I think Americans need to address the flaws in their 2 party political system and start working on a change, but it'll never happen because neither party would give up power like that.
Two party system is inherently divisive especially with so much foreign and domestic propaganda. More options would not only reduce the total surface area of conflicts, but it would make propaganda much harder and represent people more closely.
ah you're from .ml, feel free to ignore my comment entirely. Didn't want to ruin your day with non-extremist world views sorry.
100% this is not technology Russian citizens will ever see domestically. It'll be some front for the propaganda machine.
People outside of US have the right to worry about this election as well imo. It's one of many currently on-going battles of autocracy vs democracy and this election will heavily shape the battlefield.
I wish all of the luck to my American friends and really that's all non-americans can do so I'll just grab a joint and catch up on the new season of What We Do In The Shadows until this blows over.
cult, sect, religion — all the same thing in practical reality tbh
From what I can tell is that japanese baseline is quite conservative so all parties are quite different from what we would have under the same name in the west. Though, they are definitely not left like the name would imply.
For example, LDP is known for it's "Japan, Inc." policy which advocates for close ties between the government and business. LDP also supports for "traditional family values and social order" which in all fairness is a must for every major party in Japan.
In the west we'd probably refer them as centrists or slightly-right of center.
Komeito on the other hand is a much more intersting party which is a Buddhist pacifist party with conservative but socialist ideologies. TBH I fail to find a western equivelent reading through their wiki but as someone who spent some time in Japan as a foreigner their policy against kafka-esque beraucracy in Japan make me like them them at least a little bit.
One tries to make money by gathering data and targeting advertising to people intentionally addicted to a platform. The other is, you know… a blog.
but that's not the issue in question. The issue is social media is introducing negative mental effects into teens life. Which we can all agree is true to some extent.
Now, how should we address this? Should we target specific elements like algorithmic timelines and lack of anti-bullying moderation which btw are 2 things that are scientifically proven here or we prohibit teens from accessing all social media even one that has no these harmful designs?
Do you see how this is just a shitty policy no matter how you look at it? It doesn't prevent big corps from making a bank and does zero things to address the actual issue. It's fucking stupid.
I know this might be difficult for some people, but it is absolutely possible to be critical of both sides in a conflict
Seems like we're in agreement here but somehow Lemmy even when Israel is put against Iran which is straight up a comic book evil level regime Israel are the bad guys?
This logic that "X is bad and they can't do any good things and are always in the wrong" is bigotry and prejudice i.e. anti-semitism. You can say Israel is evil and agree that Israel is in the right in this particular conflict, those two things don't cancel each other out.
Crazy that North Korea has active soldiers warring in Europe and nothing is happening
The Guardian review is more critical than others. I've never known they even review video games. Are they always like this?