If this is what it takes to get copyright reform, just granting tech companies unlimited power to hoover up whatever they want and put it in their models, it’s not going to be the egalitarian sort of copyright reform that we need. Instead, we will just getting a carve out just for this, which is ridiculous.
There are small creators who do need at least some sort of copyright control, because ultimately people should be paid for the work they do. Artists who work on commission are the people in the direct firing line of generative AI, both in commissions and in their day jobs. This will harm them more than any particular company. I don’t think models will suffer if they can only include works in the public domain, if the public domain starts in 2003, but that’s not the kind of copyright protection that Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. want, and that’s not what they’re going to ask for.
We do need copyright reform, but also fuck “AI.” I couldn’t care less about them infringing on proprietary works, but they’re also infringing on copyleft works and for that they deserve to be shut the fuck down.
Either that, or all the output of their “AI” needs to be copyleft.
Not just the output. One could construct that training your model on GPL content which would have it create GPL content means that the model itself is now also GPL.
It’s why my company calls GPL parasitic, use it once and it’s everywhere.
This is something I consider to be one of the main benefits of this license.
Doctor here, I’m sorry to inform you that you have a case of parasitic copyleftiosis. Your brain is copyleft, your body is copyleft, and even your future children will be copyleft.
If you mean that the output of AI is already copyleft, then sure, I completely agree! What I meant to write that we “need” is legal acknowledgement of that factual reality.
The companies running these services certainly don’t seem to think so, however, so they need to be disabused of their misconception.
I apologize if that was unclear. (Not sure the vitriol was necessary, but whatever.)
Every Man is an Island motherfuckers realizing that No Man is an Island.
Humans specifically only were successful because of pack hunting. We died quickly in nature as individuals. Anarcho-capitalism rejects this need for each other replaced with the unsound idea that each individual can handle everything on their own.
Works great until you break your fucking ankle and realize nobody decided being a doctor was important or the only person with medical skills has decided they don’t want to do business with you.
The ironic thing is that they because successful because of civilization and pack mentality, but are so conceited, they think all that infrastructure (public roads, doctors, restaurants, etc) exists simply because they exist. It’s weirdly how toddlers see the universe, and why tantrums between the two groups are so similar.
Nor weird at all. It requires a social and emotional maturation process to occur before an adult can appreciate the golden rule. When this developmental process fails you have a chronological adult who is developmentally immature. One of the technical names used to refer to this outcome is narcissism. Such people have prominent narcissistic traits.
Capitalism (strictly defined as the private ownership of the means of production) can’t exist without the premise of private property being protected by laws that are collectively agreed upon, enforced, and adjudicated by peers within your community.
If one defines anarchism strictly as a type of government without a hierarchy, then anarcho-capitalism can exist with laws and government by one’s peers, who are societally and politically equal, save for temporary powers granted to them to legislate, enforce, and adjudicate the laws that are collectively agreed upon regarding private property and its ownership, protection, and distribution.
What a lot of these anarcho-capitalist chucklefucks actually advocate for is the corporate-might-makes-right-piracy under the guise of “rUgGeD iNdIvIdUaLiSm”.
They’re authoritarians who want the freedom to fuck anyone over with impunity “without the commies in government getting in the way”.
Rebranded libertarianism or not, my point is that what I’ve experienced when talking to self-described anarcho-capitalists is that they’re all wannabe dictators.
Capitalism (strictly defined as the private ownership of the means of production) can’t exist without the premise of private property being protected by laws that are collectively agreed upon, enforced, and adjudicated by peers within your community.
This implies that any capitalist society is compatible with democracy, as in, “the will of the masses controls society” and not as in “you get to vote for genocidal liberal who will make us richer, or genocidal fascist who will make us richer”
This implies that any capitalist society is compatible with democracy, as in, “the will of the masses controls society”
Correct.
Capitalism is an economic system, while democracy is a political system.
To repeat myself a bit, my argument is that capitalism can’t exist without collective agreements on legislation, enforcement, and adjudication, along with strong protections for an individual’s rights.
In the United States, we technically have a democratically-elected representative federal republic (on paper). This is one of many political systems where capitalism can exist, if we’re defining it strictly, as I’d mentioned above.
And to be absolutely clear:
If you believe that supposed self-described “socialists”, “communists”, “leftists”, and other “cHaMpIoNs Of tHe PeOpLe” have never been or are incapable of being genocidal maniacs, please promptly fuck your own face with your tankie butt-plug and jump off the nearest cliff.
I will never entertain any authoritarian of whatever economic stripe or their apologists for even a nanosecond.
Capitalism is an economic system, while democracy is a political system.
Economics is politics. The two are intertwined in every practical regard.
To repeat myself a bit, my argument is that capitalism can’t exist without collective agreements on legislation, enforcement, and adjudication, along with strong protections for an individual’s rights.
This is ahistorical. Colonialism does not require consensus or respect for individual rights and is a central feature of any capitalist system that is successful enough.
If you believe that supposed self-described “socialists”, “communists”, “leftists”, and other “cHaMpIoNs Of tHe PeOpLe” have never been or are incapable of being genocidal maniacs, please promptly fuck your own face with your tankie butt-plug and jump off the nearest cliff.
Oh yeah, socialists have done some horrible things. They pale in scale to the crimes of capitalism. The British empire, the nazi empire, the American empire. Socialism is a less violent system but that doesn’t mean that violence stops.
I will never entertain any authoritarian of whatever economic stripe or their apologists for even a nanosecond.
If you support capitalism you literally support an informal caste system where a small caste owns the collective accumlated fruits of labor of the whole human race stretching back to the start of agriculture, where any attempt to change the state of affairs that has any chance of success gets jakarta methoded. That is much more authoritarian than a red terror.
I have an avarage travel of 45-55 minutes from my home city to the city I work in. By car and by train, while the train is usually on the slower end. It takes about 20-30 minutes to get from my home to the train station by taking the bus or riding the bike. When taking the bus I also have to factor in about 15 minutes between arrival at the station and departure of the train. Then there is another 20 minutes from the train station at destination to my place of work. So it takes me 40-65 minutes longer taking the train… twice a day, making it 1:20-2:10h a day (when Im lucky bc trains over here have frequent delays). One hour ish doesn’t sound like much? Well you’ll feel it if you working 11-12h a shift or a 9-10 hour a day in a normal 9 to 5 job (starting work at around 7 a.m.).
Then there is a neat little think called night or late shifts. There is no way I’m gonna take the train here. They either take an hour longer or the bus at my home city does not drive anymore on the way back.
Demand better public transportation. Demand functioning trains and frequent bus and tram connections. But do not tell people that need to take the car for whatever reason, that they should just take the worse option and make them feel like the problem.
I hate cars. I hate driving. And I love taking the train or taking the bike within my city. But sometimes I just have to take the car. That is not my fault tho, since public transportation is not the main focus of politics over here. And thats what needs to change globally.
I tried taking my family out on a weekend on transit. 40 minutes wait for a bus that had any room, an hour to travel 10km, and it cost us $10 each way for the family. I live in a major city but our transit is trash. It’s not fit for a city of this size.
That sounds horrible. Public transportation is such a vital thing for citys to function properly as a place to live and not just work in. And dont get me started on small towns or the countryside where not owning a car basically means you’re fucked. I cannot wrap my head around how politicians just fail to see this. Climate change might be the most urgent, but by far not the only argument for better public transportation.
I think you read that wrong. They aren’t saying public transit doesn’t work in a city that size, but the public transit in their city isn’t up to the standard it should be for a city that size.
When I switched from using the bus to going by bike, i cut my commute time by more than half. If I were to take the car, it would halve again. Public transport is great, and necessary. But it will never be faster than a personal car for anything but large distances.
… where you live. Where I live (in central Europe) we have a subway every 2-3 minutes and you’re at worst 2 blocks away from a stop. It all depends on the infrastructure. A subway cant be stuck in traffic…
Yep. Here in Berlin traveling to my old office (when I didn’t work from home all the time) with the S or U-bahn took 30-35 minutes and by car/taxi about 40-45 minutes due to the traffic.
Berlin is one of the few german cities where public transport is done right. In cologne, where I lived, there are a lot of stops, but the inferstructure is just realy bad. They managed that trains get stuck in traffic too sometimes. And for some reason they trains only arrive in a 10-30min time window. So if you want to follow one line it’s relatively fine, but if you have to change trains you have to be lucky. In the city center still faster than driving though.
I too live in central europe and the bus line i could take from my town to the town i work in takes 1 hr to get there and back, at the end of my day the bus only departes one hour after i’m finished with work so i have to wait for the bus the same amount of time i need for both ways with my car.
Also, trams/streetcars in Zurich have right of way and the red lights change for them. Which is completely logical considering how many more people you can fit in them than a few cards at a red light. The problems with public transit in North America are a function of our car infrastructure.
It sure is nice that everyone gets to live in New York, London, and Washington.
A better solution is to reduce how much people need to travel. Instead of building trillion-dollartransit systems so people can to to the office we should be taxing the everloving shit out of office spaces for jobs that can be worked remotely.
I think the point here is that suburbs and cities have such dogshit public transit and bike infrastructure that people do everything by car. Nobody is telling those who live in rural areas to bike 30km to get groceries.
I’m in Vancouver, while the system needs some improvement, the skytrain gets me right to the airport, with trains every few minutes. No parking nonsense. Driving, with traffic, is much longer. Bussing has some express routes so the trips aren’t so many stops also. until the system wxpands develooment the consideration is looking for a place nearer a stop or station.
A bike is faster in my city if you are decently fast, but a bus or trolley is faster than cars during rush hours, because we have public transit lanes, so while everyone in their tin cans is stressed yelling at the dumbass who just cut them off im breezing past, listening to a podcast, meditating or catching a quick ten minute nap before work.
How does a long time NATO ally not impact the west exactly? The Israel/Palestine confict has been in the news since I have paid attention to international politics.
That was the point. When it impacts the West directly, the we in the West decide to make things about right and wrong and morals and cook up excuses to throw more and more money because it serves our interests. When it’s Palestine… we decide to throw all of that out of the window and decide fund Israel (the aggressor) instead.
israel is much more powerful and will level Palestine in an afternoon if they want
does that give israel the right to level Palestine? no not directly. if you had a country attacking you, killing your citizens and you wanted them to stop and they wouldnt stop no matter what, what do YOU do?
the US would drop a nuke in this situation to be a moral dilemma 70 years later.
is Palestine stupid for talking shit and not backing it up yes. is israel overreacting? yes. Hindsight is 20/20 not that israel cares but Palestine should stop trying to be what theyre not
feel free to educate me as i dont know much about this subject.
Well the admin of a site could opt out of using cloudflare for the time being, a user could do literally nothing. Errors in Cloudflare can easily take down their servers and therefore the CDN and access to like 20% of websites. And Bugs in Cloudflare can even leak user data.
So cloudflare can grant DDOS Protection, CDNs and other exploiting protection, but can take down large parts of everything, temporarily or permanently.
Agreed, and I would say what cloudflare does for the internet (their work on the IETF, generally letting small sites stay alive without needing an SRE to worry about DDoS attacks, etc) outweighs the general negative possibility of them being a potential single point of failure
Shhhh you can’t just be reasonable here. This guy watched a YouTube video, he knows what he’s talking about
If cloudflare decided not to host my server I would have a bit of downtime, a couple of hours, but I’d be up again on someone else’s CDN tomorrow. I don’t think OP understands the role of cloudflare at all.
There exists competition, they’ve just been doing it consistently well at a large scale for awhile.
They’ve done nothing to prevent competition, because they’re legit AF. The competition just hasn’t put a dent in their market share because they’re excellent at what they do.
There are benefits and costs. Cloudflare makes it easy to maintain high uptime as a small site sysadmin at the cost of free DDoS protection isn’t actually free. Cloudflare turns all users of websites that employ it into the products of surveillance capitalism
The funny thing is that some medieval bricklayer made a conscious choice here, he could have put that brick paw-print down and made a flawless floor. Now, here we are getting a chuckle out of some unknown bricklayer’s little gag centuries later.
EFL is an absolute crime against programmer-kind, even if the errors are, admittedly, hilarious. can assert that they are not so funny when you find them deeeeep in some god-forsaken legacy codebase that’s seen more null *s than git commits lol
Success is mainly about sucking up to the right people. No matter how good you are at your job, you have to know how to play work politics. Most bosses don’t know how to evaluate actual ability, and they’re much less objective than they think. Usually they favor more likeable employees over capable ones if forced to choose. Human life is a popularity contest, always has been, always will be. That’s the side effect of being a highly social species…
I don’t think you’re entirely wrong, but I think maybe you downplay the importance of a good team dynamic when choosing people. I’d take someone less skilled over a highly skilled but unapproachable jerk for the long-term health of the crew. In that way, I don’t think it’s bad to favor the more likable one depending on how we’re defining likable, and I don’t think that makes it simply a popularity contest either.
Without getting too /r/atheism, it is funny to see the lengths many Christian scholars will go to try and justify that line.
“Oh, well they were probably actually referring to this giant arch that might have once been translated as “the eye of the needle”, meaning that they were saying it’s really easy to get into heaven”
Like what the fuck? What do you guys think is the point of the passage then?
And these aren’t like yokels and grifters. They’re like PhDs in Christian Theology. The religion at a point is just almost entirely concerned with making up translations
Lust and gluttony and envy fall under greed. You could also argue sloth for greed of sleep. Wrath and pride are the only two that don’t fall under the greed category.
Yeah, it’s pretty unambiguous. Jesus tells the rich boy that came to him to give away all their possessions and let the Lord clothe them as he does the birds and flowers. Rich boy gets real sad and goes away.
Christians love to do this thing where they pretend each verse, taken completely out of context, stands on its own. Seems to be especially popular with American evangelicals.
In fact, they like to think that the verses only make sense out of context. No matter how many other verses you can cite across multiple books where Christ makes it clear He’s commanding you to abandon the idea of worldly, material possessions and dedicate yourself and your wealth to helping other people and spreading the word, they’ll go “No it was just a gate” and keep not doing what Christ told them to while pretending to be Christians.
Well it’s pretty easy to get around even without the translation mental gymnastics, you just have to ask for forgiveness before you die and put the church as the only beneficiary in your will.
No. Many of them aren’t. I get the jab, but I think reducing everyone who has strange or perplexing, even illogical views to just being “an idiot or a grifter” isn’t productive.
We're not talking about people who have an academic interest in Christian mythology in the way that there are people who have academic interests in Egyptian mythology or Norse mythology. We're talking about people who believe the myths as divine truth. It's like if I had a PhD in Norse mythology, and I thought I was going to Valhalla, a real place.
In the US at least, and elsewhere for sure, Christian nationalism partnered with fascism is on a very steep rise. This is a "bad thing," and I experience exactly zero shame in standing against people who are already trampling the rights and agency of so very many people based on religious views.
Ok. That’s fine. Perhaps instead of viewing them entirely in ways that allow you to look down your nose at them you could instead try to understand them and find out what systems lead to religious beliefs - including religious belief in people who are objectively smarter than you are.
You don’t help anyone by treating them entirely in this sneering, beneath you way. It might make you feel better about yourself, but it doesn’t actually help any of the people you profess to actually care about.
... you could instead try to understand them and find out what systems lead to religious beliefs ...
Been doing that already a long time, thanks for assuming I haven't.
... including religious belief in people who are objectively smarter than you are.
Isaac Newton is a wonderful example. Absolutely brilliant in so many ways, and absolutely wrong in others. Just because someone is "smart(er than me)" doesn't mean that they're always right and I'm always wrong.
Somebody wants to be religious, have theistic views? That's fine, I don't care. I think they're wrong, but I don't care. I believe that people who put so much into it that they get accredited (why?) degrees in their beliefs (ones that I think are wrong, as previously mentioned) are well beyond just "being religious" and deep into fantasy indulgement. I also believe that there is a great deal of overlap between such people and those who want government to adhere to a specific set of religious rules or laws.
You don’t help anyone by treating them entirely in this sneering, beneath you way.
Maybe this is simply a problem of world experience. You seem to have a view of religious scholars that does not align with reality, including not being able to comprehend why someone would want to receive a degree in religious studies.
It’s a lack of empathy and experience that drives you on this issue. Try to have a conversation with some of these individuals before indulging yourself
okay, but you can look at the specific perplexing or illogical view when making that judgment and if that specific illogical view is designed to promote your own wealth the needle on the bullshitometer moves a bit closer to “grifter”
Getting noticed because of a 300ms delay at startup by a person that is not a security researcher or even a programmer after doing all that would be depressing honestly.
It makes more sense if you think of const as “read-only”. Volatile just means the compiler can’t make the assumption that the compiler is the only thing that can modify the variable. A const volatile variable can return different results when read different times.
I thought of it more in terms of changing constants (by casting the const away). AFAIK when it’s not volatile, the compiler can place it into read-only data segment or make it a part of some other data, etc. So, technically, changing a const volatile would be less of a UB compared to changing a regular const (?)
const volatile is used a lot when doing HW programming. Const will prevent your code from editing it and volatile prevents the compiler from making assumptions. For example reading from a read only MMIO region. Hardware might change the value hence volatile but you can’t because it’s read only so marking it as const allows the compiler to catch it instead of allowing you to try and fail.
I was thinking about telling them how in embedded systems it’s a good practice to allocate the memory by hand, having in mind the backlog, but yours will come first
AFAIK when it’s not volatile, the compiler can place it into read-only data segment
True, but preventing that is merely a side effect of the volatile qualifier when applied to any random variable. The reason for volatile’s existence is that some memory is changed by the underlying hardware, or by an external process, or by the act of accessing it.
The qualifier was a necessary addition to C in order to support such cases, which you might not encounter if you mainly deal with application code, but you’ll see quite a bit in domains like hardware drivers and embedded systems.
A const volatile variable is simply one of these that doesn’t accept explicit writes. A sensor output, for example.
I’ve never really thought about this before, but const volatile value types don’t really make sense, do they? const volatilepointers make sense, since const pointers can point to non-const values, but constvalues are typically placed in read-only memory, in which case the volatile is kind of meaningless, no?
Maybe there’s a signal handler or some other outside force that knows where that variable lives on the stack (maybe through DWARF) and can pause your program to modify it asynchronously. Very niche. More practical is purely to inhibit certain compiler optimizations.
That seems like a better fit for an intrinsic, doesn’t it? If it truly is a register, then referencing it through a (presumably global) variable doesn’t semantically align with its location, and if it’s a special memory location, then it should obviously be referenced through a pointer.
You can never be sure on the Internet. Plus, I know there are people who think like this; my mom did something similar to my dad when I was a kid. When they were first dating she told him she didn’t want to be tied down, a sentiment that he thought was long over by the time they got married. Much to his surprise, she was angry that he wasn’t more accepting when he caught her cheating. Decades later, she still claims that she was entirely justified, and that my dad is an asshole for getting angry at her.
People need to communicate these things. If either myself or my partner wants to be with someone else, it is discussed. It allows everyone to make an informed decision going forward and no one is betrayed. Only time this ever happened with us, we were with the same person
I wish people who thought like this were just upfront about wanting non-monogamy rather than sneaking around and causing pain and strife for those around then.
Like, my wife (and partner) practice ethical non-monogamy and have fire years. If one of us wants to stay outside of our thruple, we talk about it and discuss how we feel, and then make a decision everyone is happy with. There are times where something is denied (last one was because of a bad partner she ended up breaking up with a month later, who went full ‘you can’t fire me I quit’ on her), but we all work through it.
If this tweet is real then I would 100% expect something like this from this guy.
Edit: I mean I think Yudkowsky is being sincere. The lemmy OP is clearly a joke
I remember people on reddit misgendering that antiwork mod for the crime of [checks notes] a botched interview on Fox News that didn’t even fucking matter.
It was an ugly thing to see all that transphobia out in the open like that.
It was Fox News. Even if had been a stellar interview, they would have made it look bad.
And I don’t think it had any actual impact on how people viewed the community in general. It’s just people being terminally online and blowing things way out of proportion.
I agree the interview was bad, but it’s also one of the most inconsequential parts about it. That’s the tiniest most petty reason I’ve ever seen a community tear itself apart over. It was like a bunch of mindless chickens pecking one to death because they saw a spot of blood. Definitely on brand for reddit though.
It was doomed from the start, and yet they went on anyway.
tbh I think they’d put a bad case forward even if they were given a favorable interview, considering they gave Fox more ammunition than they could ever ask for.
The misgendering and harassment is wrong, but I honestly think it’s right for the anti work community to call out how awful that interview was and distance themselves from it as much as possible. imo it did actively harm the public perception of the movement.
it did actively harm the public perception of the movement
Again, this is greatly exaggerating the nature of the situation. Even if it did, it was so minor that it could have easily recovered. It’s not like irreparable harm was caused.
Fox is not a small-time, they have more primetime viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. If people’s first exposure to a movement is something like that interview…Several other news outlets also rehosted clips and wrote stories about just how terrible it was. That creates a strong barrier to anyone labeled as being “with” that person to overcome in order to be taken seriously. Whereas if you discovered the community where there were memes/conversations around workers rights and how they’re getting fucked the perception is much different.
It also was directly against the wishes of a community vote and mod discussion of doing a fox interview. A very good way to tell supporters of a movement that a purported “leader” doesn’t actually care about what they’re saying. To say that it was minor damage really underplays how it affected perception and unity of the community.
Hard disagree. Again, you’re blowing this way out of proportion. A movement isn’t one mod. It’s pretty clear that users were more interested in jerking their hate boners than in the movement itself.
It’s telling that even after these years, you’re still unable to gain a little healthy perspective on this. It’s really hard to admit that you were wrong, especially if you actively contributed to what was essentially a targeted harassment campaign.
This is like talking to Gamers about why death threats to devs are wrong lol
It was a Fox News interview. If the person who did the interview came off well they wouldn’t have bothered airing it. Hell, if the person they interviewed didn’t come off the way they did they wouldn’t have bothered interviewing them.
I mean I agree Fox News will pick apart anything that they get, that’s just the nature of the beast. But the whole discussion in the antiwork community was that whoever did the interview needed to be prepared for that and give them as little ammunition as possible, while presenting the beliefs of the antiwork/workreform movement.
Instead, one of the users (a mod I think?) took the interview without further input from the community, had dirty clothes in the background, and was an easy target for the Fox News crowd.
Idk, it was really unfortunate, and the movement had started to gain serious momentum. It could’ve been a lightning in a bottle opportunity, and they fucked it up
This is what I’m getting at, though. If the interviewee didn’t fit the checklist of stereotypes Fox News was looking for, there wouldn’t have been an interview aired. It was a hit piece. Fox News went looking for a way to run a segment discrediting a movement, and found one.
The anti work community had a lot of idiotic freeloaders who just didn’t want to work. After the interview when the sensible people left, it got so much worse.
Work reform was better, and came about as a result of that interview.
That sub was a joke even before that interview. They banned me for asking someone to explain why an investor shouldn’t have all the negotiating power if they are putting up 100% of the capital for a new business. Like I wanted to know how they thought that system should work because I don’t see how some random person asking for money has any leverage. I wasn’t agreeing with the current state of things.
All I got was a permaban with a childish message from a mod.
That shit was blown out of proportions, yeah. Critique is fine and all, but that ended up as straight up harassment. Fuck the people using that as an excuse for their transphobia.
But I actually started chiming in when the mod team doubled down presenting themselves as spokespeople for the movement and, in a case of “cannot possibly be timed worse“, presented some kid as a new mod? Spokesperson? I don’t remember. That whole mess got so stupid I zoned out after a while.
The mods were misfiring for sure, but what made me step away were not the mods – that could have been addressed over time – but the users. My reaction to the video and what the mods said was basically, “Oh haha, that was bad!” and I think that’s where it ended for me. I had noted issues with the mods prior to that and brought them up, and no one seemed to care at that time – I even pointed out several times that one of the mods had a stickied post on their profile specifically requesting interviews – so it’s hard for me to believe that the users were acting in good faith. Why did no one seem to care before that interview happened? But everyone got drummed up into an emotional frenzy, and that sort of thing is what tears movements apart – not one or two bad mods.
I agree the mods shouldn’t have positioned themselves as spokespeople, but there were so many other ways it could have been handled without melting down.
You think that interview didn’t matter? It basically killed the entire conversation about wage/labor imbalance. And that had zero to do with that mods gender, but with that mods absolute stupidity, regardless of gender
Yeah, whatever happened was a totally disproportionate response to a single bad interview for an audience of people who were never likely to support the movement in the first place.
I guess it’s super hard to put one’s personal feelings aside for the greater good, and it’s frighteningly easy to get drawn into dogpiling and scapegoating a single person rather than pausing and reflecting on forming a more constructive response.
Neither of the communities ever really recovered from that, and in my opinion that says a lot more about the myriad users than it does about one mod.
I… don’t think that’s the case. Last year was the year of labor wins across the board. Like, I don’t understand how to parse what has happened in the world since with this statement. Media, especially corporate owned media, is always going to be somewhat antilabor. One bad interview from one person did not impact labor’s perception in any meaningful way.
lemmy.ml
Top