"If Meta wants…" My concern is that the only conceivable motivation Meta could have for investing money in such a project is making more money. If, in the process, Meta destroys the eco-structure of the Fediverse, so much the better—less competition, more money for them.

I wholly agree that it's unethical to charge $thousands for a product that costs pennies to make. And yet, that appears to be the business model becoming more and more common, or at least more unapologetically blatant.

Healthcare, for example; insulin and epipens as the poster children. Gouging in post-pandemic grocery and consumer staples prices. The ballooning of C-suite compensation in service industries, while wages for those doing the service regress with inflation.

Journalists may be dropping the ball, but they have to keep their "engagement" numbers up, too. They may be dropping the ball because exploring ethical lapses may feel like headlining "water is wet!"

Wonderful article. Really good illustrations of how deeply imbricated in language structures our value systems and our ability to conceptualize are—the Whorfian hypothesis. Makes me wonder about the impact of Americans' disdain for languages other than English. Elsewhere in the world, it's not uncommon to know several languages fairly well, even if one has little formal education; here, it's a terrific oddity for even highly-educated people. American college students scream bloody murder if you tell them they have to take a language; some Americans are openly hostile to others speaking anything other than English among themselves.

Absolutely believe in chronotypes. Retired now, thank god. But my best REM sleep has always happened somewhere between 5 am and 9 am. Even when I had to follow everyone else's schedule, I absolutely had to be able to sleep in Saturday morning. If I didn't, at some point I'd have to go off in a corner later in the week and just sort of waking-dream to catch up on REM.

VERY interesting. I did not get through the whole, I confess, but have bookmarked for further serious reading. However, have looked at the discussion of previous models of disability, and prologue to the anarchist model the author is setting up to discuss as preferred.

I read some aloud to my partner, who is in a nursing home. Alzheimer's, incontinence, loss of mobility, depression, anxiety. And my dearest sweetie, life-partner of 26 years and counting.

All of the models of disability treat the cripple (to use the author's phrasing) as a person. I would argue that at least in my partner's case, she is being treated as an object—not even as a person-manquée, or a non-person, as the discourse of slavery captures this liminal status. But an inanimate, non-sentient thing without subjectivity, self-reflexivity, agency.

Incoveniently, this thing requires maintenance, as it presents a simulacrum of humanity, whether as a person or as a non-person. Death and egregious mistreatment may return it temporarily to personhood, but only if that return functions to benefit someone who is not constructed as disabled.

Oh, eww. A Meta/Twitter mashup? No. Just no.

I loathe Facebook, although my church uses it, so I'll grudgingly check it once in a blue moon. Never quite got the whole Twitter concept. Used Twitter intensively only once or twice for simulcast commentary back when the Sharknado series was a thing. And found I could sometimes get faster customer service on (for instance) airline snafus, when company portals were unresponsive, and phone queues required waiting through 3 hours of drecklich Muzak.

AdAway for Android via fDroid

Witch hazel on a wash-cloth, full body wipe-down. Also, a bandanna soaked in water, wrung out, placed in the freezer until it's stiff; moisten just until it's pliable, wrap around your head like a sweat-band (especially over temples). Large medical-grade icepack (used for sprains) also from freezer; wrap loosely in a towel to avoid skin frostbite, place on chest.

Nope. Everyone makes mistakes. But you don't go full Armageddon on the people whose blood, sweat & tears built you up from diddly, and then say "oopsie." It don't work like that, Spez. Have fun with your IPO.

Hi all! I'm here on behalf of my partner of 26 years, who was dx'd with Alzheimer's (plus a big serving of depression and anxiety). She's been a longterm disability rights advocate (seizures, hard enough of hearing that she signs—or used to, has been socially withdrawing, and memory + Alzheimer's… well, you know). When she got the official dx, I joked to her, "well, you were always proud of being Disabled—now you've got the Great Mother of all disabilities."

Well, life might be easier in the sense of not having randos raise eyebrows, wanting explanations, putting up barriers to basic, universal human rights. But as a (boomer) lesbian, I'm only too happy not to be dealing with social expectations about gender role restrictions in a conventional marriage.

Fascinating stuff, although I do not pretend to grok the maths.

On the one hand, seems to offer formulaic approach to creating effective interventions to curb online hate-speech. A more functional approach than hand-wringing, and more effective than "thoughts and prayers" platitudes following IRL consequences of hate-speech.

On the other hand, who decides what is undesirable hate speech? For instance, I could see both of the US abortion debate "sides" (yes, I know, there are more than two) claiming the other is wrong, is promoting hate or harm. Each side might feel itself justified seeking to intervene to prevent spread of an ideology.