From: julianlzb87@gmail.com
On 18/02/2026 20:56, 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.
The NYT maintains several X accounts and it's staff,
like every other professional media organisation, have
an account, being as an essential work tool, on expenses.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
