More of a regular thing for me than annual. It’s primarily Doctors without Borders and some international charities,mainly for the middle east. A while back my wife and I paid for some wells for some villages in Pakistan.

We just comment it out in case we ever need it again.

I’m seeing some discussions about random communities moving off of .world. Is there any reason for it?

There’s no need to comment on someone’s color. Grey lives matter too.

Could be a case of them interviewing a lot of people. Keep in mind a lot of people go on vacation this time of year and depending on the company/industry it could also mean this is peak season for them. I wouldn’t look too much into it.

Best of luck, hope you get it.

I agree, it’s a useful feature for certain people. I’m just not a big fan of site admins making the decision for you. It should only be used as a last resort IMO or to protect yourself against illegal content, CP for example. Normalizing defederation between instances can be abused by a small amount of bad faith actors. If you as a person don’t like a certain culture on an instance or community, just block it yourself.

No one is obligated to do anything. The admins run the site and they can moderate how they feel. As a user, I can join their site or another one if I choose to.

My opinion of defederating is that it should only be used as a last resort. Taking a liberal approach to defederation means that a small amount of bad faith actors can completely shut down an instance and make it a pariah on the fediverse.

It doesn’t, except for the ones who like to browse local. And the .world admins have quite a few blocked instances. They seem to be a bit too liberal in defederating to my tastes. I feel as if it runs against the concept of federation itself.

.world is the instance where most new users default to so and it has the highest user base and that includes a lot of trolls or just bad faith actors. Also, a lot of .world is based from reddit users who left and they brought that kind of mindset along. Some people don’t like that either.

My PC has a secondary HDD that has my files. Movies, books, comics, TV shows, random stuff, etc. It’s more or less organized in their own folders.

The Good Place was very good if you haven’t watched it already.

Are you asking how to use them or how it functions?

Yeah I agree, sounds a bit excessive. If that’s correct, it doesn’t sound like they’re reading your data and at the end of the day they have to comply with things like warrants. Thanks for the clarification.

Wait, what’s wrong with Proton Mail?

Uhhh…smooth? What’s chunky tea?

If it’s a unique event then I read the article. If it’s just something like a cabinet pick, a nation’s response to another nation’s actions etc. I just rely on the headline.

The worst is when it’s dark. Visibility goes down so badly.

I see where you’re coming from but at the end of the day “Pro-Palestine” implies that these people are only protesting it for Palestine, and not the genocide. If the situation were reversed where Palestine was committing a genocide against the Israeli people then these people would not be “Pro-Palestine”. Remember, a lot of people around the world think that Palestinians want to ethnically cleanse the Jews (which is 100% not true). They use this as an excuse to justify what Israel is currently doing. This is what I meant by saying it has an implicit bias. It’s a very polarizing situation and the media is making it worse by labelling everyone either Pro-Israel or Pro-Palestine. We’re meant to believe that by picking a side you forsake the other. Which is not the case for a lot of people.

Personally, I don’t think the commenter was wrong to point it out. This isn’t an even conflict and Israel is not only attacking Hamas. “Pro-Palestine” implies you’re choosing a side in this conflict and allows people to form a bias. Anti-genocide showcases exactly why the majority of people are against the war.

That’s more of a case of trying to control the narrative then using a non-inflammatory headline. “Pro-Palestine” creates an implicit bias for a conflict and you’ll read it in a certain way depending on your viewpoints on the conflict. The media does this a lot especially for a topic as loaded as this. That ones a really good example of it since the Israelis in Amsterdam were doing a lot of bad shit that prompted a response but all headlines just labeled them as “soccer fans” while they labeled the other side as things like “rioters”. It’s not about being inflammatory, it’s more about trying your best to remove these implicit biases.