So what you’re saying is that this is a law designed to extend corporate control over information and culture even further?

Biggest reason Linux fails where Windows 11 sucseeds is because the vast VAST majority cannot figure out linux’s user experience.

Nope, the bigest reason why windows is more popular than linux is the same as youtube is more popular than peertube - its the default and most people dont look past that. Honestly default Gnome UX is better than win11 these days unless you already have thousands of hours of windows muscle memory, which a very large chunk of people do.

Funadmentally it makes sense that tax take is 0 at 0% and low (though not neccessarily 0) at 100%, but in practice it only ever used to advocate for lowering taxes no matter what they are set at currently. You never see people talking about governments being on the left side of the Laffer curve and therfore we should raise taxes.

There’s also no evidence that I’m aware of that the curve is smooth, single peaked or even single valued and it is also likely highly dependent on myriad other factors, in short it’s effectively useless except as a rhetorical device for small-staters to advocate slashing taxes and public services.

Always has been, never forget it was the “moderate” conservatives under Hindenburg that let (indeed advocated for) Hitler become Chancellor.

Because they are not trying to design an efficient system. They are trying to design a system that is as cheep as possible, puts off as many customers as possible from interacting with it while not being so bad as to fall foul of regulations. A well designed website that efficiently took you to the right place to make your complaint and get money from them/make them do something would fail requirement 2.

Yes? As I said they have a wide range of views giving comment. Just because it isnt Pravda doesnt mean its exclusively neoliberal. For example you’ll be hard pressed to find any opinion pieces favourable to privatisation and public sector cuts which are two of the chief pillars of neo-liberal orthodoxy.

The Guardian has a pretty broad ideological base stretching from centre/centre-right all the way out to moderate left. Unless you think George Monbiot and Owen Jones are neo-liberals too? (Sample articles Things are not going to get better as long as oligarchs rule the roost in our democracies and Natalie Elphicke is a hard-right Tory. Her defection sums up Labour’s contempt for progressive voters )

Yes that’s the point, this legislation is mostly aimed and creating a legal moat for the large tech companies.

the first one

“Pouring arms in isn’t going to bring about a solution, it’s only going to prolong and exaggerate this war,” Corbyn said. “We might be in for years and years of a war in Ukraine.”

Corbyn gave the interview on Al Mayadeen, a Beirut-based TV channel that has carried pro-Russia reporting since Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

“What I find disappointing is that hardly any of the world’s leaders use the word peace; they always use the language of more war, and more bellicose war.”

He added: “This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world, and therefore there has to be much more effort put into peace.”

He is critical of supplying arms and not looking for a peaceful solution, but that is not calling for a withdrawal of Aid despite the Guardian’s framing.

The second is from 2014 in which he says:

Russia has gone way beyond its legal powers to use bases in the Crimea. Sending unidentified forces into another country is clearly a violation of that country’s sovereignty.

Still, the hypocrisy of the West remains unbelievable. NATO has sought to expand since the end of the cold war. It has increased its military capability and expenditure. It operates way beyond its original 1948 area and its attempt to encircle Russia is one of the big threats of our time.

We have marched against wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. We should oppose any foreign military intervention in Ukraine, as that would only succeed in that country reliving its traumatic past as a battleground where Russia and Western Europe vie for supremacy.

Nowhere in that second article does he say Ukraine should cede Crimea, he just gives a factual account of if being transferred from the Russian to the Ukrainian SSR. I’m really not seeing any simping for Putin here.

To be clear, I dont agree with Corbyn’s stance personally, I believe Russia is an expansionist imperialist power than needs to be stopped by force now that it has overstepped the line and launched a military invasion of a neighbor. But having a different view (as he does does that more effort should be put onto brokering a peace deal) not equate to being a patsy for a dictator.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I haven’t once said that only downvotes can solve it, just that they do offer a level of filtering. The things that you suggested (block people, sites and communities) do not address that unless you get to an extreme level of isolating a community to the point where it is effectively closed.

they dont deter them, but they offer a method of pushing them down the conversation so others are less likely to see and engage with them. You can go to any large reddit thread and see a huge pile of vile dross downvoted to oblivion down at the bottom, it definitely works for suppressing (some) trolls. The question is whether the increase in group think and circlejerking is worth it.

Can you point to the quote where he says Ukraine should give up and what they should give up to make peace?

Former U.K. Labour Leader Corbyn: Ukraine War Is ‘Disgraceful’ And Russia’s ‘Wrong At Every Level’

really parroting Putin’s talking points there

I did no such thing, I’m not the person you were arguing with, but again you reach for childish insults.

That would be you, the one acting childish and calling people “kiddo”

Generally most people like to think they are better than murders and rapists, so sinking to their level isnt ideal.

How does any of that help against users who derail discussions with rage-bait or offensive but just this side of bannable comments?

deleted by creator

So why did you say that 20,000 was far too small a sample for Europe if you accept the maths which shows that that size sample gives <1% margin of error for that sample size?

Do those lies include tricking professional mathematicians into thinking their lies are actually formally proved mathematics?