I recently bought a product online. I wasn't able to find it in a bricks-and-mortar shop, so I had to buy it online to even see it, let alone try it. I received it, and it wasn't right for me. I was able to exchange it for a different version, but even the different version wasn't right. So I returned the product and got a refund. All along, the customer service was excellent, but the product itself turned out not to be what I wanted.

The way the product failed for me was connected to the "headline" description of the product. It wasn't a minor failure. It did something that they explicitly said it wouldn't do, which was one of the main selling features of the product.

After the dust settled, I wrote a review of the product. I don't normally do this: I neither write nor read reviews. However, I know that other people do rely on reviews and, seeing as this product is only available online, and its failure was linked to a major selling feature of the product, I felt duty-bound to inform other prospective buyers that it might not suit some people. I gave it a 2-star (out of 5) rating, as well as writing up why it didn't suit me (while allowing that it might still suit other people).

Since I submitted the review, I have checked the website (I'm an egotist: I wanted to see my words being published!). Other reviews with more recent timestamps have appeared, but my review has not appeared. I've now noticed that the lowest rating in their reviews is a single 3-star rating, with some 4-star reviews and lots of 5-star reviews. There are no 2-star or 1-star reviews. My only conclusion is that the company selects which reviews to publish - and which ones not to publish.

I've always wondered if companies would post negative reviews of their own products. Now I know for sure that at least one company does not.

It could be the final piece to your prized collection, a person you talked to before they seemingly disappeared, a story you read that has since been deleted, etc.

In my case, I really wanted to find a website called notebookinhand.com, a forum I came across while I was a teenager in the early 2010s. It was solely dedicated to people describing their hobbies, and the community seemed very nice and welcoming, and I also like how the site was designed. It looks like it's been shut down but I can't stop thinking about it!

So, tell me what's your internet "unicorn", so to speak.

Hey everyone,

I noticed accessing Wikipedia today that my old version of the app no longer loaded any pages, so I tried checking with my stock browser and it displayed a warning that Wikipedia is dropping support for anything that can't negotiate TLS 1.2. I haven't seen any articles on it yet online, so just thought I'd holler a mention.

I will be releasing a beta version of Intergrid in the near future, before New Year.

The first thing I need is someone to buy a domain name from.

I'm looking for a reasonable yearly price for the common generic TLDs ($10~$20), combined with reliability of support.

The only previous experience I had was with GoDaddy, and I had no issues with them. I have, however, heard stories of terrible support service (which I never used, for lack of need), and I'd rather not support a company of that level of service. (Nevermind that I bear strong dislike for post-service spam.)

The second thing I need is someone to host it.

Ideally, I would host it on a personal server, which would probably be a Pi-like platform, because I like the idea of owning the host as far as personal projects are concerned. I have little idea of how viable it is, or whether it's a better option for me than renting server space at the moment.

Lacking that, I'd like to have a EU-based hosting provider with reasonably-cheap ($10~$15) basic-level plans. Since the beta of Intergrid is local-storage-only, having a database hosted or supplied is not an issue at the moment. Low time-to-connect is important.

I was thinking about having a general purpose thread about internet drama venting, but that seems like a very bad idea if all the top level threads are different gripes and one in particular gets out of control, so here's mine and this can be dealt with as needed.

There was this recent issue in left adjacent Twitter of a notable YouTube person inviting someone else to read a quote for a bigger project. Invitee had controversial views on gender dysphoria, the host defended their decision, and details aren't super important for what I want to talk about.

What I want to talk about is how the internet specifically reacted, asking the creator's circle to walk back any endorsement of them, holding them to a fire and how much it kind of fits in into a pattern of isolation featured earlier in Lindsay Ellis' presentation about being shamed online, and propose that what makes an internet outrage mob is kind of values neutral.

Obviously, your -ism of choice would factor into an internet hate mob and make it into the Eternal Tire Fire that the internet is known for birthing these days, but the key spark seems to be a betrayal of trust. You thought someone or something was in your corner/was values neutral/shared your politics and when that is not the case, you simply want it gone. It was kind of always in the discussion with "Cancel Culture Concern," but it hasn't really clicked until now for me that it's such a common thread.

So, assuming we can't nor want to make it impossible to betray one another or make the Internet a safe space for everybody and for all sensibilities, can we cut down on this outcome, is it incentivised through engagement metrics, and/or is it just something that comes with the ability to mass broadcast and mass response?