I think it's a concerning issue affecting long-term viability of the platform. It'll only get worse as time goes on and sources go offline.

They're doing a good job spreading fear and misery.

The root of the problem is Wikipedia not having local snapshots leaves their articles vulnerable to eroding sources.

No source, no sample size, just content to make people angry.

And if you spent more than the $1700?

You kept receipts for everything you bought since the tariffs went live?

This is gonna be a clusterfuck.

Crazy? I was crazy once. They put me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats.

I gained this unwanted knowledge involuntarily, but am more cultured for it.

I wonder if they would use the same argument on a photo of someone receiving gender-affirming care.

Obviously this is true and it sucks, but I don't really view it as a man vs woman issue. I think it's a social media issue where these companies purposefully push outrage content to drive up engagement. It's an unethical practice with little to no legislation protecting users exposed to it.

Many of these platforms don't even have a way to opt out, forcing users to view it via "suggestions" in their main feed.

It's basically a form of self-defense.