Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
1. *Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.*
2. *Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.*
3. *Be civil, No violations of TOS.*
It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
4. *No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments.*
Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
5. *Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.*
6. *No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning*
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
*That's all the rules!*
Civic Links
• Register To Vote
• Citizenship Resource Center
• Congressional Awards Program
• Federal Government Agencies
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• The White House
• U.S. House of Representatives
• U.S. Senate
Partnered Communities:
• News
• World News
• Business News
• Political Discussion
• Ask Politics
• Military News
• Global Politics
• Moderate Politics
• Progressive Politics
• UK Politics
• Canadian Politics
• Australian Politics
• New Zealand Politics
Moderators
PieFed
jeffw
Although the title made me mutter “no shit”, the article itself is legit. It’s no fluff piece. The article provides several specific examples, and is definitely worth reading.
“We and our 848 partners store and access personal data, by clicking accept…” That’s a hard pass on the cookie policy for me.
848?!
I’m not excusing this, but for their code base sake and sanity, I really hope that’s a we use 5 or 6 and those 5 or 6 use a whole pile, instead of having implemented even a hundred or more services that share data.
Just stop platforming this dickhead. We already know everything there is to know about him. Let him blather on his dying site and nowhere else.
Literally no “free speech absolutist” has ever actually been a “free speech absolutist”, it is always about wanting to avoid the consequences to their own hate speech, while they hold anyone who opposes it doubly accountable for their opposition, and try, often successfully, to silence that.
And they always seem to confuse that free speech just protects them from their government, not the rest of the world, and will have consequences.
Yeah, it’s always those who shout loudest about free speech that have the least understanding of how it works. 😂
If they understood they wouldn’t shout about it. Or maybe they would, they’re just banking on other people’s ignorance.
“Free speech absolutist” means “you are required to hear everything I have to say and you can’t criticize me for it.”
Yeah, that’s well put.
It’s the same with so-called ‘anarchists’. Look at lemmy.db0.com, with a list of rules to be obeyed longer than Lemmy.world’s (not that I don’t agree with the rules, just that it is fundamentally hypocritical)
I don’t follow. How is it hypocritical for an anarchist forum to have rules that the community agrees upon? I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what anarchists believe.
anarchism - the political belief that there should be little or no formal or official organization to society but that people should work freely together
I’m curious: what do the words ‘formal or official organization’ mean to you? Try and boil it down to say one word…
It’s called understanding the implications of the statement. If an anarchist forum had the doctrine ‘no matter what, treat each other with respect’ it’d be fine. Anything beyond that is ‘obey my opinion on how you should behave’. You know… ‘Anarchy’.
Same energy
ETA: It’s really funny that you’re making this argument in a thread you about how people don’t understand how the first amendment has limits, much like the principles of many types of anarchism have limits.
10/10, no notes.
yl sdpjl jfjfj dfasjkf lasdjflk asdjfkl;jsj jkasj fqw iope uroiqwpmv qipo
See I can do it too.
If you really want to learn about anarchism instead of just spouting off an ignorant take, you should do some reading. Assuming you know everything about a whole political philosophy based off of the name and a half-understood definition that you just Googled is not the path forward.
It’s nobody else’s responsibility to educate you, especially when you’re being belligerently hard-headed about learning what others think.
A one-word summation is for people who do not appreciate nuance, and I have no desire to engage with such a request.
There is no nuance here. ‘Follow these rules or else’ is anathema to Anarchism and trying to ad hominem to deflect from the fact you haven’t put up any shred of evidence to the contrary is weak tea.
He is as long as it’s his own speech, and it doesn’t include anything he said in the past that he might not wish to be disseminated in the present, among a host of other conditions.
That’s the funny (or sad) thing with almost all of those free speech enthusiasts. They don’t want free speech, but exclusively freedom for their speech.
He is a nepo baby apartheid cuck though…
“My freedom to say what I want, and the ability to filter what others say, is absolute.”
— E. Musk
And all he had to do to do that was buy Twitter.
Duh. Did this really need to be a whole article?
He is if you only consider his speech. Typical sociopathic, spoiled, rich kid syndrome
He banned the term cis from reddit.
No. He’s not. Also fuck him.
I figured out the cheat code, and you wouldn’t believe what it is. Just say nazi shit and you’ll get promoted by Lonnie with a “that’s interesting,” or a “this,” or “this needs investigation.” It’s awesome! I just spout a bunch of nazi shit and Lonnie promotes me right to the top of everyone’s feed! You gotta try it.
/s
In other news, water makes things wet.
On one hand, I understand why these articles need to be written.
On the other hand, the fact that these articles need to be written at all shows how far off the fucking map humanity is.
I’m not even confident to say we’ve regressed, it feels like this is how its always been and we had a generation (at least in the US) that was self confident enough to lie to themselves about it for about 70 years until it became too obvious for their children and grandchildren to ignore. The only difference is the technology has made it faster and more easily repeated.
Obviously Musk isn’t a free speech absolutist, but just like all his followers, it’s not about being sincere and proving anything, it’s about an expression of power. It can be seen in their smug smiles when they argue that they support free speech while suppressing yours.
We’re pretty fucked, as a species.
What frightens me about all of that is how many people don’t see through that bullshit. It’s so extremely obvious how full of shit these demagogues are, but millions of people applaud for that.
Here in Germany we had state elections. On the “anniversary” of the invasion of Poland ⅓ voted for an openly right-wing extremist party, and 10-15% for a party that basically claims to combine the national with the social, both parties are supported by Russia. It’s insane.
It’s wild that articles like this are made… If you even have an small touch stone of common sense it’s pretty obvious billionaires rarely do things for people unless it out proportionally helps themselves.
Well now you got something black on white that you can cite and point to for collected evidence. That’s… something?
I wonder if “Elon Musk is absolutely a ‘hate speech assholutist’” would fit him better, meaning that inviting him here to comment may end up with him in violation of ‘Rule 6’ and likely end up being banned with no warning given.
It’s kinda why most people laughingly put it in scare quotes - and not just when talking about Elmo.
The real question is why people insist on continuing to use Xitter.
Did they just figure that out? Not like years ago?
And that’s a block Jeff. Im not wasting another second on soap opera.