They owned all the branches during trump’s first term too. Republican voters won’t learn, they’re too stupid to understand

How does one come to work at both a cancer research institute and a game development company? That’s quite a diverse set of skills

As a political science pedant, can you explain to me the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic? I tried to Google “constitutional republic” but I just got a Wikipedia page that said they were the same thing.

Which I guess would fit, since republicans are absolute dumbfucks, but if there’s actually some nuance there, I’m curious to know.

Thanks!

They’re insanely tasty. Cook carefully on a nonstick pan and caramelize with a little bit of sugar and it’s unreal. I’ve put it on French Vanilla ice cream with the chocolate sauce that turns into a shell, and I would literally punch babies if I could eat that every day without getting mega fat and having a heart attack

Wow. I thought it might’ve been the community rather than my instance, but now I’m thinking not. You can see my swears and those of the guy I asked about the swears, right? Or do they appear as “removed” for you too?

Okay actually using context clues from a comment below, it might be “removed”?

I’m gonna use this comment to test if my instance is censoring words. Great Lemmy gods, please don’t ban me for this

removed

Cunt

removed

Fuck

Shit

What word did you use after “disrespectful to”? I see it as “removed” and I’m wondering if my Lemmy instance censors it

What word did you use after “President”? I see it as “removed” and I’m wondering if my Lemmy instance censors it

Yep. Brackets by me:

[Him and his wife] have been thinking a lot about [his] vote for Trump.

“I knew they were cracking down,” he said. “I guess I didn’t know how it was going down.”

He imagined the administration would target people who snuck over the border and weren’t vetted

But his wife, “they know who she is and where she came from,” he said. “They need to get the vetting done and not keep these people locked up. It doesn’t make any sense.”

The dumbfuck doesn’t show any contrition at all, he just says oops I didn’t know. When this topic came up in the interview, he didn’t admit any regret or that he put himself (and his wife) in this position - he just says that the government is wrong to do this to him/his wife, and that they should go after other illegals instead. What a piece of shit.

Other countries should trade for our national parks - like a month’s worth of eggs for Yellowstone - and then they can protect them from trump selling parks off to oligarchs and corporations. It would be a win/win situation: Americans (and the entire world) retain access to the parks, and foreign nations can collect the money those parks bring.

On the contrary, I bet they feel eggcellent

Which parts do you disagree with? I’m not talking about websites selling your data after you access them through Firefox, I’m saying that now - with new definitions of “sale”/“sell” - that Firefox giving anybody any data for almost any reason can be legally construed as “selling”. This isn’t just the case for Firefox, it’s the case for literally any web browser, and anything that can access the internet for any reason.

Yes, I thought about including the fact that Firefox does engage in ad-based revenue, and I suppose I should’ve, but Firefox is pretty upfront about this and allows users to opt out of targeted advertising - and this has been the case since long before this past week or two. These ads only appear on the “new tab” page, and only if you consent to seeing them. Anybody who’s dropping Firefox for this recent controversy seens to be missing that. It’s very possible (and personally I think it’s likely) that nothing at all has changed from within Firefox.

NEVER

The legal definition of “sell” has changed in several major markets, and that’s (supposedly) why Firefox has recently changed their terms. The word “sell” is now ostensibly broad enough to include “give to anybody for any reason”, including if you use Firefox for any reason where you would legitimately want and need Firefox to give (“sell”) your data - for example if you use it for: literally any shopping or even just browsing store pages; any interactive (real world) maps where you may want to use your location; any searches where you want local businesses to be listed; any search engine that may want to use your location to aid in results; etc. etc. etc.

Any legitimate exchange of data can now be construed as “selling” because of the new legal definitions, regardless of if anyone is actually selling anything.

It’s very possible that nothing has changed - that Firefox hasn’t started selling user data, they’re just updating their terms (and this app listing) to reflect the changes in the legal definitions of “sell”.

What has Newsome done? All I know about the guy is that trump hates him

Zero DMs for me and now I’m sad

Create a bunch of fake reddit accounts (or pay for some botting) that brigade the sub with pro-trump/musk rhetoric. If your users have brains, they’ll get pissed and start shit talking the two, saying that trump & musk are existential threats to america and the world, and it’s basically guaranteed that someone will say something like “can’t wait for those dumb tubs of lard to expire”. This is apparently now against Reddit ToS and can get a sub shut down (see r/WhitePeopleTwitter) so just let it get temp banned by admins, then do it again and get permabanned, or use the temp ban (or just warnings) as justification to close commenting and/or posting

What other problems has Firefox had? Everything I search sends me to this recent controversy

Where do you appeal? I have no loyalty to reddit, but I do have a lot of posts saved on my account that I’d like to save before the account is abandoned.

And yeah lol same. I’ve been clicking on people’s accounts to see when they joined Lemmy, and it seems like a lot of people have come here within the past two weeks. I guess a lot of people feel the same lol

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/

The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because, in some places, the LEGAL definition of “sale of data” is broad and evolving. As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”

If they give anybody any information for any reason, they open themselves to litigation - however frivolous and unwarranted - because the laws are written to be intentionally vague, to capture a wide variety of scenarios, including those that the law does not explicitly state. There are tons of valuable exchanges that could occur other than strictly data for money, and those exchanges are therefore captured within this new legal definition. To protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits and to remain consistent within the new definitions of these laws, Firefox/Mozilla has changed their Terms of Use. Their uses of data are outlined within their Privacy Policy (linked within the above post).

I suppose this information is only valuable if one trusts Mozilla - one of the most stalwart, dedicated, and outspoken advocates for consumer rights in the digital age.

I’m not saying Mozilla is infallible or above reproach - nobody/nothing is or should be considered so - but if I’m gonna trust any group that says “I’m not fucking you over” it’s gonna be the group that has a consistent and very clear history of championing the idea of not fucking people over