Blog idea: Who is "we"?

[Mikaela]

It's an idea that has bothered me in the shower at least twice. The blog should mention some projects from my past that don't need naming and being part of the "we" and being outside of it. NVC is important to mention too, and people who appear out of nowhere to be "we" and others that don't appear so much out of nowhere, but are also "we". I guess the books by Jaron Lanier should also be referred to on an individual/pack switch, but maybe I should finish reading this book first, even if I am reading them in reverse order.

[Mikaela]

The first reviewer gives me this definition:

"we" used in internet discussions as "«I and all right-thinking people» (in practice meaning, probably, «I alone»)" 😉

[Mikaela]

I am told that the SUMUTIN paragraph above the bulleted list and the bulleted list are too loosely connected and my proposal to remedy the sitatuion was accepted:

would it be enough to say that the imageboard person cannot afterwards explain why they did it and that they just went along the pack and now they are apologetical as the reporter could destroy their live and they didn't think them as a real person?

However I need to reread the article has it has been months and I just skimmed it this time, so I don't accidentally start lying in the summary.

[Mikaela]

Oh and it turns out I have made some placeholder links that actually lead nowhere, so that is something to fix for release.

[Mikaela]

Also Facebook* is confusing, I should specify that I mean Facebook and other services owned by them (Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram and I never was in Oculus).

[Mikaela]

I am failing with English prepositions(?) and I want "on GitHub" instead of "at GitHub" as the later may make people think I am working there or everything has happened in GitHub office, which is not the case.

[Mikaela]

Remember to read direct chats at Riot with the reviewers

[Mikaela]

Note #252, PT is dead and the successor is Privacy Guides.