Perhaps he’s objecting to having the alleged hand gesture referred to as feminist. A bit of a quibble, but not completely baseless.
Then again it may not be fair to claim that whenever feminists do hurtful things in the name of feminism, that it’s not real feminism. Feminism can do bad things too. Any philosophy can.
I know some areas have laws mandating certain minimal coverages. I wonder if the insurers would even be allowed to issue policies that didn’t cover wildfires.
TIL Lemmy zeitgeist says investment portfolios should be acts of passion.
I think it’s more about being able to play as the oppressed, and whip up their base. There have been many platforms where they could post their hate. Censoring speech just fuels outrage and invites the Streisand effect.
But in this case I don’t think Zuck really cares about enabling these right-wing messages. It’s about saving money by cutting a bunch of expensive fact checkers, and displaying friendliness toward the new president; either because they don’t want to be singled out for punishment, or they hope to be rewarded with some largess.
I really don’t think so. If the process was so simple as writing false or hurtful things, and then your political opponents are blocked from power, then why doesn’t the left just become a bunch of shitposters and kick all the fascists out?
I think a more plausible explanation for why the left has been excluded from power is simply that American politics runs on donor money, capitalists have lots of money, and they have a class interest in excluding the left. You can certainly get deeper than that, but that’s sort of the heart of the issue.
Note here that Zuck and Meta are capitalists, and were never going censor the narrative contrary to their interests.
I still think this whole idea that we were going to get big tech (or anyone really), as owners of the modern mediums of communication, to act as the arbiters of truth and harmful messages was always a ridiculous notion. It’s both not in their interests and not in their power.
The mainstream of the liberals and the left seem to have become so obsessed with policing speech that they’ve nearly completely given up on meaningfully improving the material conditions of people’s lives. You win the narrative by delivering real results that people can see and feel, not by trying to ban charlatans from spinning bullshit.
Change the world, and the narrative will follow. Not the other way around.
Okay, but people with the means to travel for leisure exist, and in the US it doesn’t even seem to be a small group.
https://www.ahla.com/news/summer-travel-poll-61-americans-likely-travel-leisure
Seems like encouraging these people to avoid air travel, or encouraging airlines to do something about their emissions, is generally a good thing.
Maybe you’re not wrong, but at this point, that battle is long lost.
There’s a profit angle in terms of keeping wages down, but there’s also a competitive angle. Having a bigger talent pool to draw on means you get better talent, particularly when you’re in the top spot in terms of pay, quality of life, professional achievement, etc.
We should have culled all these cows, and kept culling them until nobody and nothing tested positive. And done it all a year ago. But apparently that was too hard, and now it’s really just luck whether this becomes the next global catastrophe.
Not that I’m any kind of authority on the biases of publications, but I tend to think of ProPublica as more about investigative journalism than any political theory.
Just off the top of my head
That’s a neat tool. But it’s giving me a slightly confusing result. I have a solar installation and I’ve plugged in the details so far as I know them, just to see if I’m producing about what I “should” be. The peak production month is about right, but the minimal production month is only estimated to be like 25% less than that. My system has more like 50-60% drop, and some quick googling suggests that’s about normal.
Any thoughts on why this tool suggests a much smaller drop?
The media keeps talking about how they’ve learned their lesson about how to report on Trump; that they’re not going to get spun up about all the noise he makes; that they’re not going to let him switch the story every week; that they’re going to focus on the real, material things that are going on.
Well here we are again, writing deeply concerned pieces about a handful of tweets (or whatever they’re called in Trump land). And here Lemmy is upvoting them.
Trump is a troll. Don’t feed the trolls.
This seems like a prime opportunity for an investor lawsuit
Martial law?
I would be careful with phrases like, “there is no contradiction.” There is a comprehensible tension between free speech as the ability for anyone to say what they wish, and a prohibition on hate speech as a prohibition on saying specific things. Denying that risks damaging one’s credibility because it can appear that we are merely refusing to acknowledge that tension.
I argue it’s better to admit these tensions. And that’s not an admission that the arguments for prohibition of hate speech are weak, but it is an admission that as real people in the real world, we can never have the comfort of a tension-free, contradiction-free theory for anything of significance.
You can’t ask the government to drive innovation and take on difficult challenges if people keep labelling everything that might not work out a boondoggle. The IRA was like $800 billion. It’s okay if 7 is spent on a longshot.
I don’t know the specifics here, but when there was a wildfire in my area they did something very similar. It wasn’t just the lead time on materials, it’s that most insurance only pays to rebuild what you had. You have to have additional coverage for upgrades, I think it’s called local ordinance or law coverage, that pays the difference between the value of your house as it was, and the cost of building a new house to current code. Turns out most people don’t have enough of that extra coverage to actually meet the expense.
So they made an exception and let everyone build back to the standard they had. Afterwards they changed the minimum for that local ordinance coverage state-wide, and premiums have like tripled since.