Then you visit their profile once in a while. Or we add an option for changing the view away from strict reverse-chronological, but make sure that reverse-chronological is the default.

Yes, I am prescribing how the companies must run because their very business model is inherently dangerous and harmful. The "engagement" business model has proven across multiple companies that it is inherently (and unfixably) damaging. We already regulate plenty of business models (eg, gambling.)

I'm fine with assigning liability, but that's reactive. It's like saying: "Oh, we are not going to regulate power cables by requiring a UL stamp, but if you get a shock, feel free to sue the manufacturer."

Read my original comment, which said:

1. On the main timeline, it must only show content from people or groups that the user explicitly follows. The only way you should be shown content you don't follow is if you explicitly search for it.

If people post too much, you unfollow them. Back when I was on Facebook, that's what I did.

We regulate all kinds of products for consumer safety. I don't see why social media is special and shouldn't be regulated to reduce harm.

I don't see how they fly in the face of the First Amendment. Nobody is stopping anyone from posting anything on social media. We're just regulating the things social media forces users to see when they haven't asked for it.

I would never dream of stopping someone from getting on a soapbox in a public square and saying whatever they want. But social media algorithms are the equivalent of dragging people off the street and making them listen to the speaker.

The problem with allowing ads is that it encourages the "engagement" business model, which is at the root of social media's ills. So they should either require subscription fees, or be non-profit with good moderation (like Mastodon, for example.)

Tinkering with social media is not a good idea. Current social media business models should be completely banned, for everyone.

A social media platform should be forced to operate as follows:

1. On the main timeline, it must only show content from people or groups that the user explicitly follows. The only way you should be shown content you don't follow is if you explicitly search for it.

2. Content must be shown in reverse-chronological order, so when you see something you've seen before, you know you've also seen everything after it.

3. Advertising and sponsored posts should be prohibited.

4. The only acceptable way to raise revenue should be subscription fees. Facebook makes around $3 to $5/month per user; that would be an appropriate range of subscription fees. This would make bot armies economically infeasible.

Regulating social media in this way would eliminate 95% of the harmful aspects. It's a simple matter of product safety regulation.

Absolutely correct. If prisons are run by for-profit corporations, recidivism is in their interest. More "customers", you see.

Me too! Retired in 2023... perfect timing, I think!

I guess it depends on what you're typing. For English text, it's probably fine. But I do a lot of programming and doubt that speech input would be effective for that.

This feature is great in an office that uses small cubicles. Even better for open-plan offices!

But seriously, apart from disabled users who might not be able to use a keyboard, I don't see a use case for this. The reason we use dictation on mobile devices is that they typically have poor keyboards. If you have a good keyboard, you can be far more efficient with it than with voice input.

I grew up in a country that adopted PAL rather than NTSC, so never saw the hue and saturation settings until my family relocated to Canada. I was baffled by how backwards NTSC was.

What percentage of coffee-brewing costs are from energy consumption? I would guess that most of the cost is the coffee itself.

To boil 500 mL of water that starts out at room temperature takes about 0.05 kWh, which costs very much less than one cent in pretty much any jurisdiction. Enough coffee to make two cups of coffee probably costs 5 to 25 cents. So I don't see the energy saving as being "very significant".

Seems to me it's the GOP that is obsessed with this issue and with what's in kids' pants. They're the ones constantly stoking the culture wars.

s/giraffe/drain/