It's not, I see it on the front page all the time. Lots of times the topics they report on get flagged, though. My favorites has a lot of 404 links. My understanding is if there's an archive link it should be fine.
"Softbanned" here means that it comes dead-on-submission without any users actually flagging it, requiring vouches from multiple other users to get back to baseline.
Those submissions you saw likely either had enough vouchers lurching new with showdead or a mod blessing.
EDIT: See sibling comment. In dangs words, they are banned.
It is banned, apparently because it is paywalled and doesn’t allow people to use paywall bypass links, which isn’t true and so the reasoning doesn’t make any sense, so clearly there is a different reason
That policy deserves re-evaluation. I don't pay for 404 Media. But they're breaking stories on this issue. Banning them de facto bans discussion of not only Apple's App Store monopoly, but also Cupertino's capitulation to this administration.
> If their articles are so important, why don't they allow everyone to see them?
Most people read the news to be entertained. They aren’t making decisions of consequence, they aren’t civically involved and they don’t know anyone who does either. For these folks, TV and free news is fine.
The minority of decision makers, on the other hand, value information directly, but are not numerous enough to sustain investigative journalism through ads. They won’t pay, however, if they can get what they need for free.
So you wind up with an ecosystem of emotionally-triggering free slop and deeply researched, potentially at risk to the journalist, and paywalled journalism. The latter is impactful in part because it reaches people the former would not.
The bill is bad, but this is disingenuously stupid:
> Still frustrating that Politico still implies that the bill has any power to stop CSAM, given that everyone who wants to trade it will obviously just use another layer of encryption.
Obviously, many people will not because many are already caught not using any, and many more are just using simple consumer options that this legislation would eliminate.
We can agree that the legislation is horrible without lying to ourselves and asserting that it would have zero impact
Agree that it would have impact, but not the good kind.
The services that deal with CSAM would be flooded with false positives from the automated scanning. They would, in turn, have to find methods of short-cutting the assessment of these false positives so that they can actually function.
The real CSAM would be drowned out by family snaps of kids in pools, of teenagers sexting each other, etc. The ability of the relevant services to actually detect and catch real abusers would be severely hampered. Actual abuse would be caught less and more kids would be harmed.
Five minutes of thought leads to this obvious conclusion. Which implies that this was never about protecting kids in the first place. It's about controlling what people say, as always.
If you insist, they could take me to court for not paying the bill, at which time they'd have to accept USD for the debt.
So yes, they could refuse the $100 and then sue me, at which point they'd have to take it. So you'd get a big clap for technically "winning" this argument but in possibly the dumbest way possible.
In practice, the reason why 'legal tender for all debts' is relevant is because it pretty much forces to take my $100 or go through an expensive process to just end up with the same result.
