Hit me up when you obtain the ability to provide an argument.

Definitely, that’s why I’d be in favour of banning TikTok and requiring all social media platforms to have stronger fact checking mechanism.

Though, the only real solution is to improve the cognitive skills of the population starting when they’re children.

Huh? I’m not a Trump supporter nor a Clinton supporter. What are you going on about?

Not really, I provided some examples to some other user where they were clearly “centrists”. There were people who leaned more on both sides and the advancement was achieved by someone who was more moderate.

• The post-WW2 transition to liberal democracy in Germany, Italy (Adenauer and De Gasperi): Adenauer and De Gasperi were the leaders of the respective christian-democratic parties and led the transition of their countries away from 2 of the worst dictatorships humankind has ever seen
• ending apartheid in South Africa: F. W. De Klerk was South Africa’s last apartheid president and although he represented the party which created apartheid, he acted as a centrist. He sidelined the far right wings of his party, released Nelson Mandela’s and ended the system. Nelson Mandela also adopted pretty reconciliatory policies once he became president.
• 1991 economic reforms in India: the centrist Indian National Congress party adopted sweeping reforms that enabled India to face the crisis it was going through and speed up its GDP per capita growth.

I don’t have time to finish but you can easily find more information about the rest in any contemporary history textbook or on the internet.

Point out which of these don’t have elements of “centrism” plz

The post-WW2 transition to liberal democracy in Germany, Italy (Adenauer and De Gasperi), and in general European integration; ending apartheid in South Africa; 1991 economic reforms in India; Deng Xiaoping’s socialist market economy in China which lifted millions from destitution; Chile’s transition to democracy; the labor-capital compromise in Scandinavia which allows them to have very free markets and very strong welfare systems at the same time.

I could go on.

Many of the greatest political advancements in the history of humanity were achieved by people you’d call “centrists”.

She doesn’t say anything close to that actually, try to read the article again in a more matter-of-factly way. Your completely legitimate political opinions -I don’t particularly like Hillary Clinton myself- shouldn’t prevent you from judging what she says fairly.

If that actually is your opinion, then you’re the living proof that Clinton is right. Social media is completely full of disinformation, misinformation and hybrid threats from Russia, China and many more.

Look at the 2024 Romanian presidential election.

Not at all. Thing is, where did she deny anything? Did you read the article?

I’m not American and I’m fully supportive of Palestine and Palestinians, in favour of sanctions on Israel and of the recognition of the Palestinian state. But media manipulation is probably the biggest danger our societies are facing and it’s a problem even on this matter.

“Smart, well-educated, young people from our own country, from around the world, where were they getting their information?” asked Clinton during a New York conference hosted by the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom. “They were getting their information from social media, particularly TikTok.”

She continued, “That is where they were learning about what happened on October 7th, what happened in the days, weeks, and months to follow. That’s a serious problem. It’s a serious problem for democracy, whether it’s Israel or the United States, and it’s a serious problem for our young people.”

This is the quote from Clinton. She’s bringing up the dangers of media manipulation, and this article’s headline kinda proves her point.

Yeah. The media manipulation is real and a society needs to live in the same reality in order to function. Hillary Clinton brought up a totally fair point.

Gotta love how the Reddit and now Lemmy community is constantly against every single kind of technological advancement and they constantly end up being wrong a few years down the line.

Why should’t we take down things that are heading for a town or a city?

Good. Keep it up.

I don’t think there was any specific target. They’re testing NATO readiness and defences.

I really don’t understand why we keep appeasing them, only for them to escalate even further.

Russia jamming the President’s plane would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

Ive personally seen (and removed) these in some places in Italy.

They’re starting to realise caving and bootlicking is no way to deal with bullies?