Technology

59772 readers

3162 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

544

Journalists flock to Bluesky as X becomes increasingly 'toxic' (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 2 days ago by mesamunefire@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

107 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Can it implode? Leon can just keep burning money to keep it alive. It's going to probably be funded by the government soon anyway.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I highly doubt it'll ever be funded by the government.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It wouldn't surprise me. He just partners with Truth Social and says that TS and Xitter will be the new government communication method and should be funded by the government. Probably will say it's more efficient or something.

This is going to be a corruption free for all.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Sure, but there are all kinds of issue with that. First, Trump has significant investments in TS, so having the government fund that would be a massive conflict of interest. Second, conservatives love to rail on places like NPR getting public funding, and funding X is a bit too much of an about-face IMO.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 day ago

Yeah, you're right. Trump would never do anything that's a conflict of interest.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You may be right, but I think it's more likely than say deporting 10 million immigrants, or cutting spending by more than discretionary spending, or a number of things that people think are likely to happen. It's not like conservative rags are actually going to tell their readers the truth anyway.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

Yeah, my coworkers were kind of excited about Trump cutting $2T, and I tried to explain to them that's not feasible with the way budgets are set up. They could maybe cut $1T if they really went deep, but to get anything more, they'd have to cut SS, Medicare, and the military, and Trump said that's off limits.

I doubt they'll hit $500B. They might get $2T over 10 years (so $200B/year) though, which I guess is how Congress likes to quantify spending changes to lessen the blow.