Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending 2 March 2025 - eviltoast

Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful youā€™ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cutā€™nā€™paste it into its own post ā€” thereā€™s no quota for posting and the bar really isnā€™t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many ā€œesotericā€ right wing freaks, but thereā€™s no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iā€™m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged ā€œculture criticsā€ who write about everything but understand nothing. Iā€™m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyā€™re inescapable at this point, yet I donā€™t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnā€™t be surgeons because they didnā€™t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canā€™t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)

  • David Gerard@awful.systemsM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    Ā·
    10 days ago

    Text removed in Mozilla TOS update:

           {
               "@type": "Question",
               "name": "Does Firefox sell your personal data?",
               "acceptedAnswer": {
                   "@type": "Answer",
                   "text": "Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. Thatā€™s a promise. "
               }
           },
    

    hereā€™s the diff

    • bitofhope@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      Ā·
      10 days ago

      Oh hey, this is good. Wouldnā€™t want to have obsolete strings. About time they did away with the obsolete concept of ā€œnot selling your personal dataā€. Looking forward to April when thatā€™s finally deprecated.

      + # Obsolete string (expires 25-04-2025)
        does-firefox-sell = Does { -brand-name-firefox } sell your personal data?
        # Variables:
        # $url (url) - link to https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/privacy/
        
      + # Obsolete string (expires 25-04-2025)
        nope-never-have = Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. { -brand-name-firefox } products are designed to protect your privacy. <a href="{ $url }">Thatā€™s a promise.</a>
      
    • froztbyte@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      Ā·
      9 days ago

      digging around in the the issue linked to that, it seems like the person who closed/approved this is someone from a different, external agency who lists moz as a client (her hachy profile also lists that as her employer)

      this pr was closed ā€œbecause we have new copyā€

      thereā€™s probably some questions to be asked around how this decision/instruction got made, but one would have to wade into mozā€™s corp and discussion systems to do so (and apparently they also have a (people mostly communicating on) Slack problem - nfi if thatā€™s open to community joining)

      none of them look good tho tbh