No. The instance being killed by the taliban is the opposite of that is happening here.

The taliban has done nothing, in this case. The admins of the instance have chosen not to keep the instance due to not wanting to fund the taliban in anyway.

This phrasing fucks up which way the action flows, which is important for a headline to get right to remain accurate to the story. Does that make sense?

I can’t help but project an old version of myself on you. I can’t imagine defending 4chan unless I was actively using it a lot… It did used to be basically my only internet community, so I understand being particularly fond of the cesspool.

However, I don’t actually understand your reactions here. Why are you defending it when it seems like 4chan itself wouldn’t even go this far except maaaybe as a limp wristed attempt at an excuse when something truly horrific happens because of them? I genuinely don’t think I understand

Like, to currently vilify it is easy, just take a screenshot of pol. I remember looking pre2016 and seeing HYPERPARTISANSHIP all caps everywhere. It’s an anonymous forum with people discussing plans to make life shittier for various groups, essentially at all times… And before pol it was b (my era was back when pol was a boring place, I don’t know the current state of any board, but I know some of the history and what motivates some normies of my niche who fuck with it)

I just don’t understand the downplaying of it, normal people participate in shit ways on 4chan specifically because of the anonymity. The anonymity is why it’s such a cesspool in the first place. It’s toxic keyboard warrior syndrome to the extreme.

This ignores that 4chan is widely known as the cesspool of the internet and attracts those types. It’s like going on Hexbear and being surprised at the communists. People gather where their banners are. Shit attracts shit. This reduction is apt.

Sure it kind of does some good ish things sometimes, but more often than not, it’s just an internet mob internet mobbing. That’s essentially all it is: chaos waves constantly crashing back in on itself. Any good that comes from it is incidental at best.

Also, defending 4chan on the wider Internet is a little odd, 4chan itself revels in its shit reputation…

I’m interested in where the limits to expectations lie here. I’m not trying to be a jerk when I say this next part but I do worry I may come off that way but I’m trying to figure out the boundaries of what a “reasonable” expectation is so I can make tasks like this easier for my own team (completely unrelated to this project but it’s essentially the same problem).

Is it not reasonable to expect people to type into a search engine something like “GitHub help” and then poke around in the links that come up?

… Well I’ll be damned, I tried my own method before commenting, and the first link that comes up is a red herring, how obnoxious. I was hoping it’d be a link to the docs, not GitHub support. I guess I just answered my own question: no that is not reasonable.

As a technical user, I am still at a loss for how to help a non-technical user in an algorithmic way that will work for most non-technical users x.x guess I’ll be thinking about this problem some more lol

(I guess I’m rambling but I’m gonna post this anyways in case anyone wants to chatter about it with me)

(before I begin my ramble, I understand this is pedantic as hell and nitpicky af. Please know that I’m not calling this meme bad, I’m only looking for someone who is willing to be pedantic about definitions with me for a few rounds or so.)

What exactly does “false solidarity” mean? What exactly is this particular understanding of solidarity either? To my knowledge (aka, I googled it to ensure my vibe check of what solidarity meant was about right), solidarity is something you feel and are essentially motivated to solidarity actions by. To feel it is to experience it, which means, by my understanding of what solidarity is, the term “false solidarity” seems nonsensical.

Like I know what you’re saying, I agree, the effect is that the worker works against his own interest for the betterment of the upper classes, but this phrasing seems… I don’t know exactly how to put it, but like inexact in a way that can probably be and should probably be fixed.

I would just call it poisonous solidarity (intentionally avoiding virus/illness words though) or something that simultaneously implies that it’s externally put there by an external actor, it’s bad for you, it can hurt things and people around you, but it still is legitimate solidarity. Those actions those workers are taking, those votes that they’re casting, those are all real actions caused by real feelings. Implying the feelings themselves are false seems to me to be lazy and irrational at this point… If this were the late 1800s, that probably would be the best phrasing we had for this at the time, but language evolves and I don’t think this language is illustrative/metaphorical enough to accurately portray the mechanics that our current culture allows us to portray about subjects like this.

But again, I’m not the arbiter of what’s true, correct, or what actually should happen, so what do you people think?