There’s never been any consensus that I’m aware of. All the suggestions are cringey.
We’re just users.
There’s never been any consensus that I’m aware of. All the suggestions are cringey.
We’re just users.
Define “the internet” though…
If you’re expecting “the internet” to fill your cup with joy then sure, that’s probably not going to work out.
That said, there’s plenty of good bits that make life a lot easier.
Sure mate.
You’re suggesting that showing videos in a town square is the same as posting in Twitter? They’re not the same, obviously.
It’s complex and I don’t have the answers. My comment is merely hilighting the conflict between these 2 ideals… governments shouldn’t whether or not specific content is ok, but companies shouldn’t provide content which is clearly unacceptable.
If xitter didn’t provide that content the government wouldn’t have to intervene.
If the government does intervene it reduces the barrier for them to intervene in future.
I’m quite conflicted about this.
I hate musk. Hate twitter. Hate that people were sharing videos of a terrorist attack.
That said, I suspect that this was something of a test case, with the regulator flexing their censorship muscle, and I’m glad it didn’t work out.
It’s also disappointing that her kids were doxxed, I don’t condone that at all… but “just doing my job” is not a reasonable defence when you have a shitty job strategising how to corrode privacy.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but I think it’s a histamine response which is just directed at parasites in general.
It’s not hate, I’m critical because I just don’t understand how this can work.
You’re kind of assuming people will stop using Chrome as a consequence, but i just don’t think that’s the case.
David didn’t slay Goliath, Goliath just walked away and took command of David’s army, leaving David to play with his rocks.
This is the answer.
A cheap / half assed conversion would be a ghetto. It would be awful.
Sanitation would be a huge problem also. In an apartment you have access to air from the outside. Imagine everyone living in a box in the same enclosed space. Yes I understand malls have gargantuan (and expensive) air conditioning systems. It would still stink.
Not to mention the money. Even a derelict mall is still worth many millions of dollars. You have to buy or lease the building from them.
You’d be much better off creating a walkable community of low-cost housing in a low-density semi-rural area.
apartments centered around a grocery plaza has been a thing for a while
Do you mean like… a town?
malls were a place to just exist
Not really. Malls existed because enough of the people who went there were spending enough money to make them profitable.
Yes it was permissible to go to a mall and not spend any money, and a lot of people did just that, but that doesn’t mean malls did not require most people to be spending money.
No it’s not. You personally might like it but if it were the consensus people would use it and this question wouldn’t be asked every week.