I think this is a cultural difference. In the US it's not uncommon for common sense health regulation to get ignored - such as the amount of sugar in soda - because people cause an uproar about freedoms being taken away.
But if you say it's about the health of sweet, innocent children... well then suddenly it's a lot more palatable for the public.
So here in the US, you can want everyone to stop smoking, but make the case that it is for the benefit of children in order to help achieve that goal.
Keep in mind that she won her district by a super narrow margin. After this, I'd say she loses easily next time round. To the point that I wouldn't be surprised if she gets primaried.
Cooperation from co-conspirators is always helpful.
Trump's current strategy (or, at least what we can discern from his lawyers' TV appearances) is to blame the lawyers he had at the time of the election. If all these co-conspirators point the finger directly at Trump, that goes a loooong way to proving that he was the ringleader. Not some lawyer. Not some aide. Trump called the shots.
Depends on the state, but finding isn't really the issue here. It's a move to a voucher system.
The idea that they are pushing is to privatize the entire education system. Privatization has been a wet dream for Republicans for many years now, and not just in education. It would further corporatize the country and allow for more money that was once 'the people's' to be siphoned into private pockets.
So the state gives money to families with children. Those families send their kids to a private school and give that money (plus probably a lot more) to that private school. Public money flowing into private hands. Add to that deregulation of the industry - no standard tests or textbooks. Education will be chaos.
That's kinda the point. They actively want the poors to have to send their kids to the 'budget' schools. The ones that charge exactly $2700 / yr / student. Broken computers, empty libraries, overworked and severely underpaid teachers, no extra curriculars.
Meanwhile, the oligarchs rich people can send their kids to the schools that cost more, teaches their kids how to be shitty to the proletariat, and has a pipeline directly into colleges.
The whole point of this venture is to siphon even yet more money from the poor into the hands of the rich, meanwhile depriving those same poor of a worthwhile education and giving the rich an even greater advantage.
It's ok to get information from places like X/Twitter or Reddit. It's even fine to have an account. But it's better to post your OWN material to platforms that best align with your sensibilities.
You got it! We all need a little reminder to take context into account sometimes. And I do appreciate what you were trying to do, which is promote privacy. It's a laudable goal, and one that I encourage you to continue. Just remember to meet people where they are, instead of where you want them to be. ;)
I think you misunderstood what they are trying to convey.
Yes, it's quick and easy to install (privacy respecting alternative). But to even get to the point that you recognize that you need that alternative is a time commitment as well. They are so busy trying to stay alive and support themselves that they don't have the extra mental registers to devote to keeping up with privacy implications of popular software.
Not to mention, some software now suffers from IE6-itis, except this time with chromium. So if a user encounters one of those issues on an important site, they're more likely to drift over to the chromium side again. That friction alone causes more hardship for a person in their situation than simply giving up some privacy for convenience.
They're also not even making excuses. They're simply telling you what the point of view is in their world.
Your current approach presents a holler-than-thou attitude that is rude and off-putting. Ultimately, it's not your job nor mine to chastise them for their choices. If they're reading this thread, that shows interest in the topic.
Allow them to discover it for themselves (with guided encouragement and assistance if requested) instead of being guilted into a decision. That will have a much more long-lasting impact.
I see the method you attempt all over the Internet, and it always has the same effect of contributing to a toxic, elitist culture. IMHO, that needs to stop if we have any chance of changing more minds to be privacy-aware.
Then there's my employer, who is giving us WFH for the foreseeable future. They might even sell our office building and move our datacenter.
We do a monthly small-team in person, and the occasional all-staff in-person, but otherwise it's just "come in if you want, or don't, lol." Like, I technically have a desk. It's just got a couple monitors on it collecting dust, though. I'm only really ever there (aside from the infrequent in-persons) when my rabbit has to go to the vet, which is closer to the office.
We actually showed more productivity after moving to WFH, so they said 'let's just keep it.' So my only restriction is living in the state, since it's a publically-funded org.
It's even more sinister than that. An uneducated populace is good for the ruling class. They have more children on average and will believe the lies more willingly.
The Republican party has been trying to destroy the education system for decades. Not only do they not want the poors getting educated (more malleable labor), they want to privatize education (vouchers, divert more public money to private hands).
Problematic politicians are reported on all the time. Recently we have Alito, Gaetz, Pelosi, Thomas, among many others.
The difference is that the left rejects corruption and undesirable politicians within their party. Remember Anthony Wiener? Gone. Remember Al Franken? He pushed himself out (wrongfully so I'm his case, IMHO - a true acknowledgement and apology for the wrongdoing paired with steps to bring something good from it would have saved his career).
Trump is currently the topic of conversation because he's under multiple indictments while in-fighting with his own party and trying to campaign all at the same time. As much as I hate hearing about that asshole, it's news. Huge news. Historic news.
So yes, the former president of the United States is getting more coverage. That's because he's the former fucking president of the United fucking States. But if you actually, y'know, go past the "front page," you will find that there's plenty of reporting on others.
I think this is a cultural difference. In the US it's not uncommon for common sense health regulation to get ignored - such as the amount of sugar in soda - because people cause an uproar about freedoms being taken away.
But if you say it's about the health of sweet, innocent children... well then suddenly it's a lot more palatable for the public.
So here in the US, you can want everyone to stop smoking, but make the case that it is for the benefit of children in order to help achieve that goal.