Because not as many people know about the free stuff, since it doesn't have a marketing budget to tell everyone it exists. If fewer people know about it, it'll be discussed less.
You're still missing the fundamental reality of the situation.
Stuff online generally doesn't get deleted. And almost never because you want it to. I think the EU passed a law about the "right to be forgotten". But the reality is, that's like fighting gravity. The effort and resources it takes to truly break orbit are far beyond most people's, and even most government's means. Same with truly deleting anything online.
Please, call me Steve.
Reality holds no responsibility to conform to anyone's expectations. However, my decades in the reality of the internet have shaped my expectations. I never expect anything on the internet to be truly deleted. Accounts are locked, but they and everything associated with them still exists. If you contact support, and sufficiently prove you're you, they can reinstate your account. In the rare cases they can't, they make it abundantly clear, and explain why they can't, in the deletion process.
Unless Lemmy specifically states all changes are guaranteed to be federated, I'd assume by default none will. I'll reiterate, reality has no responsibility to conform to my expectations. Deletions may in fact be federated sometimes.
But that's immaterial, since I don't post anything with the expectation I'll ever be able to delete it. An expectation built upon reality, not the reverse. An expectation I'm trying to impress on you.
Don’t you think that’s shifting the goalpost a bit? OP isn’t talking about something being archived they’re talking about a piece of content on social media still directly linking to that username.
What goal post? There is no actual, technical, difference, between archive and active. As soon as a post is made, it's old, and part of the accessible archive of past posts and accounts.
A basic reality from the beginning of the internet, is that you once you make something publicly available, it's out there. You can't really ever take it back. It's just a fundamental principal of how the internet works. A lot of people seem to forget that.
The problem isn't in the system, but in your expectations.
You're starting with a wrong assumption that things publicly available on the internet can simply be deleted. That's not how any of this works.
Maybe that's our fault. Maybe we weren't clear enough back when you started using the internets. But It's true, deleting things online is very difficult. You shouldn't ever expect it to be simple or easy.
uh...
That seems insane.
I'm betting on either awesome future classic, or notoriously terrible.
Not a chance it'll be anything between.
Or maybe..
Don't make cards that need nearly 1000W of power.
Or don't run that power through 12 very small connectors.
I don't know. Just a couple ideas.
You clearly don't like texting, and only do it out of some sense of social obligation.
The kind of thing one might call Malicious Compliance.
Nothing more than we owe each other.
Celebrity is a status We impose on them.
Sure, if you're torrenting government censored media to distribute to others living under an oppressive regime.
Are you torrenting government censored media to distribute to others living under an oppressive regime?
Asunder?
Definition
"The term asunder is an adverb that means "into separate parts" or "apart from each other." It is often used to describe something that has been forcefully separated or torn apart"
The headline is misleading. The order is specifically limited to executive branch employees.
Basically saying they aren't allowed to use their own judgement to determine legality of what they're asked to do. They have to follow the judgement of the president and the AG, and do what's ordered of them.
"Sec. 7. Rules of Conduct Guiding Federal Employees’ Interpretation of the Law. The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General. "