They should have just asked me. I knew that would be the result years ago. Writing has been on the screaming wall of faces while the faces also screamed it.

How the fuck did you get that from that? They weren’t saying to end elections, just that they’ve got very little power in today’s climate where the entire worlds rule of law is dictated by a small percentage of publicly traded hedge funds and companies.

The right globally has been dismantling all the progress we’ve made since the 70s in a fuckton of issues.

When a single representative of a company can sit with elected officials in a private setting and influence the law to favor industry over individual, elections really do mean shit. We’ve got to reinforce them. This starts with ending the power of the ogliarchs and rewriting shit on our terms.

Sure but those links to sketchy .apk games of which the ad for them involves rape or kidnapping usually are a-okay

Literally never watched a second of fox news in my life but ok. I was just sarcastically grasping at straws cause that’s what you did. There are measurable impacts on society caused by social media but if you wanna ignore that go ahead.

Sure but after phones and TV we raised gays, disabled, and the mentally ill out of the mud, transformed nations, inspired by inclusive initiatives humanity went through 50 years of progress.

After 20 years of social media we’ve full regressed to 1938. I think if you look around, there is some pretty obvious proof, society’s critical thinking has been intentionally dismantled by these social media algorithms and the bad actors that manipulate facts around them.

I’m in the camp that thinks in 25 years there will be some regretful studies about how attention span demolishing apps like TikTok and yt shorts fucked civilizations progress for the next 150 years. I’d agree with you if I only cared about my lifespan and what happens inside of it. Some people want to see progress across the centuries even if we don’t get to live it. TikTok is a sign of regression, whether there is good content or not.

It’s simple. If your rights infringe on my rights, and there is no way for me to avoid the “you”, whatever it may be at the moment, it should be regulated.

Go ahead and hate gays, but on a multicultural/multi-national platform that over a 3rd of the population use, you shouldn’t be allowed to project that because it makes gay people feel unsafe. It infringes on their humanity.

Just because a group is immune to the intricacies of this, re: straight and white, shouldn’t be a license for them to say and do whatever they want.

Try a group of gay people against straights, see how long that group lasts. Why the double meaning

Those arguing objective facts when the point is clear tend to argue from a position of bad faith, and should be ignored. Hence the critical thinking.

Look at what those who are denying genocide in this example have to gain from such a claim. If it’s much, those individuals have a vested interest in denying the truth and as such, should no longer be allowed a seat at the table.

There is plenty across history that defines a genocide. Leaders arguing there aren’t exact parallels this time around, makes them despot. Complicit is too kind a word.

Copilot can fuck off