Just because there are such things as "Never Trumpers" doesn't mean his MO is to divide the country.
That's just a weird thing to say. Never Trumpers are a Republican group. I didn't say anything about dividing the Republican party, which is also something that he's doing but not his MO. That's just a side effect of being such a disgraceful person. I was talking about the whole country: his method has been to place blame for all that is wrong on Muslims, "Mexicans" (his word for Latin Americans), and Democrats. Also the Chinese.
You really shouldn't be using the word "you" when you're talking to me about Democratic congressmen, I am not a Democratic congressman. I don't know where you got that impression. However, to address your comments about the electoral college: while the electoral college was originally intended to put a buffer between the tyranny of the masses and real power (our founding fathers were terrified that uneducated poor people might be able to directly elect officials), it hasn't operated in that capacity for more than a hundred years. So no, the electoral college is not one of the institutions that I was talking about.
I don't really understand the rest of your examples... I have criticized the senate many times, usually for bad decisions that they have made. They have made many such decisions while the GOP has had a majority, though this is not the only situation under which the senate has made bad decisions. The senate makes a lot of decisions, many of which are bad. You've got several other examples of things that you think I am, or have done. I guess you think I'm some specific democratic congressman who has done all of the things that you're talking about? Which congressman do you think I am?
Trump is not a threat in waiting, he's not in waiting at all. He is a disaster in progress. I am not the slightest bit objective about Trump, that ship has sailed. I was objective about Trump at one time, then I learned about him and I formed an opinion. That's what opinions are, that's how they work.
As for your comments about the media: I had to look up who Claas Relotius was. He was a journalist who worked for Der Spiegel, until they fired him for lying. And... how do you know this? Because Der Spiegel reported it. But Der Spiegel is the media, and are therefore lying liars, so that must mean that Claas Relotius is an innocent victim of Der Spiegel... Or maybe Der Spiegel is a victim of Claas Relotius? I'm wondering how you've managed to spin this in your head so that they're both evil.
You have here a situation where a newspaper (the media) claims that they've discovered that a journalist has been submitting falsified stories, and you're holding this as an example for why we shouldn't trust the media. If you don't trust the media, why do you believe that Claas Relotius lied? Why do you believe that Claas Relotius even exists?
This is silly. All of the bullshit about "the MSM" is silly. Who watches the watchers? Other watchers, obviously. That's what they're for, that's why we have more than one.
In terms of actual legislation, you're right. Trump is a very weak president who can't get anything done because his whole MO is about dividing the country, and that has the effect of paralyzing congress. A stronger Republican president would certainly have killed the Affordable Care Act, for example.
However, legislation is not the issue here. The real threat that Trump poses, the thing that makes him such a disaster, is that he is destroying public trust in the institutions which protect us from people like him. For example, it's the role of the media to expose corrupt politicians. They're supposed to attack people like Trump mercilessly, that is their job. That's why we have freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment: it's the only way that democracy can function.
So that's what the press does, they attack Trump for his many lies and failures. He doesn't apologize and say that he'll stop lying, he doesn't try to learn or otherwise mitigate his incompetence, and he doesn't reform his self-serving ways, instead he claims that every story which makes him look bad is a lie and that the press are out to get him. This is true, because going after him is their job, but he has managed to convince a large segment of the population that they shouldn't be doing this and so they shouldn't be trusted. If the only trustworthy source of information about the president is the president himself, and his sycophants, then democracy fails.
And that's just one example. How about something smaller? It's been common practice for decades that a presidential candidate should release his tax returns. This isn't a rule though, it's a custom, so Trump decided to ignore it and the voters allowed him to get away with that. Thus the custom is broken and any individual as corrupt as Trump in this way can now run for president in the future, free from the burden of not cheating on his taxes.
So with just these two examples (of many) we can see that while Trump is too weak to cause much legislative damage himself, he has opened the door for much worse people in the future. Any Machiavellian schemer can see that with even an iota of subtlety he could do what Trump has done and, unlike Trump, he could get away with it. This is the real damage that Trump has caused to our country.
I don't know the particulars of all of these, but loot boxes are certainly not banned in Japan. There was a new rule saying that companies had to disclose exactly what was available and with what probability, so they're no longer quite the mystery boxes that they used to be, but loot boxes are still going strong there.
To my knowledge, the only country which has done anything like what you're describing is Belgium. When you say, "in pretty much every country," which countries are you referring to, exactly?
In the United States I believe that the legal precedent was set quite some time ago over baseball cards, which are functionally equivalent to loot boxes / prize packs / etc. That's a vague recollection though, I would not be able to cite that case.
Well you don't call them bets, but that's the right idea. Call them lootboxes, or prize packs or something. You might also want to stay away from using money as prizes, since a loss in that case can be easily quantified in court. You'd also probably do better with this if you weren't a casino, which are readily identified with gambling, so that you could claim that this an alternative business model rather than just gambling by another name.
Download F-Droid on your Android device from this site. From within F-Droid, search for Youtube. Download any of the free open source applications that you find there for playing Youtube videos. I haven't checked them all, but I doubt that any of them play ads.
Can you suggest an alternative? I don't know of any other options which don't require me to log in, and which offer downloads in standard non-DRMed, non-flash, non-other bullshit formats.
Because this doesn't count as gambling. There are a huge number of products which do this now, from video games to legos. Here is a popular line of dolls which does the same thing. The key, the thing which distinguishes this from gambling, is that you always get some kind of prize. Gambling is specifically defined as a possibility to lose your money, not to get something less valuable than you wanted. As long as you always get something with non-zero value, then it doesn't count as gambling.
Clearly the problem is that this story relates to the FCC and Consumer Electronics Show, and the FCC has recently been in the news for killing network neutrality. These things are obviously not "news for nerds" and have no place on a tech site.
Yes, congress should make a law. And then to enforce the law they'll need to appoint some people with oversight powers. And then to keep the law up-to-date with current technology they'll need to set some guidelines, and then choose some people who will apply those guidelines as congress intends for them to be applied.
To ensure that these appointed people aren't rogues who will go off-script, there will need to be some sort of nomination and confirmation process... Where Ajit Pai will tell congress that he intends to kill net neutrality, and congress will say, "Yep, this is the guy that we want."
Stop blaming the FCC for this. Pai is a thug, just doing what he was appointed to do.
I don't follow this statement. The parent was talking about the difference between idealism and pragmatism - symbols of freedom vs. actual liberty. I.e.: people think that driving car is liberating, so having expansive roadways is symbolic of freedom, but in practice, day-to-day, you spend less time commuting if you use public transit. (In a city with good public transit, provided that transit is accessible to you, more caveats, etc.)
It is not both symbolic and actual, the point is that those things are distinct. Maybe they're not always distinct, but those cases are not the problem.
The parent was pointing out that your "counterexample" was not, in fact, a counterexample. I wouldn't have replied except... "Slashdot really needs to cut down on these types of posters when they are hemorrhaging market-share." Holy crap man, have some self-awareness.
Grocery stores closed in a lot of poor neighborhoods during the recession, bringing down property values even further, and Dollar Stores moved in to fill the gaps. The presence of the Dollar Stores in those neighborhoods are now keeping out the traditional grocery stores, preventing those neighborhoods from recovering fully. The Dollar Stores are are nutritional deserts, and not really cheaper than grocery stores, so this is a losing situation all around.
(Posting this because I was curious, and annoyed that I was forced to skim the actual article. Skim! Outrage.)
Huh. How does that work? If he was accused of 12 different crimes, but none of those crimes independently had enough evidence for conviction, then which was he convicted for?
Did they just pick one, and say, "This is the one that he's guilty of."?
Accusations never require evidence. Prosecution should require evidence, and... that's what happened. No evidence, so the prosecution dropped the case.
The thing is, this bit here: "Amazon will just follow the mob, and not due process." this is the only part of your comment that matters. You seem to be blaming the mob, but it's Amazon doing it. If I start going around and punching people because my invisible unicorn friend told me to, it's not my invisible unicorn friend who you should blame for that.
The point that the parent was making was that Amazon is not being governed, they are doing the governing.
The fuck? (again)
You: "Trump didn't do this thing. And Hillary was worse because she rigged the primaries in some unspecified way."
Me: "Trump did do this thing, here are three examples. And the primaries were not rigged, that's how primaries work."
You: "I'm the one sane person in an insane world, and you are clearly one of the loons. So I don't have to listen to you. Also, Trump's claim is valid because anecdote."
Me: "That's not what sanity is."
You: "This isn't a conversation about Trump. Also some other stuff." (I stopped reading after "This isn't a conversation about Trump.")
You and I are not having the same discussion here. Let's be perfectly clear: this is a conversation about Trump. I don't care at all about your unsupported assumptions regarding illegal voting. (Though I do care, somewhat, about why you believe what you do.) The point, as I said up top, was that Trump lied about something big and important, as he has done repeatedly, and there's no way to justify it. There's no other prominent politician you can point to and say, "Oh, it's okay because that person is worse. They lie bigger or harder than Trump does." You can't do this because there is no one who is worse. Other politicians lie, but there has been no one within my lifetime who has done as much damage to truth as Trump has.
At least not in the US. I can think of quite a few examples of politicians outside of the US who are as bad as Trump, but they're all dictators.
... What? Appointing a special prosecutor, which is the promise he made, certainly is something that the president can do. Here, I'll quote:
Mr. Trump, who branded his rival “Crooked Hillary” and said she would go to jail if he were president, said in an interview with reporters and editors at The New York Times that he was no longer interested in pursuing Mrs. Clinton
This was in November of 2016, just after he won. I don't know how that could be more clear.
Also, what do you mean by "more independent attorney general"? I haven't been following that closely, but I had thought the nominee was just one of his lackeys. In other words, totally dependent. Is that guy out?
Who makes those rules? In this case, it's Trump. Dropping the Clinton investigation was the very first campaign promise that Trump broke, before he was even inaugurated.
Snark is not a typical characteristic of legitimate unbiased news sources.
I have never heard this claim before. It's awfully convenient, given that most political comedy is left-leaning. Just another reason to dismiss anything that makes Trump look bad? I've been dismayed to see that people have been so willing to cast aside even the idea of fact checking, holding politicians accountable for what they say.
Incidentally, you seem to be confused about what the word partisan means. Partisanship is about favoring one party or person or side. It's not about disfavoring one party or person or side. Disliking Trump does not make me partisan, it's just a rational response to his actions.
She's never been tried because actually putting her on trial would defeat the purpose of calling her a criminal. The GOP can keep talking about how evil she is forever, if they never have to prove it. And you will always believe them.
The fuck? Here is one of many that he used to justify splitting up families. You think that isn't important?
Here is one of many that he used to try and subvert the democratic process. This is what our country is based on. I will just tell you if you can't understand this: this is important.
Here is one that he used to justify cutting taxes even further for the 5,000 richest people in the country. I think that's important, because *someone* still needs to pay those taxes. These tax cuts have not come with matching budget cuts. I think that's really important.
Those are just a few. Trump's list is 33 pages long, and he's only been president for two years. And you're waving all that away because you don't know what primary elections are? Fine: primary elections are a means that private organizations (political parties) use to determine their candidates. Primaries can be conducted in any way and in any order that the parties choose, and in the United States they're primarily organized at the state level. (Remember in 2008, when the Florida Democrats held their primary out of order and the results were disqualified by the DNC? The Democratic party can do that, because primaries are an internal decision-making process of a private organization.)
I don't see how that's a good point at all. You said yourself that 60% of their population doesn't have access to a toilet - how is that not good enough for them to qualify?
I think you may have confused the word "developing" with "so poor that they're not developing at all."
Quantum was an upgrade to Firefox, not Chrome. The parent was complaining that pre-Quantum Firefox had some things that he liked and were disabled with the upgrade. The point was that Quantum it provided advantages over pre-Quantum Firefox.
If you want to compare Firefox and Chrome, that's a separate question but that's easy: Firefox doesn't spy on you, so Firefox wins. If you want to compare Firefox and Chromium that's harder... the two browsers are, unfortunately, pretty similar nowadays. This is why Firefox keeps getting guff from longtime users. Firefox adheres to standards better (this was the point of the article), and the Mozilla foundation is pretty much the most influential group advocating for open standards on the web. They were the holdouts against creating web standards for DRM, for example. So that's something.
Mostly it just comes down to details though. The little things that you're accustomed to or that you like.
So I don't know that much about Tumblr, but despite that I can say with complete certainty: No. That's just bullshit, probably fueled by your own confirmation bias. Tumblr would never give up 25% of their viewership to appease anyone anyone at all, for any reason... anyone except their advertisers. This is about money.
Advertisers don't like seeing their ads next to porn. This is why Fark is now censored (this was stated explicitly by Drew Curtis), this is why Reddit is doing its best to bury its porn subs (this was strongly implied, rather than explicitly stated, but all of Reddit's recent changes can be linked to monetization), and this is why Tumblr is now censored.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because there are such things as "Never Trumpers" doesn't mean his MO is to divide the country.
That's just a weird thing to say. Never Trumpers are a Republican group. I didn't say anything about dividing the Republican party, which is also something that he's doing but not his MO. That's just a side effect of being such a disgraceful person. I was talking about the whole country: his method has been to place blame for all that is wrong on Muslims, "Mexicans" (his word for Latin Americans), and Democrats. Also the Chinese.
You really shouldn't be using the word "you" when you're talking to me about Democratic congressmen, I am not a Democratic congressman. I don't know where you got that impression. However, to address your comments about the electoral college: while the electoral college was originally intended to put a buffer between the tyranny of the masses and real power (our founding fathers were terrified that uneducated poor people might be able to directly elect officials), it hasn't operated in that capacity for more than a hundred years. So no, the electoral college is not one of the institutions that I was talking about.
I don't really understand the rest of your examples... I have criticized the senate many times, usually for bad decisions that they have made. They have made many such decisions while the GOP has had a majority, though this is not the only situation under which the senate has made bad decisions. The senate makes a lot of decisions, many of which are bad. You've got several other examples of things that you think I am, or have done. I guess you think I'm some specific democratic congressman who has done all of the things that you're talking about? Which congressman do you think I am?
Trump is not a threat in waiting, he's not in waiting at all. He is a disaster in progress. I am not the slightest bit objective about Trump, that ship has sailed. I was objective about Trump at one time, then I learned about him and I formed an opinion. That's what opinions are, that's how they work.
As for your comments about the media: I had to look up who Claas Relotius was. He was a journalist who worked for Der Spiegel, until they fired him for lying. And... how do you know this? Because Der Spiegel reported it. But Der Spiegel is the media, and are therefore lying liars, so that must mean that Claas Relotius is an innocent victim of Der Spiegel... Or maybe Der Spiegel is a victim of Claas Relotius? I'm wondering how you've managed to spin this in your head so that they're both evil.
You have here a situation where a newspaper (the media) claims that they've discovered that a journalist has been submitting falsified stories, and you're holding this as an example for why we shouldn't trust the media. If you don't trust the media, why do you believe that Claas Relotius lied? Why do you believe that Claas Relotius even exists?
This is silly. All of the bullshit about "the MSM" is silly. Who watches the watchers? Other watchers, obviously. That's what they're for, that's why we have more than one.
mundane status quo governance
In terms of actual legislation, you're right. Trump is a very weak president who can't get anything done because his whole MO is about dividing the country, and that has the effect of paralyzing congress. A stronger Republican president would certainly have killed the Affordable Care Act, for example.
However, legislation is not the issue here. The real threat that Trump poses, the thing that makes him such a disaster, is that he is destroying public trust in the institutions which protect us from people like him. For example, it's the role of the media to expose corrupt politicians. They're supposed to attack people like Trump mercilessly, that is their job. That's why we have freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment: it's the only way that democracy can function.
So that's what the press does, they attack Trump for his many lies and failures. He doesn't apologize and say that he'll stop lying, he doesn't try to learn or otherwise mitigate his incompetence, and he doesn't reform his self-serving ways, instead he claims that every story which makes him look bad is a lie and that the press are out to get him. This is true, because going after him is their job, but he has managed to convince a large segment of the population that they shouldn't be doing this and so they shouldn't be trusted. If the only trustworthy source of information about the president is the president himself, and his sycophants, then democracy fails.
And that's just one example. How about something smaller? It's been common practice for decades that a presidential candidate should release his tax returns. This isn't a rule though, it's a custom, so Trump decided to ignore it and the voters allowed him to get away with that. Thus the custom is broken and any individual as corrupt as Trump in this way can now run for president in the future, free from the burden of not cheating on his taxes.
So with just these two examples (of many) we can see that while Trump is too weak to cause much legislative damage himself, he has opened the door for much worse people in the future. Any Machiavellian schemer can see that with even an iota of subtlety he could do what Trump has done and, unlike Trump, he could get away with it. This is the real damage that Trump has caused to our country.
I don't know the particulars of all of these, but loot boxes are certainly not banned in Japan. There was a new rule saying that companies had to disclose exactly what was available and with what probability, so they're no longer quite the mystery boxes that they used to be, but loot boxes are still going strong there.
To my knowledge, the only country which has done anything like what you're describing is Belgium. When you say, "in pretty much every country," which countries are you referring to, exactly?
In the United States I believe that the legal precedent was set quite some time ago over baseball cards, which are functionally equivalent to loot boxes / prize packs / etc. That's a vague recollection though, I would not be able to cite that case.
Well you don't call them bets, but that's the right idea. Call them lootboxes, or prize packs or something. You might also want to stay away from using money as prizes, since a loss in that case can be easily quantified in court. You'd also probably do better with this if you weren't a casino, which are readily identified with gambling, so that you could claim that this an alternative business model rather than just gambling by another name.
Download F-Droid on your Android device from this site. From within F-Droid, search for Youtube. Download any of the free open source applications that you find there for playing Youtube videos. I haven't checked them all, but I doubt that any of them play ads.
Can you suggest an alternative? I don't know of any other options which don't require me to log in, and which offer downloads in standard non-DRMed, non-flash, non-other bullshit formats.
Because this doesn't count as gambling. There are a huge number of products which do this now, from video games to legos. Here is a popular line of dolls which does the same thing. The key, the thing which distinguishes this from gambling, is that you always get some kind of prize. Gambling is specifically defined as a possibility to lose your money, not to get something less valuable than you wanted. As long as you always get something with non-zero value, then it doesn't count as gambling.
Clearly the problem is that this story relates to the FCC and Consumer Electronics Show, and the FCC has recently been in the news for killing network neutrality. These things are obviously not "news for nerds" and have no place on a tech site.
Yes, congress should make a law. And then to enforce the law they'll need to appoint some people with oversight powers. And then to keep the law up-to-date with current technology they'll need to set some guidelines, and then choose some people who will apply those guidelines as congress intends for them to be applied.
To ensure that these appointed people aren't rogues who will go off-script, there will need to be some sort of nomination and confirmation process... Where Ajit Pai will tell congress that he intends to kill net neutrality, and congress will say, "Yep, this is the guy that we want."
Stop blaming the FCC for this. Pai is a thug, just doing what he was appointed to do.
freedom is both symbolic and actual
I don't follow this statement. The parent was talking about the difference between idealism and pragmatism - symbols of freedom vs. actual liberty. I.e.: people think that driving car is liberating, so having expansive roadways is symbolic of freedom, but in practice, day-to-day, you spend less time commuting if you use public transit. (In a city with good public transit, provided that transit is accessible to you, more caveats, etc.)
It is not both symbolic and actual, the point is that those things are distinct. Maybe they're not always distinct, but those cases are not the problem.
The parent was pointing out that your "counterexample" was not, in fact, a counterexample. I wouldn't have replied except... "Slashdot really needs to cut down on these types of posters when they are hemorrhaging market-share." Holy crap man, have some self-awareness.
Grocery stores closed in a lot of poor neighborhoods during the recession, bringing down property values even further, and Dollar Stores moved in to fill the gaps. The presence of the Dollar Stores in those neighborhoods are now keeping out the traditional grocery stores, preventing those neighborhoods from recovering fully. The Dollar Stores are are nutritional deserts, and not really cheaper than grocery stores, so this is a losing situation all around.
(Posting this because I was curious, and annoyed that I was forced to skim the actual article. Skim! Outrage.)
Huh. How does that work? If he was accused of 12 different crimes, but none of those crimes independently had enough evidence for conviction, then which was he convicted for?
Did they just pick one, and say, "This is the one that he's guilty of."?
Accusations never require evidence. Prosecution should require evidence, and... that's what happened. No evidence, so the prosecution dropped the case.
I don't see the problem here.
The thing is, this bit here: "Amazon will just follow the mob, and not due process." this is the only part of your comment that matters. You seem to be blaming the mob, but it's Amazon doing it. If I start going around and punching people because my invisible unicorn friend told me to, it's not my invisible unicorn friend who you should blame for that.
The point that the parent was making was that Amazon is not being governed, they are doing the governing.
given that this isn't a conversation about Trump
The fuck? (again)
You: "Trump didn't do this thing. And Hillary was worse because she rigged the primaries in some unspecified way."
Me: "Trump did do this thing, here are three examples. And the primaries were not rigged, that's how primaries work."
You: "I'm the one sane person in an insane world, and you are clearly one of the loons. So I don't have to listen to you. Also, Trump's claim is valid because anecdote."
Me: "That's not what sanity is."
You: "This isn't a conversation about Trump. Also some other stuff." (I stopped reading after "This isn't a conversation about Trump.")
You and I are not having the same discussion here. Let's be perfectly clear: this is a conversation about Trump. I don't care at all about your unsupported assumptions regarding illegal voting. (Though I do care, somewhat, about why you believe what you do.) The point, as I said up top, was that Trump lied about something big and important, as he has done repeatedly, and there's no way to justify it. There's no other prominent politician you can point to and say, "Oh, it's okay because that person is worse. They lie bigger or harder than Trump does." You can't do this because there is no one who is worse. Other politicians lie, but there has been no one within my lifetime who has done as much damage to truth as Trump has.
At least not in the US. I can think of quite a few examples of politicians outside of the US who are as bad as Trump, but they're all dictators.
Mr. Trump, who branded his rival “Crooked Hillary” and said she would go to jail if he were president, said in an interview with reporters and editors at The New York Times that he was no longer interested in pursuing Mrs. Clinton
This was in November of 2016, just after he won. I don't know how that could be more clear.
Also, what do you mean by "more independent attorney general"? I haven't been following that closely, but I had thought the nominee was just one of his lackeys. In other words, totally dependent. Is that guy out?
Who makes those rules? In this case, it's Trump. Dropping the Clinton investigation was the very first campaign promise that Trump broke, before he was even inaugurated.
Snark is not a typical characteristic of legitimate unbiased news sources.
I have never heard this claim before. It's awfully convenient, given that most political comedy is left-leaning. Just another reason to dismiss anything that makes Trump look bad? I've been dismayed to see that people have been so willing to cast aside even the idea of fact checking, holding politicians accountable for what they say.
Incidentally, you seem to be confused about what the word partisan means. Partisanship is about favoring one party or person or side. It's not about disfavoring one party or person or side. Disliking Trump does not make me partisan, it's just a rational response to his actions.
She's never been tried because actually putting her on trial would defeat the purpose of calling her a criminal. The GOP can keep talking about how evil she is forever, if they never have to prove it. And you will always believe them.
The fuck? Here is one of many that he used to justify splitting up families. You think that isn't important?
Here is one of many that he used to try and subvert the democratic process. This is what our country is based on. I will just tell you if you can't understand this: this is important.
Here is one that he used to justify cutting taxes even further for the 5,000 richest people in the country. I think that's important, because *someone* still needs to pay those taxes. These tax cuts have not come with matching budget cuts. I think that's really important.
Those are just a few. Trump's list is 33 pages long, and he's only been president for two years. And you're waving all that away because you don't know what primary elections are? Fine: primary elections are a means that private organizations (political parties) use to determine their candidates. Primaries can be conducted in any way and in any order that the parties choose, and in the United States they're primarily organized at the state level. (Remember in 2008, when the Florida Democrats held their primary out of order and the results were disqualified by the DNC? The Democratic party can do that, because primaries are an internal decision-making process of a private organization.)
I don't see how that's a good point at all. You said yourself that 60% of their population doesn't have access to a toilet - how is that not good enough for them to qualify?
I think you may have confused the word "developing" with "so poor that they're not developing at all."
Quantum was an upgrade to Firefox, not Chrome. The parent was complaining that pre-Quantum Firefox had some things that he liked and were disabled with the upgrade. The point was that Quantum it provided advantages over pre-Quantum Firefox.
If you want to compare Firefox and Chrome, that's a separate question but that's easy: Firefox doesn't spy on you, so Firefox wins. If you want to compare Firefox and Chromium that's harder... the two browsers are, unfortunately, pretty similar nowadays. This is why Firefox keeps getting guff from longtime users. Firefox adheres to standards better (this was the point of the article), and the Mozilla foundation is pretty much the most influential group advocating for open standards on the web. They were the holdouts against creating web standards for DRM, for example. So that's something.
Mostly it just comes down to details though. The little things that you're accustomed to or that you like.
So I don't know that much about Tumblr, but despite that I can say with complete certainty: No. That's just bullshit, probably fueled by your own confirmation bias. Tumblr would never give up 25% of their viewership to appease anyone anyone at all, for any reason... anyone except their advertisers. This is about money.
Advertisers don't like seeing their ads next to porn. This is why Fark is now censored (this was stated explicitly by Drew Curtis), this is why Reddit is doing its best to bury its porn subs (this was strongly implied, rather than explicitly stated, but all of Reddit's recent changes can be linked to monetization), and this is why Tumblr is now censored.