This is kinda what I've been trying to do with Issuepedia, except that's kinda also lacking the critical ingredient of having a staff of any kind... 😅
@wdlindsy I've been saying for awhile now that the mainstream mass media are still stuck in a dead-tree distribution mindset. Why isn't there a central page for each story, updated as it develops, with subpages (as needed) for various wrinkles and aspects?
In this particular case, there could be a subpage specifically for unsubstantiated information; readers could subscribe to that page in order to be notified of updates -- rumors confirmed or refuted, new allegations, new analysis...
(Ok, done with that short hobby-horse ride. As you were...)
@theseliminaldays oooff, ouchy ouch-ouch. That very sucks. Sometimes, people just baffle me :-/ :blobcatangry: :blobcatsad:
4/n
Options for getting ebooks (and print) away from Amazon.
This is what I have explored, and I know there is much, much more out there.
1) Smaller stores: Smashwords, Kobo, B&N, Thalia (Tolino) in Germany (although they are also evil), BoD, and many more.
I absolutely recommend Smashwords:
https://www.smashwords.com/
2) Buy direct.
My store is through PayHip, and you may not even be aware that PayHip has its own book catalog:
@theseliminaldays Is it that nothing is happening, or that the wrong things are happening, or...?
([Linda Richman voice] Tualk to me, duahling...)
@aggiethaumas @npt_writes Weightless Books is a good site and does no DRM. Period.
I don't know how much they share with authors, but Weightless Books isn't a big corporate entity. I think it's mostly one person.
It's also one of the few sites for SF/fantasy magazine subscriptions after Amazon dumped subscriptions. And each magazine issue is available as a downloadable, DRM-free file.
I buy the EBOOK, I own it!
A Global Telehealth First: Women Help Women Begins Producing Abortion Pill Combipack
Women Help Women (womenhelp.org) is manufacturing their own abortion pills in order to make abortion safer, simpler and more accessible across borders. They designed an eco-friendly combi-pack that's easier to mail discreetly and centred around women’s experiences and needs.
@gildilinie That would be a pretty big joule heist.
(Clearly my punning is not yet up to speed. I've got to have 30 minutes to restart the engines, Captain!...)
@ObsidianUrbex Put a metal roof on that puppy and it would be a fabulous refuge for creative types...
@gildilinie I have never had tapioca pudding.
(I cheated, though: I generally don't like sweet stuff.)
@NanoRaptor The chip factory has clearly been infiltrated by Altair Designs.
(Now I want to see the socket...)
if cis people are so great then when don't they have their own siberian orchestra
@jamie_blumberg @nileane ...and when you say "we", I suspect it's not really any of us here, but authoritarian-follower types who feel they have to absolutely control their kids (because otherwise their kids might see through the BS being imposed on them and become liberal or something).
I'm now wishing for the ability to search things I have boosted, specifically all media I've boosted.
The "media" feed under my profile seems to be only original media (a good default), but... it's not even in chrono order, as far as I can tell. :-P
Ok, let me see just how far off the same page we are: would you argue that the state should not, for example, regulate truth-in-advertising?
I think you'll need to provide examples; I don't see that happening in the internet era.
I'm not advocating that the State should be able to make certain speech illegal for a private citizen, but rather to regulate speech in certain circumstances (with its areas of authority being strictly enumerated). We already regulate advertising (less than we should, imho); I'd also suggest, for example, that any entity calling itself "news" should be regulated for truth-content -- basically an extension of truth-in-advertising: "news" implies true information, so if you're advertising yourself as purveying "news" it had better be truthful (or clearly labelled as something else).
3b. You're not wrong about the dangers -- but I don't think we can say "it's a difficult problem, so let's not even consider trying to solve it". I think we have to figure out how to solve it if we're going to survive this era.
I think maybe you're placing certain kinds of truth / understanding on one side of a sharp line, and certain kinds on another -- but I don't think the line is as sharp as you seem to think.
1) Ok, so we're talking about the principle of free speech, not the implementation. Your position makes more sense to me in that light.
I could nitpick that there's still some gray area around edge-cases, but that's a much lower order of disagreement than where I thought we were.
1b) Just because a thing can become political doesn't negate the need to do it. Is there anything -- any function of government -- for which this is not true?
2) That logic only works if the government's social network is (or becomes) the only social network. If that was the case, then I'd tend to agree with you -- but I don't think it necessarily is... especially if the social network in question is itself a node on the fediverse.
3) If I make a contract with a large entity, wherein I agree to provide goods or services in exchange for payment, with most of the payment to be provided only after I have done my end of the bargain, and then the entity in question decides not to pay me because they don't have to...
...and the government refuses to step in, because the entity says the contract didn't actually say they had to pay me (or I didn't provide the good/service as required, or some other arbitrary condition was not met -- whether or not the contract actually says what they say it says) -- how is that contract valid anymore?
3b) Science is not a governance method, but governance would do a much better job if it were driven by scientific methodology rather than being the spectator sport that it is now.
You're putting the cart before the horse: the State should not define how science determines the truth, agreed. I'm saying that science should determine how the State determines the truth.
"how do you give me p-significant data that your findings MUST lead to censorship?" -- which particular findings are you referring to?
"At what point would a state censor then update their censorship guidelines on that particular topic?" How do we update encyclopedias when we discover new things, or learn that things we thought were true are in fact wrong (or incomplete) in some way?
@Sustainable2050 Trump is like the Oceangate of morality: always going far lower than any reasonable person would recommend, and eventually imploding.
I only hope he follows the pattern and takes a bunch of billionaires with him too.