Sure but what degree of influence is actually "radicalising" or a point of concern?
We like to pretend that by banning extreme communities we are saving civilisation from them. But the fact is that extreme groups are already rejected by society. If your ideas are not actually somewhat adjacent to already held beliefs, you can't just force people to accept them.
I think a good example of this was the "fall" of Richard Spencer. All the leftist communities (of which I was semi-active in at the time) credited his decline with the punch he received and apparently assumed that it was the act of punching that resulted in his decline, and used it to justify more violent actions. The reality is that Spencer just had a clique of friends that the left (and Spencer himself) interpreted as wide support and when he was punched the greater public didn't care because they never cared about him.
I'm sorry what? The idea that smaller communities are somehow less radical is absurd.
I think you are unaware (or much more likely willfully ignoring) that communities are primarily dominated by a few active users, and simply viewed with a varying degree of support by non-engaging users.
If they never valued communities enough to stay with them, then they never really cared about the cause to begin with. These aren't the radicals you need to be concerned about.
"And those people diffuse back into the general population"
Because that doesn't happen to a greater degree when exposed to the "general population" on the same website?
You're literally on a platform that was created to harbor extremist groups. Look at who Dessalines is, (aka u/parentis-shotgun) and their self-proclaimed motivation for writing LemmyNet. When you ban people from a website, they just move to another place, they are not stupid it's pretty easy to create websites. It's purely optical, you're not saving civilisation from harmful ideas, just preventing yourself from seeing it.
Some people (like myself and other scientists/mathematicians), write software for specific fields so if you follow them you find it out what work they are putting out, and issues they find in other software etc.
A liability waiver is not legally binding if the activity or substance provides is illegal.
"The ancients would pick them and eat them as snacks, when they went out foraging"
Says who, Terrance McKenna? There is actually very little evidence of widespread Psilocybin consumption.
"Potentially deep and meaningful experience"
If people find meaning in hallucinations, then they can find meaning in reality. In fact the vast majority of evidence shows that psychedelics produce worthless creativity because it's not constrained by logic.
Because your choice of news sources selects for a certain political group.
Remember that Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky alleged behaviour by Bill Clinton that would easily be considered sexual assault if not rape nowadays; Anthony Weiner went to prison for sexting a 15-year old. There is ton more examples of Democratic politicians that meet the same (low) standard of evidence that is shown in this article, in fact they probably mostly exist in local news articles.
Greed is always a factor though, this isn't a new variable to account for. All three categories you provided have a profit motive as the core factor, it's simply in different layers.
A real example of inflation that isn't tied to an individuals desire to maximise their benefits from a transaction would be something like extracting an ore than becomes harder as the rich deposits are used up.
It can be "disproportionate" and still miniscule. The reality is that the group supposedly being suppressed already has an extremely low turn out rate (non-ID holders aren't necessarily strongly socially let alone politically active). There have been multiple studies that show that this has very little effect.
"Voter Fraud" and "suppression" are an interesting case where both sides have been peddling unfounded conspiracies about each other.
Of course one would expect people being given aid in any form to do better than people who did not. That is hardly a useful result, technically all it requires is that a single person in each receiving group do something more productive than burn it. More importantly the claim by UBI proponents is that providing cash payments to everyone produces better outcomes than the current system. In wealthier countries the current system is not "no money" like they tested in the experiment but needs-based subsidies for certain goods. In order to claim that UBI is actually a good option to transition to you need to test it against the current system, not one that doesn't exist.
No, because unlike you media companies are liable to be sued for false statements.
If corporations really are in control of media companies, then a competitor of Verizon could easily pressure/bribe them to exaggerate or falsify the accusation.
Correct, this is literally how market economics works. The real question is why they weren't able to do it before, since they had the incentive already (and always do).
Nope. Self-defence laws apply equally to police and non-police. You are confusing the difference in favoribility towards a LEO's perspective and the general expectation that they do not disengage, with having a different actual standard. (Or more likely uncritically accepting whatever lunatic opinions you read on social media).
Well, yeah. Dog favoritism is simply emotional specieism, there are far stronger arguments towards the permissibility of arbitrary killing of dogs than say pigeons.
Or if there was actually a chemical difference let alone one that humans could detect.