That’s family income. What your parents earn counts too.

And if I identity as an extraterrestrial autonomous exploration and research unit, with a general mission directive of learning about humanity first hand?

As far as I know virtually all forensics is invalid. I believe its just DNA analysis, that’s got actual science behind it.

https://www.science.org/content/article/reversing-legacy-junk-science-courtroom

Yes the idea isn’t, that they aren’t allowed to recommend anything. It’s that they can be held accountable (I.E. sued) if what they recommend, leads to people being radicalized by a hate group, or attempting suicide from cyber bullying. Or even just extra tharapy from doom scrolling ourselves to sleep. Right now Section 230 says they can’t be held liable for anything on their sites. Which is obviously stupid.

Those were my edits, they didn’t use both

On one hand the Judge is right. On the other hand the lawyer is right. Then on two more hands, they’re both wrong.

Yes, it’s bad to legislate by moral panic. Yes, kids are addicted to social media. Those are both facts.

The reason age gating is a bad idea isn’t because of moral panic, or “the children”. It’s because we’re ALL addicted to social media. It isn’t just the kids, it’s adults as well. The problem is the intentionally addicting algorithms, meticulously engendered to keep us scrolling. I’m telling you in 50 years, we’ll know how all the social media companies were hiding and lying, about the addictive harmful nature of their business; Just like we know about tobacco and oil companies today.

The best solution I can think of, is to revisit Section 230. You can’t hold these companies responsible for what people post to their sites, but we can and must hold them accountable, for what they recommend! If you have a simple easily definable sorting or ranking system of what people choose to follow? You’re fine, no accountability for something bad showing up. If you have some black box algorithm of infinite scrolling, based on a complex criteria that nobody can really break down and explain exactly why a specific post was shown to a specific individual? Now you’re on the hook for what they see.

Judge Uses D&D’s Failure To Make Him Worship Satan, To School Teach Florida On About Social Media Moral Panics.

I think that’s what they’re trying to say

That’s what the local feed is for.
I’m constantly surprised by people who don’t seem to understand what ALL means.

They aren’t mutually exclusive options.
Nothing is stopping some big corp from spinning up their own Fediverse service.
See Gmail as an example.

As far as I know there’s none.
I’m pretty sure Brother is the last hold out against the dark side.

I didn’t read it, but I’m guessing the answer is: Don’t.
It sounds like a real bad idea.

You’re speculating that Kagi is actually astroturfing on Lemmy. That’s why I asked for an account you believe to be doing it on Kagi’s behalf.

So yah, the social media manager or marketing agency is getting paid. People organically posting because they genuinely like the service, aren’t. The former would be advertising. The later not.

Can you point to any accounts you think are doing Kagi astroturfing. IE being paid to advertise with. Because now it just sounds like you’re speculating.

If they aren’t paying anyone is it advertising? I’m not sure what you’re actually talking about anymore. Maybe I never did

In retrospect yes, my comment could be seen as a positive. That wasn’t my intent.

Should I ask them about being paid? I’ve been doing it for free all this time.

Sometimes people don’t pay attention to the community a post is in.

I’ve never seen her be anything but a nakedly power hungry, political hack. She’s tried to sell herself as both a progressive and conservative liberal, depending on who she’s talking to. I wouldn’t doubt if sher looses again, she’ll go Republican.

She’s always seemed very politically flexible to me.

I associate the word with money related activities

That’s a good thing. It costs money to provide services to people. The Fediverse is no different.