SolaceFiend

The bad faith actors used to outnumber the good. That's why Wikipedia's reputation has never recovered, and they've never been able to beat the allegations. However, Wikipedia fixed what was wrong with their system of citing and verifying information contributed by others years ago. And X's Community Notes system has a similar mechanism in place that has proven to be equally as effective and verifiable.

A valid argument, and a practice that should absolutely be encouraged in and of itself. When it comes to cancel Culture, and weaponizing hearsay and defamation to try to actively sabotage an entire company or a person without evidence or due process, that's one thing I think has gotten out of hand. But the practice of voting with your wallet is your right, healthy for our economy and the businesses that contribute to it, and is not inherently predatory or antagonistic, unlike what Cancel Culture has become.

The anonymous fact-checking is the main thing PEOPLE took issue with. Like, oh I'm supposed to believe your anonymous fact-checkers know better than me or my trusted sources on what's true/false, but you refuse to identify or provide the credentials of those fact-checkers, so their integrity and validity can be certified?

But it's not the anonymous strangers arbitrarily sifting the wheat from the chaff willy nilly, and with no evidence to support their claims, that were the problem /s. , The problem was CLEARLY the people who took issue with an anonymous rando who has the power to declare a reputable source of info is lying, can not be disputed on that front (even in the many instances of them being wrong), and whose credentials can not be verified but is still supposed to be arbitrarily accepted as the supreme arbiter of reality and fiction.

Bought and paid for by a soulless corporation. I'll take "extreme dought" for $500. I was more likely to believe in Santa Clause than an anonymous figure who had no credentials or checks and balances of any kind.

This is actually crazy, on the part of the UK police. I knew the UK government are more like that nosy old granny with binoculars than we have it in the States when it comes to stuff like Facebook and etc, but damn. I will allow that school shooting threats are serious, but in and of itself, actively trying to interrogate someone and demanding their SNS is a new level of invasive imo.

I didn't find anything. But I also work 40 plus hours a week, so that doesn't necessarily mean there's not something out there. But it's more likely the case that this might not be true, from what I know.

I stand corrected then. You can ignore all my bloviating.

Instagram and TikTok are already big social media giants in their own right.

If TikTok gets gobbled up, it'll be because of the legal proceedings going on in which lawmakers are trying to force TikTok to allow itself to be bought up by some US company. Which is another issue altogether, cause if I start a business, the legality of the US government forcing me to sell my business to someone else, or even to be forced to sell my business to a foreign government or company and not be allowed to possess it, is a whole can of worms.

But outside of WhatsApp being shut down due to security reasons, the majority of those wouldn't qualify as social media sites that would be gobbled up by some other social media giant.

I'm still interested in Self-Hosting but I actually tried getting into self-hosting a year or so ago. I bought a s***** desktop computer from Walmart, and installed window server 2020 on it to try to practice on that.

Thought I could use it to put some bullet points on my resume, and maybe get into self hosting later with next cloud. I ended up not fully following through because I felt like I needed to first buy new editions of the server administration and network infrastructure textbooks I had learned from a decade prior, before I could continue with giving it an FQDN, setting it up as a primary DNS Server, or pointing it at one, and etc.

So it was only accessible on my LAN, because I was afraid of making it a remotely accessible server unless I knew I had good firewall rules, and had set up the primary DNS server correctly, and ultimately just never finished setting it up. The most ever accomplished was getting it working as a file server for personal storage, and creating local accounts with usernames and passwords for both myself and my mom, whom I was living with at the time. It could authenticate remote access through our local Wi-Fi, but I never got further.

So far, all I've found is a 2018 publication by the Police Executive Research Forum, entitled "The Changing Nature of Crime And Criminal Investigations". It's a 67 page document, and I'm curious to see if it discusses how their investigation tactics may have changed, and if so, whether the aforementioned tactic is mentioned as being included.

Another comment way down claims it's standard operating procedure for social media sites to disable/hide and account of a highly publicized murderer, particularly during investigations. However, the provided no examples nor sources or technical documents that detail this as something that is genuinely done as a standard procedure.

I'm kinda gonna do my own research on that, but I feel the validity of Stack's actions would to some degree depend on the results of researching that claim, and whether or not that is true.

It's kinda difficult to research something like that though when most highly publicized murders predated social media in its current form, so it would be hard to have a lot of examples despite there being a decent number of people who fit the bill, ironically.

I'm starring this cause I want to look into this myself, and if I find any technical sources that address this claim and actually detail this as a SOP, I'll reply with that source later, or otherwise reply with "I didn't find anything."

Actually, they got them to shoot gun-wielding home invaders who threaten (if not attempt to murder) their family members.