Syrup

I think it's important to provide children with a variety of potential careers ;)

Because everyone knows if a 14 year old reads Nora Roberts (or that one penguin children's book) society will fall apart.

Because everyone knows if a 17 year old reads Nora Roberts (or that one penguin children's book) society will fall apart.

You seem to be stretching the definition of the "paradox of tolerance" in new and amazing ways. How exactly does the "paradox of tolerance" relate to defederating from instances that haven't explicitly blocked Threads?

This is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Most of the activity on any given instance or community comes from outside of the instance. If you start cutting off instances because they are sharing their own stuff with Meta, then you will also be negatively impacting your own communities since the amount of active users will go down.

Most users won't react to something like this by joining your instance or an instance that you approve of (or, at least, currently approve of). They'll either find another community on an instance they're federated with or they'll switch to another social media platform. The latter becomes more likely depending on how many instances end up on either "side" of the issue. Although most user accounts are relatively new, it's still a pain to switch over to something else once you've gotten used to something.

The scale of defederation you propose, especially this early in the fediverse, would be enough to turn off a lot of folks from federation. If admins are just going to defederate from each other at the first sign of disagreement, that weakens my faith in the fediverse.

I absolutely believe that instances should not federate with meta's stuff. The largest servers had enough issues when we were getting new users in the thousands. Meta will likely bring in users in the millions. However, it makes no difference to me if another instance federates with Meta.

This is a fair take. However, stories in games (for the most part) are no different than cheap pulp novels, romance fics, or the twenty billion christmas romance movies: you know what you're getting and it's not super in-depth. Sometimes I do want to turn my brain off for a story. I won't pretend it's good, but I still enjoy it.

I imagine that it could also get pretty data-heavy if someone subscribed to a large server on threads (assuming it doesn't become another metaverse).

USA has been doing this since the cold War. Business as usual, but still important to keep track of

It usually does, however, there are cases where a hole can have two openings. For example, there's a saying/idiom about digging a hole through the earth and ending up in china/australia/etc. It would be confusing to say that you "dug two holes" to China, you would only say that you "dug a hole" to China. "Tunnel" is definitely more precise here, though it would be odd to refer to the openings in a drinking straw as a "tunnel"

In fairness, privacy issues have been a bit like a "frog in boiling water". Unless you pay a lot of attention to these things or are completely out of the loop, the average person won't see the issue.

At least my grandmother's vindicated now for not wanting to get on Facebook and share those sorts of things

If we're going really old school, then Space Invaders. Its way of leveraging the hardware at the time to make the enemies and music speed up after you defeat more of them is elegant. Back then, the more things a game had on screen, the slower it ran. So, destroying more enemies removes more things from the screen, causing both enemies and music to speed up.

This is something that's taken for granted today, but I think at the time, it was genius.

I wonder if this will go differently from Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. ChatGPT likely qualifies as "transformative", but I'm uncertain if it qualifies as a "public service" or not given that it has a paid tier. How privacy/personal information ties into this should also be interesting.