It's really weird the way that online communication in games have turned. It used to be that if someone annoyed you or said shitty things or things you don't like, you block them. It's super easy.

But, that takes action on the part of the player.

Now the target seems to be to not even allow that to happen in the first place. The target seems to be to completely control speech. I'm sure if major platforms could get away with it, they would only allow communication with pre-selected words and phrases (Nintendo did that for some of their online communications IIRC).

The absolute hilarious thing is that there was a beginning framework for a great solution with Xbox Live. You had zones that you would put yourself into: Recreation, Pro, Family, Underground. Those are pretty clear categories, though back then they really didn't mean anything (it was just a label to apply to yourself and didn't actually do anything from what I recall). Why not set up that framework? Have a person pick a zone, and then opt-in to be able to communicate with other zones. If someone in the Family zone is acting like an Underground zone, they can be re-labeled accordingly.

I just don't trust Meta to do it right. With how oddly heavy-handed they are with moderation, I barely trust FB itself (mainly on because that's where the people I know are). I would like the other products that come from Meta, but I have zero desire to become any more ingrained in the Meta ecosystem.

I think it does. You're totally right that it's a big tent and interests don't always align. But in most cases, there are 2 that tend to buck whenever everyone else is in step.

Yeah, because doing that pushes someone to the right. There's not much they can really do. If there was a bigger majority then they (the DINOs) would have less power.

Because it's not a uncontested majority; 2 of the dems are DINOs, so there isn't always a majority.

I don't remember any of that. I would've because that would've made me much more excited to vote for him. I was lukewarm because he was mainly running on "I'm not Trump", and I only voted for him because I was voting against Trump. Along with Harris and her "I don't have time for that" comments about marijuana reform, this is honestly a pretty big surprise.

So, no, there hasn't been "complete control". Remember that there are a couple of democrats-in-name-only that regularly vote against the party's direction. And it's barely a majority, so don't spout off about "complete control".

Sure, I'll do my best to support politicians that would do that. No one said anything about laws that don't exist.

But that's what people like me want. We want them to provide the platform but leave it up to us to decide what we individually see or don't see.

I mean, it's social media? You're being fairly flippant with the term free speech, like you think that banning certain topics or ideologies couldn't ever be turned against you. That's fine if you don't want free speech, but a lot of us do.

That's not really a good example. ASCII art of the swastika is just spam. But that's not really the issue here, and I think you know that. At the end of the day I should get to choose what content I do or don't see on sites like FB. If someone is saying stuff I don't like, it's extremely easy for me to block that content. Why should someone else be judge of what I can or can't see? There's a difference between spam and content I don't want to see; Gmail filters out tons of spam but I can still look at that spam if I want to, and that's the entire point.

I'm wrong that that's what people want?

I never said that was how it's supposed to legally work (though I think it would be a good idea). I said that's what many people, like me, want.

You're connecting a lot of dots that don't necessarily go together. This is like getting angry at AT&T for letting people who are alt-right have phone service.

Just like I can choose who I talk to on my phone, I can choose who I interact with on social media. The compulsion is to simply allow it to exist on the platform; it's not a compulsion that every single on the platform consume that content.

All people are asking for is that social media be treated as a common carrier. That it's up to the individual to decide who they let in, rather than the carrier.

I mean...there are today. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo. The industry seems to be able to support 3 major consoles and that's about it. I don't really remember a time when it could support 4 (we saw what happened to Sega).

Are you sure? EVGA is now selling most of their cards for under $1000. I see the 3090 series in the $1300-1800 range, but nearly everything else seems to be lower than that, and these are in-stock.

Alright, I'll bite. What is this "puke taste" you're referencing?