From: punditster@gmail.com
On 2/18/2026 5:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 23:21:23 +0000, Julian
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> And you think the nyt is giving away their news.
>
All news should be free. Free because its yours.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
