▲ 861 ▼ Luigi Mangione Accepts Nearly $300,000 in Crowdfunded Donations for Legal Defense (www.rollingstone.com) submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/upliftingnews@lemmy.world 94 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 144 points 2 years ago* (2 children) I want to hope the trial is covered relentlessly, but I know YouTube/Tiktok/Facebook are going to snub it in the algorithms. Reddit will mass ban it. Not to speak of cable news. Our best hope is Donald Trump opening his mouth about it, as he doesn’t seem to recognize the Streisand Effect. Then the algos will pick it up. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bahnd@lemmy.world 41 points 2 years ago (1 child) psst guess where it likely wont be blocked... Peertube. (Personally im not plugged in there, so I dont know how well it would handle it, but its a nice to think it wont be burried there) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Uniformly9@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Problem is discoverability. We all want Peertube to succeed, and they have excellent technology, but discovering content there is next to impossible. Otherwise its active user numbers would grow. It’s the same reason Bluesky - for all its flaws - succeeded where Mastodon failed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] umbrella@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (2 children) Why would they snub a massive driver of revenue? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] StraponStratos@lemmy.sdf.org 53 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because he represents a threat to them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago I suspect most CEOs are going to take that small risk in order to earn a few more billions, and spend a tiny portion of that on additional security. Maybe donate a pittance to the police. If you can make $1000, and it costs you $500 to make you secure doing that, then it's worth it. Line must go up, as everyone says. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Because their billionaire owners specifically ask them to? Self compliance with regulators? Masks are off, pretty much everyone but Google has loudly advertised they manipulate the algorithms for their interests, seemingly as a gesture after the election. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 9 points 2 years ago Google just does it quietly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] madnificent@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago Could you provide some links on the advertised manipulation of the algorithms for their interests? Thanks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bahnd@lemmy.world 41 points 2 years ago (1 child) psst guess where it likely wont be blocked... Peertube. (Personally im not plugged in there, so I dont know how well it would handle it, but its a nice to think it wont be burried there) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Uniformly9@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Problem is discoverability. We all want Peertube to succeed, and they have excellent technology, but discovering content there is next to impossible. Otherwise its active user numbers would grow. It’s the same reason Bluesky - for all its flaws - succeeded where Mastodon failed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] umbrella@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Uniformly9@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Problem is discoverability. We all want Peertube to succeed, and they have excellent technology, but discovering content there is next to impossible. Otherwise its active user numbers would grow. It’s the same reason Bluesky - for all its flaws - succeeded where Mastodon failed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] umbrella@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] umbrella@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (2 children) Why would they snub a massive driver of revenue? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] StraponStratos@lemmy.sdf.org 53 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because he represents a threat to them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago I suspect most CEOs are going to take that small risk in order to earn a few more billions, and spend a tiny portion of that on additional security. Maybe donate a pittance to the police. If you can make $1000, and it costs you $500 to make you secure doing that, then it's worth it. Line must go up, as everyone says. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Because their billionaire owners specifically ask them to? Self compliance with regulators? Masks are off, pretty much everyone but Google has loudly advertised they manipulate the algorithms for their interests, seemingly as a gesture after the election. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 9 points 2 years ago Google just does it quietly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] madnificent@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago Could you provide some links on the advertised manipulation of the algorithms for their interests? Thanks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] StraponStratos@lemmy.sdf.org 53 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because he represents a threat to them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago I suspect most CEOs are going to take that small risk in order to earn a few more billions, and spend a tiny portion of that on additional security. Maybe donate a pittance to the police. If you can make $1000, and it costs you $500 to make you secure doing that, then it's worth it. Line must go up, as everyone says. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago I suspect most CEOs are going to take that small risk in order to earn a few more billions, and spend a tiny portion of that on additional security. Maybe donate a pittance to the police. If you can make $1000, and it costs you $500 to make you secure doing that, then it's worth it. Line must go up, as everyone says. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Because their billionaire owners specifically ask them to? Self compliance with regulators? Masks are off, pretty much everyone but Google has loudly advertised they manipulate the algorithms for their interests, seemingly as a gesture after the election. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Maeve@kbin.earth 9 points 2 years ago Google just does it quietly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] madnificent@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago Could you provide some links on the advertised manipulation of the algorithms for their interests? Thanks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 9 points 2 years ago Google just does it quietly. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] madnificent@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago Could you provide some links on the advertised manipulation of the algorithms for their interests? Thanks. permalink fedilink source parent