Communist

Antitrust lawsuits and plausible deniability

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeshh

…devout??

My point was that censorship is valid when it is to prevent harming individuals/fraud/bullying

my goalpost did not move at all.

you are being a hypocrite by saying it was okay not to have that on wikipedia because it was already banned

you should oppose that ban on the basis of censorship, no?

for the same reason they don’t give resources to blatant harassment campaigns.

both are against the rules and both are censorship for nearly identical reasons

If I made a wikipedia page showing your social security and banking information would your stance hold true?

This is to stop a cyberbullying campaign against a disabled person

That kind of censorship doesn’t sit will with me. What else are they keeping from us?

probably other things to harrass individuals with?

Hard disagree, this and dealing with scammers are two of the best ones.

That’s pathetic.

This may be a valid usecase for AI, too

Well, that’s a bad argument, this is all a guess on your part that is impossible to prove, you don’t know how empathy or the human brain work, so you don’t know it isn’t computable, if you can explain these things in detail, enjoy your nobel prize. Until then what you’re saying is baseless conjecture with pre-baked assumptions that the human brain is special.

conversely I can’t prove that it is computable, sure, but you’re asserting those feelings you have as facts.

Empathy is not illogical, behaving empathetically builds trust and confers longterm benefits.

also the notion that an ai must behave logically is not sound.

Ipad is 2 dollars.

Nah

You can have a universal healthcare system run in a socialist manner because both supply and demand are really warped when there’s patents and people’s lives on the line.

no socialist scholar ever said socialism is when the government gives people healthcare, this just happens to be something socialists want, but it in and of itself is not socialism, and not everything socialists want is socialism. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production, nothing else.

And you can mix and match, having sectors partially solcialist and partially capitalist (subsidized industries, government procurement from private industry, regulations, etc.).

these also are examples that have nothing to do with anything any socialist philosopher ever said. You have listened to capitalist propaganda that says socialism is all these things, try listening to marx or bakunin or kropotkin or any other major socialist thinker as to the definition of socialism.

Capitalism like any tool needs maintenance (so does socialism) but there’s precedent for trust-busting and Keynesian economic policy.

also still capitalist.

The problem is everyone wants some silver bullet solution so they can vote once and all problems are solved forever. That’s an immature understanding of economics. It’s a whole field of study, economics is a complex area of study, and both the MAGAs and the leftists refuse to to even try to understand it.

this is a strawman because you don’t even know what leftists believe, you have obviously not read the works of many if you don’t even know the definition of socialism… but for some reason you boldly assume you do because you read it on the news or perhaps got this information from a middleschool teacher.

It’s like watching children argue over CPU architecture just screaming things at each other over something they have no understanding of while the wealthy laugh at both groups.

i can see how that would be if your strawman were true.

If you wish to debunk all of my claims name any major socialist thinker who agrees with your definition. Not social democrat, socialist.

A shitty one, then

How did you buy 50 for 20?

It by definition cannot and does not anywhere.

you’re thinking of “social democracy” which is capitalist and not at all socialist.

I’m stupid and read the clock wrong and didn’t check even a little.

Interestingly it would be right twice a day