I don’t know anything about paid subreddits, but I’m talking about the notorious and overreaching censorship of Luigi Mangeoni, including people getting warnings for simply upvoting those posts. This was mentioned in some mainstream news articles so it’s a reasonably big wave.
Glancing at the article, this quote stood out:
This regulation takes effect on September 1, 2025, and will compel all service providers (i.e., AI LLMs) to “add explicit labels to generated and synthesized content.”
…the leaders generally get to make the laws, so I don’t think legality is a useful safeguard.
I dont think its good, but its people right to have the leader they choose.
Well, that’s all well and good in an idealistic liberalist abstract, but in reality it often leads to (and Romania’s own history did lead to) mass suffering, extermination of minorities, and getting invaded and occupied by the Soviet Union after their fascist leader Codreanu allied with Hitler. So, it’s best nipped in the bud, no matter what the majority believe.
Șoșoacă, in fact, is under investigating for commemorating Codreanu in public.
Trying to fight against the rights of the majority of the population is a dangerous battle only previously tried by authoritarian dictatorships and similar regimes.
That’s definitely not limited to authoritarian dictatorships. Seeing as you’re posting from an aussie instance, Whitlam’s dismissal comes to mind, along with lockdown laws (whether the majority approved or not).
Also worth mentioning, in Romania, political left and rights seem to be flipped.
The left-right framework just isn’t useful. As you’ve pointed out, it’s relative and changes massively between each country.
This video helps explain in more depth and proposes a more useful, effective political model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k
im sorry Carl Marcos is too advanced.
they keep saying 'In one word; ’ and then writing a whole paragraph. and why do they keep making economics all political?
What part of communism relys on everyone being on the same page?
You can reply “I hope Musk gets shot in the head” for all we care, friend!
Hey OP, I just want to say from experience the reddit bashing usually dies down a bit after a quick spike of reddit refugees like we’re seeing now.
The earliest exoduses were socialist political communities banned from reddit (particularly /r/chapotraphouse who formed Hexbear, and /r/GenZedong who landed in Lemmygrad). Then, the most recent exodus is related to censorship related to Luigi Mangione, a US political issue, coinciding with a strong sudden re-emergence of global anti-American [government] sentiment due to diplomatic catastrophes with a range of former allies.
In fact, the founders cite reddit’s corporate nature and its pro-US-imperialist, racist stances as their motivation to create Lemmy: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/users/07-history-of-lemmy.html
So I’m not surprised at all that the default feed is covered in political topics, it’s always been a strong topic here and it’s just gotten stronger. But there’s probably enough activity now that one can filter it out and still have enough action to keep it fun.
Well there’s some lovely anti-imperialist coups going on in West Africa recently, here please read these 30 news articles about Burkino Fa
No no, this time he’s “hurting real people”.
It’s funny to me how often we (I’ve been guilty of this) look at satire and think how amazingly they predicted the future, when they were really just commenting on their present and maybe extrapolating a little bit.
I wonder if Wag the Dog nearly mirroring the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal one month later counts.
Yeah, we saw similar with the whole US COVID-19 experience, everyone suffers for their choices.
Sure, but we must also remember not to pretend progressive liberals are enough, and make sure to engage in politics beyond the election cycle if we want any real power.
I gotta say, the English translator for that edition of the party manifesto keeps saying “In one word,” instead of “In a sentence,”
Although perhaps, given how compound words work in German, I wouldn’t be surprised if those sentences were just one word in the original copy.
Of course, it’s better to refer to them as Fascists – that’s the more accurate term that fully refers to both of those groups
Yes, you’re right, although on the other hand Nazism and classical fascism are also pretty different despite some surface level similarities. Even the fascist movements at the time struggled to figure out a unified position on racism/anti-semitism, corporatism and state structure.
If you want a few kicks, read what ᴉuᴉʅossnW thought of Hitler before he was pressured into saying nice things closer to WWII. My favorites are “silly little monkey” and “A mad little clown”. He was surely regretting their alliance long before he was hanged.
Don’t punch someone just cause they are wearing a Nazi outfit and think it is legal to do so… You may end up paying their medical bills & restitution.
It’s not legal, and I don’t know which judges are more lenient about this kind of thing. But if one can do it without being caught or attacked, like the two people who punched Richard Spenser, then it is an effective way to counter the rise of Nazism. Legality only matters if it’s enforceable.
No. I am against the simplistic idealistic approach of just unconditionally allowing the most popular candidates to rule, especially given the surrounding circumstances like mass media propaganda turning this nice idea into a pay-to-win scheme, and the broken implementations in most countries (FPTP, systematic voter disenfranchisement, etc.). Just look at how that turns out in the USA, repeatedly. There are many other ways democracy can be structured. Most ‘democractic countries’ have extremely broken federal electoral systems which fail to represent the voting people, despite it seeming democratic on the surface with elections.
Who gets to decide the leaders now? If you live in a modernized country and a federal candidate does not have the support of the rich owning class, they won’t have much chance at competing with airtime on television and news, support of paid ‘influencers’ and other celebrities, commercial advertising spots, social media astroturfing campaigns and all the other ways to make a candidate seem important enough to have a chance of winning. The bottom line is, realistically speaking, the only viable candidates at leading on a federal level are those promoted by the ultra-rich, every other candidate and party is fringe. I assert that you effectively having to choose between candidates pre-selected by the owning class is not a valid democracy. Even if you have the right and the freedom to do due diligence and vote for a minor party which is closer to your views, that freedom is ultimately useless in a popularity contest influenced by mass media. That minor party, in real life, never had a fair chance of winning, no matter how popular their policies are.