How do you get image upload enabled btw?

Debian is super easy to use, plus we have AI now at our fingertips which makes it even easier.

DRM?

Debian is very stable, and its also pretty easy to update and have long term stability. You can just click a button to update or have it automated. If all they're doing is browsing, Debian should be sufficent, plus, it's free.

Damn, I would be hoping it would be more inclined to using Linux in the field but who knows, maybe I might find a company that values it and utilizes it daily. I could utilize Windows 10/11 in a VM, which I would be fine using for work purposes. I wish more people would learn how to use Linux. It takes awhile but once you know how to use it, its so much better imo.

It was a little difficult but honestly I just used ChatGPT the entire time

Your point is well-taken, but it's also tangential to the crux of my argument. Yes, I'm fully aware that the mod's author has expressed bigoted views, which does provide grounds for removal based on platform guidelines. However, the broader question here is not just about one specific mod or its author; it's about what kinds of content truly warrant removal. If the issue was merely adherence to guidelines, then our conversation would be over. But I'm interested in a more nuanced discussion: What constitutes a mod that is so egregious it merits removal? And who gets to decide that? These are the questions at the heart of my main post.

If it's indeed the case that the mod was removed due to the author's statements in the mod description, then the removal is justifiable based on those grounds. This would then be less about the content of the mod itself and more about adherence to platform guidelines. It also highlights the importance of understanding the complete context behind moderation decisions, rather than focusing solely on the mod's functionality.

You're right. Civil and criminal trials operate under different standards of proof. In criminal trials, the burden of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' which is a high bar to meet. Civil trials typically require 'a preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it's more likely than not that one side's viewpoint is correct. The O.J. Simpson case is a prime example, as he was found not guilty in his criminal trial but later found liable in a civil trial. It's essential to recognize these distinctions when discussing legal outcomes.

I understand your perspective. My intention wasn't to argue that the justice system is infallible. Indeed, history has shown that both wrongful convictions and acquittals can happen. What I meant to highlight was that, given the evidence presented during the trial and the way the law is structured in Wisconsin, the jury arrived at that particular verdict. It's crucial to differentiate between presenting a legal outcome and endorsing the inherent perfection of the system.