OpenStars

You are talking about user-level blocking, whereas iirc defederation is an instance-level blocking that also stops user comments too, as well as votes.

The “election” is perpetual. People will vote with their participation.

As it should always be.

Why is "Threats" in double-quotes? The fact that they are "threats" is not in question - these are not "alleged threats"?

I see that it comes from the article, but that only pushes back my question as to why the article does that. It also puts "hard right" and "all-out" (and "holy war" and "race war" and "dangerous" and "evil" and "demonic" etc.) in quotes too, which should not be, but those at least are all more discretionary, whereas putting "threats" in quotes like that calls into question their validity.

He can love his son and also democracy and justice too - i.e. allow his son to go to what will surely be like a resort vacation spa that they will call "prison" (not bc he's special, just bc he's rich).

Seems fishy

Not anymore...

Noice:-)

There are so many things pointing towards ditching QWERTY - WFH jobs, mobile devices, portable keyboards, even virtual projected keyboards rather than physical ones.

On the other hand, laptops are a bottleneck - even if nobody else uses your personal one but you, they still have to make one with a nonstandard layout (will e.g. Apple ever do that?) - and just bc newer, younger people learning how to use computers for the first time could choose a different layout, doesn't mean that many will (I mean at the mainstream level).

Someone writing a wall of text when it is not asked for or appreciated may be being insensitive to their audience. On the other hand, I've literally had people ask for it and then someone else steps in to complain, so definitely there are Karens who feel entitled to whinge no matter what you do. Just settle in your own mind whether you are doing the right thing, and let being correct remain your guide as to what to do.

should be, ftfy :-(

I am not the person you replied to but I wanted to echo and extend their statement: you may need to come to terms with the fact that you might not have the capability to help your friend, and it's even possible that nobody does, unless and until they become receptive to that kind of aid.

I am not saying to do nothing, but do be aware of that, e.g. if you give them money and they gamble it away, will you just keep giving them money until neither of you has any at all? And then repeat for every single one of your friends as well?

Decide what you can do and what you cannot. In any case you may not be able to "save" him - that is something that as an adult he needs to do for himself, and may resent you for even trying?