The charity felt it had no choice but to protect its supporters and volunteers

1 comment

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 10 months ago

Don't want it to keep confusing that one species with human anatomy. (Or adding them to the birds)

  • source
  • 10 comments in c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk view that post
    [–] 12 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I wish more organisations would remove themselves from this platform, however it seems that they are deeply embedded and it's an accepted communications channel with their customers/public.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    The best way to tackle this is to simplify fine or tax advertisers that run advertising on Twitter. Make a law that says if you advertise on Twitter which is a known sexual abuse platform via it's Grok AI then you yourselves get fined or taxed. Think of it like a sugar tax. Make it regulatory difficult to do business on Twitter.

    Cut off their funding like you would do a terrorist organisation or rogue state.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Too many fake tits on there

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    Alternative URL at archive.is

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    If I'd seen this earlier, I would have congratulated their chugger at the shops! I wonder if that would have gotten back to HQ. Now, are they in the fediverse yet?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    They are on Bluesky so I guess that's half-way there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments