It’s a funny coincidence of history that gated communities for the well off folks in capitalism and mass housing for the not well off in communism follow the same design principle: few access points that can be controlled by a single tank each.

Is it possible? Yes. You can see examples in mainland China where foreign channels, including the more liberal channels from Hong Kong, routinely get blacked out when China news come on (unless they are gloriously positive).

Is it likely where you are? No. Especially it happening on broadcast channels you would hear a lot more about it. The socials would be full of it. There would have to be an office full of people censoring broadcast channels as they go out. We know the Chinese are operating such a facility because we heard about it. And we haven’t heard anything like that for the US. Ockham’s razor points at a buffering issue somewhere along the distribution chain from the news studio to your local antenna. A streaming video, like on YouTube, is just freeze framed when it’s buffering also. And I don’t think you as an individual consumer are important enough for somebody just doing it for your receiver.

Captcha, but for bots, I imagine. Fits in with the general conspiratorial theme.

That’s conventional wisdom for lithium ion batteries. Keeping it between 20 and 80 percent will extend its life. But that doesn’t mean charging or discharging it fully will be bad immediately; the effects are small but cumulative. And while battery tech improves, this guideline will probably be less important.

There are certain crimes you will never be able to fully eradicate. You can only try to get them down to the bare flawed human minimum. For pretty much as long as there are laws and courts, killing in cold blood has been illegal. But to this day humans kill humans in cold blood. All we can do is make good laws, prosecute perpetrators, and increase awareness. If the latter is what you mean by grassroot change, then sure. If we stay within the hypothetical, I don’t think a mass accident (like an accidental gas leak) or mass murder (a gas leak made to look like an accident) of the whole bunch on Epstein island would bring about a cultural change. My personal fear is that this whole exposé of this particular case only served to make the rich fuckers even more careful when they do it, not do it less.

At the root of the Epstein case is money. Billionaires should not exist. The quality of legal representation should not depend on one’s bank account. If you want a grassroot cause, tackle that one.

I would prefer buyer or customer. Not Consumer.

If I could just quickly split this hair: there is a semantic difference. The buyer or customer paid money. The consumer needn’t have. If I buy my kid a Switch 2 I’m the buyer and my kid is the consumer.

I don’t disagree with your take that it gets overused though.

Bert and Ernie

I’m afraid that pedophilia is prevalent everywhere. We only hear about the rich people more because journalists take an interest and rich people think - not unjustifiably - that money is a good protective shield and therefore take more risks.

In this hypothetical scenario, if all these people were pedophiles or turned a blind eye to it, were assembled at the same time, and all punched their ticket to a delightfully shitty afterlife, I don’t think the problem would be gone. There will be willing successors standing by to fill all of these positions. And it would be a stroke of luck if the waiting successors were suddenly more moral beings.

I agree. And I think your idea of personal exchanges is something we should try. All I’m saying is that it’s too early for anyone to have a well thought through, working solution.

At different points in the past, we thought novels, newspapers, radio, television, and the internet would be the end of truth. Truth is still around. We develop systems to sieve through the bullshit. In terms of slop, I don’t think anyone can say for sure how we will deal with it. But if past experience is anything to go by, it will rely on reputation. You trust a certain news source because they have been reliable, so they have a reputation they don’t want to lose. And that keeps them honest or you move on. We will find a way to deal with slop as well that will be based on reputation. In addition to laws and regulations that are yet to be written.

Whether it’s news rooms or TikTubers or something completely new that will gain this reputation, eff knows. But we will get there.

Not to worry! And thank you for this civilized exchange that managed to stay clear of Godwin’s Law:)

Does a nation cease to exist after it is conquered? All the efforts to that effect by the English notwithstanding, it’s still there.

[Angry Welsh noise, probably involving a lot of consonants and a few double L’s]

Is this déjà-downvote I feel?

IT’LL GO PLACES WITHOUT YOU THEN. THANKS FOR PIPING UP.

We should not start accepting manipulated images as a replacement for real images

My point was that it is already too late for that. I understand how your feel. I also think that you’ll be part of a minority.

There is no such thing as a real image.

[Redacted], [redacted], or maybe [redacted]. We would all benefit if we just didn’t hear from him ever again and then his name or title really don’t matter.

The comment was the first one I ever made with that account.

With that account. Can I read that as ‘but I have others that have been banned for understandable reasons’? If so, you give me no indication why I shouldn’t take my hunch to the grave.

Whether or not I agree with your take on decentralized social media is irrelevant. I believe that trolling on other platforms, or indeed this one, will not further the cause you have summarized.

It was Samsung and they were just ahead of the time. Consider that in the field of photography we’ve gone from a photograph being a big and often expensive black and white deal to snapping pictures willy nilly on a device everybody carries around in their pockets. We had already accepted retouching of photos even before Photoshop. Photoshop or similar applications are now also available to more people on the same devices they carry around to snap ask these pictures. Photographs today are an artifice of human intervention and/or computer processing. No image is just what happened. The RAW data has probably been heavily edited by the photographer to get the final effect they wanted. Even before so-called AI they have gone in and changed shit around. And they’ve become so masterful at it that most of us cannot tell the difference. They have probably, on occasion, replaced a whole sky or the moon on shots before they ended up in a brochure. This is nothing new. So if these tricks get automated now, that shows me more how widespread they already were. And I think we are not talking about this as much because we as a society like being cheated like that because it looks good.

If I had to hazard a guess, your comment managed to violate another guideline or contained unsuitable language. I would also not be surprised to learn that if we managed to get ahold of the person who deleted your comment we would find out that you had a history of questionable comments and that’s why the moderative leeway afforded to you may have been cut short. The fediverse will not benefit from a crusade into other platforms in the same way coca cola doesn’t advertize with the slogan “hey, you fucking loser, you would benefit from this cool beverage of ours.”

I’m basing my guess - and I could be wrong of course - on the fact that you think I was gatekeeping rather than describing the status quo.