SolaceFiend

The bad faith actors used to outnumber the good. That's why Wikipedia's reputation has never recovered, and they've never been able to beat the allegations. However, Wikipedia fixed what was wrong with their system of citing and verifying information contributed by others years ago. And X's Community Notes system has a similar mechanism in place that has proven to be equally as effective and verifiable.

A valid argument, and a practice that should absolutely be encouraged in and of itself. When it comes to cancel Culture, and weaponizing hearsay and defamation to try to actively sabotage an entire company or a person without evidence or due process, that's one thing I think has gotten out of hand. But the practice of voting with your wallet is your right, healthy for our economy and the businesses that contribute to it, and is not inherently predatory or antagonistic, unlike what Cancel Culture has become.

The anonymous fact-checking is the main thing PEOPLE took issue with. Like, oh I'm supposed to believe your anonymous fact-checkers know better than me or my trusted sources on what's true/false, but you refuse to identify or provide the credentials of those fact-checkers, so their integrity and validity can be certified?

But it's not the anonymous strangers arbitrarily sifting the wheat from the chaff willy nilly, and with no evidence to support their claims, that were the problem /s. , The problem was CLEARLY the people who took issue with an anonymous rando who has the power to declare a reputable source of info is lying, can not be disputed on that front (even in the many instances of them being wrong), and whose credentials can not be verified but is still supposed to be arbitrarily accepted as the supreme arbiter of reality and fiction.

Bought and paid for by a soulless corporation. I'll take "extreme dought" for $500. I was more likely to believe in Santa Clause than an anonymous figure who had no credentials or checks and balances of any kind.

This is actually crazy, on the part of the UK police. I knew the UK government are more like that nosy old granny with binoculars than we have it in the States when it comes to stuff like Facebook and etc, but damn. I will allow that school shooting threats are serious, but in and of itself, actively trying to interrogate someone and demanding their SNS is a new level of invasive imo.

When one person posts an extremely articulate comment with a well-defined argument about why they feel the way they do, and another person (YOU) replies to that with a comment in which the only thing they say is "Jesus you're dumb", I'm going to assume the dumbass is the one who was NOT articulate or detailed in any capacity (YOU).

Many smart TVs have firmware that interfere with your ability to switch sources using the remote for your cable service provider, or causes it to default to a specific source menu or app, or auto-switch between sources when it thinks it's "detecting" them, even if you were actually using the other one.

And older people don't know how to navigate the new user interfaces that come pre-installed on these smart TVs, especially if they have several connected devices on different ports. Have you had to walk a customer over the phone through using the Video Input button on their cable service remote, only to discover the TV software doesn't allow 3rd party remotes to access the video input menu; because only the TV remote they lost is able to access that menu?

Or had to look up an article on a customer's brand of smart TV, and walk them through disabling specific tv settings buried in their menu that prevent the TV from properly detecting and switching between sources, or having to mess with the TV closed captions, because they're somehow interfering with the closed captions settings on their cable box.

I have. SmartTV software is occasionally a nightmare to negotiate with when trying to get it to work with a customer's STB or their wifi, or what have you.

The presumption or admission of guilt does not and should not justify violating the Creative Commons License, nor perpetrating any illegal behavior agains any individual(s).

If JK Rowling went out and robbed a bank, or murdered an ex-Husband, in no world or timeline would that give a member of her publishing company the right to scratch out her name from any of her books and replace it with their own or someone else's.