I dunno, twitter was more a stardew valley running the Joja route; but then it turned into X which was more of a Concord - so much money pumped in and so little quality.
So here's the question - is the scale consistent over time? That is, do we consider the same ideas left/right wing in 202x as we did in 199x?
Let's assume it is. We're seeing men lean towards the center/right, and a lot of people are asking why. The trouble is, the answer isn't one people like to hear - in our headlong pursuit of equity, we're introducing a lot of inequality. You lift the ladies up, while you let the men climb - all based on the assumption that the women had further to climb so what you're doing is levelling the field.
Countering this is a sympathetic voice, one offering to bring back equality or offer a different kind of equity. Casting gender equity as a zero sum game, and pushing for equality aimed at the ones not being lifted up.
I often hear the "uneducated men" argument, but that's just an ugly echo from the past serving those it once oppressed in a bitter irony. The reality is that even educated people can fall for propaganda. Especially when voting in what they see as their own self interest.
I rather think the point is being missed here. Copyright is already causing huge issues, such as the troubles faced by the internet archive, and the fact academics get nothing from their work.
Surely the argument here is that copyright law needs to change, as it acts as a barrier to education and human expression. Not, however, just for AI, but as a whole.
Copyright law needs to move with the times, as all laws do.
"Humans engaging in tongue combat to determine fitness of mate. Note the closed eyes, scientists believe this is because of how bloody this ritual could become; humans closed their eyes to keep the blood out."
I think this is an agree to disagree point - my view is that the need to socialise men is only half the solution, and that tackling the rampant socially acceptable iniquity would be a more urgent one (as the longer it goes on, the more disruptive the eventual correction).
Maybe we should try both, surely one dies not preclude the other? That way we'll be sure to fix the issue!
Assuming X~B(20,0.5), that gives us a p-value of...
0.00000095367431640625
Time to reject H0!