The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source
Didn’t he sue another company that did tests on the site to see if ads would show up beside hateful content, which showed they would, and that case ended up being dismissed?
Edit: There was a bit of hot mic somewhere nearby so you could hear a little bit before he sat down:
RS: “Hi Mister Trump, just take a seat over there, thank you.”
DT: “Uh, how are you? How are you?”
RS: “Good”
Music dies and mic turns on:
RS: “Mr President, we so appreciate you giving us an hour of your time. I want to start by addressing the elephant in the room, sir. A lot of people did not think that it was appropriate for you to be here today. You have pushed false claims about some of your rivals from Nikki Haley to former President Barack Obama saying…”
If the republicans and neoliberals don’t ruin it with endless foreign conflicts, this might a great admin (if they win!).
Harris/Walz should run on a platform of implementing something like the Nordic model here in the states, or at least paving the path for it. The Nordic states are not “communists” but have reasonable social welfare and related standards.
States with social welfare have also been shown to be less susceptible to far right ideologies.
Nah, Nordic model is not a good choice. It’s all fine to drill some oil, collect a lot of taxes and give that money away to people as welfare, while enjoying innovations produced by evil liberal capitalists.
I can’t think of anything advanced after Nokia that is built in Scandinavian countries. No cars (Saab is dead, Volvo is sold to Chinese), no microelectronics, no innovative drugs. To be fair, they have IKEA and LEGO, but this is not what makes humanity progress.
I feel there is a lot of options on the left spectrum that is less radical but still beneficial for broad population. Think France or Germany as an example.
Musk is suing under antitrust laws. I’m not sure they work that way. Antitrust laws prevent producers from consolidating and exploiting consumers. However, when it comes to advertising placements, the companies are consumers, not producers, and I don’t think a consumer advocacy group (which the World Federation of Advertisers functions as in this regard) is illegal.
I don’t know, I am not a lawyer, but it seems like Twitter is grasping at straws here.
I know right? I mean if they colluded to lower advertising prices through collective agreement that would be something. Especially if they had an internal forcing mechanism to ensure compliance.
But um, they set out voluntary guidelines they suggested everyone follow to protect each member’s own best interests, and decided to spend zero dollars to buy nothing, which is a far far cry from trying to spend zero dollars to buy something.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.