They definitely should not write bills in such a way that the opposition is excluded from its benefits. That’s a real bad precedent. Imagine a security situation where blue states are forsaken by the military.
I believe Trump even mused about something like this, which is how you know it’s unethical.
Ironic that you criticized the comment for hyperbole and then use the straws an fallacy to try to shoot it down. The comment did not claim that all 350 million people are racist. You just acted like it did so you could criticize it.
And yes, the US is an amazing country with far fewer racists than ever before. I agree with you there.
Totally. Microblogging (twitter alternatives) have a much harder task because they depend on the right users. Especially famous/influential people. Post aggregators (Reddit alternatives) don’t have that constraint.
I was kind of joking, but now that I think about it isn’t that better? The problem isn’t really advertisers having your data, it’s companies doing skeezy things to be able to make more money with your data.
This way, instance hosts are free from that incentive and can just focus on making a good website.
Can someone explain why r/privacy is so up in arms about this? Seems fairly obvious that my actions in the public domain are public, but they’re all “Lemmy doesn’t care about your privacy”. Why?
They definitely should not write bills in such a way that the opposition is excluded from its benefits. That’s a real bad precedent. Imagine a security situation where blue states are forsaken by the military.
I believe Trump even mused about something like this, which is how you know it’s unethical.