d4v3
Why do you think that?
'The situation'? Can't help but feel this is very imprecise and unserious language.
Sorry, what? I mean, helping people is nice, but that's a very sweeping hippie sort of claim. I suppose you could say trade helps people, but that is a side effect of trade, not necessarily the point. Also, minimum wages often 'hurt' the very people they were designed to help.
Why? If I sat around and studied math by myself and discovered something true yet not yet known but didn't share it, it's still true. Are you saying I didn't "do math" because I didn't share the result? Math exists on another plane and it has 'truths' that we haven't discovered, yet are still 'true', no?
Demanding better conditions does not just manufacture the technology, infrastructure, and productivity needed to provide the improvement in the standard of living. I think you're in the fantasy realm, my friend.
> I don't know how to solve it, ...
> but personally I've chosen to block as many feeds/algorithms as I can, ...
I think you solved it :) (at least, for yourself)
There are many things "out there" that are addictive and distracting and thus unhealthy, but we all have to find some way to overcome
So add another layer that has to be maintained/debugged when you don't have to?
> Conventional water treatment employed at municipal drinking water treatment plants have been shown to be nearly ineffective at removing PFAS. This can leave the burden and cost of implementing more sophisticated water treatments to brewers unless public water suppliers implement tertiary treatment to remove PFAS from finished water prior to distribution. Anion exchange and activated carbon treatments have been shown to more effectively remove longer-chain PFAS and PFSAs but were less effective in removing PFCAS and the alternative shorter-chain PFAS and PFECAs. Reverse osmosis treatment showed significant removal of PFAS of different chain lengths in drinking water, but can be prohibitive due to high operational costs and energy usage. In areas with known contamination, beers from macro- breweries were less likely to have detectable PFAS than craft beers brewed at a smaller scale, potentially due to more effective and expensive filtration of tap water at larger breweries.
No longer subsidizing left leaning speech != suppressing left leaning speech
grug whisper: “problem come later.”
grug see lone dev make clever code.
grug light torch for future archaeologist.
"The White House Covid Censorship Machine"
https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115561/documents/...
and this one for other censorship (from both parties): https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/oct/03/jd-vance-accu...
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j...
Abuse of free speech has almost always been justified by those very "proper institutions" that you place so much faith in. I'd say you're being a wee bit optimistic about them. One embarrassing example that comes to mind was during the Troubles [1]
> I see unshackled free speech as much more dangerous than that of a democracy being overzealous in speech, as the first can absolutely undermine democracy if enough imbeciles decide to believe in.... erm... "challenging" ideas (and I use those quotes very sarcastically).
> A proper democracy being overzealous can be fixed by the democratic process.
You assume a “proper” democracy won’t go too far, and if it does, democracy will fix it. Yet, speech is what allows people to challenge, protest, and critique. So regulating that speech undermines the very tools needed for democratic correction. Also, free speech is often what prevents overstepping in the first place.
> If it was cultural norm to engage in revenge killings, I would very much expect government to step in and stop that, not to take a wishy-washy stance "eh, it is a cultural problem" and handwave it away.
Indeed, so would I! But there is a difference between violent actions and bad ideas, and there can be laws for violent actions without needing to suppress discussion about them. We don’t need to outlaw speech in order to outlaw violence. Ultimately, I think robust free speech doesn’t undermine democracy but protects it, even if um "challenging ideas" (I'm smirking) are uncomfortable to hear
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%931994_British_broa...
A century ago, mainstream society openly embraced racial hierarchies as scientific fact. Three centuries ago, slavery was not only legal, but morally justified by churches and universities. In 17th-century New England, people were executed for witchcraft based on superstition and mass hysteria. Well into the 20th century, eugenics was considered respectable science across Europe and North America. So I don't think these current times are any worse than they were before in terms of bad ideas existing in the mainstream, at least from a historical perspective. In fact, I'd probably argue it's better.
> Also, far too many times past societies accepted vile ideas as valid information with terrible results.
This is true of any society. The key difference is that they are easier to challenge in a place with strong free speech protections. Bad ideas will always exist, but it's better to test them out in the open rather than let them fester in dark.
> You are very optimistic that unshackled free speech will ensure that bad ideas are not given a free pass, ...
You're right, I am. I believe in a marketplace of ideas because it's better than any alternative that involves gatekeeping truth. The notion that "my ignorance is as valid as your knowledge" is a cultural problem, not a legal one. I trust free speech over any system that relies on a sanctioned arbiter of truth. And I think that protection of people from bad ideas often backfires (see European history and the Catholic Church, McCarthyism, Nazi propaganda, Soviet censorship, etc.)