Fucking hell that is horrible. And of course she’s the only one to survive. 100mph into a brick building has probably left her pretty physically fucked up and in constant pain. Hope she enjoys feeling that way in prison for the rest of her life.
She’ll spend 8 months in prison and appeal for a reduced sentence and get out on “good behavior” before she’s even served a quarter of her term. Don’t you know how the American legal system works?
The bullshit sentences are the ones we mainly hear about, and many people have a bit of a confirmation bias because of it. But, you don't have to look further than your own community to see that slaps on the wrist are not typical.
US citizens are the most incarcerated people on Earth, by an uncomfortable margin.
Murder with a car is often toned down to, “vehicular manslaughter”. It’s often times charged as a misdemeanor. I agree with you that it should always be a felony because it’s murder, but that’s not how the courts treat it.
She was a raving kook who talked smack on someone’s voicemail, but the next one would follow up their words with actions (and we don’t want that)… The patient cat can’t catch all the mice, but he can catch some and take their fury out on it. The others with soon get the message quite clearly at that point
she was “charged four times in the past year” over similar allegations and that she was out on bond on Aug. 5
This person needs a serious mental evaluation. Not to mention she willfully threw away her freedom to do this stunt. Serious or not she is messed up in the head, like most maga trumpers.
Title mentions Biden, the sitting president, but the picture has Bush. Who sat 2 terms ago. The article also starts off with Carters. I miss less dramatic reporting
Ads for brands including Adobe, Gilead Sciences, the University of Maryland’s football team, New York University Langone Hospital and NCTA-The Internet and Television Association were run alongside tweets from the account that had garnered hundreds of thousands of views, CNN observed.
Spokespeople for NCTA and pharmaceutical company Gilead said that they immediately paused their ad spending on X after CNN flagged their ads on the pro-Nazi account.
Imagine being so blind, so stupid, to not only be a republican, but further be compelled to commit blatant crimes for trump, without regard to evidence.
Getting arrested, even wrongfully, is going to fuck a lot of peoples' lives up as much or more than getting fired. I have a special needs child, and although I'm not a single parent, cops pick me up and put me in jail wrongfully for a day or two, the details of my circumstances are such that's going to cause substantial trauma for both my child and my wife. In my case my job would be safe, but for a great many people it would not.
I'd take being fired over being arrested all day every day and twice on Sunday.
I don't mean to suggest she didn't have a case, only to suggest that payouts for wrongful police action need to be much higher. Aside from the arrest itself, wrongful arrests often include damages to the victim's body or property, possibly their dog getting shot, etc etc.
I don’t mean to suggest she didn’t have a case, only to suggest that payouts for wrongful police action need to be much higher. Aside from the arrest itself, wrongful arrests often include damages to the victim’s body or property, possibly their dog getting shot, etc etc.
Not even talking about the fact, that these guys now have newspaper articles with both of them in handcuffs, clearly showing their face and names that will come up every time a potential new employer googles their names.
Totally agree with you, wrongful arrest is much more problematic than being wrongfully fired.
Sure, but how do they arrive at $28.3 mio damages? You usually don’t get that much in damages if the person in question has been killed. I’m pretty sure, being wrongfully fired doesn’t cause as much damage as >16x of the average lifetime earnings of a person.
A lot of the time these things include fines to teach them a lesson. Otherwise corporations would do this way more.
Which is a useless tactic for cops since it's taxpayers who pay anyhow. Still think settlements should be higher though. When half your city budget becomes paying for police settlements maybe then police reform will have a wider appeal.
What does fining corpos have to do with cops? These are 2 separate discussions.
Well, time to see how deep kbin will let me nest quotes.
Race or not, how does a wrongful termination cause $28.3mio in damages?
At the same time, the two men who were arrested for existing and for being black received a whopping $1 each.
A lot of the time these things include fines to teach them a lesson. Otherwise corporations would do this way more.
Which is a useless tactic for cops since it's taxpayers who pay anyhow. Still think settlements should be higher though.
When half your city budget becomes paying for police settlements maybe then police reform will have a wider appeal.
What does fining corpos have to do with cops? These are 2 separate discussions.
Conversations wander.
In this case, someone asked, (paraphrasing) "How does it make sense to get millions for a race related firing and a dollar for race related wrongful arrest" <-- Note here that arrests are generally done by cops.
Then someone else said, (paraphrasing) "Well, they do these big settlements to teach companies a lesson."
Then I said, (paraphrasing) "Would be great if they could do that when cops wreck people's lives, but then it would only be taxpayers footing the bill anyhow."
Then you said, (paraphrasing) "Why are you changing the topic?"
Then I summarized, just now, to explain how I'm doing no such thing.
I realize I just restated what was already there, but -- it was already there when you asked, so....
It did not answer my question. What does cops have to do in regards to the topic at hand, which is about dining corpos. Rewording the comment chain does not answer that question.
Where? Unless I missed a comment, the OC was about taxpayers paying for cops settlements in general when the topic at hand was about how corporations are fined. And I say again, those are 2 separate discussions.
I literally quoted and paraphrased every single comment that led to the comparison, every single one of which are still visible, and were visible when you asked. If I go back and link them for you will it help?
Ok, but why does the person who got fired get the difference?
At least over here, if you have something like this, the person who got fired would get adequate damages rewarded (roughly the amount of money they lost due to being fired wrongfully) while the state would sue the company for a punitory fine.
Good question! I’m not sure. Maybe we are worried that punitive damage fines would incentivize the government to start suing businesses. Just a guess though.
Disclaimer that I have not followed this case and I’m not a lawyer.
In the US civil cases can have both compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory is meant to “right the wrong” where you get reimbursed for financial losses, lost time, things you had to pay for as a result of the incident, etc. Punitive is meant to punish the offender if the case finds they acted with some negligence, and ultimately get them and others to change their behavior.
Take the infamous McDonald’s coffee case. The woman who was injured originally only asked for McDonald’s to pay for her medical treatment. She required skin grafts. The jury found that McDonald’s knowing let this circumstance exist where someone was going to get a serious injury and added on punitive damages. Which the judge cut back.
An important caveat is that she was not the first person seriously injured by the temperatures they were keeping the coffee at.
McD decided the money they were saving on free coffee refills was more important than injuring their customers, which is why the punitive damages were awarded.
The lady who got the money was just the one a judge actually paid attention to.
Somewhat paid attention. The jury awarded two days of coffee revenue. The judge cut it to 3x the compensatory damages, about a half day of coffee revenue. I don’t recall if there was a law on the books about that. Some states have “tort reform” laws that limit punitive damages.
As an European, it’s kinda strange to me that the punitory damages are awarded to the person in question, for two reasons.
Punitory damages aren’t meant to protect that one person (it’s highly unlikely that Starbucks is going to wrongfully fire the same woman a second time) but instead they are meant to protect society
Punitory lawsuits should not depend on the legal budget of one individual
The way it works over here is like this:
There would be two lawsuits:
The regular civil lawsuit between the wronged person and the company. The result will be compensatory measures awarded to the wronged person.
The chamber of labour will run a separate lawsuit regarding law violations/structural issues of the company. The result will be a change in the company and punitory measures. If these include fees, they are awarded to the government.
I happen to be one of those Americans that think despite their many flaws, the authors of the Constitution had some fundamentally good ideas. And we used the Constitution as intended to expand individual rights after the Civil War with the 14th Amendment. Shamefully we never got around to the Equal Rights Amendment to include women.
What most Americans don’t realize is that the vast majority of what we consider foundational principles are not actually in the Constitution but are instead case law, and how recent much of that is. It wasn’t until 15 years after the Civil War that there was a Supreme Court case which established the idea that corporations are persons under the law and deserving of many of the rights granted under the Constitution using (or mis-using in my opinion) that same 14th Amendment.
Why does that matter? Because it gave corporations an “equal” seat at the table when it comes to disputes. The problem, as you point out, is that our civil dispute resolution system DOES depend on the resources of the “person” and corporations will ALWAYS have more resources. Lots and lots of cases have given corporations more rights and the result is the corportacracy we have now. In other words we went fundamentally the wrong direction diluting the power of the individual. And because corporations have such disproportionate influence on the laws and administrative procedures, we diluted the power of government to represent the people. This has been going on for ~120 years but it kicked into high gear in the 80s (Reagan era).
I’m glad that you guys are still somewhat rational about this, but unfortunately the anti-democratic trend in the US is replicating in the rest of the world. I worry that future histories will compare the rise of this garbage in the US to the start of fascism in Italy in the 1930s.
Sorry, went off on a tangent deep in the comments, but I spend too much time thinking and worrying.
From the patterns I see in the world, social structures (governments, organisations, …) are mostly on a downward trend. People in power are mostly concerned with keeping and extending their power, to the detriment of the people they are ruling.
Until it goes to far and there is a crisis so massive, that the people who are in power get swapped out and replaced by a completely different set of people. Then they spend a few years improving the situation until business as usual sets in and the downward trend sets in again.
You can see that e.g. in the founding of America, the time after the US civil war, the time after WW2 in most of Europe and in many other instances. Newly formed countries often take that chance to improve their constitution and government principles.
The thing is, contrary to e.g. Europe, the USA hasn’t had a reset like this in a very long time. Hence, corruption is handled almost as if the constitution prescribed it. Compare e.g. how funding for the election campaign of presidential candidates is handled.
In my country, candidates are severely limited in how much they can totally spend on the campaign. The current limit is at €7mio. They have to declare all donations to parties, which are also limited.
In the USA, on the other hand, there is hardly a point trying to become a candidate if you don’t have a few billionaires backing you.
Two weeks before the crash, she allegedly threatened to crash her vehicle when she was driving with Russo because she was upset over a disagreement they had. Russo called his mother and asked to be picked up, and a friend ended up retrieving him. In a phone call with Russo, the friend allegedly overheard Shirilla say, “I will crash this car right now,” prosecutors said in court documents.
This isn’t a drunk driver, or a thrillseeker, this is someone with murderous intent.
There are cases of mutual murderer/suicide pacts where there’s shared responsibility and actions taken by each party but that wouldn’t have been possible when she was the only one in control of the car. Even if the boyfriend was suicidal, and there’s no reason to think he was from this article, the other passenger clearly wasn’t. IANAL either but I think that’s what the above comment was trying to get at.
Have suicidal ideation is in no way, shape or form the same as being the perpetrator of a murder-suicide. Neither is being suicidal a lead-in to becoming a murderer.
No there may be a small chance of collateral damage, such as this case. But suicidal thinking does not make you think of killing others. You’re clearly lucky enough to have never had suicidal ideation, but it never comes near the kind of thoughts that want to kill others
As such, it is clear that suicides tend to have high levels of aggressive–destructive impulsive behaviours, generally referred to as impulsive–aggressive behaviours. These have been operationally defined in suicide studies as a tendency to react with animosity or overt hostility without consideration to possible consequences, when piqued or under stress.
Did you read anything else in that paper…? The words around that statement? Even the abstract?
Or did you google what you wanted to see and post the result, because that paper is not about people harming others whilst attempting suicide. It is barely tangentially about that.
(it’s about the impact of aggressive-impulsive tendencies on the suicide…r themselves)
They went to the store, sober, and bought a handle of vodka (1.75 liters) consumed the vast majority, and drove around.
He wanted to die in a head on collision. Selfish fuck.
I don’t have a problem with people having the freedom to decide enough is enough, but don’t harm others in the process, at least more so than the death would cause. Especially innocent unrelated people.
Honestly, it’s very very similar. AFAICT she was trying to punish him. It has all the hallmarks of an abusive relationship. And an all too common outcome.
I recently read that a 70mph accident is considered “unsurvivable.” Regrettably I don’t recall the source. Because people survive accidents that happen on 70mph speed limit highways all the time, I assume two things. 1. That the accident has to happen AT 70mph. And that 2, most people are able to slow down or perhaps the vehicle hits something first, glancing blow, that sort of thing, which brings the speed down, making it more survivable. So yeah, I think that makes 100mph suicide/murder.
crash testing is done between 35 and 40 mph. At those speeds the car is usually undrivable after the test. Over that speed you risk damage to very expensive test equipment.
In most US jurisdictions if you're "just" trying to commit a felony, like purposely crashing your car at 100+ MPH (160+ KPH) to cause grievous bodily harm to others, and someone dies as a result that's automatically elevated to murder.
It’ll depend on the jurisdiction. But ‘intent’ for murder does not mean “pre-planned”. Heat of the moment intention to do serious harm is enough for a murder conviction in the UK (and, I believe, the US).
In this case, the prosecution accused her of pre-planning as well as intent, and the jury agreed with one or both arguments.
Russo, the judge, delivered a scalding description of the case before she read out the verdict, saying Shirilla had a “mission” she executed with “precision” that fateful day — and “the mission was death.”
“The [crash] video clearly shows the purpose and intent of the defendant. She chose a course of death and destruction that day,” Russo said.
“She morphs from a responsible driver to literal hell on wheels as she makes her way down the street,” Russo said, saying Shirilla made a calculated decision to drive that morning, when not many people would be around, on an obscure route she did not routinely take.
Prosecutor Michael O’Malley told NBC affiliate WKYC of Cleveland that the crash video was damning, saying, “The intent was obvious upon seeing that video that there was only one goal.”
She murdered two people with the intent to at least cause significant harm. That’s enough on the state she was in, thank God. She deserves life in prison.
Contrary to popular belief, people suffering from mental health issues are more likely to be the victim than perpetrator of violent crimes, more than their healthy counterpart. www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/…/full
I agree 100 percent this is a child with some kind of inability to understand the consequences of her actions she should be placed in a care facility until she demonstrates the ability to make proper decision making ability
People want someone or something to blame. I think the reason is that certain groups think everything can be controlled. It’s too much of a challenge to their world view to have a large scale desaster not be attributed to someone’s fault. This causes them to dig in more with conspiracies. It’s easier to accept wild theories than change their world view.
It seems to typically be people who don’t have critical thinking skills. Those who can’t see past the superficial. A story that, on the surface, matches something that is true, then gives a speculative leap to something that isn’t, is hard for them to disregard. If A is true, and C happens sometimes with A, then A causes C. Without the ability to realize, B was skipped. Or to say it in a different way, its hard for some to realize correlation is not causation. So, conspiracies are born.
Ex: The ice is melting in Antarctica. Scientists are there all the time, drilling holes to get samples. If you drill a hole in an ice cube, more air gets to it and it melts faster. Therefore its the so called scientists that are causing the icecaps to melt. Maybe they are even putting heaters in it to speed it up just so they can say they were right. We need to stop these scientists before they kill us all. And so on.
Huh… So companies can’t be racist against white people?!?
I hope this brings about a whole ton of new lawsuits as workers finally say enough is enough with token hires which push out white employees only to fill a position with a minority just to fill some arbitrary and rather bullshit diversity target.
I hope this brings about a whole ton of new lawsuits as workers finally say enough is enough with token hires which push out white employees only to fill a position with a minority just to fill some arbitrary and rather bullshit diversity target.
Middle aged white guy here. I've been in my field about 30 years. I've had a lot of different jobs in that field. I've worked with a lot of people who weren't white. Somehow, in all that time, I've never run across one of these "token hires" who were only there because of their skin color.
I've met a lot of bigoted, racist white folks though. When you look like the stereotypical maga, folks are pretty free to share their ugliest opinions with you. Most of them have no idea (and will never try to deepen their understanding) about why the benefits of diversity are more than just not having exclusively white faces around.
Ditto here: I’ve actually seen “token” hires on gender (and only in one place), never on race.
Furthermore, that one place which had gender quotas and which at least in the departmemt I was working with clearly had hired some people for their gender, not their competence, had massive corporate culture and even profitability problems (think bankrupt bank with strong political connections that got unconditionally rescued with taxpayer money after the 2008 Crash and just kept losing billions and getting even more disfunctional).
It makes zero business sense to care about anything but competence when hiring somebody, and I say this as somebody who has actually been part of hiring decisions in a few places.
There were two women that were rumored to have been hired/promoted into a VP position and a Director position only for their gender about 6 years ago. I didn't work with either of them closely. They both left the company a year later. I'm not sure whether that was vindication of the rumors, or just a turn of circumstance, but worst case their gender bought them only a temporary position.
Just to be clear - plenty more women in both leadership and technical positions, and have been for years. Just those two were the only ones where I ever got a hint of that sort of thing.
I think we're overall in agreement, just putting a finer point on it - On this and the related racial topic, I'm of the opinion that far more people think these policies result in unqualified people getting jobs they don't deserve than ever actually happens. No business has payroll to spare that they can just shovel onto worthless bodies to satisfy diversity goals, and I refuse to believe that there's more than a vanishingly small percentage of folks who remain in such a position longer than the time it takes for management to realize they are worthless.
Well managed places hire the best person for the job and don’t need to try to hide the visible results (racial or gender imbalances in a company which cannot be explained by pre-existing manpower inbalances in that professional domain) of the kind of widespread mismanagement which includes treating hiring responsabilities as a license to do favours for one’s mates, using yet more merit-ignoring practices such as quotas.
It really isn’t a benefit for anybody to be hired as a token anything because places which hire people for token reasons are just covering up mismanagement with it and are thus not good places to work in.
PS: I can tell you from my own professional experience which is quite extensive (as I worked as a Freelancer in most of my career so saw a lot more places than average) that lots of places do have payrol to spare and there’s a lot of wastefulness going on in the business world: the idea of a Free Market where there’s lots of competition is pure fantasy in a lot of domains and even in competitive areas non-core-business departments often have a lot more budge than they would if they were in an Industry were what they do is core to the business.
On the outside of businesses, the Economy is riddled with markets with less than “flat playing fields” (most of them, actually have barriers to entry, some even being natural cartels and monopolies) and the very same informational-advantages that allow for example companies in expert domains to swindle non-expert customers (say, car mechanics overcharging) also apply inside the companies themselves (which is why people at times discover to their surprise that the CEO of their company is a complete total idiot).
Old lady here - I was the first woman in my role in a couple of jobs back in the 80s and was accused of being a token plenty of times. Had to slog my way uphill through a mountain of sexist shit every single day while seeing men cruise along because they played golf with someone high up.
The “old boys network” is still alive and well, though its “membership” criteria are usually on things other than gender specifically: for example in the UK “membership” is often having gone to the right exclusive private schools and as those are often gender-segregated (i.e. “all boys schools” and “all girls schools”), you end up with discrimination in both the gender and social class one was born in axes.
Personally I find the whole “being buddies with the boss” type career progression extremelly unprofessional and any manager who is taking decisions in a professional capacity based on who his or her mates are, is working against the best interests of the company and needs to be replaced.
Then again, my professional training during my core professional learning years was mostly done in The Netherlands so I’m very strict on such things in the context of the management cultures in other countries I worked in such as the UK and Portugal were cronyism is rife in management, often linked to the kind of pre-existing relationships formed in non-gender-neutral situations.
PS: And the place were I saw “token” women openly had quotas and the incompetent but somehow working here thing only affected permanent employees in management positions. The interesting part is that of the 3 female low level managers in my department one was clearly very competent, one was clearly very incompetent and one was unclear. Further, this was the single most sexist (as in, very machist) place I ever worked (and my career now spans two and a half decades and 4 countries).
I get the feeling that the very competent manager there who happenned to be a woman lost from there being quotas for female managers rather than gained from it (she constantly had to prove her competence and was often not take seriously), whilst clearly the incompetent one was only there because of quotas and in meetings acted as an “attractive female provider of adoration” for her manager.
None of this justifies the unjust treatment you suffered, by the way.
I'm glad companies are pulling out of X but I've never understood this reasoning for removing your ads tbh.
Every single person who sees your ad knows that it has just been served by the website and has nothing to do with the post/content or author.
Like on youtube, why do companies not wanna advertise on a video with cussing? We all know that the language used in the video has nothing to do with the ad playing before.
Nazis were very stupid people. Conservatives in Germany in the 30s were appalled at these chicken farmer bumpkins trying to tell them about what true German values were. They oozed of anti-intellectualism and refused to educate or read. Which is how these morons invaded Russia in winter.
I never understood the logic. I think someone with half a brain understands that the ad is given by the platform, not the creator of the content. The platform shows that ad to you because algorithms think you’re interested in seeing that, does have nothing to do with the creator you’re watching.
Out of interest can you give some examples of what you have gotten removed? Both on Reddit and Lemmy I have seen users post that they are not having success when putting in moderation requests. Either they are faking those screenshots or the moderation is at the very least hit and miss.
“The platform shows that ad to you because algorithms think you’re interested in seeing”
There’s your answer right there. The platform sees what you’re interested in and serves up this ad. “You seem to be interested in a whole bunch of Nazi shit, here’s an ad for my product” is not a good look for most companies. It’s very simple PR.
In this case since the algorithm doesn’t (obviously) have nazi advertising to show you, it shows what it has instead.
So the companies clearly don't want to then become associated with nazi-posting, because then it might have the connotation of being Nazi adjacent because they didn't say anything. That's basically the definition of tacit support.
How is it so hard to understand that normal people don't want to associate or even be implied to associate with Nazis or their content? Pulling out of twatter is the only sure fire way of keeping their ads away from the Nazi base that's made it's home on twatter with the express approval of its idiot founder.
Association is unavoidable regardless of logic since it is an emotional response. Much like disliking a certain food you associate with a person that was mean to you. Marketing is a Social Science not a Technical one.
IDK if you know this but… rarely is it the food, as long as they get it to temp it should be fine (and lets be honest most dumpser burger joints are overcooking their food). Most often its your own hands that are the reason for food poisoning. Think about all the things you touched (your phone?) between the time you washed your hands and the time you touched the food that went into your mouth. Especially with food that you eat with your hands.
It’s a platform that allows and encourages Nazi content. If your ad is getting served next to Nazi content on a website that allows and encourages Nazi content, it stands to reason that you do, in fact, support Nazis because you bought the ad in the first place. Twixxer or whatever tf it’s called has undergone a lot of fast changes and sometimes corporations are slow to react so I can give the benefit of the doubt up to a certain point, but at this point we all know that you’re supporting right wing terrorists by advertising on Twitter.
This is so incredibly inaccurate. Nazi’s killed communists before coming for other groups. In fact, communists were one of the largest roadblocks to Nazi’s gaining power so they were one of the first groups be be targeted and eliminated. Despite what the name of the National Social German Workers’ Party might have you assume, the Nazi party were very much capitalists. They deregulated, supported business owners, squashed unions and even privatized public industries. All of these are hallmarks of capitalism. The one thing I will agree with is being anti-fascist means being anti-nazi, however this doesn’t work the other way around. Equating communism with either fascism or nazism is asinine. Comparing fascism and nazism to neoliberalism would be much closer to an apt comparison.
Instances should ban other instances with heavy communist content and users that advertise the communist ideology, just like they’re most likely doing to nazism and other harmful ideologies.
These are both ideologies that pray on the weak minded and on their life issues. Oddly they began in the same way, they both hate someone because they were wealthy while some in society were passing through difficulties. In case of nazis they hated on the jews, in case of communists they hate on everyone that has any money at all.
my point being you have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about, liberalism (which im assuming you are) has historically killed more people than communism and further more is activelly still killing millions of people in modern wars and trade embargos
And capitalism, and the resulting lack of basic medical care in America despite us spending the most money per capita on it, killed my son and my dad. Go fuck yourself with a piece of rusty rebar you inhuman piece of shit. Tired of trying to have good faith arguments with folks like you. I’m ready to just start shooting on sight
Even attempting to draw a parallel like that between race/ethnicity and material wealth is a fairly questionable take to most rational people I’d say, or at least hope.
They did it and with success. Sadly when people are having a hard time they will be always search for someone to blame, and that’s why those populist nazis/communists/socialists/fascists come in.
They always blame the problems on a specific class of people, then they present themselves as the “solution”.
Trump did the same with the mexicans, and it worked.
You may have misunderstood my comment; it was intended to suggest that I strongly question your values and priorities because you’re attempting to equate something as innate as race with material wealth. I’d go further to say that your conflating communism and socialism with nazism and fascism is merely ideological drivel.
The fact they seem to think communism, a ideology with scientific princables at its core and advocated for by Einstein reproduces by preying on the ‘weak minded’ clearly tells me how they view neuro-divergent people who dare to ask for representation too.
what the hell are you talking about? Victor d’Hupay was an aristocrat. John Goodwyn Barmby was a Chartist, one of whose literal tenets is “pay persons of modest means if they have to serve the interests of the nation”. Thomas Moore was the Lord High Chancellor to Henry VIII. Charles Fourier was the equivalent of a millionaire at age 9. Marx was a lawyer. Engels was the son of a wealthy mill owners. William Morris was the son of what today we’d call a Wall Street fatcat. Kropotkin’s family owned serfs.
Nearly everyone involved in suffrage movements started wealthy and observed the treatment of the poor and was moved to do something about it.
Yeah Lemmygrad and Hexbear are garbage. They’re not fully about communism though, they’re designed to look like communism and support the CCP (and Kremlin).
Exploding Heads is just as bad on the other end of the spectrum. They’re ruining Lemmy, I’d be ashamed to recommend it to anyone with all the authoritarian propaganda.
Ah yes, the ultimate form of communism: VENTURE CAPITALISM.
And I think you need to investigate how a lot of open source gets funded (if it does at all) and why. It’s definitely not communism and in some cases, it’s a worse model than even capitalism.
Because the internet itself functions based on the ideals of Communism… Literally.
There are many moving pieces to “the Internet”. Literally none fundamentally work based on Communism. Any “free work” is a fancy version of Black Friday doorbuster sales.
Who designed the internet?
The United States military and research universities. Universities fund research to attract prestige, patentable technology, court donations, etc.
Did they make everyone pay for it?
The early Internet was not available, period. For pay or not. Al Gore as Senator, pushed for it to open it for commercial exploitation and commercial ISP’s began. Unless you had 500 hours of free AOL dialup, you were paying for it.
Who designs and maintains the protocols the internet uses to communicate with?
Cisco, IBM, Google, AWS, and others hire engineers to sit on the IETF, w3c, etc committees. They publish protocols so their employers can sell new products or maintain marketshare. As a side gig, they also review and approve protocols like ActivityPub.
Do they charge licensing fees for you to use them?
No, the expense is recouped when companies buy products that are built around those products.
Who writes the encryption algorithms that make HTTPS actually secure?
RSA is a multi-billion dollar security company. HTTPS certificates are products that you purchase from Certificate Authorities. Let’s Encrypt is funded by commercial companies to ensure consumer confidence in their main products.
Are they open source?
Sure. The algorithms are also reviewed and approved by NIST, a Communist agency run by the Communist country, the United States of America. You generally do not commercially use use an algorithm if it has not been approved by NIST.
Can you use them without paying a licensing fee?
Yes. Again, the expense is recouped when companies buy products that are built around those products.
Who designs and maintains the HTML specification?
Google, Apple, Mozilla, etc.
JavaScript?
As above.
Video codecs that make YouTube function without royalties?
Streaming services are communism now?
Communism is EVERYWHERE, and it’s glorious. Why do you so utterly fail to understand what it even is?
You remind me of a quote: “Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don’t appreciate or understand.”
I don’t use TikTok, and there are a ton of reasons to be concerned about sending massive amounts of data to corporations, especially when they’re state associated, but a very large amount of apps scan your clipboard.
Have you ever had an app text you a one time use code, and automatically input it? That app scans your clipboard. Facebook, Instagram, X, all scan your clipboard.
I see this brought up a lot and it just seems like the wrong argument against TikTok.
It doesn’t show any more private than Facebook, Instagram and X. Also you should aware that you are mixing up a legitimate usecase of the clipboard than a more malicious usecase. Tiktok also repeatedly scans the clipboard instead of a one time thing for SMS codes.
All of those are espionage channels for unaccountable, non-democratic organisations with a history of interfering with democracies and funding coups. All should be considered equally malicious.
Because it’s a pointless waste of money that’ll stop people from getting anywhere in life.
I am not going to repay mine. If I have to make major purchases in another country, I will. If I have to expatriate to escape the debt, I will. But I am not gonna give them a dime of my money, at least until I’m rich enough that paying off the debt won’t affect me in any meaningful way.
There is nothing you can say or do to change the truth behind what I said or convince me to adopt your way of thinking on the matter. I will not pay student loan debt and that’s final.
I find this interesting. By all accounts it seems it is unavoidable but to pay it back, so I am really curious how you plan to escape it. College prices are certainly predatory and this whole thing is awful, I just haven’t seen a real solution for those suffering. It seems like the new slavery to me. Is there a viable escape?
In my case it’s a moot point since I am going back to college to finish my degree next year, and student loan payments are paused while you go to school at least half time.
I think the best plan for people is to do all business through LLCs – maybe negotiate as a group with your bosses to have checks sent to an LLC where they are then distributed to individual members. They get taxed that way but oh well. I have no idea if companies would do that.
Failing that, conduct all business in crypto. Band together with a group of people, buy land in a remote place, set up mobile homes or RVs there and escape everything.
Ride out the student loan renegotiation process as long as possible.
Expatriate.
Start businesses and then just refuse to garnish employee wages. Switch assets to different LLCs to avoid the IRS.
Try to apply for poverty based forgiveness – I don’t know if that’s still a thing or not.
Honestly, if millions of people banded together and just refused to pay the loans outright, and went on strike from them, it could cripple the money lenders and force them to the table to negotiate, and hopefully wipe the debt.
Honestly, if millions of people banded together and just refused to pay the loans outright, and went on strike from them, it could cripple the money lenders
All the people here screaming “but they will garnish your wages!!” keep forgetting that it only works that way if there are a few people at a time who can’t pay. The whole thing falls apart if enough people refuse to pay.
What about younger people who need loans? Your refusal to pay will hurt future generations by making their loans more expensive or just impossible to get.
You could have just made college free for them, but you’ve already proven handily you don’t give a fuck about future generations, only yourself. So your opinion and talking points mean nothing
I know that I’m personally gonna blame this one random person on the Internet for all of our student loan problems. Definitely not gonna blame all the systematic issues.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.