I think super-apps are the way to go, only way to prevent one company from monopolizing click-stream data for advertising.

some apps already do this and their users don’t suffer from the same issue (granted, they have different issues)

Yeah I guess if I could add free time and money and make it so everyone is happy I would add it.

I guess, so the law at present seems mostly made up. Like, it can’t deal with glaring issues without a precedent and what amounts to a long-winded ritual before significant issues are considered.

I guess I don’t see why a corp can’t be accountable like how some people who commit petty crimes are ‘held accountable’ (i.e. shot, killed, worked in labour camps).

i think one small addition

1. decrease influence of bribing lobbying

huh, thanks for sharing! i learned something!

i think demon every time i read demonym and i’ll never not see it

yeah, that’s true, i guess what makes it a bit off is i’m accustomed to hearing awful things about the US.

yeah fair point, do you think it would make sense to say that some have knowledge of it besides academics & people in think tanks? like politicians i guess

Hm, I think the kinds or categories of differences might be significant. Enough for legislators and policy makers, and I think enough for residents of different countries to get some perspective. If there’s no context or the context is not well understood, how would one know if things can get better or worse in a meaningful way?

Ah ty, I’m learning spanish, is it supposed to be like the word “estadonidense”? i’m learning spanish from south america if that means anything in like word usage

That’s fair. Don’t you think the main point still stands? The US is abysmal for healthcare and is comparable to a much poorer nation which it embargoes?

Hey what is EEUU? I’m getting blanks on my search.

EDIT: It means amerika

I don’t think they are federated? Neither is the other big community whatever it’s called.

I appreciated the info. I agree too! The circle v thing in your profile name is cool.

Ah yes very fair. I did not do a close reading and missed that, I did not notice or see how careful you were with your language, your explanation is much appreciated!

Would you say like in the case of your comment, where the ratio skews heavily towards negative, something like having the thread collapsed by default or like hiding the score would be a better way to facilitate productive discussion? I think it works as a temporary middle ground (say the first 24H a post is up and folk’s aren’t completely decided, it gives controversial ideas a fightin’ chance)

So I actually want to engage with you. If some stuff ends up being like “collapsed” or “hidden by default” because some just had a one-off bad experience with users from a particular community, do you think you’d agree that it is an OK compromise or is that relenting too much for freedom of expression?

oh is that not the case anymore? is that because world is the biggest instance now? might be preferable if most don’t appreciate their politics. Also like, I wouldn’t want server downtime or anything to effect the devwork of lemmy…

Being intolerant does not necessarily mean complete exclusion. Like one-way federation is still allowed right? So if some folks wanna comment they can still get the same content, the folks who don’t won’t. I think that’s a decent middle ground for the meantime.

There is another solution. Make it so witches cannot cause harm, everyone gives a little bit to make everything work for everyone.

We already give things away: money with taxes, certain liberties, information, hours of our lives; how many of those are done with complete intentionality? i.e. could we choose to do something else? I’d rather do something I choose or want to do even if its harmful or less pleasant because it’s something I am privy to instead of not.

This really sounds like a reformulation (with more accessible language and preferable IMO) of Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance. I have it below for your convenience:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. (in note 4 to Chapter 7, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1)