gabbath
@gabbath@lemmy.world
- Comment on Angry, disappointed users react to Bluesky's upcoming blue check mark verification system 3 days ago:
IMO it’s not that blue check equals credibility, but rather it equals that you are who you say you are. This is a good thing particularly when it comes to public figures/officials — not for their sake, mind you, but for the sake of other people who may see a tweet from them. If the checkmark is there, then it’s them. If not, then it’s an impersonator. Right now it’s difficult to tell.
Tl;dr: it doesn’t make what they say real, it just makes them real.
- Comment on Facebook Pushes Its Llama 4 AI Model to the Right, Wants to Present “Both Sides” 1 week ago:
They’re either imposing a trend or following a trend. They can’t do both. So if they’re just mimicking support and they’re just following, then who’s leading? Who’s the boss of the LGBT mafia?
As for “forcing behaviors”, they’re not forcing anything more than some KPIs that can be skirted by hiring a consultant to do some bullshit sensitivity training.
- Comment on Facebook Pushes Its Llama 4 AI Model to the Right, Wants to Present “Both Sides” 1 week ago:
Ah yes, the CEO of Blackrock is definitely an ally to LGBT people (head of their “mafia” even, according to you) and not just cynically pandering to whichever way the wind is blowing for exactly the amount of time it’s beneficial to him and not a second more.
Just so you know, no progressive likes these evil companies or considers them or their CEOs allies. Their DEI initiatives are as fake as their environmental ones, it’s just virtue signaling. They don’t actually do anything for LGBT people — or any people for that matter, because believe it or not, real DEI includes white guys too! — they just adapt their marketing and product offerings to growing progressive sentiment. But the second the culture shifts, so does their “very serious commitment” to ESG/DEI/whatever.
And don’t get me started how the rainbow marketing is non-existant in countries without widespread acceptance of LGBT people, which you’d think would be crucial for them to do if they were actually ideologically motivated to spread it, right? (By contrast, think how MAGA-like movements exist in even the most progressive countries, and they push on regardless.) But this supposed “LGBT mafia” doesn’t push at all, they’re reactive to the environment and they shift gears the second it becomes a perceived liability: Musk, Zuckerberg, all of Big Tech and other supposed global wokeness spreaders, they all pivoted away from performative progressivism the second they realized it wouldn’t harm their profits.
So there’s your LGBT mafia chief. Got any more?
- Comment on Facebook Pushes Its Llama 4 AI Model to the Right, Wants to Present “Both Sides” 1 week ago:
New shiny trend like… unions?
- Comment on Facebook Pushes Its Llama 4 AI Model to the Right, Wants to Present “Both Sides” 1 week ago:
Are the LGBT mafia in the room with us right now? Who is their leader?
- Comment on Microsoft fires employee protestor who called AI boss a ‘war profiteer’ 2 weeks ago:
The fact that she’s a lady might actually save her from that hellish place because they apparently refuse to take women and turn them back. But of course there are other hellish places.
- Comment on Revealed: The shocking far-right agenda behind the surveillance tech used by ICE and the FBI. 2 weeks ago:
While they do play a part, race and gender are not the deciding factors here. This is clearly about class — and more recently, allegiance.
- Comment on The left went too far - time to move things right 2 weeks ago:
Until the 80% percentile if I recall. Not at 0 but under the poverty line.
- Comment on YouTube removes 'gender identity' from hate speech policy 2 weeks ago:
For sure. It was more of a “yes, and” than disagreement. Profit is such a vile incentive, literally why we can’t have nice things.
- Comment on YouTube removes 'gender identity' from hate speech policy 2 weeks ago:
I’m more concerned about “anti-rainbow” capitalism. Like what’s happening right now where instead of being performatively progressive they become performatively reactionary. (Well, I suppose that’s just reactionary.)
Basically what I mean is I want rainbow capitalism to exist, but in a very specific way: I want rainbow capitalism to be the bare minimum a company has to implement if they want to exist. I want the social circumstances to force them to at least pretend to be on the right side of history.
Honestly, the real problem in rainbow capitalism is the capitalism part.
- Comment on YouTube removes 'gender identity' from hate speech policy 2 weeks ago:
Just don’t make a video criticizing the nazi using snippets of the nazi’s videos, because that’s when you risk getting taken down for hate speech.
Smaller channels have this happen to them on a regular basis when they criticize bigger channels like, say, Matt Walsh. In that case, it’s because YT likes the bigger channel better for giving more ad revenue. They only ban chuds after they become irrelevant, and that’s only to save face — for example, when they banned Stefan Molyneux he was hardly popular anymore.
- Comment on Massive X data leak affects over 200 million users. 3 weeks ago:
Yeah, I know there was a story in that Spectator magazine. I’m still not sold. Dittman said way too many stupid things that point to him being Elon.
- Comment on YSK: That nazis Don't Actually Believe in Free Speech 1 month ago:
No no, we still value free speech, just that yours isn’t really speech, it’s the woke mind virus. And that needs to be eradicated. So, you see, we’re still free speech absolutists!
This is how they trick people.
- Comment on YSK: That nazis Don't Actually Believe in Free Speech 1 month ago:
Yeah, especially after he attacked the ADL for so long. Huge disappointment.
- Comment on Owing your home today is nearly impossible, but even if you did the ever increasing property taxes will bury you 1 month ago:
This sounds nice but in practice will backfire. You need the systems to be universal, so that everyone, including the richest, have a stake in wanting to see them improved. Otherwise you’ll get a two tiered system where the public versions are trash because they’re underfunded and the private versions (what the rich use) are great but also expensive af.
You want things to work like insurance, where everyone pays in but only the people who need them use it. I want Musk to pay a fuckton into Social Security, not nothing at all because he doesn’t use it. Even now there’s a problem with Social Security in particular because, even though everyone has to pay it, it puts a cap/limit on how much you pay, so Musk currently ends up paying his share in the first day of the year, and his contribution amounts to the same as a teacher or something.
Universal programs with progressive taxation, that’s the way. Low taxes at the bottom, high taxes at the top.