Saryn

I didn't use to, and I am generally against limiting access to any sort of source of information. But the last few years have convinced me otherwise - the owners of these platforms are willing to destroy our way of life for their own personal benefit. Fuck Zuck. Fuck Musk. Fuck all of these charlatans and conmen.

Edit: oh, and the EU isn't a country (yet), it's a supranational organization which presents unique challenges in terms of policy. Def not a country

Large if accurate

Not sure anyone has ever presented solid evidence that Kamala would have won if not for the Gaza issue. Most agree it was a contributing factor, but not a determening one. Which is scary when you think about it - the real reasons she lost appear to be more nuanced and more deeply related to general cynicism, ignorance and apathy.

Seems like you already do.

I don't want any followers or believers. Calling it as I see it. That is all.

Not to worry, you're simply confusing freedom of speech with obliging private actors to consume content they don't want to consume or disagree with. The first is a fundemental principle of democratic legal systems and recognized as a perempotry norm under international law. The second is authoritarianism.

There's a growing number of legally illiterate people who think freedom of speech is absolute and even affords one the right to oblige others consume their speech through the government. That is fundamentally wrong and a complete misunderstanding of how these key principles of freedom work and have always worked in modern democratic systems.

Newsflash - freedom of speech is not absolute. Never has been. There are very specific, explicitly codified limitations. Why? Because words are the most powerful weapons and can be used to target and threaten the freedoms of other people, including their freedom to life. Which is why rights and obligations are always balanced against each other, following the principle of proportionality.

If you feel so strongly about not being able force others to consume content they don't want to consume, then I have bad news for you - you are opposing democracy. But it seems like you, and many other like you, are just confused, rather than actively promoting anti-democratic standpoints. The truly sad part? The impact is the same regardless of intent.

Edit: Want to know more? Details at 6.

Holding those in power accountable is a continuous process. It doesn't just happen on a specific day or another. Politically active and concious people protest and raise awareness in an ongoing manner regardless of who is in power. The world didn't end on 5 Nov 2024 or 20 Jan 2025 - fighting for democracy will never stop.

You would know this if you actually put your money where your mouth is, as it were.

What field was it? I like to think every field contributes to your knowledge in a meaningful way even if you don't end up working in it

Yo, did they change the photo? I'm only seeing it in the thembnail

I'm just making fun of the biased dynamics and what often seems like a black-and-white perspective. By no means do I think that one is "good" and the other is "bad", but I do think there is a lot of misrepresentation going around because of the latest developments around TikTok. We should also keep in kind that the executive decision was put in place over a year ago but ofcourse nobody discussed it back then because policy only becomes relevant once it factors into personal interpretations and ideology.

Oh you sweet summer child!

China good, US bad! It is known!