Ok because I see a lot of stupid shit in here, you don’t get to talk about banning tiktok if you don’t talk about banning Instagram, Reddit, X and YouTube, who use the same formula, with equal fervour.
Now please talk about healthcare, climate crisis, the Palestinian ethnic cleansing by that cancerous, land grabbing, terrorist Israeli state and the shrinking buying power of the people all around the world.
These mfs will use literally anything except for open source, decentralised social meda
What in the world do you mean “you expect our energy demands to stay the same or decrease?”. What does expect mean??? I don’t expect anything, I’m stating what needs to be done if we want our planet to remain habitable…have you heard about climate change or…? Also how do you keep ignoring the fact that our wealth has increased by 500% in the last 30 years and the 1% gets all the profit? We don’t need to increase our economic activities for all the people to be able to live comfortably, we need distribute wealth fairly and when we get to a point where everyone can live well, (in the West we are way past that point) then we need to scale down unnecessary economic activities, if we want to meet the scientific guidelines to avoid the 3 degrees by the end of the century, which would spell absolute irreversible disaster.
I never said it’s a US problem, and I didn’t make it sound like so, I was only using some data from the US for convenience. It’s a worldwide problem, but the US dictates the trajectory and policies of a very big part of the world including Europe, Canada, Australia and the gulf countries, all of which are essentially controlled by them. Also the US has by far the most CO2 emissions historically, making that country the single biggest contributor to climate change, again, by far. So it bears the biggest responsibility of any country. But you are right, it’s a worldwide problem.
You have to understand that GDP and energy demands are intrinsically tied. That’s a fact, both theoretically and empirically verified with historical data. When the GDP rises, energy demands rise. And the reason why energy demands rise is not to meet people’s needs but because the 1% seek to increase GDP (through individual corporation stock values) which in turn increases their profits, since like I said they absorb all of it. That is why it is relevant, because it’s a matter of wealth accumulation by the 1%, not because people need more energy. That is backed both by the fact that the common people don’t get anything out of the increase in economic production(the bottom 80% like I’ve said have had a stagnant wealth since the 1990s in the US, although the global GDP has risen 5-fold, even though the population has risen and hence the people in that 80% has risen as well) and by the fact that the population increase has been just 50% and the increase in wealth ten times that.
It’s almost like you have no clue what you are talking about lol. The global population growth for the last 30 years is 50%, while the global GDP growth is 500%. Not only that but the wealth inequality in the world has been steadily rising for the last 60 years. In the US alone (that we have data on) the wealth of the bottom 80% has been roughly stagnant since the 1990s while that of the top 1% has skyrocketed - it’s basically them that have absorbed this economic growth profit.
So yeah, you got a lot of confidence in things you clearly don’t know about.
Yes it’s obviously better than using fossil fuels, nobody’s arguing that. What I’m talking about is the direction the global economy and the people making the decisions are taking.
No matter how much nuclear energy you use, you are still putting a lot of additional strain on the environment. It’s not just the CO2 emissions that matter, that’s just one of the problems. It’s the increase in extracted materials for data centers, reactors and nuclear fuel, which causes the destruction of multiple ecosystems and the contamination of waters and soil from the pollutants produced(even radioactive waste in the uranium case).
It’s also that Google could have been taxed more(I’m sure they can take it) and the money the government gained could be directed to investments on nuclear plants that would actually replace fossil fuels instead of adding energy demands on top of them. Because the fact of the matter is that in 2024 we categorically cannot be talking about not increasing fossil fuel consumption, we have to be talking about how to reduce emissions drastically every single year and why we are already tragically behind on that regard.
So not replacing current energy, but adding onto it. Just like how we didn’t replace fossil fuels with the solar and wind unprecedented advancements the last 30 years but only added more energy consumption on top of that…cool
I didn’t say I don’t find differences between them, you are putting words in my mouth once again. I said that the differences are miniscule to me considering how ideologically opposite they are to me. I deeply care about what they do, if I didn’t care, I wouldn’t hate them so much. This argument doesn’t make any sense. If I don’t care about what they do, then why would I hate them?
Am I spreading voter apathy? Apathetic are the people that go vote for these two oligarchs without thinking about it ever. These fanatics are apathetic. I’m actually trying to make people think about it. I hate them and I’m explaining why it is so, I’m not apathetic about them and I don’t want people to be so, I want people to hate them as well, why is it so hard to grasp? Why do you say unrelated, wrong stuff and have me waste my time answering them? This is so clearly not what I said.
For the last part I don’t know what to say honestly. You say I don’t know how the status quo works(?) and your argument for it is some of the most vague phrases out together ever. “We had governments in Europe, America, Asia and Africa that worked against corporate interests until people became apathetic about it”. What am I supposed to say to this lmfao. No justification, nothing specified, no thought put into this, just vague, unrelated words put together.
If people like you, on the dnc payroll call me fascist(even in the most shameless way) I’m doing something right. This was such a waste of time lol
You are so clueless and excessively confident I don’t know why I keep on replying to you.
Can you distinguish in your mind media whose revenue depend on your clicks, through ads and engagement and media that don’t depend on your clicks because they are funded by readers subscriptions? Can you, or is it too hard?
Any rich person/oligarch owned media is run with profit incentive, it needs to increase its revenue, because otherwise it’s an unprofitable investment. It’s in their direct interest to make you click on their articles.
Non profit, people-funded media on the other hand depend on their subscribers confidence that they will deliver valuable and accurate journalism. That’s why people would subscribe. And that’s why they aren’t touched by your stupid repetitive arguments, they are not businesses, they don’t run on profit, they are detached from it. Not every single one is good, but they are the only ones that have the prerequisites to be good
As for the last part I don’t even know what to say honestly. You don’t even use the word sensationalism correct. Does sensationalism mean having a positive opinion for any reason about any media? Where are those assumptions coming from?
You’re obviously not worth discussing with. You are spewing words without any cohesion. You didn’t even answer any of my statements, you started speaking as if I didn’t answer you, saying the same thing with your previous comment and explaining to me something I’ve already addressed.
If I pay the right media, yes. The incentive of these media is justice, the right of the people to know the truth and how they are being robbed by the upper class, their passion for journalism and the trust they build with their community.
They don’t sensationalise stuff because their income doesn’t depend on clicks in the Google feed but rather on the people who fund them. They don’t depend on clicks, because they don’t depend on ads to make profit. They don’t want to make excess profit, they want to cover their running costs and salaries which is achieved by monthly subscriptions. Readers who are willing to pay for a newspaper, are not persuaded to do so by thumbnails and clicks, but rather by the value of the content. The sensationalism and clickbaits and ads are mainstream, rich-people-owned media job in fact, the exact opposite of what you claimed. This is because these media seek profit and the only way to get it is by making you watch ads and click on articles. Let alone the fact that they have contradicting interests with the people, so their covering of the news will be skewed accordingly.
Why do you think I’m imagining this or that I’m thinking about something unrealistic lol? I have years of experience with grassroots non-profit media, I’m following lots of them and I get my news from them. I am talking from experience, not imagination.
“exactly what I want” is so funny to me, when those 2-3 parties are ideologically entirely opposite to me. In every core political topic they are working against what I stand for. So speak for yourself, we are not the same.
In the second paragraph we have the same old stupid false dilemma I’m tired of hearing. I’m a fascist for wanting an actual democracy more than the oligarchy we have now, that protects, serves the interests and perpetuates the existence of these monopolies right?
Also, I’m sure my critique about the revolving door, the oligarchs controlling and funding the politicians and promoting them in their media are the “lines made by anti-democratic institutions”. I’m sure they say those things and I’m sure the mega corporations are not thriving and better than ever with the system we have now lol.
Not only didn’t you answer my critique but you didn’t even acknowledge it. Did it bother you so much that I critiqued the status quo? This is one of the most bad faith answers I’ve ever gotten, good job👍
What is the point of this question? My critique of the current state of “democracy” is about how undemocratic it is and why this is not a good thing and that it should be more democratic. I’m not advocating for even less democracy, I’m advocating for more. It’s not either this oligarchy we are living in, or corporatism
There should be a post about all the non-profit, grassroots, funded exclusively by the people journalist sites and media that people know of.
We need to share and learn about all the media we should be supporting and getting our news from. It’s one of the foundations for an actual democracy and a better society.
Till you realize that you actually only have 2-3 realistic voting options in every country and that these candidates are funded and promoted by said corporate monopolies. This is in fact a necessary prerequisite for a successful election campaign. Not to mention the revolving door.
Different roles, same people.
If you don’t pay to get your news, someone else does, and that someone might not have the same interests as you do.
Support media initiatives that are funded exclusively by the people, not by the state or the oligarchs.
Considering what you’ve tried this might seem obvious but since I didn’t see these explicitly mentioned:
Have you tried being really consistent with your sleep schedule? Especially the time you wake up? (Probably the most important thing one can do for sleep quality)
Have you checked wether the temperature you sleep in is ideal(cooler than normal)?
Have you eliminated lights and noise from your bedroom? It needs to be completely dark and insulated from noise.
Have you checked your sleep position and mattress? There are certain professional suggestions I’ve read about, like you should sleep on your side ideally with your dominant hand on top(fetal position) and the mattress should not be too hard or too soft and you sink into it too much and you should be replacing it from time to time(5-10 years).
Have you optimized your pre and post sleep routines? Like staying away from screens and blue lights, winding down(for pre sleep), not changing up the routines as much as possible.
Are you exercising enough and enough time before sleep?
It’s almost as if oligopolies can manipulate prices regardless of availability
Yeah you are just the average piracy bad person got it. You just happen to use pirated content that’s what confused me and I unfortunately engaged. And yet you somehow still didn’t answer what exactly xmanager offers that Spotify premium doesn’t. Make it make sense, there are no extra features, only pirated premium features that are not the main function :)
It’s great seeing people defend the profits of oligarchs and monopolies and their ability to define what the standard experience is and what zero marginal cost feature can or cannot be paywalled. Which is definitely not entirely subjective, you are right to be so confident on that, you can get to tell us what the necessary functions of any app is.
This whole sequence does not make any sense. They are entitled for complaining about the standard experience, yet piracy is easy? What does that suppose to mean? If you think the standard experience is adequate then why resort to piracy? What is the entitlement referring to? According to you they can complain about the pricing and a lot of other features being paywalled, but the entitlement comes from the particular two examples they gave? Because you don’t think they are important, as if the important features to you are universal? I don’t get what the point of this is
A lot of people don’t understand this honestly, it’s not about intelligence, it’s not even about being good or bad.
The reason we are against him is because he has conflicting interests with the people. He works for the oligarchs, for capital, not for humanity, not for the environment, not even for american citizens.
And my 2 cents on this discussion is that critiquing him for being a convicted felon and about the other cases he is accused of is a really disorienting and weak critique as well. He is not going to make our lives miserable because he is convicted, he is going to make our lives miserable because he is a far right, neoliberal fascist with no respect for human life. And on the contrary, many activists have been convicted of crimes, like Assange, but I’d do anything to have them as president. Having been convicted is practically irrelevant and highly dependent on the crime.
So instead the critique should be targeted at politics, not on personal issues… But then again the fact that the critique doesn’t always focus on politics is indicative a lot of times of the very small ideological gap between the two parties and how none offers any real alternative.