Anyone who can look at the news and not understand never will.

We’re past the time of understanding the situation is my point. It’s time to riot.

And quibilling about how accurate a metaphor is at any given time is just as useful?

Let me try this.

It doesn’t matter if the metaphor doesn’t stay consistent or whatever.

Because anyone who would be swayed by a metaphor like that is already swayed. It’s time to get in the streets.

That’s not what a metaphor is?

It’s an analogy, not a script. Of course it’s not a perfect fit. Metaphors never do. And of course it changes and life itself changes.

Your getting mad about a metaphor when you should be getting mad about facsim itself. Getting mad at nothing is just distraction.

So what’s your point then. That the may be fascist but the Hitler comparisons are a line to far for you?

Okay,

They’re still fascist as fuck.

Okay,

So why should reinevent a standard when one that serves functionally the same purpose with one of implied consent?

Edit: my problem isn’t robots.txt. It’s implied consent.

If you are ever thinking, I wonder if I should ask, the answer is always yes. Doesn’t matter the situation. If you are not 1000% sure you have consent, you don’t. That’s just my ethics.

If you want to propose a new standard, go nuts. But implied consent is not it.

From your own wiki link

robots.txt is the filename used for implementing the Robots Exclusion Protocol, a standard used by websites to indicate to visiting web crawlers and other web robots which portions of the website they are allowed to visit.

How is fedidb not an “other web robot”?

Robots.txt started I’m 1994.

It’s been a consensus for decades.

Why throw it out and replace it with imied consent to scrape?

That’s why I said legally there’s nothing they can do. If people want to scrape it they can and will.

This is strictly about consent. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should yes?

I guess I haven’t read a convincing argument yet why robots.txt should be ignored.

Why invent implied consent when complicit explicit has been the standard in robots.txt for ages now?

Legally speaking there’s nothing they can do. But this is about consent, not legality. So why use implied?

deleted by creator

Canadian here, most of Europe. We’re looking like we’re expecting Trump lite this year. Not to mention Harper was, a lot.

Sure, I don’t think any disagrees that there’s side effects that aren’t good for anyone, never mind teens.

But there’s nothing that you’ve written that’s specific to Tik Tok. It’s not substantially worse than American alternatives. Facebook has known for years the negative effect, study after study has come out. What legislation was passed to protect that?

So why target Tik Tok specifically?

Canada also has its own population of total fucks. We keep them in the prairies. However like those states, it might be leaning more towards wanting that?

Disclaimer: not a source, just an ass on the internet.

Again, non of those have been legally banned in the US.

I’m not saying those companies don’t exist? Just answering the question of who the top commenter was referring to, which in my opinion is Tik Tok because it’s the only one being legally banned.

Tik Tok is the only tencent company I know if that’s been labeled a national security risk.

Tik Tok is what they’re referring to

You are using a device capable of finding the information you so desire. Instead you decided to contribute you whataboutism.

A) I thought it was up to individuals not groups.

B) we can’t even get people to agree the earth is round. You really expect to be able to change individual habits?

So you honestly believe the largest polluters will just stop polluting if consumers change habits?

Because like I cited, the vast majority of pollution comes from corporations. Not people.