2,741 karma · joined January 17, 2014
https://bestlifeonline.com/worst-drinking-water/
A drip (aka wick) filter is a cheap enough way to remove a lot that.
Too often not.
https://bestlifeonline.com/worst-drinking-water/
And that's not an endorsement for bottled water, which has also often been found to be as bad as or worse than tap water.
I use a drip / wick filter. Very cheap and it removes a lot of the bad stuff and makes the water taste better.
I didn't claim Facebook is dying in the West. That's you putting words in my mouth.
Cute copying me with "panic mode". I appreciate the imitation.
Didn't you resign a few comments ago? Or was that another false claim?
Full size mechanical keyboard too, and lots of cables and a power strip. I almost always have extra space and end up adding clothes I don't need just to keep stuff in its place.
Weight is the real consideration you might have to manage. One time I had to remove some items and put them in carry-on to meet a weight restriction. After which I bought a very cheap luggage scale.
Lots of features exist that no one cares about. You seem to be implying UX folks always get it right.
Long time but casual Twitter user here. I've never paid attention to the blue check. Anecdotal, but yeah.
I'm just guessing that Twitter users are going to say "thanks nah" to paying his bill for being impulsive and forced into honoring his poorly written purchase contract.
I also think it's idealistic in the extreme to think that users or advertisers want free speech.
But can Teslas self drive yet?
Yes paywalls are easy to bypass. It's also a reasonable choice to respect them.
You do not have a source. Guilt by association is not a source. You're just making a guess and you should be called out for claiming a guess is an actual source.
> If someone is banned from the site, the site is not accessible to that person.
Sure, by definition you can't access a site you are banned from. But that's not what accessibility is and that is not what the accessibility department was working on.
> If people are being banned for political speech, then it certainly violates any form of platform neutrality.
Yes it does violate any form of platform neutrality. That still has nothing to do with the actual definition of what accessibility includes.
> Banning someone for exercising their free speech is anti-accessibility.
That's absurd. Accessibility already has a definition and it's quite specific: it's about disabled people. You are free to re-define words, but folks are also free to ignore your personal definitions.
> Freedom of Speech is a human right which Twitter has been willfully violating.
I don't agree with you that they have been violating anyone's free speech but what does this have to do with your original claim that "the accessibility team acted as political speech commissars"?
Where is your actual evidence of the accessibility team doing that? Actual evidence would not include your guesses or guilt by association.
Sure. Given links I'll do that. I just did right now since you are the first person to actually provide links.
The claim was:
> literal hours of continuous footage
None of the links you provided come even close to that claim. They are FULL of cuts. Many of them don't even include the question that was asked!
And even you took quotes out of context. The quote "Twitter does not believe in free speech" was qualified by a followup that free speech allows bullying and that Twitter does not believe in bullying because it's bad for business! Which is totally reasonable if you are an advertising platform.
Can you provide what I asked for? The source to "literal hours of continuous footage"?
Also, please stop giving quotes to your links. You've done exactly what people already claimed: taken things out of context to try to make them look worse than they really are. Folks can watch uncut videos themselves and make up their own minds. If these "literal hours of continuous footage" actually even exist.
> Trump provided a lot of engagement and popularity to the platform, so banning him was igealogy-driven and was very much against their business interests.
You either have those engagement numbers or you don't. Which is it?
You either know how much advertising revenue he generated -or- how much he drove away. Or you don't.
You either have evidence that banning him was against their business interests or you are just guessing. I don't think you have those numbers. You suggested Elon Musk might have those numbers. So it's pretty clear you yourself don't have the internal business numbers that would be used to make those decisions.
Lacking sources to back up your claims, then you were arguing in bad faith. But I'm open minded. Feel free to back up that claim with actual evidence.
Yes user-wise they do seem to be doing fine, but I'd like to know where the growth is happening. That's important.
The 2nd source has some interesting demographics, but unfortunately doesn't include growth which would be the most interesting to me.
Very interesting that their largest user base by far is now in India, which I hinted at before. I suspect much of their growth from their latest earnings report is from that region of the world. Which also helps explain why ad revenue is down. Note also that ad reach in India is a very low 30% compared to the UK at 60% or Mexico over 80%. They didn't give numbers for the US. But if a lot of the growth is in India with such a low ad reach, that doesn't bode well for ad revenue.
Facebook also seems to be failing at attracting the young demographic from the west that advertisers love. As their core user base ages it will be interesting to see if they can maintain the interest of advertisers. I think Instagram is going to prop them up for a while. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if Facebook starts to become less important to advertisers, who will quickly move to wherever their target audience spends the most time.
Either way, just because FB is doing fine user wise doesn't mean that folks on HN who threatened to quit FB didn't actually go ahead and do that. If every HN user quit FB in one day, I don't think it would even show up on any chart.
You claimed to know such data. It's clear you haven't been debating in good faith from the point you made that claim.
> as it is beyond clear that this figure was above zero.
No it's not. I provided evidence that he may in fact drive away advertisers.
> So blocking him was against the commercial interests of the platform.
That's not how it works. Blocking someone who provides a small amount of advertising revenue but who drives away other users would be in the best interest of the platform. Blocking someone who the moderators believe will incite violence is in the best commercial interests of the platform.
> the success (or lack of it) of other platforms, like Truth social, is hardly relevant here
It's entirely relevant because Trump invested in that platform and spends most of his time there. If they can't make a profit it puts your claim about his ability to attract advertisers in doubt.
> Now, you may claim victory in this internet discussion, and celebrate it like your other imaginary victories.
I never claimed victory. I simply asked you to back up your claims and you got yourself into a panic over that and threatened to quit. Ok. Bye.
I didn't claim anything. I asked for your sources. You are the one who made a claim. And now you're acting astounded that someone would dare question your claim.
Truth Social can't seem to become profitable [1]. So Trump's ability to produce (or drive away) advertising revenue is certainly open to being questioned.
> For exact figures you might ask Elon himself.
Elon didn't make the claim. You did.
> If so, I resign
If you can't back up your claims with a source, then yes, it's right of you to resign.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DWAC?p=DWAC&.tsrc=fin-srch
What I've found is Facebook is not popular with young people: the audience many advertisers are the most interested in. The stock market is certainly not happy with their latest results. So sure, I can easily find a source that says Facebook is still the most popular platform. The details matter. Is it growth in Asia that's keeping their numbers up while US users shrink? Are they failing to attract young people? Have they lost users among the HN demographics? These details matter if you want the actual story.
https://electrek.co/2022/09/15/tesla-facing-class-action-law...
You can make all the promises and guesses about the future that you want, but until those guesses materialize, they are vaporware. People can rightly continue to leave a platform they have no interest or faith in.
If any of your guesses do materialize people can presumably change their mind and come back to Twitter.
> Not everyone in America, much less outside it, wants to pretend that they share the values of Californian Democrats from the progressive tribe
That's not very relevant to an advertising platform. TV and radio stations rarely appeal to more than one or two tribes and both platforms are highly moderated to the point where the public has almost zero voice. Musk's dream of forcing people to tolerate free speech is rather idealistic. According to your source, if Musk wants to attract the biggest audience, he should ban politics from the platform.
Yes, their paid users being the advertisers. The end "users" are the product.
> Trump provided a lot of engagement and popularity to the platform
Can you please give a source for your engagement figures?
> banning him was igealogy-driven and was very much against their business interests.
Again, please provide a source for this. Evidence of this could be grounds for a class action suit on the part of share holders.
What percentage of Twitter users are saying this?
That's not how capitalism works. Their business should be doing whatever they think will generate the most long term profit for the owners. It's an advertising platform. Advertisers don't want a platform where users get to decide what the truth is. Advertisers don't want their advertisement next to some anti-vaxxer nutjob or a vocal racist. This is common sense.
So Twitter moderators accurately predicted Trump's words could eventually end in violence long before it happened?
You can move away from a platform without a complete stop. I've seen people who used to post on Facebook on a daily basis claim to leave, and then they use the platform less and less until you rarely see them. What also matters is the nature of their posts. If people who used to put effort into thoughtful engaging posts start to post trivial and unengaging content, that has a similar effect to no longer using the platform.
If this happens in large numbers, it would of course impact your advertising revenue.
Where? Can you provide a source?
But companies do not. Buy a company and start making big mistakes and there will be consequences. The competition for users is fierce. If you want 100 days, get elected instead of being forced into buying a company you didn't really want in the first place.
I thought it was obvious that talking about moving to a platform is very different from actually making the move. The author has presumably moved, which is taking effective action and can be contrasted with people who are saying they are going to move but haven't done anything about it.
You should also note that the coiner of the term disagrees with you:
No one actually has to do anything. Virtue comes from mere words
I don't think it's fair to call it virtue signaling when someone took effective action. Does that clarify enough?
So you don't have a source to back up your claim.
> Banning people for political speech is an accessibility issue
It is not. [1]. You don't get to widen the definition of things to make them so broad as to include your claim.
Accessibility is the design of products, devices, services, vehicles, or environments so as to be usable by people with disabilities.