Rust, Rail, and Ribbed Steel.
Launceston, Tasmania, Australia.
© 𝓐𝓵𝓵 𝓡𝓲𝓰𝓱𝓽𝓼 𝓡𝓮𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓿𝓮𝓭 𝓫𝔂 𝓚𝓮𝓿 𝓟𝓮𝓲𝓻𝓬𝓮.
#photo #photography #australia #tasmania #BlackAndWhitePhotography #Monochrome #StreetPhotography #Launceston #Industrial #UrbanExploration #RustyMetal #WaterTank #CorrugatedIron
like this
Atelopus-zeteki, dflemstr e mrmaplebar like this.
Sydney Shooting Suspects Father and Son, Brown Shooting Latest
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2025-12-15/sydney-shooting-suspects-father-and-son-brown-shooting-latest?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub
Posted into Podcasts @podcasts-bloomberg
#11yrInvasionOfUkraine
Russian occupiers damage centralized water supply system in Kherson
Russian occupiers have once again shelled critical infrastructure in Kherson, damaging the centralized water supply system. — Ukrinform.Ukrinform
#vettips #dogcare #dogs
flip.it/xO2_8e
Could a Pet Chiropractor Be the Game-Changer Your Dog Really Needs?
Is your dog dealing with a nagging issue that just won’t get better? Before you accept it as “just how things are,” it might be time to look into …tailwagwisdom.com - Terri Rodefer
Partisans reconnoiter key Black Sea fleet logistics hub in Sevastopol
Agents of the ATESH partisan movement have carried out detailed reconnaissance of the 758th Logistics Support Center (military unit No. 63876) of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol. — Ukrinform.Ukrinform
Hows your "input diet"?
I've probably eaten a little too much politics and tech hype in recent months. Back to tight curation.
> A smaller set of trusted sources. Fewer platforms. Slower rhythms. Long-form over live feeds. Reading with intention instead of grazing out of habit. Choosing inputs that compound rather than evaporate.
> ...clarity increases. Focus returns. Taste sharpens. You start noticing which ideas are actually yours.
Billionaire Coupang Founder Rejects Summons to Data Leak Hearing
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-15/billionaire-coupang-founder-rejects-summons-to-data-leak-hearing?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub
Posted into Tech @tech-bloomberg
Millions of children and teens lose access to accounts as Australia’s world-first social media ban begins
Australia has enacted a world-first ban on social media for users aged under 16, causing millions of children and teenagers to lose access to their accounts.
Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, Twitch and TikTok are expected to have taken steps from Wednesday to remove accounts held by users under 16 years of age in Australia, and prevent those teens from registering new accounts.
Platforms that do not comply risk fines of up to $49.5m.
There have been some teething problems with the ban’s implementation. Guardian Australia has received several reports of those under 16 passing the facial age assurance tests, but the government has flagged it is not expecting the ban will be perfect from day one.
All listed platforms apart from X had confirmed by Tuesday they would comply with the ban. The eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, said it had recently had a conversation with X about how it would comply, but the company had not communicated its policy to users.
Bluesky, an X alternative, announced on Tuesday it would also ban under-16s, despite eSafety assessing the platform as “low risk” due to its small user base of 50,000 in Australia.
Parents of children affected by the ban shared a spectrum of views on the policy. One parent told the Guardian their 15-year-old daughter was “very distressed” because “all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat”. Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.
Others said the ban “can’t come quickly enough”. One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media and the ban “provides us with a support framework to keep her off these platforms”.
“The fact that teenagers occasionally find a way to have a drink doesn’t diminish the value of having a clear, national standard.”
Polling has consistently shown that two-thirds of voters support raising the minimum age for social media to 16. The opposition, including leader Sussan Ley, have recently voiced alarm about the ban, despite waving the legislation through parliament and the former Liberal leader Peter Dutton championing it.
The ban has garnered worldwide attention, with several nations indicating they will adopt a ban of their own, including Malaysia, Denmark and Norway. The European Union passed a resolution to adopt similar restrictions, while a spokesperson for the British government told Reuters it was “closely monitoring Australia’s approach to age restrictions”.
Millions of children and teens lose access to accounts as Australia’s world-first social media ban begins
Accounts held by users under 16 must be removed on apps that include TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, Twitch and Threads under banJosh Taylor (The Guardian)
like this
dandi8, dflemstr e felixthecat like this.
Mumble and Pigdin won't be banned right? Also, swapping mobile numbers and getting on conference calls... Writing letters and all that. There's still other ways to communicate.
I'm almost thinking of making a quick phone app to give them options and ideas on how to communicate outside of the big tech bubble.
I wonder if making your own personal website on Neocities/Geocities will come back in vogue again.
If enough of it is still around. A lot of the old spaces that used to exist aren't around any more.
Plus things like YouTube and Discord aren't banned, do chances are, they would end up there instead.
Github may be, strangely enough.
One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media
Have you tried parenting her?
like this
RandomStickman likes this.
like this
RandomStickman likes this.
"Give me your phone, give me your laptop" works pretty well.
My phone has a giant "setup parental controls" button. You can block specific websites using tools like PiHole that are easy to set up.
True, but there's also a little more nuance.
For a social media ban to be effective without ostracizing individuals, it has to include the entire friend group.
As an analogy, if the kid's friends all text each other, but your kid doesn't have a phone, they miss out socially. They miss out on organized and impromptu hangouts. And they miss out on inside jokes that develop in the group chat. Over time they feel like more and more of an outsider even if the ready of the group actively tries to include them.
That and it's a 'social media ban' which is a pretty broad term. Depending how you define social media it could ecompase a lot of other platforms not included in the initial list i.e. Steam, Discord, etc.
This could lead to further restrictions on freedom of speech and anonymity dependent on whatever agenda the government is pushing or to try to control dissent by forcing the poplace to provide some form of ID to access any platform/access the internet.
That may be a leap too far from where we currently are, but it's an important factor to consider as it could have wider reaching consequences if left unchecked.
That being said, I think the large social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are cesspools that prey on children/teens and are designed to be addictive even for adults.
It's due to that I'm stuck on the fence a little. If anything we as a society should be looking to pressure social media companies to operate ethically.
What has happened instead is that the Australian government has basically pushed the onus on social media companies to block access to these platforms and threatened them with a fine. There's no real plan for implementation, no push for education on social media and its issues.
Some good silver linings here, but what everyone needs to remember here is that nobody would be supporting this at all if facebook wasn’t intentionally predatory and bad for (all) people’s brains.
If regulators in Australia had a spine they would call for an end to those practices, and now that’s infinitely harder to do
like this
Pebble_Clef e YoSoySnekBoi like this.
I think that's easier said than done. There are a lot of negatives associated with social media and some are easier to put restrictions on (say violent content) but I don't think we really have a good grasp of all the ways use is associated with depression for example. And wouldn't some of this still fall back to age restricted areas, kind of like with movies?
But yeah, it would be nice to see more push back on the tech companies instead of the consumers
Its a very simple fix with a few law changes.
- The act of promoting or curating user submitted data makes the company strictly liable for any damages done by the content.
- The deliberate spreading of harmful false information makes the hosting company liable for damages.
This would bankrupt Facebook, Twitter, etc within 6 months.
The act of promoting or curating user submitted data makes the company strictly liable for any damages done by the content.
I assume you don't mean simply providing the platform for the content to be hosted, in that case I agree this would definetly help.
The deliberate spreading of harmful false information makes the hosting company liable for damages.
This one is damn near impossible to enforce for the sole reason of the word "deliberate", the issue is that I would not support such a law without that part.
I left out the hosting part for just that reason. The company has to activately do something to gain the liability. Right now the big social media companies are deliberately prioritizing harmful information to maximize engagement and generate money.
As for enforcement hosters have had to develop protocols for removal of illegal content since the very beginning. Its still out there and can be found, but laws and mostly due diligence from hosters, makes it more difficult to find. Its the reason Lemmy is not full of illegal pics etc. The hosters are actively removing it and banning accounts that publish it.
Those protocols could be modified to include obvious misinformation bots etc. Think about the number of studies that have shown that just a few accounts are the source of the majority of harmful misinformation on social media.
Of course any reporting system needs to be protected from abuse. The DMCA takedown abusers are a great example of why this is needed.
This one is damn near impossible to enforce for the sole reason of the word "deliberate", the issue is that I would not support such a law without that part.
It would also be easily abused, especially since someone would have to take a look and check, which would already put a bottleneck in the system, and the social media site would have to take it down to check, just in case, which gives someone a way to effectively remove posts.
That kind of aligns with some actions I would love to see but I don't really see how it helps in the example I used to highlight some of the harder things to fix, depression. How does that improve the correlation between social media use and depression in teenagers? I can see it will improve from special cases like removing posts pro eating disorder content but I'm pretty confident the depression correlation goes well beyond easy to moderate content.
Also, if we presumed that some amount of horrific violence is okay for adults to choose to see and a population of people thinks its reasonable to restrict this content for people below a certain age (or swap violence for sex / nudity) then do we just decide we know better than that population, that freedom is more important, or does it fall back to age restrictions again (but gated on parts of the site)? I'm avoiding saying "government" here and going with "population of people" to try to decouple a little from some of the negatives people associate with government, especially since COVID
But yeah, holding tech companies accountable like that would be lovely to see. I suspect the cost is so large they couldn't pay so it would never happen, but I think that's because society has been ignoring their negative externalities for so long they're intrenched
Some good silver linings here
Where?
The kids will move to less monitored platforms and even on things like YouTube, parental controls are now gone.
You need to have an account for parental controls to be applied to, kids aren't allowed an account, vis-a-vis, no more parental controls or monitoring for problem content.
As someone that grew up with an "unmonitored" internet. I can say that it was significantly more healthy than the profit driven "keep watching" algorithm that is all of social media today.
Yeah. I saw "two girls one cup" and "lemon party". But, did I slowly have my perspective of reality changed by the 30 second videos I swiped on for hours at a time for days on end?
No, most of my time was spent learning about computers, "stealing" music, and chatting with my real life friends.
I don't think a kid today can experience that internet anymore. It's gone. But acting like "unmonitored" internet access is worse is pearl clutching and ignoring the fundamental problems the profit driven internet has created at the expense of societies mental health.
Kids will absolutely find another place to connect online in Australia. But, honestly, I think whatever that is will be healthier than the absolute brain rot that is profit driven social media.
Wasn't aware that social media keeps kids alive?...
I've seen enough stories on kids being cyber bullied into suicide that I really doubt there's enough happy inclusion on these platforms to balance that.
Let's legally require social media companies to gather even more sensitive information about their users, making them more vulnerable to identity theft in the process and isolating the most vulnerable in our society from their support networks. There is literally nothing negative about this.
You are a fucking imbecile.
Strangely enough, support networks can exist outside of social media. It's very possible to directly message friends or neighbors without being subjected to the dregs of public social media. It remains possible to get world/local news without an attached public forum.
If you're going to make a space that has content for adults and allows for free adult discussions (with all the nuance and complications that entails), then restrict it to adults only.
This is only a problem in conjuction with legislation requiring social media use (ie: as an official broadcast system, payment platform, electoral tool, etc...). If we fight that and force it to remain an opt-in disinformation platform then who cares?
As it currently stands nothing is forcing you on these platforms other than a conditioned familiarity. Even worse, there are no tech or legal protections preventing them uniquely identifying users today. Them getting an official state ID doesn't change much. More barriers to entry for a shitty surveillance and propoganda platform? Literally no downsides there.
It's a bandaid. And just like previous attempts like this all this will do is make Australian kids better at circumventing the censorship or using an alternative website. Which, honestly, is probably a positive in and of itself. I'd much rather my kid be visiting some random forum type website (like I grew up with) then the absolute brain rot that is social media algorithms.
Seeing "lemon party" posted before the mods removed it definitely fucked me up less than the slop being fed into the brains of teenagers on social media today.
That was my first reaction after processing the news--lets hold them accountable for hate, exploitation, etc.
If they can't play nice they don't get to do business at all.
The alternative, of not being evil, is not compatible with their business model.
But it is the business model that should be banned, not socializing online by teenagers.
Tech giants are well known for lobbying against any legislation that gives them less freedoms to exploit markets and regulations of any kind that impact them - but this legislation that was targeted specifically at regulating them and removes a significant number of users - "this is suspicious, I think they might be the ones pushing it!"
There's so many people in under this post trying to turn it into anything but what it is - legislation attempting to protect kids from the harms of social media. Which, again - are well documented.
Er no.
My progeny is a decade ahead of where I was at his age. Smarter and more self assured and stable.
He’s not dumber. But I’ve realised I am.
Ah I see. Yep. And it’s easier to see it as you get older.
Didn’t want to miss out on the chance to diss myself though. I was as dumb as a rock back then. And in many ways, still am.
This is going to be a shit show.
I'm not opposed to the idea that kids shouldn't have access to social media, but they obviously do. Their social lives are online, and their insecure little brains are going to scream that they've been kicked out of the tribe when you cut the link
The ban won't work, but will also cause a lot of damage
Like teenagers, who run off social validation, suddenly feeling like they're excluded from their society
Kids are going to kill themselves.
And far more kids are going to develop complexes that they'll never recover from
Social isolation hits the brain like physical pain. We're hardwired to feel social isolation as trauma, logic can't save you from feeling like you've been cut off from your peers
Withdrawal is an unpleasant, but necessary, part of detox.
On the other hand, I 100% agree it's going to be a shit show. Technological development has outpaced the law as long as I've been alive, and the disparity is only growing... Authorities are not equipped to provide solutions to the problems that technology has created, and continues to create.
Withdrawal isn't what I'm worried about... You can't cut teens off from their peers and get a good result
Those who can will evade, those who can't will feel a crippling level of isolation. That doesn't do good things to a teenage mind
One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media
Literally the fault of the parent.
There is precedence though. We age gate: nicotine, alcohol, gambling etc..
we shouldnt expect parents to be monitoring children 24/7. actually, as children get older they should be given freedoms, parents have the right to expect our society has some guardrails.
The guardrails already exist. Put parental controls on your kid's devices. Done, solved. Block social media sites, monitor what they're doing online. Don't go making it mandatory for everyone to give social media companies more information than they already have.
A better comparison would be "let's put a government mandated ID scanner on everyone's liquor cabinet so that their kids can't access it! Oh you don't have kids? Too bad, still need that ID scanner!"
Maybe the focus should be on a free (government funded, ideally FOSS) parental controls software suite that makes blocking social media on all major platforms (iOS, Android, Windows, Mac, and Linux) simple and easy. Promote it to parents, and get them to parent, instead of deanonymizing the internet for everyone.
The guardrails already exist. Put parental controls on your kid’s devices. Done, solved.
But nobody does that, and the problem is getting worse.
What's your answer if you can't get a population to make better choices and people are being harmed by something?
I'm not saying there's a right answer here, I am genuinely looking for alternatives on a societal level to address a proven health problem.
The bans are for under 16s, not just 7 year olds. Parents don't control all internet activity for 15 years, at that age they are going to have some autonomy outside of the house.
I'm not sure there is a direct irl analog when it comes to controlling digital spaces, since they are personal by nature. and I think this is where the debate comes in.
Should parents be following their teenage child into every store to make sure they aren't buying alcohol?
I get the concern with providing social media companies a government ID, I certainly would never give them one! I would just not use them. But they provide net negative value in my opinion so no loss.
I like the idea of FOSS parental controls.
Parents who were also raised by social media? This isn't a new problem but it is a problem that's getting worse, I don't know if a ban is the answer but so far nobody has even suggested an effective alternative to reducing screen-time for both adults and kids.
This ban isn't supposed to solve a problem overnight, but it's supposed to influence some segment of the population to socialize, to form real communities and to hopefully grow up capable of helping their own kids not get addicted.
This is a real problem, it's widespread across the globe and many, many studies have shown the harm social media has on a huge percentage of teens.
Also, parents work. Parents sleep. You can't fucking hover over your teen night and day, you would hate that worse.
The solution is education not bans.
I agree.
But what do we do about the fact that even though our knowledge, research and understanding of the problem has increased, the problem has gotten worse? Is there more that can be done on that front that you think would be effective? Genuinely asking to help me shape my opinion.
It's blooming into a larger-scale societal problem than just hoping enough people pull through, a lack of stable mental health and attention spans across large swaths of your population start to erode your society.
And for what? So boomer politicians and their constituents aren't challenged by their well-informed children about the genocides they're facilitating at home and abroad? So the pigs in this police state have an even easier time surveiling citizens with all the identifying info websites are gathering??
Social media use by kids and teens has been demonstrated factually to cause harm to people's mental health and social lives. The sources are plenty and widespread.
I still don't know if a ban is the answer, but at least it's an attempt to address a problem. I'm curious what your answer would be to this growing problem?
I figure holding tech giants directly accountable for the specific harms they've caused would be better than punishing an entire population but unfortunately our politicians are mostly either invertebrates who are too cowardly to pick fights with foreign corporate entities (so they're useless drains of political will) or they're actively supportive of them on the grounds of being ideologically pro-business (so, evil).
They feed us their poisons (surveillance capitalism and an unhealthy information ecosystem driven by algorithmic optimisation for advertising revenue) so they can sell us their "medicines" (age gating and mandatory identification online—more data harvesting as a selling point to advertisers) while they suppress our cure (an internet by independent creators as opposed to capitalist brands)
figure holding tech giants directly accountable for the specific harms they’ve caused
I don't disagree that the entire institution is rotten and causing harm, but in terms of just socializing online, just the act of forming communities and forums and discussion groups and sharing content, the essence of what's becoming harmful, what is the right answer here? The stuff that causes a lot of the harm is just what people tend to do online, because humans broadly are not meant to substitute real social connections for whatever is happening when we scroll and type and read other people's thoughts and fantasies and depressed manifestos of strangers every day.
Even now, you're reading my text inside your head in your own voice. The act alone of having this discussion is creating an entirely new kind of information pattern in your brain that we haven't had in the last half-million years or so since our brains evolved. Do you know what this new kind of information processing is doing to your view of the world? Do any of us?
I know if you type "research teens social media health" into google you will have days of reading material about the research done and how harmful these practices are. But I'm not sensing that anyone even cares honestly. Is it better that we let whatever happens happen? I'm not being facetious, I want to know if people genuinely think that this isn't a problem worth fighting.
The stuff that causes a lot of the harm is just what people tend to do online…
The online harms I'm concerned with are bullying, harassment and misinformation. Platforms should be required by society to moderate against these, or face penalties proportionate to revenue. Instead just banning under 16s, even if it could be done in a way that is both effective and respectful of everyone's privacy (I'm not convinced that it can) would still be a lazy abrogation of this responsibility, still leaving kids vulnerable to the same behaviours in offline spaces and everyone else vulnerable to the harms purportedly being caused among the youth online currently.
But the government isn't interested in this because these behaviours serve to entrench existing social hierarchies, and the government—being in charge of the nation-state—likes existing social hierarchies.
I figure holding tech giants directly accountable for the specific harms they’ve caused
What if; the social media giants are in another country. Your country doesn't have jurisdiction there and can do fuck all in reality.
Maybe fine them???? Sure, which they will fight in court until the end of time; all the while the harm continues.
I don't know if a ban will work, or what extra harms it will cause. But there are no good options to tackle this on the large scales of whole countries.
Algorithmic social media is mind cancer; if you have a better suggestion for tackling this issue. Let us know.
Lemmy is social media; but there is no algorithmic feed, my views are not being manipulated by some engagement maximizing machine.
What if; the social media giants are in another country. Your country doesn't have jurisdiction there and can do fuck all in reality.Maybe fine them???? Sure, which they will fight in court until the end of time; all the while the harm continues.
The ban proves it's possible to legislate, so maybe they should just legislate something better lol? Holding platforms accountable to a bare minimum standard of moderation against misinformation, bullying and harassment might be a starting point. And hey, if socmed's really that bad for you, then us adults could benefit from this alternative, too! In any case, this ban is literally worse than just leaving the problem be.
In any case, this ban is literally worse than just leaving the problem be.
I don't really agree; the ban will do two things.
1/ it will show the social media companies that, Australia at least; has tools that they can use to reduce their power.
2/ show kids that this is really serious; it is not just your parents saying shit you can ignore.
Will some kids work out how to get around it; yep, 100%. Will it be a big portion; maybe, tech literacy is not as high as it could/should be.
Holding platforms accountable to a bare minimum standard of moderation against misinformation, bullying and harassment might be a starting point.
This would be great; but it is also too little too late. They have tried, and failed at exactly this for years.
And hey, if socmed’s really that bad for you, then us adults could benefit from this alternative, too!
It is that bad for you! Algorithmic social media is doing you harm.
Wall of text incoming.
1/ it will show the social media companies that, Australia at least; has tools that they can use to reduce their power.
Holding platforms accountable to a bare minimum standard of moderation against misinformation, bullying and harassment might be a starting point.This would be great; but it is also too little too late. They have tried, and failed at exactly this for years.
I don't see how both these claims can simultaneously be true. Either Australia has tools to hold these companies to account, in which case, how would they have previously failed if they'd already tried? Or it doesn't, and this is just one more completely futile policy that won't give companies any more than the usual slap on the wrist if it ever goes to court.
I argue that they didn't try, because they never actually cared about children's wellbeing, because if they did they'd have done better than this, ergo this policy isn't really about that and is actually about making citizens more easily identifiable online.
Additionally, it does nothing to reduce the power of seppo tech giants. On the contrary, they've got money, they'll be fine. Independent social media sites however, don't all have the resources to implement verification systems, so some will feel the financial burden of compliance a lot harder, and others will simply cease serving Australian users, further strengthening Silicon Valley's hold over the internet.
As I have said over and over again in this thread, what the ban will do is cut children suffering domestic abuse (a problem that is absolutely rife in this country) off from their support networks. It'll cut minority kids that're subjected to bullying by their peers off from their communities. It'll drive more kids to shadier corners of the internet where they're at greater risk of predation. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say this is going to get children killed.
Furthermore—and again, as I've been repeating all over this thread—everyone—yes, that includes adults—will be required to submit personally identifiable information to private organisations just to communicate with other people online, making anyone in this country who uses social media a potential victim of identity theft the moment a data breach happens. And happen it will. It's happened before, and it'll happen again.
What's more, knowing that the platforms they're using have their identities will make a great many people more hesitant to speak critically about existing power structures, especially the government. This is bad.
I stand by my previously stated opinion that all this is worse than the status quo, but even if it weren't you should be asking why this is the solution that the government came up with.
I don’t see how both these claims can simultaneously be true.
Sorry, my poor communications...I was referring to the social media companies, when I said they had been trying and failing for years. Not trying that hard mind you; moderation is a very expensive problem to solve, and they don't want to spend money they don't explicitly have to.
(it's) actually about making citizens more easily identifiable online.
Maybe. That is speculation, probably a nice little side effect. But not the primary goal.
Independent social media sites however, don’t all have the resources to implement verification systems, so some will feel the financial burden of compliance a lot harder, and others
This is a great point; and there is an easy way to solve this problem. Not that the govt will care that a simple solution exists. If you don't have an algorithmic feed a lot of the spread of misinformation is curtailed. If you are not allowed to host images/video etc directly than the moderation of them can be off loaded to 3rd parties.
What’s more, knowing that the platforms they’re using have their identities will make a great many people more hesitant to speak critically about existing power structures.
Another great point. I don't have a good answer to this one, but there are anonymous leak avenues etc for serious stuff.
I don't disagree with any of that.
I am mostly asking people here what they think the alternative should be. Like you say, parents who manage and monitor this are going have better outcomes... but that's not the norm, and the problem is getting worse despite all of us having more knowledge and proof how vital it is for their kids to have their internet use managed. So I am not convinced any kind of education campaign is going to do much. Most parents are just as addicted to their phones and rather scroll than parent. This is a societal problem with many intersecting problems.
The ban also affects everyone who isn't willing to undergo the age check.
Kids will find a way around is. They'll move to fediverse, and the cooler kids will still hang around the mainstream platforms thanks to their older friend, sibling or cool uncle.
It’s not designed at all.
Some pearl-clutches said “won’t somebody think of the children”, and then made the social media companies figure out how to implement the ban.
The social media companies all looked at the free, government mandated access to user biometrics and complied.
Do I think that social media should be restricted for children and teens? Sure.
Do I think this if going to go about as well as the 2007 porn filter that the government tried to implement? Absolutely.
Do I think that social media should be restricted for children and teens? Sure.
Okay, I agree and I am not exactly cheering for government telling anyone what they can and can't look at... but what's the alternative here? I am cautiously siding with the idea behind the regulation if not the execution, but so far nobody has suggested what we do about a problem that is real, proven and studied and is leading to a worse world.
I'm being serious here and in good faith. Should we do anything?
Am I in the wrong here for thinking we need to do something about this? Or is everyone just okay with whatever the end-result will be from subsequent generations of people growing up anxious, depressed, lacking social skills, without relationship partners? We already have "loneliness" being considered a global health risk, and it's tied directly to digital communication habits. I would ask you or anyone here to just type "research on health social media teens" in google. Just try it and see how much work has gone into studying this problem.
"people will find ways around it" and then saying not to bother etc
i mean, people under 18 sneak into clubs and get beer... or maybe fake an ID and hit a pub... or get an older friend to do something for them....
it doesnt stop us as a society holding a view that under age drinking isnt great, and we make some effort to enforce that even if its not perfect.
Some pearl-clutches said “won’t somebody think of the children”, and then made the social media companies figure out how to implement the ban.
Bingo.
It's never about "the children." It's a way to normalize handing over biometrics and anonymity to an assumed authority to use the internet.
It's always about control, control, control.
It's about tying real identities to online activity, then it's about wholesale harvesting your secrets you didn't even know you were keeping.
Then it's yet another instrument to make sure you shut up and don't step out of line or else.
First they take us away from our kids by necessitating that entire households need full time careers to survive.
Then as a substitute for education and actual parenting we're so eager to offer up our childrens' futures in the name of "protecting" them from the inevitable consequences of parentless households.
Some pearl-clutches said “won’t somebody think of the children”, and then made the social media companies figure out how to implement the ban.
It's more than pearl-clutching though.
Kids dependency on social is a genuine social problem. Any parent that cares about their kids is deeply concerned about this.
I don't really buy the "govt access to biometrics" angle. These companies have all the biometrics they could ever want.
The ban is going to be easy to circumvent technologically, but not so much socially. At this very moment, being the evening of 10 December, families around Australia are having conversations about social media and the problems it can cause.
We already took away all their in-person spaces.
Arcades and malls have been dead for a long time. Capitalism took them away.
Everyone is missing incentive to go outside and hang out with real people, but that's only because we have an alternative that fills you up and requires less effort. Our "socializing" is junk food, it only harms you.
Maybe more young people will start doing what kids have been doing since the dawn of time, and making their own communities and their own places to hang out and play and do active things together, face-to-face.
Digital technologies are really the only way kids have to socialize nowadays.
I don't disagree, but digital technologies are causing a lot of harm. I thought I would prepare for the discussion with a couple links to some suggestive studies, but there have been so many rigorous studies and scientific papers on the harm of social media on young minds that I don't even know where to start. Denying it is like denying climate change at this point.
And maybe my take is becoming radical, but I don't think we should be looking at it in terms of a youth/adult problem. There are likely far more adults addicted to the junk-food substitute that is arguing on twitter or making separate identities to fabricate ideas on message boards who have completely lost their handle on reality. Relationship rates are plummeting, people are so lonely it's being declared a health emergency.
Like, seriously... what should we do? I know the popular answer is to attack the social media companies and "regulate" them but the problem is more fundamental than advertising, it's that we're not evolved to socialize with words on screens, seeing all these thoughts and feelings and unchecked wild, emotion-provoking, short-attention-span messages isn't good for us. It may make you laugh spending an evening scrolling dumb memes, but if you do something like that every night, you're missing time that you could be spending improving your life, your health, your relationships and so on.
And replacing those evolved drives with something else, something alien to us.
As a millennial I honestly just miss how something like MySpace was basically a micro blog, and otherwise, we just chatted with friends-only programs like Yahoo! Messenger / MSN / ICQ/ whatever. There wasn't really some motive to "connect" you to a million "randos" and make you slavishly compete for their fickle approval.
Growing up in a weird kinda rural/suburb hybrid area, the Internet was my gateway to the world outside of school.
It definitely had its problems and drama, but mostly we chatted with people we actually knew (Yahoo chatrooms notwithstanding. Yikes lol) and didn't care about what was "trending" across the world. Algorithms didn't control and force perception of our reality then.
It was literally just about enabling communication.
Outside of that, there was also a much better culture of maintaining privacy and anonymity online, and that everything you see online is BS until proven otherwise.
Of course, this was before techbros decided we should use our real identity everywhere for all to see.
Nowadays it seems like every service is about using your friends as bait to connect you to some hivemind of toxic manipulation to farm you for ads. It encourages creating cults and scams and brainrot bullshit because it's all about harvesting people's already-strained attention for profit, instead of just being a communication platform.
TL;DR: I remember the Internet as a place to log in and hang out, then log off, when meeting with friends outside of school was a logistical nightmare reserved for things like birthday parties if you were lucky.
A lot of damage is already done, but I think if we obliterated the Facebooks and Instagrams and TikToks of "social media" and instead it focused on augmenting existing relationships rather than siloing people as a billion lonely socially-starved individuals in a crowd, we'd see it much differently...
Would you be in favor of nationalizing the internet in order for this to work? That is, no more commercial entities controlling access, no more media sites allowed to use algorithmic or artificially intelligent systems to influence the viewing habits of users, no more ads working their way into everything you see and do, no more sensationalized headlines and distracting video titles competing for attention because it will all be demonetized by law. (ideally, in a world of spherical, frictionless cows.)
In the US the government used to have standards and regulations for things like if a kid's show could be exclusively used to market toys, or that news stations had to follow a fair press agreement. The reason for this was all access to television had to go through airwaves, and the broadcasters for those airwaves were US government property. All broadcasters had to follow a host of rules and guidelines. This is why cable news was such a world-changing thing. Cable was privately owned.
This also has the side effect of the government controlling the news narrative, and I think we have seen enough of that.
I just don't really know if there's a good solution here, for a problem that has to have a solution or we all suffer.
Arcades and malls have been dead for a long time.
Comment clearly made by someone who does not actually live in the country this discussion is about. Shopping centres are doing just fine.
(To be clear, I am firmly against the ban)
This. I feel so bad for teenagers.
They're at a time in their lives where community and free association are vital to them, and yet since they're not necessarily a profitable demographic, they're kicked out and shunned by everywhere that's not home or school, because all that's left is "commercial spaces."
People then wonder why teenagers flip off society and get up to no good, and then maybe wonder why we all turned out to be lonely adults with like maybe one long term friend if we're lucky...
In Australia we have this thing called school, all the kids go there.
I have kids at ages affected by this ban. They don't care about it at all. They already communicate with their friends via iMessage and FaceTime (both unaffected by the ban), they walk to school - so they often walk with friends.
Theres a small skate park near the local shops they also walk to and hang out with friends sometimes, they also walk to the shops and practice basketball with friends at nearby ovals with practice courts regularly. They go to cinemas or big shopping centres (malls) with their friends sometimes - but have to be driven there anyway so parents have to coordinate.
TLDR: the ban doesn't affect a lot of kids at all, and they socialize more or less the same as I did when I was a kid.
The only kids heavily affected are those with Snapchat, Tiktok, Facebook and other crap that they shouldn't be on to begin with, and are getting a huge favour done to them by removing them for a few years.
Who's next to be blocked?
I mean, now that the infrastructure and policies are in place, it's only a matter of time.
People with a serious criminal record. Murderers and worse. Those who leave their victims alive but scarred mentally or physically.
Then those with less serious criminal records. Fraud. White collar crimes. That sort of thing.
Then other "undesirables" depending on who isn't liked by whoever's in charge.
And then the goalposts for what's desirable will start to move.
And the scope won't just be limited to social media. Websites will be categorised further. Some might remain open access to all people (except the ever increasing list of those to be protected and those who shouldn't have access) but others? No. Those sites themselves are undesirable.
Think more about which sites/platforms it applies to. There was some indecision about YouTube (its in EDIT: yt kids is out) & but signal/whatsapp/telegram are not affected - yet.
Not every new law is a slippery slope that leads to something, this line of reasoning is literally a fallacy.
When we blocked youth from drinking, we didn’t inch towards making it illegal for people in their 30s did we? Worst we got was like 21 in some places.
So Australia is using facial scanning to verify age, allowing everyone else to remain anonymous? That's how it should be done.
Here in Florida MAGA HQ, I'm hearing calls to verify the identity of EVERYONE on the Internet, because that's the ONLY way they can keep the kids off. I even heard one MAGA state legislator say that it's no difference then carding people for buying alcohol. That's how we keep booze out of the hands of kids, so it will work to keep the Internet out of their hands, too.
They want to kill Internet anonymity, just as a report comes out that the DoJ wants to pay bounties to people who report "anti-Trump behavior."
This will go to the Supreme Court before we're finished.
How else will they know if the person is over 16, or just pretending to be over 16?
Gotta verify everyone, scan all of their faces.
Minors don't have to prove they aren't adults, adults have to prove they aren't minors.
It's for the kids, you Commie.
On the contrary.
Loads of new platforms have sprung up with are not listed amongst those required to implement age verification.
Yes, any which become successful will be required to implement age verification but... they will already be successful.
It should be for the parents to let their children use social media or not
The issue is, parents who do not want to let their children use social media have really lost the battle because every other kid is on social media. So if even if a parent stands their ground on a strict "no social" policy, their kid is an outcast.
With this law, even though some kids will still be on social, parents are empowered to hold the line.
all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat
I love how this sentence is just casually sprinkled there. So platforms are getting $50m fines if they do not implement "age verification", but no problem if they fail to identify minors as such? Tells you everything about how they really care about protecting children.
That's not how the law is structured.
Sites are required to implement reasonable measures.
If kids are being evaluated as 18, with no additional checks, that's not reasonable and they're risking the penalties.
We're going to find out whether the regulator has much appetite to issue those penalties, but we will see I guess.
but no problem if they fail to identify minors as such?
it's a new technology. it will probably take years to figure out how to do age-verification properly.
Or, hear me out, let's not waste time developing useless and harmful surveillance technology.
None of this is required to safeguard children, and it does a bad job in its attempt - while doing a great job of scanning every user's face and documents.
Parents should be responsible, educated and empowered with tools to control their kids' activities online. Networks and mobile devices can relatively easily be configured to restrict and monitor activity, especially for young children where you might want to choose what to allow, rather than to block. There will be ways around them, but if that 1% is motivated enough and knows they shouldn't, I think that's fine.
Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.
FFS, we all got along just fine and dandy with group-chats via text message. We weren't fucking cavemen.
The fact that this is her fear (and the fact that it's a legitimate fear) proves just how much controls like this are needed. It's literally digital crack that they think there's simply no other way to communicate anymore (both her and her friends)
Well then fucking take away her phone. Get her a dumb phone. Install parental controls. Go to a therapist if yo have to.
But nooooo the government has got to do everything for us incompetent fucks
I had this issue with a 15 year old. Phone gone, just an analog flippy, put in parental controls to prevent loading brain rot apps.
He's happier for it.
Get her a dumb phone. Install parental controls.
If this actually worked. I tried it once and it did not work at all. Platforms/apps don't seem to respect the device settings at all.
One parent told the Guardian their 15-year-old daughter was “very distressed” because “all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat”. Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.
I think the ban should only apply to public-facing platforms, where everybody can see your content.
Platforms where you only talk to your friends should maybe be left out of it.
I would like to say that this is good for the quality of content on social media as well..
There's less bullshit content on social media if there's fewer kids, and also there's less incentive for other people to create bullshit content for teenagers to consume, if there's fewer teenagers on the platforms in the first place.
Roland Häder🇩🇪 likes this.
Sometimes I am to tired to share, to overwhelmed to convey my thoughts, sometimes I could careless about what and how to say, day by day is there really anything to say, for if a thought was a star space would be filled, darkness would be abolished, light would fill eternity, if only a thought held the value to be, what value are these absurd thoughts of mine, for eyes don't see, ears wont hear, no pondering convention of these random thoughts of mine, I have no clue why I share at all, internal conversations that would confound and deafen all, to speak my mind seems like a silly rhyme, yet at times I have nothing to do but share my thoughts with all;
You can encourage my continued useless #poetry, creativity and expression of self, #commentary, random thoughts, #philosophy and ideas, and by doing so your helping to feed, house and clothe a #disabled man living in #poverty, $5-10-15 It All Helps, via #cashapp at $woctxphotog or via #paypal at paypal.com/donate?campaign_id=…
ＮＡＴＯ事務総長の戦争準備発言は「無責任」、ロシアが批判 | ロイター - WACOCA NEWS
ロシア大統領府（クレムリン）は１４日、北大西洋条約機構（ＮＡＴＯ）のルッテ事務総長がロシアとの戦争を準備すべきと発言したことを無責任だと非難し、第二次世界大戦がもたらした惨禍を真に理解していないことを示していると述べた。WACOCA News Editor (WACOCA NEWS)
Darby Creek, PA
Took my family for a walk along a local creek ❄️
-5 °C (23 °F), feels like -15 °C (5 °F) according to the forecast, though it felt better 🤔 They enjoyed the scenery 😉
#GetOutside #FlyFishing #Fishing #Nature #Hiking #Walking #Creek #Snow #Photography
Hillary Clinton Says Young People Oppose Gaza Genocide Due to “Totally Made Up” Videos
ECOWAS sounds alarm as West Africa enters regional state of emergency
ECOWAS sounds alarm as West Africa enters regional state of emergency
ECOWAS has declared a state of emergency in West Africa, citing rising coups, expanding security threats and worsening political instability.Business Insider Africa
WhatsApp’s biggest market is becoming its toughest test
https://techcrunch.com/2025/12/14/whatsapps-biggest-market-is-becoming-its-toughest-test/?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub
Posted into Latest TechCrunch Stories @latest-techcrunch-stories-Techcrunch
WhatsApp's biggest market is becoming its toughest test | TechCrunch
Meta has three months to comply with Indian government directions that could affect how WhatsApp operates in the country.Jagmeet Singh (TechCrunch)
China Home-Price Slump Persists as Authorities Vow to Stabilize
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-15/china-home-price-slump-persists-as-authorities-vow-to-stabilize?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub
Posted into Bloomberg Asia @bloomberg-asia-bloomberg
Moves to appropriate properties now effectively defunct and relaunch the bird
'startup calling itself “Operation Bluebird” announced this week that it has filed a formal petition...to cancel X Corporation’s trademarks of the words “Twitter” and “tweet” since X has allegedly abandoned them'
#twitter #socialMedia #technology
arstechnica.com/information-te…
Operation Bluebird wants to relaunch “Twitter,” says Musk abandoned the name and logo
“Abandonment” offers rare chance to reclaim one of tech’s most recognized brands.Ars Contributors (Ars Technica)
Ricardo Antonio Piana likes this.
The post Anschlag auf Chanukka-Feier: „Held von Bondi Beach“ entreißt Attentäter die Waffe appeared first on Apollo News. #news #press
Anschlag auf Chanukka-Feier: „Held von Bondi Beach“ entreißt Attentäter die Waffe - Apollo News
Außergewöhnliche Videoaufnahmen vom Terroranschlag am Bondi Beach in Sydney zeigen einen Mann, der sich unbewaffnet an einen der Täter heranschleicht und ihm erfolgreich das Gewehr entreißt.Marius Marx (Apollo News)
reshared this
Lesley Carhart reshared this.
Moore Threads Plans to Use Most IPO Proceeds to Buy Bank Products
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-15/moore-threads-plans-to-use-most-ipo-proceeds-to-buy-bank-products?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub
Posted into Deals @deals-bloomberg
Padri sempre più tardi: uno spermatozoo su 20 è potenzialmente patogeno. Lo studio che cambia la scala del rischio
https://www.open.online/2025/12/14/padri-tardi-mutazioni-genetiche-trasmissione-figli-studio-nature/?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub
Pubblicato su SALUTE @salute-OpenGiornale
Padri sempre più tardi: uno spermatozoo su 20 è potenzialmente patogeno. Lo studio che cambia la scala del rischio
La nuova tecnica di sequenziamento mostra che alcuni geni mutati nelle cellule che producono spermatozoi proliferano più del normale, diventando sempre più comuni con l’avanzare dell’età.Gemma Argento (Open)
Join us tonight at 7pm pacific for The Plex #Podcast live!
#News #Analysis #Politics #LeftIsBest
EchoplexMedia - Twitch
The fun but also scary part of left-twitch. Conspiracy theory communities, cults, extremism, and some bay area local news. Great local music during the breaks of every show.Twitch
Umami is vulnerable - upgrade immediately
like this
Lasslinthar e LostWanderer like this.
RCE Confirmed via Umami Dependency (Next.js CVE-2025-66478)
Describe the Bug I am reporting this to confirm that a critical vulnerability in Next.js (CVE-2025-66478) led to a root-level compromise on my server, where Umami was running. I understand Umami ha...ehtishamsajjad (GitHub)
Thanks.
For severe incidents like this, please post the most appropriate link, in this case github.com/umami-software/umam…
Admins in self hosted usually don't have that much experience with real, active compromise and may panic, let's help them as much as possible.
I will add that Umami itself is not compromised, but vulnerable. That
is a somewhat misleading title.
What was the vector? Did you have umami exposed publicly?
RCE Confirmed via Umami Dependency (Next.js CVE-2025-66478)
Describe the Bug I am reporting this to confirm that a critical vulnerability in Next.js (CVE-2025-66478) led to a root-level compromise on my server, where Umami was running. I understand Umami ha...ehtishamsajjad (GitHub)
like this
LostWanderer likes this.
like this
LostWanderer likes this.
like this
LostWanderer, Quantumantics e yessikg like this.
All umami instances have been infected with a persisting crypto miner.
Source for that claim? Because vulnerable does not mean infected.
Also, I'm kinda glad my instance has been offline for a while now because of database trouble. That was lucky.
Look insideReact2Shell
Just another day on the job
like this
yessikg likes this.
Zelenskyy refuses to cede land to Russia as he rallies European support
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has reaffimed his firm refusal to cede any territory, resisting U.S. pressure for a painful compromise with Russia as he continued to rally European support for Ukraine.
“Undoubtedly, Russia insists for us to give up territories. We, clearly, don’t want to give up anything. That’s what we are fighting for,” Zelenskyy said in a WhatsApp chat late Monday in which he answered reporters’ questions.
“Do we consider ceding any territories? According to the law we don’t have such right. According to Ukraine’s law, our constitution, international law, and to be frank, we don’t have a moral right either.”
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-zelenskyy-trump-putin-cf17d925e21e6d6329fadff7e3efbb90
like this
frustrated_phagocytosis, aramis87, SuiXi3D, Lasslinthar, Atelopus-zeteki, bacon_saber, felixthecat e dandi8 like this.
I'm rallied.
We all are.
It's up to the rich cunts.
And they act in their self interest, so it's basically a dice roll. Oh, also, Russia controls USA, and USA controls the world, so I'm kind of hunkering down and trying to find an AK at this point.
We all are.
Far from it. A lot of people in Europe are brainwashed by Russian propaganda, even more people are not doing that great and will not sacrifice anything to help Ukraine. In many countries the right is either in power or very close to getting it. Each government is very carefully calculating how to keep the war going without losing the next elections. I think European troops should have been providing air defense to western Ukraine from the very beginning of the war but half or most of the people (depending on the country) don't support sending any troops there.
I know.
I meant us, us who are. I don't even know what I mean anymore. It's like fighting an avalanche of stupidity. How can people be so blind?
The European people really shouldn't want to use their own military anyway. Much better to just continue being America's bitch (as America, and everyone else, slides into fascism.)
I don't see any danger here at all.
Ukrainian Support for War Effort Collapses
More than three years into the war, Ukrainians’ support for continuing to fight until victory has hit a new low. In Gallup’s most recent poll of Ukraine — conducted in early July — 69% say they favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible, compared with 24% who support continuing to fight until victory.This marks a nearly complete reversal from public opinion in 2022, when 73% favored Ukraine fighting until victory and 22% preferred that Ukraine seek a negotiated end as soon as possible.
What is Ukrainian leadership doing to understand the hopes of average Ukrainians - regarding an end to this war?
Ukrainian Support for War Effort Collapses
New data from Ukraine show the public favors ending the war with Russia through negotiations, as support for fighting until victory has plummeted.Benedict Vigers (Gallup)
A negotiation typically ends when both parties get what they want. Maybe they don't get everything they want, but they are happy enough with the results to accept the terms.
Capitulation is not negotiating, it's literally giving up many concessions for nothing in return.
Keep in mind that Ukraine was tricked once already with the Crimean war peace deal that saw them give up territory. Russia invaded again and the U.S. turned a blind eye to their aggression for a second time despite repeated promises of security.
You would have to be an idiot to take any deal that gives up territory at this point. That's not a negotiation, it's just surrender. It's kicking the can down the road to give Russia time to recoup their losses and invade again in a few more years.
The United States has proven to be an unreliable ally in the best of times, so why would they accept a peace deal brokered by a pedophile conman?
A negotiation typically ends when both parties get what they want.
This is unlike any negotiation I've ever been in. Id say a negotiation ends when both parties agree on what they wont get. Your negotiation with the used car salesman doesn't end when you get half off sticker price and the salesman gets sticker price. That's just a contradiction.
Regardless... call it what you want: surrender, capitulation, conceding territory, etc... it's just semantics.
Suppose the Ukrainian people wish to surrender. Would you still stand with them?
Your negotiation with the used car salesman doesn’t end when you get half off sticker price and the salesman gets sticker price. That’s just a contradiction.
What kind of idiotic analogy is this? I can't even wrap my head around it.
Regardless… called it what you want: surrender, capitulation, conceding territory, etc… it’s just semantics.
No, it's really not just "semantics". Words have specific meaning.
I completely believe that the majority of Ukrainians want a negotiated end to the war. War sucks and everybody who has had to live trough one will tell you so. But if the "negotiation" is Russia saying "Give us all the territory we have occupied/seized so far, plus some additional territory that we have not yet occupied, and we will withdraw our troops." that's not a negotiation. That's conditional surrender. I really doubt that the people are clamoring to surrender their land and homes to Russian occupiers.
Suppose the Ukrainian people wish to surrender. Would you still stand with them?
I suspect that no matter what I think the Ukrainian people should do, if they decide that they are ready to give up the fight, then that's none of my business. I'm not in the trenches with a rifle, after all.
But if they Ukrainian people want to continue to fight, and negotiate for a favorable peace agreement, I'm all for supporting them so that they can win and make all the bloodshed so far worth it.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that Zelenskyy has a better grasp of the pulse of his own citizens than any of us do.
if they decide that they are ready to give up the fight, then that's none of my businessBut if they Ukrainian people want to continue to fight, [...] I'm all for supporting them
Thats some precise and deliberate language you're using. Yet you've still avoided answering the simple question.
Sending tens of thousands of Ukrainians into the grinder?
"Hell yeah! Slava Ukraini! To the last man!
Ukrainians use their agency to negotiate an end to the war
"Meh, not my business"
It's pretty clear that when this war most likely ends via negotiation and a land concession, all the gung ho support we see in threads like this one is going to evaporate.
lmao, bro, I can't force them to fight. I'm just a guy on the other end of the computer. I think you don't understand what the word "support" means.
I support Ukraine's right to independence and freedom.
I support the cessation of hostilities in the region.
I do not support surrender to Russia. Why would I? Choosing to fight and choosing not to fight are two diametrically opposed concepts. Therefore, I do not support a resolution in which Ukraine gives up land to Russia, period.
It’s pretty clear that when this war most likely ends via negotiation and a land concession,
Don't hold your breath on this one, Chief.
all the gung ho support we see in threads like this one is going to evaporate.
Wow, what a stunning prediction. Next are you going to predict that the sun will come back up again after it goes down?
Regardless of how the war ends, the support generally ends with it. That's how thing things tend to work. it's pretty hard to care about a think when the thing is no longer happening. If Ukraine achieved victory through martial victory alone and ended the war purely on their terms, my support would also evaporate because the war would be over.
I do not support a resolution in which Ukraine gives up land to Russia, period.
Well thank you for finally giving up on the evasiveness. Ukrainian agency means nothing to you.
To stand with Ukraine means to affirm the average Ukrainian's agency. To affirm their agency to dictate the terms of the end of the war - even if it means they wish to surrender. You will not affirm Ukrainians if they decide to surrender, so you dont stand with Ukraine. You stand with Zelensky, at best. You stand with Ukraine *so long as they promise to sacrifice the last able-bodied soldier, at worst.
So let's just all be clear and understand that you dont stand with Ukraine. You tentatively condone them, so long as...
I don't think anyone is questioning whether Ukrainians want the war to end. Of course the majority want the war to end as soon as possible. However, when asked specifically about territorial concessions the majority of Ukrainians are not willing to accept concessions. Source.
Maybe the Ukrainian leadership knows more about what the average Ukrainian wants than you do?
However, when asked specifically about territorial concessions the majority of Ukrainians are not willing to accept concessions.
And never did I argue the opposite. The question was: supposing Ukrainians wish to concede territory, would you still support them?
Maybe the Ukrainian leadership knows more about what the average Ukrainian wants than you do?
Potentially, but given your own source, a solid portion of Ukrainians dont share those warm and fuzzies.
As of December 2024, 52% of Ukrainians trusted President V. Zelenskyi, 39% did not trust him. The remaining 9% responded that they could not decide on their attitude. Although trust indicators have worsened over the year, the balance of trust-distrust remains positive – +13%.
And never did I argue the opposite. The question was: supposing Ukrainians wish to concede territory, would you still support them?
If you never argued the opposite what's the point of you question? Or do you just like to ask about unfounded hypotheticals?
Potentially, but given your own source, a solid portion of Ukrainians dont share those warm and fuzzies.
Am I supposed to believe you purely coincidentally happened upon the lowest trust poll? How about we look at the latest data of the same poll. Turns out a big majority of Ukrainians do trust Zelenskyy.
Neat, a study that doesn't poll what Ukrainians are willing to give up in exchange for the end to the war.
So basically worthless for this conversation
I fully agree on the ethics and morals of it, but I also believe that Zelenskyy isn't unaware of the larger situation here and has good reason to put down his foot.
In the end this is also going to be a litmus test for Russia's Hybrid Warfare. Let it not succeed.
I hope the powers that be act accordingly before Ukrainians had enough of being pummeled. Well, I think they already had enough, but before it gets so bad that nothing will keep them fighting anymore.
Tags are designed for clarity in general but also for neurodivergents specifically. While I can tell that you were being sarcastic, it's possible that others may have been unable to tell.
I'm not saying that you should have put a tag on your comment, but insulting those for whom it would have been helpful is uncalled for.
Are you speaking as someone that struggles with this or are you speaking on behalf of a hypothetical neurodivergent person?
I would have thought it was implied that my comment was directed at neurotypical people (insulting neurodivergent people for social interaction issues? Is that what you assume of me?).
I am autistic and sometimes struggle to understand indirect statements (especially when not in-person, since there's no tone or expressions to read). I did understand your original comment, but even now I don't see why the second comment should be understood to exclude neurodivergent people. I'm speaking both for myself and for anyone similar to past-me who would have genuinely felt insulted but not said anything.
This doesn't say anything about you, but yes I did assume that a stranger on the internet would insult ND people for social interaction issues. I did just join Lemmy though, so maybe that's an old habit that doesn't apply here. I am glad that I was wrong.
I think certain Russians were afraid to tell Putin that the military wasn't ready. They also didn't seem to anticipate Javelin missiles or unified Western support. The US learned a few times that invading a country with the goal of taking over the government isn't always so easy.
Didn't seem like the Russians were adequately trained. Unsupported tanks rolling down urban streets with hundreds of windows overheard from which should-fired missiles could rain down. Putin has sent hundreds of thousands of his own people to the slaughter. Dude fucked up.
Everyone in any position of authority in Russia is on the take. This means that the capabilities of the Russian military is purely theoretical, on paper Russia is a formidable force, on paper.
They sent troops in without equipment, without ammunition, and without supplies. Not because they didn't think they would need ammunition and food but because someone nicked them all back in 08 and everyone in the military is too scared of Putin to tell him this. Probably because they were the ones that took some of it.
Good.
Meanwhile, I'm eagerly waiting for the local Tankie to, once again, explain how so much death is justified by the dire threat Ukraine poses to a 17 million square kilometer country with 5,459 nuclear warheads. And, apparently, to their own people. I'm sure NATO is still making them do it, yep.
It's a bit narrow to just write off opposing views as "Tankies."
The vast majority of the world sees the Ukraine war as a conflict between white people. Their big objection has nothing to do with Ukrain vs Russia, it's about the attention paid to a European conflict vs all the others around the world. Many nations notice that while Western nations have never been willing to harm their own economies to end conflicts around the world, those same nations are now asking a bunch of 3rd world countries to support our economic sanctions.
Then there's a whole contingent of people who believe that "supporting Ukraine" is a meaningless platitude without a realistic plan for how to do it. Every sober analysis of the war concludes that it's essentially a war of attrition. There are very few experts who believe that there is any chance that any sort of breakthrough tactic or technology will easily get Ukraine's territory back.
We know the math behind that; the rate of movement of the front is primarily determined by the number of people and ordinance you throw at the fight. Russia does significantly more of both. That's been the case for the entire war so far and all signs suggest that it will continue to be the case.
You can go look up the movement of the front over the course of the war. To even out the numbers, we'd have to roughly triple the number of shells we send to the front (ignoring troops for now). That would likely bring the war to a stand still. To start reversing the movement at the same rate we'd likely have to triple it again. So cocktail napkin math says that if we actually want to revert back to pre-invasion borders, we'd have to increase expenditures by around 10x and sustain that for the next 3 years.
Not going to get into logistical analysis (I am behind on that). Nor will I dispute the hypocrisy of focusing only on a "white war." That's fair.
But I'm fervent that the justification for Russia's action is total baloney. I can, and absolutely will, write it off.
To put it another way: even if Mexico was provably 100% Nazi, and they worshipped China and drug cartels and whatever boogeyman we have like gods, I would still be ashamed if my country, the US, invaded them as Russia invaded Ukraine. It’s beyond preposterous to think they pose a military threat to the US, or that it’s our job to purify them, much less to breathlessly excuse such an invasion as (say) Russia’s fault.
That's what I mean by "Tankies."
If "Tankie" means someone who thinks Russia's invasion was justified, it's the wrong word for many people.
There are many people who agree that Russia's invasion was unjustified and also don't believe that a simple "stand with Ukraine" strategy has a snowball's chance in hell of working. If you look back into US history you'll find a number of conflicts that we thought we could win by just offering advice, logistics, and support; they tend to be costly for the US and catastrophic for the country in question.
Justice doesn't win wars and we know what happens when you keep throwing lives and resources at a war without a solid victory plan.
There are many people who agree that Russia’s invasion was unjustified and also don’t believe that a simple “stand with Ukraine” strategy has a snowball’s chance in hell of working.
Based on what? Putin was clearly losing this war until Trump saved him. Russian losses have been catastrophic and no one can possibly consider Putiin's invasion a success or a smart move. It seems to me like it IS working. And it's preferable to IGNORING the Ukrainians and giving Russia an easy out.
Even before Trump Russia was slowly grinding its way west.
You could look at the various strategic objectives and see the Russians slowly and steadily surrounding them and cutting them off. You could watch the Ukrainian counteroffensives crash against defense in depth. You could see the occasional victories slip away. The HIMARS systems that were supposed to turn the tide are twisted piles of metal.
Ignoring Ukraine would also be dumb. A much better idea would be to come up with an actual feasible plan. One would have been to follow US military advice with the above mentioned HIMARS and execute a concentrated attack to the south to cut off almost half the Russian military. An other would be to accept a ceasefire on the current front, heavily entrench the border to create defense in depth, and use that time to develop an actual counteroffensive strategy.
You can go look up the movement of the front over the course of the war. To even out the numbers, we'd have to roughly triple the number of shells we send to the front (ignoring troops for now). That would likely bring the war to a stand still. To start reversing the movement at the same rate we'd likely have to triple it again. So cocktail napkin math says that if we actually want to revert back to pre-invasion borders, we'd have to increase expenditures by around 10x and sustain that for the next 3 years.
I disagree here with this for two reasons.
First Ukraine's artillery shell production and transition into nato calibers of 105mm and 155mm is increasing, and the strategic relation of power balance between Russian and Ukrainian artillery is actively changing. This isn't static, Ukraine is quickly developing an advantage here especially when you consider efficiency of resources applied to the front.
Second, Russian air defenses are collapsing, Ukraine is hammering them day in day out and there is no way Russia can replace these air defense radars and missile launchers along with sufficiently trained crew at a high enough rate to sustain this current situation. Russia is HUGE there is an incredible amount of territory that must be covered with air defense. I would not call the current situation a simple battle of attrition right now, Russia is facing an existential collapse of their war machine if their air defenses decisively collapse in too many areas. I am not suggesting the likelihood is high at the moment but the probability of it happening is meaningfully increasing every day.
I am not trying to reject all of your points, but I think the aspects I have brought up have to be taken into consideration. Ukraine will have the capacity to domestically produce and maintain L119 105mm howitzers, 155mm bohdana production has finally begun to hit stride as well, these are strategic leaps forward in terms of practical infantry fighting power and I find conversations tend to ignore these non-flashy but quite meaningful transformations that have happened over the past year or two for the Ukrainian military. They make this moment of Russia's faltering general offensive a far more fragile position than people generally recognize. This isn't to say Ukraine isn't in a fragile position itself of course. What I am saying is I wouldn't expect the status quo to necessarily continue indefinitely here, it will for some time and then all of a sudden it abruptly won't.
It's tricky to find current numbers on artillery production. The most reliable numbers I could find are about a year old and all cite a 3:1 advantage for the Russians.
Do you have sources on what the ratio is more recently?
We like to believe that Russian air defenses are collapsing but do we even know this? We know that some facilities have been destroyed but how many did they have in the first place? What can Ukraine do to exploit a gap in air defenses? Traditionally, air defenses are there to stop enemy bombers but that only matters if the enemy has bombers.
War is difficult. It takes much more than a bunch of people standing around saying, "I support XYZ." It takes a huge amount of resources and involves a lot of dead people.
What can Ukraine do to exploit a gap in air defenses?
...Have you not been paying attention to the Ukraine's campaign of long range strikes utilizing missiles and drones?
In terms of shell ratios, I am less interested in trying to find precise numbers on that since it is an incredibly difficult process to accurately do for one army much less two, but also I am not sure it is necessarily relevant in any absolute sense since Ukraine and Russia utilize their artillery so differently.
In terms of hard facts that have changed well here you go:
defence-blog.com/ukraine-uk-ag…
defence-blog.com/ukraine-ramps…
These two changes alone significantly change the strategic power balance between Ukraine's military and Russia's military as the L119 is unquestionably the best mass production battle tested towed light infantry support howitzer ever made and the bohdana in towed and self propelled forms is a world class 155mm howitzer that is easily compatible with a global constellation of militaries who may increase military aid at any point.
I have been paying attention to Ukraines missile and drone programs.
Missiles and drones are both very effective but neither of them is a replacement for heavy bombing and Russia still makes more missiles than Ukraine does.
Unfortunately shell ratios are an important detail. That's why the serious policy publications (like FP) spend so much time trying to advocate for increased production.
Don’t look at the front lines. Look at the Russian economy. It’s more likely that the Russian economy collapses or Putin is overthrown due to some internal power struggles or uprising than it is for Ukraine to militarily defeat Russia.
That is as long as the West continues to support Ukraine with the bare minimum to bleed both sides continuously.
How would you look at the Russian economy?
The best measure I can think of is GDP growth. It can be hard to estimate but it shows the change in an economy over time. The most accurate data I know of for that is the World Bank.
data.worldbank.org/indicator/N…
You'll notice that for most of that period, which includes the entire Ukraine war, Russia's economy has been solidly on par with the other 9 largest economies in the world. They still have active trading relations with most of the world volza.com/global-trade-data/ru…
At the current rates, Ukraine will bleed out before Russia does.
Western propaganda machine constantly pumps out information on Russia's economy being on the verge of collapse. I recall buying into it years ago and, well, we're still waiting.
I think it's a bit of old world thinking at work. In the post WW2 period the West controlled the vast majority of global capital so being blocked out of trade by us meant guaranteed economic despair (if you weren't big enough). The world is very different today but many Westerners (even in leadership) still perceive the world as if we're still in that era.
Do you have a better measure of the economy?
Both Russia and Ukraine are destroying each other's infrastructure do you have some data that shows Russia is suffering more from it than Ukraine is?
Real private consumption or net national product
I never claimed Ukraine was suffering less, don't twist my words. Russia invaded Ukraine, twice.
Financially it's a lucrative one and makes them more resilient to Western sanctions. China is on a trajectory to surpass the US economy in 10 years. Wealth, power and influence are gradually drifting East and South so it's important for Western leaders to adapt now instead of disregarding reality and becoming more entrenched. Being forced to align economically with China will likely be to Russia's long term benefit.
The West (particularly US) is currently doubling down on AGI and fossil fuels (US and Canada). The AGI bet can definitely blow up in its face in the short term. Emerging markets are already pivoting hard to renewables so fossil fuels may not be as good a long term bet as they're hoping. The EU is a stagnant market and the UK is still limping after shooting itself in the foot with Brexit. Many of these countries are now tied up by infighting over immigration, impacting their ability to project power.
The only absolute advantage is the massive defense spending but even the majority of that is by the US so if they decide to leave the rest of the West to fend for themselves then all bets are off.
The vast majority of the world sees the Ukraine war as a conflict between white people.
Wow, way to infantilize the vast majority of the world. Believe it or not, they're as smart as you are and as capable of leaning about a particular conflict.
It's a bit oversimplified but essentially accurate. You can easily find a number of sources that will show you that people is Africa, South America, India, and Asia aren't nearly as concerned about the Ukraine war as Americans and Europeans are.
I know they're every bit as smart as I am because I've had many conversations with them. I find they tend to know more about the Ukraine war, and many other international topics, than most Americans seem to.
So cocktail napkin math says that if we actually want to revert back to pre-invasion borders, we’d have to increase expenditures by around 10x and sustain that for the next 3 years.
Ok, let's do that
This is an oversimplification. When the Berlin wall fell and Germany was unified there were assurances made that NATO would not expand eastward which obviously did not pan out.
The West has pushed forward with NATO inclusion of several eastern European nations including Ukraine since that time. During the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, George W. Bush insisted on raising the topic of Ukraine's potential NATO membership, despite opposition from Angela Merkel, who was concerned about the implications for relations with Russia.
The concern from a Russian standpoint was an expanding Western sphere of influence, not fear of Ukrainian military action specifically.
So what?
What if Canada joined CSTO and signed some pact with China. Does that give the US justification to invade and annex them? Because it violates some handshake from 36 years ago?
If Russia doesn’t like all this NATO expansion, they can drag someone controversial into an alliance or do some other controversial thing. Have at it. A war is not a rational response, unless you’re a tankie.
It's interesting to invoke the US as it typically has a low threshold for military action.
I don't think it justifies war but I would understand if the US perceived that as a national security threat (though it appears everything is a national security threat in the US today). It would be naive to assume a great power would sit by idly and watch that occur.
I definitely understand that many percieve this through a cultural 'us vs them' lens but I would advise against oversimplified conceptualizations. Global geopolitics is complex and a positive outcome in this war is dependent on deeper understanding of historical contexts and how they play into motivation and strategy today.
Fair bit of speculation on Russia's behalf.
The most important point to keep in mine is that most of the world (ie countries outside of NATO) do not see NATO as a defensive alliance.
We can argue back and forth about whether Russia was justified to start a war over perceived expansion (I don't believe so) but historical context is important and I don't think it's hard to see how they perceived a threat from their geopolitical perspective, especially if even Merkel recognized that.
It would be more accurate to compare it to BRICS being adversarial to the US because China has more than 2x the economy of all the other BRICS nations combined and wants to use it as a counterbalance to the G7.
That would be perfectly accurate and the US is actively trying to inhibit the growth of BRICS as an organization.
NATO has not started a war but that is not mutually exclusive from it being perceived as an arm of American imperialism. The general perception is that due to its astronomical defense spending the US has disproportionate influence within the group. There is precedent for NATO countries joining America in unjustified wars previously. This contributes to the perception that, if the US conjures up a reason to go to war with your country, there is a whole club of countries which America may have coercive leverage over (due to defense investment) that may join in seeking to anhilate you.
NATO countries are (or perhaps were) America's sphere of influence.
We can argue back and forth about whether Russia was justified to start a war over perceived expansion
Well, not really. Russia was not justified in the full-scale unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country.
Putin pretends there's a threat to expand Russia territory/influence. Russia isn't existentially threatened, they want to control neighboring regions.
Meanwhile, I'm eagerly waiting for the local Tankie to, once again, explain how so much death is justified by the dire threat Ukraine
Great, now they've turned up.
And you think all that have died or been wounded would be happy to have over that territory?
I seem to recall another time where they handed over territory to a despot and believed that would be enough. Sure worked out well for them.
And you think all that have died or been wounded would be happy to have over that territory?
Why don't you go on the front lines to defend the land if you care so much about it?
The majority of Ukrainians do not support ceding territory.
And what a stupid fucking thought process you have going. Russia invaded Ukraine, they should be fucking leaving not having tankie shits suggesting that Ukrainians should just give up.
Answer the question yourself, if you care so much about ukraine land and are afraid about russia why don't you go on the front lines?
A stupid though process is to believe that something is good only because you are not getting your hands dirty and others are doing it for you. Ukrainians should be allowed to do what the fuck they want, if case you aren't aware people are being drafted by force and many haven't been able to left the country for years.
Recently men beetween 18-22 were allowed to leave the border (after two years of not being able to) and many left the country.
- YouTube
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.www.youtube.com
Answer the question yourself, if you care so much about ukraine land and are afraid about russia why don't you go on the front lines?
Because my donations are worth more than my body. Answer the question, why aren't you being paid to be a mouth piece for russian propaganda? Or seeing how you spell... guessing you're sitting in russia trying to convince me and others that we should abandon Ukrainians in their fight against the ruzzians.
A stupid though process is to believe that something is good only because you are not getting your hands dirty and others are doing it for you. Ukrainians should be allowed to do what the fuck they want, if case you aren't aware people are being drafted by force and many haven't been able to left the country for years.
Yea it's called a war for your survival, they're being drafted because it's needed. Again, the majority want the war to end but the majority don't want to ceded territory. This isn't rocket science.
Recently men beetween 18-22 were allowed to leave the border (after two years of not being able to) and many left the country.
Ok and? People don't like war, people don't like dying...why don't you ask the questions why ruzzia is attacking Ukraine and killing civs?
It's up to ukrainian people to decide what they want to do, not to the martial law or any ruler.
Fueling this war and empowering authoritarian governments is how we all end up under a boot. There are plenty of countries that are still in business with russia including USA (both current and previous administration). Fighting over inches of land benefits governments not the people that are long gone from that burned land.
It has the highest elevation of any landmass in the area
Europeans who stand with Ukraine are about to learn a lesson called "Guns or Butter"
Social democracy won't survive militarism.
What a mess of a situation. When the soviet union collapsed assurances were made that NATO would not expand eastward beyond Germany. That promise obviously wasn't kept and Russia has perceived that as a provocation in the case of Ukraine being right on their border. But there's more than enough blame to go round and Russia is obviously not helping themselves.
The big questions are if NATO carries any significant impact with a disengaged US and what will be the consequences of Russia now strengthening its relationship with China and India in a world where it already seems like power, wealth and the epicenter of innovation are slowly drifting from the US to China.
It seems to me that the US has come to a realization that it can't project power over the world like it used to and would instead like to focus on its geographical 'sphere' (the Western hemisphere including Canada and South America) instead. Trumps recently released national security strategy document seems to suggest as much.
Unfortunately it's hard to imagine how this war is won for Ukraine without US engagement or a change in the mindset and strategy of the EU.
Trump is a russian asset. The majority of the USA and it's corporate overlords are not happy that trump has given away a fuck ton of our soft power.
Also russia promised not to invade Ukraine when they gave up their nukes...this has nothing to do with NATO, and everything to do with putin being an imperialistic fuck.
No doubt imperialism is involved but I think we need to be realistic in recognizing that non-NATO countries do not see NATO as a defense alliance. They see it as an extension of the American empire/imperialism. With the Trump administration it seems like even America has come to see it that way.
In 2019, the US pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty claiming that Russia had violated the treaty by developing, testing and fielding a ground‑launched cruise missile (GLCM) designated SSC‑8.
Independent analysts noted that the evidence for the Russian violation was contested, with some questioning the reliability of the U.S. claims and pointing out that the United States itself operated missile‑defense systems (e.g., Aegis Ashore) that could be interpreted as infringing the INF’s ban on land‑based intermediate‑range missiles.
This fed into their perception that if Ukraine joined NATO such weapons would pointed in their direction from Ukrainian territory.
On August 4, 2025, the Russian Federation announced the termination of its unilateral moratorium on deploying ground-launched intermediate-range (1,000–5,500 km) and shorter-range (500–1,000 km) missiles, six years after the US pulled out
Not good if you're a fan of denuclearization.
The tough thing about soft power is its built on trust so its unlikely America will be getting it back.
Well they started the war so there's no question they're the aggressor. But to mount a legitimate defense it is important to understand the factors that contributed to their choice and judge their legitimacy. Certain actions taken by the US are noteworthy.
If we assume we are good faith actors and whoever it is we are against are acting in bad faith then we fail to see the whole picture.
The reality is the US has started numerous wars on shaky grounds / manufactured consent and we at least try to reflect on their rationale and judge whether there's any way for empire to be held accountable for war on false pretenses. In the US' case it essentially never is.
This is clearly a very Western leaning audience that is entrenched in their perspective which is totally fine. As long as it's understood that they are also perceiving reality through propaganda disemminated by their elites.
I don't support imperialism in general, regardless of where it comes from. I'm more interested in how empire justifies imperialistic behaviour and how its subjects align themselves to that behavior. This thread has been illuminating in that regard. I imagine there will be quite a few American supporters for war in Venezuela, for example.
I agree with you. Nothing the USA or any other party has done justifies Russia's war in Ukraine. But how the state justifies imperialism and how the subjects buy into and hold dearly their state's mistruths is a fascinating sight to behold.
They found NATO expansion bad and a grave mistake but never had any reassurances by the West of not expanding
To be honest, I find it ridiculous that the Baltic states which could easily be invaded within a few days without foreign help would need to cope with a constant threat of invasion just because Russia is unsecure
because this is how you get a protracted guerilla war.
realized they could go on without America.
Can they tho? Looking at the spineless European leadership I would not be so sure
If you believe that the trump administration's first priority is america, maybe yes.
If their priority is making the USA irrelevant, they will succeed.
If anyone in the Trump administration had any brains at all, this would have been obvious from the outset.
The only people who can see advantage to Ukraine seeding territory to Russia, is Russia. Everyone else involved can see what a monumental tactical error that would be. Especially since everybody knows the only reason Russia is even at the negotiating table is because they are desperate, given that is the case, there is zero reason to capitulate.
⚡️🇬🇧Turkish Ships Struck by Russia - Putin Mocks Erdoğan in New Confrontation (Silicon Wafers VIDEO) #Ukraine #Poland #Warsaw #Netherlands #Norway #Sweden #Estonia #Latvia #Lithuania #Paris #Rome #London #Berlin #Canada #Finland #Brussels #Denmark #Germany #France #Italy #OSCE #PACE #CoE #SouthKorea #Press #News #Taiwan #Media #Japan #US #UK #EU #UnitedStates #UnitedKingdom #EuropeanUnion #Czechia #Turkey #Istanbul #Romania #russiaUkraineWar
#RussiaIsATerroristState
China’s CMOC Agrees to Buy Brazilian Gold Mines for $1 Billion
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-15/china-s-cmoc-agrees-to-buy-brazilian-gold-mines-for-1-billion?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub
Posted into Economics @economics-bloomberg
Announcing Linkwarden for iOS & Android
Hello everyone,
Before we talk about today’s announcement, let's take a moment to appreciate what this community has built together. What started as a project to preserve webpages and articles has quietly grown into Linkwarden, a tool used by researchers, journalists, and knowledge collectors all over the world.
As we’ve grown, the Linkwarden community has helped us reach:
- 16,000+ GitHub stars
- 11M+ Docker downloads
- Thousands of self-hosted instances running in different companies, universities, agencies, and homelabs
- A thriving ecosystem of contributors, donors, and Cloud subscribers keeping the project sustainable
None of this would've happened without you. Thank you! 🚀
Today, we’re excited to launch something you’ve been asking for since the very beginning: the official Linkwarden mobile app, now available on iOS and Android.
Here are the highlights so far:
🧩 Create, organize, and browse your links: A native, mobile-first experience with collections, tags, and powerful search.
📤 Save links directly from the share sheet: Send interesting articles from the browser or any other app straight into Linkwarden, no copy-paste required.
📚 Cached data for offline reading: Catch up on long reads, articles, or saved blog posts when you’re away from Wi-Fi.
☁️ Works with Linkwarden Cloud and self-hosted: Use the same app whether you’re on Linkwarden Cloud or your own self-hosted instance, just point it at your server and sign in.
📱 Built for different screen sizes: Supports iOS / iPadOS, and Android (phones and tablets).
🔜 And more coming soon: This first release is just the foundation, expect many improvements and new features soon.
Get the app
To use the app you’ll first need a Linkwarden account (version v2.13+ recommended).
You can choose between:
- Linkwarden Cloud – instant setup, and your subscription directly supports ongoing development.
- Self-hosted Linkwarden – free, but you’ll need to deploy and maintain a Linkwarden instance on a server.
After creating an account, download the app from your preferred store:
How you can support Linkwarden
Linkwarden exists because of people like you. Other than using our official Cloud offering and dontations, here are the other ways to help us grow and stay sustainable:
- Leaving a review on App Store or Google Play
- Starring our repository on GitHub
- Joining us and sharing your setup on Reddit
- Joining us on Discord
- Telling a friend or colleague about Linkwarden
Thank you for being part of this community. 💫
Linkwarden - Bookmarks, Evolved
Linkwarden helps you collect, read, annotate, and fully preserve what matters, all in one place.linkwarden.app
like this
olorin99, Badabinski, ammorok e mrmaplebar like this.
We're working on it 😀
Edit: Will post the link to the APK on Mastodon/Bluesky/Twitter as soon as it’s is ready.
excited for Fdroid! currently can't run this without google play, even fetching the app via Aurora
fairly common experience and not necessarily y'alls fault, thanks for the hard work and updating us
like this
ammorok likes this.
LinkDroid and LinkGuardian are android apps for LinkWarden available on F-Droid, FYI.
Linkguardian via IzzyOnDroid repo:
apt.izzysoft.de/fdroid/index/a…
LinkDroid via F-Droid repo:
f-droid.org/packages/com.sbv.l…
„LinkGuardian“ – IzzyOnDroid F-Droid Repository
Android client for Linkwarden built with Jetpack ComposeIzzyOnDroid Repo Browser
Thanks.
No US corporate crap on my devices, so please make sure it works without play services 😀
Here it is: github.com/linkwarden/linkward…
We're fully open-source 😀
linkwarden/apps/mobile at main · linkwarden/linkwarden
⚡️⚡️⚡️ Self-hosted collaborative bookmark manager to collect, read, annotate, and fully preserve what matters, all in one place. - linkwarden/linkwardenGitHub
Axis to Hire 50 Private Bankers to Target Wealth Boom in India
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-15/axis-to-hire-50-private-bankers-to-target-wealth-boom-in-india?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub
Posted into Bloomberg Wealth @bloomberg-wealth-bloomberg
#finance #日本株 #Rakuten t.co/HoW9kqUzhy
China’s AI sector poised for growth despite US tech restrictions, venture capitalist says
China’s AI sector gains confidence with DeepSeek’s emergence, but tech ecosystem needs to improve, GSR United Capital’s Zhou Qi says.Themis Qi (South China Morning Post)
takeda
in reply to RandAlThor • • •comrade_twisty
in reply to takeda • • •UnspecificGravity
in reply to takeda • • •comrade_twisty
in reply to UnspecificGravity • • •Const
in reply to RandAlThor • • •