I always wonder about the workflow for these folks. Like, do they look at your attachments at all, or just have a pre-made response whenever someone sends an image with a positive-seeming reply? They had to look at your e-mail enough to get the name of the picture and the cost, but beyond that.... I mean, at this point it could all be bots.

Then you have legends like Jim Browning and Kitboga who take scam baiting to even greater heights.

Yeah, fuck off with this.

Fortunately for me, I have not yet met my annual empathy quota, and therefore can care about more than one thing at the same time. Meanwhile, are you seriously arguing that I'm not doing enough about more important problems because I'm not complaining about them in a small corner of the internet?

Interesting idea. Some questions:

1. Who's running this site? The domain was registered privately, and fair enough, but I'd like to know who's in charge.

2. Who are your targeted userbase? In other words, are you looking for tech savvy, a particular ideology, etc.?

3. Free speech as a goal is all well and good, but the vague statement about the end about they "must adhere to global rules, regulations and laws" could mean a lot. Reddit has struggled significantly (and clumsily) with how to deal with this. Global rules are different, so whose apply? How do we predict what is and isn't allowed, or what we might be exposed to?

It's been interesting to see how poorly we can handle degrees of sucking in public discourse -- it's kind of a zero-sum game. I think the anti-fa groups are getting a level of free passage that they don't necessarily deserve, simply because their opponents are so much worse (including being more harmful in the long run IMO).

I'm worried about the degree to which we're allowing something we wouldn't accept otherwise because of whom it's directed at. And I get it in the case of neo-Nazis and the like, even if I think their threat level is overblown (as shown by the results of their even being this organized). So my problem isn't that the anti-fa groups who went to Charlottesville looking for a fight aren't being put on the same level with the neo-Nazis (since they're not), but that we're apparently not capable of having a real conversation about how white nationalism and racism should be discussed. We can't say anything that isn't 100% "these people are the worst and anything that happens to them is justified" without getting screamed at.

Trump fucked the dog (as he does on every other decision he makes) in his public comments, but being in a place where anything other than violent condemnation is seen as solidarity is dangerous.

GMOs are fine, and trying to ban them is irrational and will end up harming farmers.

Gawker media is complaining about quality and journalistic integrity?

Pot, meet kettle.

I'm a federal employee, and this pissed me off to a level I did not think was possible.