I literally had this happen to me; it's why I don't use Verizon anymore. Youtube, too. There's a technical breakdown somewhere of precisely how they did it (roughly speaking, "accidentally" underprovisioning the exact exits from their network that would lead to Netflix's servers for no possible reason except to fuck with Netflix and degrade that service and only that service, which it accomplished very effectively.)
mozz
joined 2 years ago
It is a safe bet that if MTG is for it, it's bad for the country.
She is clearly looking to punish him for the Ukraine aid vote. Her losing that battle is a good thing. Winning the house in November so that we don't have to deal with this as much going forward would be even better than that.
And the hilarious thing is that if Trump does win, I can pretty much guarantee that the New York Times and its editors will be one of the first ones to suffer. I cannot possibly imagine a universe where once project 2025 knocks out all the guardrails that would prevent him from committing all-out assault legal and otherwise on anyone who's ever displeased him over the years, he'll arrive at the NYT and pause. "You know what? They actually had some pretty positive coverage during the election. I think I'll reserve an honored place for them in the new permissible-media landscape I'm architecting."
If you're the team that's banning songs, you're on the wrong team
I like how she doubles down and pretends she's not bothered, but she's absolutely bothered
Yeah agreed. In particular I really like that feditest exists even if I haven't done anything to check it out / learn about it for myself yet.
Yeah. 😢 IDK what to tell you about the toxic culture or how to navigate it.
Probably based on the details you described, it's not a crime and maybe better to leave it alone... IDK. Maybe good to get some feedback from people closer to the situation? It just sounds creepy as hell.
I said:
I actually think Hamas is a deeply corrupt and violent organization; most bad things that someone would say about them, I probably would agree with. Trying to use that as some kind of excuse...
And so on.
I do understand that UN reports and videos of dying children and straight questions which you have no real good way to answer are sorta difficult to argue against, which creates a certain pressure to pretend that I'm saying something which is the exact opposite of what I'm actually saying.
For your future attempts to falsely reframe the discussion and cancel out reasonable questions without admitting defeat, may I suggest:
- You took that thing you quoted WAY out of context
- This 90-minute Youtube video contains all the answers and I refuse to talk further until you watch it
- How dare you say those bad things happened when (massive list of bad things Hamas has done dating back to the 1980s)
- "Blocked"
All tried and true alternatives to "How dare you say that thing you said, I refuse to talk any further, I'm offended now" (which is of course itself an old staple, and with good reason).
That was The Washington Post
And the quote you're saying is being twisted out of context is:
It's our job to cover the full range of issues that people have. At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it's not the top one — immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things because they're favorable to Trump and minimize them?
That, to me, is way worse than what the headline says.
Also, I had somehow forgotten this -- they have a new head editor as of 2022. I think that's when it all went to shit. I don't know much about the guy, but his Wikipedia entry is pretty bizarre:
"Kahn is of Lithuanian Jewish descent and the eldest child of Dorothy Davidson and Leo Kahn (1916–2011), founder of the Purity Supreme supermarket chain in New England and co-founder of the global office supply chain Staples. Leo had been awarded a journalism degree from Columbia University, after which he briefly had worked as a reporter, prompting a continuing interest in journalism that was reflected in his frequent dissection of newspaper coverage with his son."
"Fast lanes" have always been bullshit.
If you're paying for 100mbps, and the person you're talking to is paying for 100mpbs, and you're not consistently getting 100mbps between you, then at least one of you is getting ripped off. This reality where you can pay extra money to make sure the poors don't get in the way of your packets has never been the one we live in.
Of course, there are definitely people who are getting ripped off, but "fast lanes" are just an additional avenue by which to rip them off a little more; not a single provider who's currently failing to provide the speed they advertise is planning to suddenly spend money fixing that and offering a new tier on their suddenly-properly-provisioned internet, if only net neutrality would go away.
As Bill Burr said, I don't know all the ins and outs, but I know you're not trying to make less money.