No fundamental difference between censorship for being an anarchist humanitarian and for sharing CSAM. There's a hierarchy, the top of which either decides to ban you or press someone else to ban you. If the hierarchy is voluntary (as in paying attention to deletion\ignore messages signed only by those authorities you chose yourself), then both CSAM and anarchist speech will be shared. Best you can do without enabling censorship is to choose what you replicate (Freenet doesn't have that, hence CSAM flourishes there, with this thing it might be less convenient - you'll have IP addresses of all the pedos ; sharing CSAM is a crime so it hurts them, being an anarchist is not so it hurts anarchists less ; though some way to achieve pseudonymity with still only storing what you want would be good).

I agree with the sentiment that shareholders should stand up to the CEO's and boards of the companies but this is literally about them wanting to be reimbursed for the legal costs of users suing Meta companies. They were cool with these actions up until they felt that it started costing them money and guess what? Zuck is still CEO.

Right on, thanks for the info!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

… it was

Sorry for the late reply, I had to sit and think on this one for a little bit. I think there are would be a few things going on when it comes to designing a course to teach critical thinking, nuances, and originality; and they each have their own requirements. For critical thinking: The main goal is to provide students with a toolbelt for solving various problems. Then instilling the habit of always asking "does this match the expected outcome? What was I expecting?". So usually courses will be setup so students learn about a tool, practice using the tool, then have a culminating assignment on using all the tools. Ideally, the problems students face at the end require multiple tools to solve. Nuance mainly naturally comes with exposure to the material from a professional - The way a mechanical engineer may describe building a desk will probably differ greatly compared to a fantasy author. You can also explain definitions and industry standards; but thats really dry. So I try to teach nuances via definitions by mixing in the weird nuances as much as possible with jokes. Then for originality; I've realized I dont actually look for an original idea; but something creative. In a classroom setting, you're usually learning new things about a subject so a student's knowledge of that space is usually very limited. Thus, an idea that they've never heard about may be original to them, but common for an industry expert. For teaching originality creativity, I usually provide time to be creative & think, and provide open ended questions as prompts to explore ideas. My courses that require originality usually have it as a part of the culminating assignment at the end where they can apply their knowledge. I'll also add in time where students can come to me with preliminary ideas and I can provide feedback on whether or not it passes the creative threshold. Not all ideas are original, but I sometimes give a bit of slack if its creative enough. The amount of course overhauling to get around AI really depends on the material being taught. For example, in programming - you teach critical thinking by always testing your code, even with parameters that don't make sense. For example: Try to add 123 + "skibbidy", and see what the program does.

Yeah but considering who's in charge of the government, half of us will be hit with that designation sooner or later.