It doesn’t necessarily have to, but then you have someone like Trisha Cotham in NC who switched parties to give the GOP a veto-proof majority and has been voting with them in lockstep ever since.
If they weren’t planning on acting as Republicans they could just as easily become independents.
I was interested in it but at the end of the day Dorsey got Twitter into its initially mediocre state, and he’s endorsed RFK Jr. as well as Musk’s purchase of Twitter. So should I really expect it to be any better? I’ll keep an eye on it but my expectations aren’t terribly high.
The goal isn’t to create successful states, it’s to create politically safe states. Doesn’t matter if the state crumbles as long as that crumble is red.
This principle exists to shield the people from their government. It is not intended to be (and has never been) a protection for someone’s social status or reputation.
The real question is how much would I accept in payment to use Twitter. It’s probably not a lot, but it surely is not negative.
I don’t think it’s that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.
If a person’s reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?
Not just US interests, but European and Ukrainian interests as well. There was a multi-national effort to remove Shokin. You think Joe Biden orchestrated all of that to get his son a cushy board membership? It’s laughable.
If the company you’re representing would prefer you didn’t, then sure.
Let’s use another example, if someone was a big supporter of fascism and was wearing a hat or mask that said, “save fascists”, would you prefer the store couldn’t prevent them from wearing that?
How bad would the phrase have to get to change your mind?
The statement itself shouldn’t be political in its sentiment, but obviously the organization exists and it has its own policy positions, events, advocacy, and I can go to their website to donate. I think it’s fairly obvious which one Whole Foods would be concerned with.
I believe the legal repercussions are part of that “can ruin your life”, not just the addiction and/or health concerns.
Though that still makes it an entirely artificial consequence that does not need to and should not exist.
Something tells me the secessionists wouldn’t agree with that. Are they going to let their urban centers secede from their states if they voted to do so?
The government’s role in content moderation on private platforms should be purely advisory. Platforms should be able to ask for their advice, and the government should be able to provide the platforms with information. Anything that drifts into coercion or threats should not be allowed.
I’m concerned by the “significantly encouraged” language, which, like the ruling they criticized as being vague, seems quite vague. Though perhaps the full ruling gives more specifics.
Is there something in particular about this book that you think is off? It’s standard procedure for US Presidents to have books written about them, and far more mundane people than Biden have gotten the same treatment.
And there’s a decent chance he is elected again in 2024. This country is broken.
A billion people are on track to die from climate change, according to some estimates.
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-warn-1-billion-people-on-track-to-die-from-climate-change
Even if we call that highly inflated, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, some non-negligible number will certainly die as a result with some multiple of that facing harsh negative impacts. A disproportionate number of those will be in Africa.
If your argument is based in morality, it’s absolutely absurd to suggest the moral concerns of cobalt mining outweighs that of climate change.
You raised a very valid concern, let’s work to make it better instead of running back into the burning building.
Poor diet, alcohol abuse, and tobacco use can all certainly be attributed to corporate malfeasance in at least some part.
The incentives of capitalism and the intended role of the 4th estate are not compatible. Stoking the flames of populism is simply too lucrative of a business model when compared to trying to keep the public informed. This is what allows perverse media groups to proliferate and dominate the public eye.
I don’t think this is an easy problem to solve. If you’re able to successfully regulate things like Fox, does that fix it, or do people just start gravitating more towards alternate media like Joe Rogan? Do you start regulating podcasts too? Twitter influencers? I feel like it’d just become a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. And given that the 4th estate’s role is to check the government, how do you use the government to safeguard it without giving them too much control over it? It’s a difficult balance to strike.
That said, clearly we aren’t striking that balance now, so perhaps it’s time to try something different.
Part of what makes religion so useful, to suffer becomes virtuous.
Nigerians are actually one of the most successful migrant groups in America.
Would it matter? If they died living well according to Jesus’s teachings they’d be rewarded in heaven. Their mortal death would be inconsequential.
That said, they could probably survive as many homeless do through donations and begging.