I’m responding because I think you prove the point that there are situations where this policy does not work.

This is not the proper forum to be having a “discussion” like this, because there is no proper forum to have a discussion like this. The misuse of the term “mental illness” is a nonstarter. Mental health disorders become mental illness when those disorders begin to consistently and negatively impact an individual’s emotional, physical, and/or social functioning. Simply being homosexual does not do that. Prejudice associated with, and stigma attributed to, homosexuality are the root causes of mental health issues among homosexuals.

Incorrectly labeling homosexuality as a mental illness must be rejected outright and provides no room for further discussion.

Careful. “Forty percent of Americans are subject to” is different from “40% of Americans subject to.” The former means that 40% of Americans are under the jurisdiction of or are affected by something. The latter means that 40% of Americans go along with it regardless of how many are affected in total. Entire states are subject to age verification laws, but perhaps only half of all adults in those states subject to those laws (allow the law to take force over them), implying that the remaining balance either abstain from activity requiring age verification or they find a way around it.

Most interestingly, the original Techdirt article meant the former—that a simple 40% of the total population of Americans live within states that have age verification laws, meaning that the linked article actually misrepresents what was being said, because the citing article’s language would indicate the second form of the usage of “subject” above. That is, that 40% of all people allow age verification laws to be activated and take force over them by virtue of their participation in activities that require age verification.

Edit: We agree that it’s not ideally worded in the linked article, regardless of the intended usage of “subject to.”

“Subject” is being used as a verb here. So it’s not “subject to age verification laws,” but “subject to age verification laws.” They are subjecting, or subjugating themselves, to verification laws. It is a complete sentence. A weirdly written one, but a complete one.

Wikipedia | Argument from anecdote

OP’s right on top of that, @Astronaut_M_Dexter@lemmy.world!

Tracking my read books motivates me to read more. I’m trying to read at least one book a month this year, after years of not reading much at all. I’m on book 6 so far, but when my partner asked me the other day how far along I was in my goal I told them either 4 or 5 before I went on bookwyrm and actually checked. I have the memory of a goldfish. I also like to sometimes look back and see which books took me longer to finish. My final reason is that bookwyrm (right now) provides me reviews I think I can place a little more weight on than maybe some other platforms. It works for me, even though I agree that using it is a bit cumbersome at this stage of its development.

This is the first comment I’ve scrolled to where someone has asked about what moving to Sublinks means in terms of practicality, so I’ll hitch my question here too.

To be sure I understand, are you saying that any existing community will be automatically migrated to Sublinks? Would I need to also create a new user account with Sublinks or would this also be migrated? Posts, comments, up/downvotes? Are those all migrated?

I’m just having trouble understanding what a move to Sublinks means in a very practical sense for users and communities. Is this just a backend change that I—as a user, as a mod—would likely not notice? Thanks for any clarification you can provide.

Came for the dogs, stayed for the Scully.