Agreed. However, it also appears to apply too broadly:

The letter explains that the bill’s “takedown” provision applies to a much broader category of content—potentially any images involving intimate or sexual content at all—than the narrower NCII definitions found elsewhere in the bill. The bill contains no protections against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests. Lawful content—including satire, journalism, and political speech—could be wrongly censored.

Where did I say I was only an agent the whole time? I’ve been in a dozen roles at varying levels. Once again, sometimes generating revenue isn’t the point. Sometimes delivering a service or even just retaining customers is.

I’ve spent the last 15 years in call centers and only spent 1 year on a line of business that involved upselling. There’s plenty of lines that don’t. Yes it is common but it’s just as common to not.

I use All all the time unless I’m looking for content on a specific topic. And yeah I block the regurgitators for sure.

I guess my previous comment was unclear. There is PLENTY of anti-trump content on my feed that is definitely not getting suppressed. I just searched “pro choice”, “vice president musk”, “antifa”, “black lives matter”, “trans rights”, “felon musk”, “trump sucks”, “trump felonies”, and “vote blue” and found plenty of results for all of them.

I’ve certainly had no dearth of anti-Trump content rolling through my feed. Sounds to me like people who don’t use TikTok are just making stuff up that fits their worldview.

Uhhh I’m using TikTok with no VPN in the US and still get plenty of anti-Trump, pro-LGBT, left-leaning content. 🤷

TikTok definitely used the news hype to signal to Donald Trump that they will work with him — by giving him “credit” for making the app available again (even though he wasn’t president yet and didn’t do anything). It’s all propaganda from both the US and China.

The urge is very strong but I like to do what I can to foster good relationships with my coworkers (especially my leadership) so I usually just go with “We spoke about the summary of the previous call. Frank would like to add/clarify that _______” to be generous.

Very shady. Because they want the plausible deniability.

I just tell them I need notes to keep track of my conversations and refer back to them frequently because my autism and ADHD causes me to question myself or forget what was discussed.

Then if they wanna push it further I can take my records to HR and ask if they feel like allowing this ADA violation to continue. Doesn’t work for everyone, I know, but it works for me!

This is why I send a “summary” of every call as a message when we’re done. I’ve had some people call me right back and tell me to delete it. I tell them if we can’t agree on what happened on the call then it didn’t and I’ll just ignore the contents of the call.

I’ll at least be satisfied with being on the right side of history.

An extremely small number of surgeries that have been medically proven to improve outcomes of individuals is totally equivalent to supporting the rise of fascism. Sure buddy. Have fun supporting hatred and bigotry.

51% of the country just voted for an openly misogynistic, transphobic racist and the vast majority of them were on the right soooooooo.

No idea why they worded the article that way. The person going to prison is the person who leaked the documents and was also the admin of the discord server they leaked it to.

The “first of his name” is essential. He also has loads of nicknames. Like Cleetorus. We love loudly calling for Cleetorus when he’s running down the street.

I certainly don’t mean to shame you for what seems to be a desire to play the game without being propositioned for sex at all. That seems to me to be a completely different thing than wanting to remove a particular sexuality from the game but leaving others intact.

It’s funny how much this comment mirrors the experience of LGBT people left and right. Do you think it’s not awkward for a lesbian to “have to straight up reject” their male “friends” who come on to them? Or gay men and their female “friends”, or asexuals and literally anyone.

Bet.

I don’t deny that. But I posit that it matters not whether it’s a religion or a legislating body, telling women what they can or cannot wear is wrong and it is oppressive. If one must resort to the same tactics as the oppressors, what makes them any better?

Removing the freedom of choice is textbook oppression but ok.