From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 12:56:45 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
      
   >On 2/18/2026 10:56 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 10:10:59 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2/18/2026 8:27 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:48:49 -0000 (UTC), Tara    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Feb 18, 2026 at 10:34:49?AM EST, "Noah Sombrero"    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:07:27 +0000, Julian    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Twitter ? or X if you must ? is essential for bypassing traditional   
   >>>>>>> institutions   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> At the time of writing, the British Government is apparently preparing   
   >>>>>>> legislation that many expect will lead to Twitter, formally known as   
   >>>>>>> ?X?, being blocked. Officially this is because the platform?s in-built   
   >>>>>>> AI language model allows users to manipulate images of third parties so   
   >>>>>>> it appears that they are wearing nothing but lingerie. Yet critics,   
   >>>>>>> including the US government,  regard it as a thinly-disguised attempt   
   to   
   >>>>>>> censor a primary forum of opposition. Either way, millions of people   
   >>>>>>> across the country are now faced with the horrifying ? and, for many,   
   >>>>>>> unprecedented ? prospect of actually having to do their jobs in order   
   to   
   >>>>>>> stave off boredom.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Stave off boredom.  There is something to that.  Naked people always   
   >>>>>> were a tititlation.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> everything will be abused (or used) in some way if given enough freedom.   
   I use   
   >>>>> X to (once in a while) read what people I am interested in say what they   
   have   
   >>>>> to say. And I've never seen a naked person on X. Maybe because I'm not   
   >>>>> interested in seeing a naked person on X.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Understood.  You are discerning.  Many others are not.  And it is the   
   >>>> others that drive the enterprise.   
   >>>>   
   >>> And, you would know this how?   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> The whole thing falls apart for me when I consider that there is no   
   >>>> truth requirement, and no way for you or even x to really know that   
   >>>> people are who they say they are.  Why leave yourself open to that?   
   >>>>   
   >>> Why would their name matter? You appropriated your handle impersonating   
   >>> an immigrant guy nodding off under a snow bank. LOL   
   >>   
   >> Actually there is a story behind that.  It relates to a time in the   
   >> late 80's/early 90's when I ran a BBS.  I called it Noah's Kitchen and   
   >> I was the sysop, noah sombrero.  Noah's kitchen had to be a magical   
   >> place because it was where all of god's creatures got fed without   
   >> consuming any.   
   >>   
   >>>> Do you imagine that important, interesting people are busy?   
   >>>>   
   >>> Get real. These people get paid to post their views online.   
   >>   
   >> And these important, intelligent people are short of cash?  Can't   
   >> think of any better way to pick up a few bucks?   
   >>   
   >> More likely, they pay somebody else to do that.  Or the accounts are   
   >> simply fake.   
   >>   
   >>>> That they might not get a lot out of spending time entertaining us   
   >>>> with their twits?>   
   >>> Using X to see people naked requires a search, Senor.   
   >>>   
   >>> Otherwise, you read your feed - your favorite tweeters. It's all about   
   >>> bias confirmation.   
   >>   
   >> How did you get so truthy?  Not that you don't traffic in such   
   >> confirmations.   
   >>   
   >My guess is that all the writers at the NY Times, posting tweets on X,   
   >are on paid staff, or at lest getting paid for free lance work. YMMV.   
      
   My guess they are not writers at ny times.   
      
   >>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> But you think x has some other use.  It is a primary forum of   
   >>>>>> opposition.  Which would be good if only such opposition could be   
   >>>>>> true.  But a toxic mix of naked people and lies?  What possible use is   
   >>>>>> that, other than rescuing people from boredom?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> For the large majority of the population however, the idea of banning   
   >>>>>>> the social media site is a complete non-issue. Supposedly, around 40   
   per   
   >>>>>>> cent of British adults access the platform monthly, but this figure   
   >>>>>>> seems implausibly high. Most prefer one or more of either Facebook,   
   >>>>>>> Instagram or TikTok. Since it was acquired by Elon Musk in 2022,   
   Twitter   
   >>>>>>> must have seemed to those who don?t use it to have been nothing but   
   >>>>>>> trouble. Those still relying on the BBC or the papers for their news   
   >>>>>>> have been drip-fed continuous stories about ?misinformation? and online   
   >>>>>>> abuse.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> What the broadcasters and the newspapers won?t tell their viewers and   
   >>>>>>> readers, however, is that their reporters, producers, editors and   
   >>>>>>> directors positively live on the site...   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> https://thecritic.co.uk/why-twitter-matters/   
   --   
   Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain   
   Don't get political with me young man   
   or I'll tie you to a railroad track and   
   <<>> to <<>>   
   Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?   
   dares: Ned   
   does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)