azuth

Companies should not have rights, they are not people.

When they become big enough to have power over significant amounts of public discourse they should be regulated to protect public discourse from censorship.

Private entities can engage in censorship, that the US 1st amendment doesn’t offer protection against doesn’t change that.

You mentioned the word outcry in your first post. I therefore assume we are not discussing legality but the response of the US public. Which is not as much as you believe it should be.

The explanation is that the American public does not actually care for free speech as a human right that much. Your own dismissal of corporate censorship as not ‘actual’ censorship reinforces my point. It being illegal on it’s own won’t necessarily cause an outcry.

Especially when it’s done to people that the American public has been propagandized to hate for decades. Ivory tower scientists, ‘working’ for the government like a commie instead of working for a corporation, like Tesla.

Twitter was absolutely a free speech issue, it’s just not a legal issue because despite all the propaganda the US free speech protections are very narrow in scope, only applying to the government.

It also reflects a more general trend in US mindsets where it’s only the government that can violate people’s rights and not private entities. To an extend it helps this takeover by Musk, they are not “real government” they are outsiders that are taking on the “deep” state.

I suppose that it’s the livehood of some Palestinians

https://flathatnews.com/2024/10/23/robert-gates-mark-green-lead-community-discussion-on-u-s-foreign-policy/

There. US state affiliated source.

GDPR violations result in fines. It also applies to entities engaged in commercial activities.

You are foreign to me and in fact a lot of misinformation and propaganda comes from the US. I would not block access to US media.

You still haven’t answered what would to the Lemmy instances you currently use and allow anonymous (email as verification is not very hard) posting.

No anonymous posting means what? Credit card verified accounts? Mobile number verified accounts? On all websites or just ones that meet a threshold like Facebook and Twitter?

What happens to sites hosted outside the US like the lemmy instance you use? Are they blocked? Does the US try to prosecute them and get them extradited like they do with pirate sites?

Who are this “we” that should not allow political discussions online ? How would that be enforced?

Would Lemmy.world (the “foreign” social media) have to apply these US restrictions (via political pressure on it’s host countries) or will the US block access to it?

Or your home instance sh.it just.works?

Do you even remotely realize how authoritarian your position is?

It’s due to easier accessibility to porn. It both reduces demand for the relatively timid sex scenes in films and also reduces their edginess/shock value.

Replace Trump with some other scarecrow if needed for 2028.

Preferably not joining an organization with a - history of invading and occupying countries illegally.

The bot posts in world news which allows non us news.

It not trying to criticize the right wing bias of political discourse it’s trying to normalize it and apply it to non US issues and media.

Its an incredibly pro US biased instance despite not being hosted in the US and having a .world domain.

Greatest hits are politics@lemmy.world forbidding non-US topics and of course news@lemmy.world and its bias check bot according to which every non US media is left wing biased.

Most fruits are low calorie with a lot of them having less than 100 kcal per 100g. There are some exceptions such as Avocado (due to fat content actually) and dates as well dried fruit (prunes at 300/100g vs plums at 45/100g).

Strawberries, cherries, apples, figs, bananas all are below 100kcal/100g. Obviously some are better at filing you up than others.

Much more diverse opinions mainly because there are more non-Americans percentage wise.

Rotting Christ and hear the Christians squeal.

So because spammers exist you created an eveng greater spammer?

What does “third opinion” mean? That its supposedly “neutral” or “unbiased”?

Why does FUTO have to shoot itself in the foot?

There is as far as I can tell no new actual license just a payment scheme and some shaming functionality. They even offer you the software if you don’t pay. Remember the GPL allows them to require payment to give you the software, they just can’t prohibit someone else giving you the software.

However calling unpaid copies unlicensed is incorrect, they are licensed under the GPL (just like paid ones are).

They should remove references to licensing and display something like “This instance of Immich has been paid/not been paid for.” Call the key PRODUCT key.

Sure some find the “pay or shame” scheme distasteful but it is not against the GPL which allows commercial use.

The addons on the store are signed and you can install them from an xpi file in regular Firefox.

Try it.

That’s completely inaccurate. They are rioting so that immigrants from mainland France will not be allowed to vote.