims.

So you just randomly look up stuff and believe whatever hit is first?

Search engines are biased on how you phrase things.

So you have zero trustworthy sources you’re saying.

I’m legitemately asking you, for the fourth time, give me some sources.

I’m attempting to educate myself more, but you give zero information to help that, outside of critizing me, but yet you insist i’m the troll.

Ok.

So do you do all your own scientific research as well? Have you confirmed gravity? Or do you just trust that it’s real?

We have to assume some level of trust on some line, until proven otherwise.

Yes, what i’m doing is asking for actually information. If toy want to suggest alternatives, i’ll check them out. Instead you just want everyone to trust you on your word. And looking at your history you just want to live in your bubble and fight anyone that doesn’t agree with you.

So give us some alternatives.

Or ignore me and prove me right, and i sincerely do wish everyone, including you, a good life. And not in the sarcastic way you dismiss people.

Awesome, so instead of actually giving evidence and attempting to push the conversation forward by offering better solutions, instead you just insult people got it.

Yes I do need more evidence then that. Snopes is known as a trustworthy source. So it makes sense for Facebook to hire them. Did Snopes compromise their integrity it did they try to do the job the best they can?

What you’re suggesting is basically on the level of an attorney decides to defend someone in a murder, even if that person didn’t commit it, that the attorney should also be charged on the murder if found guilty. That’s not how it works.

You can attempt to do good, even while working with someone awful. Guilt by association is draconian.

Wow… apparently any kind of enjoyment is now socialism… what’s the closest Socialist country to the US? I’m moving. :-D

I don’t think Facebook is anything but an awful cesspool. But stating Snopes is just as bad without evidence, doesn’t help the conversation.

As I stated if you have other suggestions I’m open to getting them. Just stating “Nope, bad!” Without giving evidence, outside of affiliation, doesn’t help the conversation, nor does it direct folks to trustworthy sources.

If you have other suggestions in open to getting them, but I’m not sure how being a Facebook checker is a negative thing. Facebook needs LOTS of checking. Not a huge fan of Google Analytics, but I can hide myself from that stuff anyway, so also not a big deal really.

Basically they’re better than nothing.

I’ll also say that technology isn’t good or bad. Even if mastodon were to somehow so this, they’ll move somewhere else. Mastodon and Fediverse technologies well always have a dark side for those that are kicked out of somewhere. They’ll always five a place for their hate. That doesn’t make Mastodon bad or evil.

If the Mastodon devs were to attempt to force their views on everyone, that would be bad, because someone will have a view that doesn’t coincide with yours.

The best we can do is create the technology and block those users we don’t want to see. You getting into an out rage won’t change their mind. It’ll just prove their point. You can’t change their mind, that’s only something they can do. Let them echo their hate into themselves and maybe some will hear the echo and realize how awful it is and decide to leave if their own Accord.

If only there was a way to run your own server with your own rules and exclude those nodes you don’t like or something. Damn decentralized platforms being so centralized and out of our control!

If there’s content you don’t like you can block it.

If the node you’re on didn’t have the same views as you, get a new node or make a new node.

I don’t agree with any kind of racism, but just stating things like this, like you have no control, is just whining. You at least have options with Mastodon.

Social networks are always going to be a mixed bag, be part of the solution, not someone that just complains about the problem.

Not sure I’m understanding the question here. Yes… they could do that, but will they? You could also do that yourself by pulling the code and cherry picking patches you want and don’t want.