That’s also hugely in part because Apple develops Webkit at a snails pace. Some say they gimp their own rendring engine so that it isn’t competitive with native applications from the App Store. This way, there’s less incentive for developers to make web-apps to avoid the 30% app store tax.
I use Firefox as my main browser on Android, and all apps that invoke a WebView do so using Firefox’s rendering engine, with uBlock Origin and Dark Reader working seamlessly. So, maybe this info about Firefox for Android lacking WebView support is outdated?
Exemple after clicking a link on Twitter/X:
You never know what the political world has in store. Before Alexandre de Moraes, doing blatant preventive censorship was unthinkable. When he made this practice into the “new normal”, he radicalized the right even more, and they might turn to dirty tricks to get to him.
Any flavor that would send Alexandre de Moraes to the jail cell, his rightful place.
Brazil’s dictator-judge Alexandre de Moraes only had free reign last year to do what he did because the US used to have a living corpse as the president. Now, with Orange-Man-Bad as president, I don’t know if the same judge would have the guts to block X nationwide again. Especially with Trump showing he’s not afraid to impose tariffs on a whim. And it’s also apparent that Trump hears what Elon has to say, and Elon is hungry for revenge. The judge only needs to step out of the line for Elon to retaliate.
From The Verge article:
"Twitter says that it doesn’t know why the data suggests its algorithm favors right-leaning content, noting that it’s “a significantly more difficult question to answer as it is a product of the interactions between people and the platform.” However, it may not be a problem with Twitter’s algorithm specifically — Steve Rathje, a Ph.D. candidate who studies social media, published the results of his research that explains how divisive content about political outgroups is more likely to go viral.
The Verge reached out to Rathje to get his thoughts about Twitter’s findings. “In our study, we also were interested in what kind of content is amplified on social media and found a consistent trend: negative posts about political outgroups tend to receive much more engagement on Facebook and Twitter,” Rathje stated. “In other words, if a Democrat is negative about a Republican (or vice versa), this kind of content will usually receive more engagement.”
If we take Rathje’s research into account, this could mean that right-leaning posts on Twitter successfully spark more outrage, resulting in amplification."
In other words: it’s not the algorithm that favors one side of the polical spectrum. It’s just that right-wing users know how to make more engaging posts. And that is dispite being sabotaged by moderation policies that favors left-leaning views.
I don’t know the specifics of this South African law, but isn’t it basically punishing today’s landowners for the wrongs of their ancestors? And they’re taking over land without compensation? That’s nuts! Here in my country, land is only expropriated without payment when the owner uses it for illegal drugs like marijuana.
I’m waiting for your counter-arguments. Or is ad hominem the only thing you know?
The problem was when lefties were in charge of Twitter’s moderation team. They were trigger-happy in banning anyone who didn’t agree with their self-proclaimed “social consensus.” In this last U.S. election cycle, we found out this consensus was a lie. Examples:
User1: “I’m against illegal immigration. Deport the illegals now!”
Mod: “Racist!! You’re permanently banned!”
User2: “We gotta have stricter laws for legal refugees. They don’t respect our local customs and bring social issues (i.e., higher crime rates) that burden the taxpayer.”
Mod: “Nazi!! You’re permanently banned!”
User3: “I’m against hormonal therapies and sex-change surgeries on kids. We gotta have legislation that forbids it and makes doctors accountable.”
Mod: “Transphobe!! You’re permanently banned!”
They maliciously extrapolate dissenting opinions to paint them as something bad. People have the right to be dissatisfied with current policies and advocate for change. That shouldn’t be a bannable offense.
Twitter 1.0 outright banned right-leaning users. Silencing dissenting voices from online political discourse isn’t considered “gaming the system”?
Does anyone remember when Twitter 1.0 censored stories about the Hunter Biden Laptop? On my book, that’s manipulation.
X has been accused of manipulating its systems to give far-right posts and politicians greater visibility over other political groups.
Before Elon bought Twitter, the system did the exact same thing, but with left-leaning posts. Back then, the French prosecutors didn’t seem to care. Now that the political tide is changing, they suddenly care?
If not for this, they’d certainly impose the block with another excuse. They just don’t like Elon.
So you’re set to automatically complain unless the fact-check aligns perfectly with your worldview?
The old system of using fact-checking agencies was biased, and the content they deemed false had its reach negatively impacted. They were literally the arbiters of truth, and their actions silenced their political opponents’ voices. The new system of Community Notes is superior because it requires approval from people with diverse political alignments to show a fact-check to everyone.
deleted by creator
It’s easy to be bold when the US president is weak. I don’t think they’d ban X if Trump was president at the time.
As long as it keeps censoring its citizens, everthing fine! 🙄
When Zuckerberg mentioned ‘secret courts in South America that order content removal without publicly disclosing it,’ everyone in Brazil immediately knew he was referring to our Supreme Court. The Court has been working in tandem with the federal administration to suppress laws approved by Congress, including a 2013 law that implemented a notice-and-takedown system similar to the DMCA. Under this system, internet content providers are only held responsible if they fail to remove content after receiving a specific court order.
The Supreme Court is now attempting to declare this notice-and-takedown system unconstitutional, while the federal government simply parrots the same fallacious arguments made by the judges. Every article I’ve read on this subject fails to identify which part of our Constitution the system supposedly violates, and I’ve personally searched for it without success. I suspect the Court is determined to stifle free speech in Brazil and will come up with an excuse for the law’s unconstitutionality later—likely something vague, like ‘violation of human dignity.’ Supreme Court judges often use this phrase liberally in their televised oral arguments.
The federal government and the Supreme Court claim to be protecting democracy, yet they seem unconcerned with preserving one of its core tenets: the separation of powers."
Hamas’ School of Human Shields is quickly producing new graduates, it seems…