x38iq84n

Not being ruled by unelected bureaucrats is well worth it.

Apple has presence in EU (and elsewhere) which exposes them to the whims of local governments. Without local offices, employees, subsidiaries and a product to sell Twitter can ignore all other countries and their laws.

1/ Twitter is a US company. It needs to follow US laws and it can ignore laws of all countries that are not the USA. Why should a US company dance to the tune of foreign governments anyway? Not to mention that those requirements may be mutually exclusive or contradictory.

2/ Twitter, not being a publisher, is not responsible for user-generated content. Just like Verizon is not responsible for what people say on the phone to each other. Advertisers should have some controls over what content their ads display next to. Giving controls to users and advertisers is the key, not heavy moderation.

3/ once again, controls. Twitter already has an option to show (in feed) only tweets from the people you follow and their connections, that's a good start and I see no spam at all.

"Block things that are illegal by law and leave the rest" is hilariously easy but must be accompanied by tools that allow users and advertisers to tailor their own experience.

Level 3 and beyond are nonsense. Just give users the tools to moderate what they see. Don't want to see slurs? Here's a toggle for that. No need to censor those who say them. Memes fall under Fair Use, nothing needs to be taken down. Government of Malaysia can start their own Twitter. $TWTR needs to follow US laws, not laws of Malaysia.

Here is a radical content moderation policy: Block/take down things that are illegal by law and leave the rest.

Why is it so hard?

has to do with big tech algorithms running unchecked and prone to abuse

The explanation is a load of BS. This "brief disappearance" has been going on for >12 hours now and as far as everybody is aware only one person is affected by this.

It would be an incredible coincidence that it's just him and right at this time. Also, from Google's support thread, he is receiving the same treatment as Weinstein, apparently Churchill was added to a list of people for whom Google won't show photo in the bio summary, next to Weinstein.

What a coincidence that such alleged bug exists for this particular person at this particular time. A virtue-signaling google employee blocking the photo in support of BLM is the simplest and most likely explanation.

Not erase, just add it to the already long list of suppressed and filtered content. Have you tried what I suggested, have you googled the names of few PMs? The page with search results for Churchill lacks the code to display photo in the bio at the right side. The layout and code is different, it's not just failing to load, cache problem or whatever.

The most likely explanation is that a google employee added the photo on a block list in support of BLM.

This is no bug, this is intentional. Google the names of UK's PMs, from Johnson, May, Cameron going all the way. Only one PM does not get their photo displayed on the page with search results. Not because it failed to load/whatever, the page layout simply does not contain the photo in the place where it is for all others.

Interesting. I've never considered Perl's name to be its biggest problem. The readability is and renaming the language does not address that.

It's to show your friends and colleagues, it has no practical purpose given the conditions and requirements for the use of the feature.

Yes, it's very common to only allow corporate laptops provisioned with a standard image, certificates etc. If you need to remote in then you must have a corporate laptop.

From a security standpoint it is risky and amateurish to allow VPN from an unknown device under someone else's management.

And you are right.

They make it up with their level of electronics, sensors, software, battery technology etc.