Skip to content

Discord unveils Discord Orbs, a new in-app currency that users can earn by completing Quests, which reward participants who interact with ads

Technology
137 83 5
  • 57 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    C
    "mistakes"
  • 532 Stimmen
    92 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    C
    Thanks for the speed and the work !
  • 25 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    S
    Said it the day Broadcom bought them, they're going to squeeze the smaller customers out. This behavior is by design.
  • 347 Stimmen
    51 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    4
    Interestingly it loads today. I have AdAway on my phone and PiHole in my home network
  • 463 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 163 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    L
    Online group started by a 15 year old in Texas playing Minecraft and watching extreme gore they said in this article. Were they also involved in said sexual exploiting of other kids, or was that just the spin offs that came from other people/countries? It all sounds terrible but I wonder if this was just a kid who did something for attention and then other perpetrators got involved and kept taking it further and down other rabbit holes. Definitely seems like a know what your kid is doing online scenario, but also yikes on all the 18+ members who joined and participated in such.
  • 88 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    M
    I really can't stand this guy. What a slag.
  • 33 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    J
    Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.