i love the thumbnail

it’s in the article. more than 5000 messages to gmail users per day without dkim

how do i nominate your for a commendation?

can we poison this data?

Once there was the technology to quickly and trivially rip off their work and print it mass-scale, IP protections were granted to authors.

the statute of ann had nothing to do with protecting authors. it was about which london printers were allowed to print shakespeare’s work long after he was dead.

careful being so media savvy. you are going to be accused of siding with putin and hamas soon.

I’m not experiencing any cognitive dissonance. I said what I meant.

this seems like an is/ought problem

I don’t give a fuck. sell subscriptions, push ads, whatever. but if you deny access based on an ability to pay, what you have to say isn’t worth my time.

sell their stories to newspapers

Why do you think that journalists don’t deserve to get paid?

they didn’t say that. you’re making a leap of logic and putting words in their mouth

there is no recourse for r/worldnews moderation, but i assure you, you can (and should) fix erroneous articles on wikipedia.

you just need to time it and work it on the talk page. I’m sure that you can get this article fixed.

if the source says preemptive, that’s going to be a hard sell. Go find another source and bring it up on the talk page.

further, I wouldn’t just remove the word preemptive if I thought this was really an issue. I’d go find a reliable source that would support a rewrite of the whole sentence or paragraph or section.

then I would go to the talk page and I would let everybody know what I’m doing and why. and then I wouldn’t do it for 24 hours. and then I would make the edits and if anybody reverted it I would revert it back and then direct them to the talk page.

isn’t it accurate to say it’s preemptive? you could say unprovoked, but I don’t think that’s strictly true. I think preemptive is the best way to frame it: it shows that they struck first and leaves it open as to whether anybody would have struck them at all.

you can edit Wikipedia too. The bureaucracy can be a little bit frustrating and daunting, but you can certainly keep the record accurate.

even a source which is generally reliable can have its reliability questioned in any context. and a source that is generally unreliable for some reason or another can be considered reliable in some context.

ah, a dnc shill ;)

disroot