Jordrok

Reality does indeed have a well known liberal bias.

There is no comparison between what this administration is doing and any that have come before it. Attempting to draw that false equivalence is just pure foolishness.

> Are you saying the entirety of the DOJ apparatus could be politically steered to look for non-existent evidence or make frivolous referrals?

Yes, absolutely and unquestionably. This fact is blatantly, blindingly obvious to anyone who hasn't had their head buried in the sand for the past year.

I remember being more astonished that it took so long for it to finally happen. If he hadn't been the president, he would have been banned ages earlier. Same exact thing with this settlement - if he wasn't the president it wouldn't be happening. Based on merit alone, he'd stay banned for life.

> I'm glad, tho, that twitter does not allow this.

It does though? That is exactly what blocking does both before and after this change.

> In what other public, online discussion forum format can anybody without admin powers, arbitrarily and unilaterally ban others from publicly replying to public posts? That idea sounds insane to me.

Regardless of all your other arguments here, the change being made to twitter here does nothing to prevent that. Blocking a user still prevents them from interacting with your posts in any way. Now they can just see the post without being able to reply to it. So I'm not exactly sure what your point is.

The point of blocking is to prevent harassment, no? Hiding the blocker's posts from the blockee puts up an additional barrier to interaction. Even if it can be circumvented, it still requires some effort and may dissuade the person from continuing the harassment. There is a reason why this is the standard implementation for almost every social media site, and petulance has nothing to do with it.

> Super-niche use-case: our game studio prototyped a multiplayer horror game where we played with cloning player voices to be able to secretly relay messages to certain players as if it came from one of their team-mates (e.g. "go check out below deck" to split a pair of players up, or "I think Bob is trying to sabotage us" to sew inter-player distrust, etc).

That's an insanely cool idea, and one I hadn't really considered before. Out of curiosity, how well did it work? Was it believable enough to fool players?

Oh get a grip. It's not even close to the same thing and you know it.

> "though a number of them have already completed their sentences"

And you have the gall to compare that mild little slap on the wrist to political imprisonment in Russia? Get the fuck outta here.

> but most humans can understand that people have different senses of humor

I agree completely. And I would think that someone with greater than zero empathy would have a hard time arguing that there is one and only one correct way to interpret a piece of writing. An author with a non-zero amount of empathy should be well aware that their work will be interpreted in a variety of ways by a varied audience, and won't seek to hide behind the flimsy shield of "satire" when they publish something intentionally provocative and incendiary.

Holy crap, I played the game multiple times and had no idea those were even clickable until I saw this comment.

> When Hillary called 1/2 of Trump supporters "deplorables" isn't that hate speech?

No, it is unequivocally, objectively not hate speech. Nowhere in there is there a threat of violence. I don't really care if it hurts your feelings. Make better choices in life.