Musk, like anyone else, has a right to endorse whoever he wants. Unless there's evidence that he's mass censoring or banning Democrats, I don't really see why there'd be any outrage. No one certainly seems to care when Silicon Valley big wigs donate to the other side.
Seems like even Masnick agrees, albeit begrudgingly, that this judge is an authoritarian. Where I cannot agree with Masnick is the implication that Musk and this man are somehow both equally wrong.
A government official, no less a judge, should be held to a far higher standard as his actions impact hundreds of millions of people. And as we can see by his unprecedented order banning VPNs, he clearly lacks the circumspection and self-reflection necessary to hold such an important office.
As a libertarian, how am I supposed to believe in the authenticity and neutrality of the network that Musk is operating when he openly supports a specific political ideology with his public actions? He shows no dedication to neutrality in his statements, so why should I believe he shows it with his decisions?
If the measure of a high standard is the number of people impacted, how many people would you say are affected by Musk, or the other private owners of social networks?
He is not imposing anything on anyone. He has the same right to express his opinions as anybody else has, and his platform clearly allows everyone else to do the same - in contrast with what the previous executives of Twitter did.
That sounds a lot like copium to justify an authoritarian action by the state because it benefits you personally.
The bill explicitly allows the President to designate a "website" as a threat. How that would be applied exactly is a different question, which is why many argue that this is a Pandora's box not worth opening.
> bill explicitly allows the President to designate a "website" as a threat
No, it has to be controlled by a foreign adversary country [1].
The broadest power is in 3(a)(ii) on page 10, which lets the President designate an app or website as a foreign adversary controlled application if it is a significant national security threat following public notice and reporting requirements. But even then, it’s a divestiture order subject to judicial review, not the power to ban.
Also a macOS user and I don't use Firefox for the same exact reasons you listed, despite really wanting to. It just behaves very rudely on macOS and it seems like more and more they are stripping out features, for example in the latest update they removed macOS Vibrancy support, so now my toolbar can't have any transparency, which looks horrible.
Not to mention they let that super noticeable bug with the system font not spacing correctly just linger for over two years. It's finally fixed but there is still a lot of weirdness with the way Firefox handles fonts on this platform and it's very obnoxious since macOS has best-in-class typography everywhere else.
I'll rejoice on the day Safari gets a proper extensions API. I'd 100% make the move to it if I could just run RES.
They finally fixed the spacing issue with the default San Francisco font, which was left completely broken and disgusting looking for over two years. But it still renders differently than Safari and Chrome, which you'll notice if you open a Github page for example and quickly flip between the two windows.
For whatever reason Firefox likes to make everything a little bolder and more spaced out, and on top of that doesn't seem to support the most widely used anti-aliasing CSS properties.
I resorted to injecting -moz-osx-font-smoothing in userContent.css on websites I visit frequently that look particularly bad.
Unfortunately Firefox still has a lot of issues when it comes to font rendering on macOS. For example, it's been two years and it still renders San Francisco incorrectly: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1721612
Not to mention all fonts appearing bolder than they should compared to Chrome and Safari. It might seem like a small thing but I'm a stickler for typography and it really stands out on a Mac.
I hope they get around to fixing these issues but two years is a long time for such an obvious bug. What confuses me is how few people have noticed given that it seems to affect all Apple silicon devices.
Interesting, must be only happening on some native MBP displays. I'm on an M1 MBP and haven't tested it on an external display but it's definitely noticeable on mine, although not as big of a deal as the letter spacing thing
I confirmed the letter spacing is still an issue by comparing the "How I digitize books" paragraph on Chrome and FF. I had to override the CSS as the site has switched to "Newsreader, serif".
I don't see the fonts appearing bolder difference (on my 4k screen). Actually that's not true, I have seen differences on lower DPI displays. I get around that using BetterDisplay to enable HiDPI on the external. I've also never noticed San Francisco font rendering improperly which I only would if it didn't fit in a clipped box.
Now that performance is largely improved, maybe they'll get around to fixing this one.
The domain is probably going to move to x.com soon. But at least this fixes the godawful favicon he chose that sticks out like a sore thumb on my bookmarks bar.
Seems like even Masnick agrees, albeit begrudgingly, that this judge is an authoritarian. Where I cannot agree with Masnick is the implication that Musk and this man are somehow both equally wrong.
A government official, no less a judge, should be held to a far higher standard as his actions impact hundreds of millions of people. And as we can see by his unprecedented order banning VPNs, he clearly lacks the circumspection and self-reflection necessary to hold such an important office.