Not really. Because the law gives them quasi common-carrier protections. So they can’t be held liable by the courts.

That made sense at the time; When the feed was just a simple reverse chronology of whatever you decided to subscribe to. But now, they actually decide what you see and don’t. The laws need to catch up.

Centralized, engagement-driven, advertisement financed, social media, is the internet’s greatest mistake.
Prior to that shit, the internet was pretty great. The fediverse is way to fix much of it.

To be clear the last ban was a ByteDance ban, not a TicTok ban. If ByteDance sells off it’s portion of TikTok, TikTok would be able to remain.

But in this case, the Section 230 needs to re-visited. It was written before social networks started algorithmically deciding what to show people. It needs to be adapted so these companies can be held liable for the content they “recommend” to users. Once they can be sued for their algorithm’s decisions, those algorithms will magically get better. Or at least less harmful.

I think it was kind of the reason. But that statement is also correct. Technically.
With CP2077, they were pushing the Red Engine well beyond what it was supposed to do. Which lead to both, them deciding to switch to Unreal, and causing a bunch of bugs. So the bugs weren’t the reason; They were just another result of the reason.

Perma-ban started being used because people began using Ban when meaning something temporary.

That makes sense. Thank you for giving an actual answer.

Not even. My skin was crawling just watching the trailer.

NopeNopeNopeNopeNopeNope.

Looks dope if you like that kind of thing.
I do not.

According to the article, like most companies, it’s the people that are the most expensive part at $19M.

Reason … Able. Something that is able to be reasoned. It has nothing to do fair.

Honestly. Deserving and Fair, are privileged naive ideas to bring to war.

Dark humor is a lot like food.
Not everyone gets it.

Just stateing your claim again isn’t a valid argument.

Ukraine doesn’t want this war, they never wanted it. […] but sometimes reality isn’t fair, and you have to make unpleasant compromises.

It’s a separate thread for each user or group you have. These bots come in as a new contact and thread. So no. Never in the middle of a preexisting conversation. I got one once, 2-3 years ago now. It was immediately apparent like this one. I just reported and blocked them.

It isn’t. Eventually the English language will die out. So will the sun.

It’s not about deserving. Nobody deserves anything.
And you perfectly explained why it is reasonable.

There isn’t a predetermined end point with hunger. No timer. That’s the difference.

Any time somone does something “for the children”, you have to examine it with a microscope. Age gates aren’t the best solution here. And force users to truly identify themselves online with actual IDs. It’s a first step toward a privacy and censorship nightmare.

The right way to protect kids here is to hold the companies accountable for their recommendation algorithms. That’s largely what makes these services so toxic for people. Kids included.

That seems totally reasonable to me.
“We’ll stop fighting, and let you have what you stole. But if you attack again at all, it’ll be a very different kind of fight for you. In the long run, you’ll probably have lost more than you gained by pulling this bullshit.”

The thing is, nothing is permanent in an absolute sense. (Maybe logic, but that’s about it)
So in a world where everything changes, what does permanent mean? It can only mean reasonably mean, “without predetermined end.” Not that it won’t end, because everything does eventually.

So Temporary must be that which does have predetermined end time.

Since Provisional does not have a predetermined end, but does include an explicit indication of eventually ending, it is both permanent and temporary.

You made this thread to ask a question, got answered.

Not really. A couple of people tried to answer it. One did quite well. You and yours are all simply saying I’m wrong, and my question is invalid; Simply because for your entire life I imagine, Ban has always been used this way. But some 20 or 30 years ago, I can promise you (so can a few others here) it wasn’t that way.

Here is a little bit of muddiness. If there is no clearly defined end of something, is it permanent, or temporary? I would argue, since nearly everything changes and virtually nothing is permanent in an absolute sense; Permanent can only reasonably mean, no predetermined end time. Hunger has no defined amount of time. It may in fact last until death, making it quite permanent from the point of view of the individual experiencing it. So hunger in fact would, for the purpose of a definition, be permanent.