That’s also hugely in part because Apple develops Webkit at a snails pace. Some say they gimp their own rendring engine so that it isn’t competitive with native applications from the App Store. This way, there’s less incentive for developers to make web-apps to avoid the 30% app store tax.

I use Firefox as my main browser on Android, and all apps that invoke a WebView do so using Firefox’s rendering engine, with uBlock Origin and Dark Reader working seamlessly. So, maybe this info about Firefox for Android lacking WebView support is outdated?

Exemple after clicking a link on Twitter/X:

You never know what the political world has in store. Before Alexandre de Moraes, doing blatant preventive censorship was unthinkable. When he made this practice into the “new normal”, he radicalized the right even more, and they might turn to dirty tricks to get to him.

Any flavor that would send Alexandre de Moraes to the jail cell, his rightful place.

Brazil’s dictator-judge Alexandre de Moraes only had free reign last year to do what he did because the US used to have a living corpse as the president. Now, with Orange-Man-Bad as president, I don’t know if the same judge would have the guts to block X nationwide again. Especially with Trump showing he’s not afraid to impose tariffs on a whim. And it’s also apparent that Trump hears what Elon has to say, and Elon is hungry for revenge. The judge only needs to step out of the line for Elon to retaliate.

From The Verge article:

"Twitter says that it doesn’t know why the data suggests its algorithm favors right-leaning content, noting that it’s “a significantly more difficult question to answer as it is a product of the interactions between people and the platform.” However, it may not be a problem with Twitter’s algorithm specifically — Steve Rathje, a Ph.D. candidate who studies social media, published the results of his research that explains how divisive content about political outgroups is more likely to go viral.

The Verge reached out to Rathje to get his thoughts about Twitter’s findings. “In our study, we also were interested in what kind of content is amplified on social media and found a consistent trend: negative posts about political outgroups tend to receive much more engagement on Facebook and Twitter,” Rathje stated. “In other words, if a Democrat is negative about a Republican (or vice versa), this kind of content will usually receive more engagement.”

If we take Rathje’s research into account, this could mean that right-leaning posts on Twitter successfully spark more outrage, resulting in amplification."

In other words: it’s not the algorithm that favors one side of the polical spectrum. It’s just that right-wing users know how to make more engaging posts. And that is dispite being sabotaged by moderation policies that favors left-leaning views.

I don’t know the specifics of this South African law, but isn’t it basically punishing today’s landowners for the wrongs of their ancestors? And they’re taking over land without compensation? That’s nuts! Here in my country, land is only expropriated without payment when the owner uses it for illegal drugs like marijuana.

I’m waiting for your counter-arguments. Or is ad hominem the only thing you know?

The problem was when lefties were in charge of Twitter’s moderation team. They were trigger-happy in banning anyone who didn’t agree with their self-proclaimed “social consensus.” In this last U.S. election cycle, we found out this consensus was a lie. Examples:

User1: “I’m against illegal immigration. Deport the illegals now!”

Mod: “Racist!! You’re permanently banned!”

User2: “We gotta have stricter laws for legal refugees. They don’t respect our local customs and bring social issues (i.e., higher crime rates) that burden the taxpayer.”

Mod: “Nazi!! You’re permanently banned!”

User3: “I’m against hormonal therapies and sex-change surgeries on kids. We gotta have legislation that forbids it and makes doctors accountable.”

Mod: “Transphobe!! You’re permanently banned!”

They maliciously extrapolate dissenting opinions to paint them as something bad. People have the right to be dissatisfied with current policies and advocate for change. That shouldn’t be a bannable offense.

Twitter 1.0 outright banned right-leaning users. Silencing dissenting voices from online political discourse isn’t considered “gaming the system”?

Does anyone remember when Twitter 1.0 censored stories about the Hunter Biden Laptop? On my book, that’s manipulation.

X has been accused of manipulating its systems to give far-right posts and politicians greater visibility over other political groups.

Before Elon bought Twitter, the system did the exact same thing, but with left-leaning posts. Back then, the French prosecutors didn’t seem to care. Now that the political tide is changing, they suddenly care?

I think you’re mistaken about what this lower price tier offers. It is still ad-free, except for Youtube Music which is ad-supported. If a regular YouTube video uses a song that belongs to the YouTube Music catalog, it will have ads as normal. Also, this tier doesn’t offer background playback (with the phone screen turned off).

They discuss performance in the FAQ section of this article.

I read it too fast that I thought TorrentFreak was down. 😅

I’m not saying it’s a literal witch hunt. Never heard of metaphors and figures of speech?

And just shouting “your opinions suck!” and running away is hardly productive to a healthy discussion. If you have any counter-arguments to the topic at hand (the individual “likes” being hidden on Twitter/X), feel free to present them.

I think people with ridiculous views should not have an issue with being ridiculed for those views.

You’re under no obligation to agree with another person point of view. But, if you’re presenting your arguments in good faith, you should be prepared to listen to the person you disagree with in good faith also. If you immediately disregard what others have to say just because you think it’s “too ridiculous to consider”, or throw the ad hominem starter pack: bigot, nazi, far-right, trumper, etc, then you’re just insulating yourself in a bubble in the best case scenario, or showing you don’t have the capability to articulate your argument effectively in the worst case scenario.

It really feels like you’re the immature bunch, trying to hide who you are because you’re too fragile to own up to it if it’s being scrutinized.

It’s not a matter of trying to hide anything for the sake of it. It’s just that some people use the free availability of a user’s previous posts/likes as a shortcut for “whataboutisms”. You may disagree with other posts I made, but what is being discussed here is the reasonableness of individual “likes” being public or not.

I think the crude scrutiny of a persons past posts to be, in many cases, dishonored. The person being scrutinized may have changed their views since then, specially when the post is years-old.

If you disagree, you’re free to offer your counter-arguments.

You have just proved right there why current internet users in general don’t have the maturity to have likes publicly visible. The urge to do a witch hunt is just too irresistible.

She said she regrets not having publicized her opinions on this subject earlier, so if her likes wouldn’t have exposed her, her subsequent retweets certainly would.