No. The instance being killed by the taliban is the opposite of that is happening here.
The taliban has done nothing, in this case. The admins of the instance have chosen not to keep the instance due to not wanting to fund the taliban in anyway.
This phrasing fucks up which way the action flows, which is important for a headline to get right to remain accurate to the story. Does that make sense?
This ignores that 4chan is widely known as the cesspool of the internet and attracts those types. It's like going on Hexbear and being surprised at the communists. People gather where their banners are. Shit attracts shit. This reduction is apt.
Sure it kind of does some good ish things sometimes, but more often than not, it's just an internet mob internet mobbing. That's essentially all it is: chaos waves constantly crashing back in on itself. Any good that comes from it is incidental at best.
Also, defending 4chan on the wider Internet is a little odd, 4chan itself revels in its shit reputation....
I'm interested in where the limits to expectations lie here. I'm not trying to be a jerk when I say this next part but I do worry I may come off that way but I'm trying to figure out the boundaries of what a "reasonable" expectation is so I can make tasks like this easier for my own team (completely unrelated to this project but it's essentially the same problem).
Is it not reasonable to expect people to type into a search engine something like "GitHub help" and then poke around in the links that come up?
.... Well I'll be damned, I tried my own method before commenting, and the first link that comes up is a red herring, how obnoxious. I was hoping it'd be a link to the docs, not GitHub support. I guess I just answered my own question: no that is not reasonable.
As a technical user, I am still at a loss for how to help a non-technical user in an algorithmic way that will work for most non-technical users x.x guess I'll be thinking about this problem some more lol
(I guess I'm rambling but I'm gonna post this anyways in case anyone wants to chatter about it with me)
I think you've managed to define an oxymoron of a society.
Society does not exist without consequences. That's what laws/rules/agreements are necessitated on. As in, a society with no consequences is not a society. I'd go so far to say that society is a system of consequences.
Even in a "lawless societies" hierarchies form, and then agreements turn to rules turn to defacto law.
This is like saying "I can never truly be free because gravity binds me to the ground". Like, ok, sure, but you had to define freedom in a non-standard way to get to that conclusion (I'm trying make this make sense, is it landing well?)
Not with that attitude