Eh, it was reported about the normal amount imo. With the violent lone-wolf types, sometimes media under-reports it to reduce copycat actions (see the famous Newswipe clip).

I’m aware of at least two posts about it from the ABC (national broadcaster)[1][2] and one from local news[3] (paywalled, mirrored here), though admittedly this one has a very local-news angle on it.

Most significantly, the manifesto favorably references Brenton Tarrant, the Australian-born terrorist who in March 2019 murdered 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. Patten describes himself as having become fascinated by Tarrant’s actions.

There would appear to be copycat elements.

Yeah, hence some under-reporting of the details. There’s some fair discussion about reporting / commentary on recent protests there but I don’t personally think the comparison to this incident seems fair.

But the winky face shows how serious they’re being!?

https://frameable.com/company/tech/why-we-prefer-notification-sounds-instead-of-a-human-voice

P.s. you have your markdown reversed with the links - the text needs to be in the square brackets with the link in the parentheses. [text](https://example.com)

Submitted for good faith discussion: Substack shouldn’t decide what we read. The reason it caught my attention is that it’s co-signed by Edward Snowden and Richard Dawkins, who evidently both have blogs there I never knew about.

I’m not sure how many of the people who decide to comment on these stories actually read up about them first, but I did, such as by actually reading the Atlantic article linked. I would personally feel very uncomfortable about voluntarily sharing a space with someone who unironically writes a post called “Vaccines Are Jew Witchcraftery”. However, the Atlantic article also notes:

Experts on extremist communication, such Whitney Phillips, the University of Oregon journalism professor, caution that simply banning hate groups from a platform—even if sometimes necessary from a business standpoint—can end up redounding to the extremists’ benefit by making them seem like victims of an overweening censorship regime. “It feeds into this narrative of liberal censorship of conservatives,” Phillips told me, “even if the views in question are really extreme.”

Structurally this is where a comment would usually have a conclusion to reinforce a position, but I don’t personally know what I support doing here.

It’s worth noting that since FedSearch, Mastodon has actually natively implemented opt-in search on posts.

From the submission:

Not a rival, just an alternative

The realization that led us to develop PeerTube is that no one can rival YouTube or Twitch. You would need Google’s money, Amazon servers’ farms… Above all, you would need the greed to exploit millions of creators and videomakers, groom them into formatting their content to your needs, and feed them the crumbs of the wealth you gain by farming their audience into data livestock.

Monopolistic centralized video platforms can only be sustained by surveillance capitalism.

Even though we cannot pinpoint the exact budget Framasoft spent on PeerTube since 2017, our conservative estimate would be around 500 000 €

With these two perspectives it seems to be doing well, even if it can’t / won’t entirely displace the major players.

As an aside, you can edit your submission title on lemmy/kbin/mbin.

It is, I’ve used that to prevent automatic removal of leading zeroes when reading the values of bytes.

Based on the article it seems like it’s just a matter of not having to spend the time (and mental overhead) of doing that for all required columns and never slipping up on it (now just set and forget).