People in Iran or China don't rely on Facebook and Instagram.
Before Facebook penetrated Europe in ~2010, each local market was dominated by copycat services like StudiVZ or Hyves, which then vanished within 2 years.
When the US floated the idea of banning TikTok, some people felt compelled to download Chinese social media apps.
If a country was to ban Facebook from operating in their country, people would be on an alternative 2 weeks after.
There are reasons why a Facebook ban would be hard to enact, but dependence on the product is not one of them
I think you’re not aware how deeply engrained WhatsApp and instagram are in Brasil.
I think dependence is definitely a problem because everyone would get mad at you for having to switch. Sure in the long run it wouldn’t be an issue but immediately you will lose some voters
nuclear is a great option for ice breakers & submarines.
in a connected grid nuclear cannot economically compete against solar (which pushes the cost of daytime energy to effectively 0€) so it has to be heavily subsided, which raises the cost for everyone. a euro spent on nuclear is a euro not spent on batteries or hydrogen production
degrowth is compatible with increasing standards of living for 99.5% of people all the while being able to then actually preserve these standards up in the future.
our current model produces growth without proportionally increasing standards of living, and accepts that livelihoods will collapse all over Europe and Africa as it becomes increasingly hostile to agriculture due to climate change.
think of the viability of degrowth as a policy within the prisoners dilemma of global capitalism as you want, but please come up with a more serious critique that doesn't equally indigte the staus quo
A big part in both stories is that the boards were unwilling to actually state what exactly the CEO did wrong or why they have lost confidence - be that professionalism or not wanting to deliver ammunition for lawfare - which perfectly sets up the CEO to position himself as a victim to the greed and power games of the shadowy board
> A big part in both stories is that the boards were unwilling to actually state what exactly the CEO did wrong or why they have lost confidence - be that professionalism or not wanting to deliver ammunition for lawfare - which perfectly sets up the CEO to position himself as a victim to the greed and power games of the shadowy board
Which is really insane when you think about it. The CEO reports to the board, and since when have companies regularly provided real reasons for termination (I understand they try to say as little as possible, because there's no upside for them)?
It's a coup when an underling "fires" his boss and takes control, but some CEOs managed to convince many that it's the opposite (or at least AstroTurf to that effect).
There are companies where the CEO reports to the board, and there are companies where the board exists to keep up appearances. We’re finding out in real time Automattic is the second kind.
This should discourage investors, since an unbridled CEO is bad for them in the long term. But it won’t, because nobody thinks long term anymore.
> we will give participating contributors a contractual right to share in the revenue generated by Rune, directly or indirectly.
this sounds like a terrible idea.
the only incentive to contribute to your project should be to fix a bug or contribute a feature upstream you yourself need.
consider the fallout of Hacktoberfest, 'Tide' or the ai produced PR spam for social clout on GitHub as of today and then imagine what happens if someone provides a direct financial incentive to do it.
They are in conflict, because you can spend the same Euro only once. You could build a lot of batteries, solar panels and wind turbines for the cost of one nuclear plant
I wouldn’t use the term misandry because they also are interested in damaging women.
“Turbowoke”, sure but we’re really just talking about mainstream American elite culture which is progressive. And young men are a particular target because they are generally the main threat to the status quo.
Basically the NY Times is precisely an agent of the status quo.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the institutional paper that lied to get us into the Iraq war isn't "turbowoke". The NYT is a propaganda outlet for the military industrial complex, not some sort of leftist activism.
It’s an outlet for elite American opinion, for the American ruling class. The particular opinions change over time but it’s fundamentally progressive because that is the ideology of the American elite and has been since the founding (the American Revolution was by definition revolutionary/leftist/progressive).
The Iraq war was predicated on the idea that you could or should “bring democracy” to Iraqis, this is fundamentally progressive view of the world.
An actual conservative approach would be something like 18th and 19th century European colonialism.
There is zero progressive representation among the elite. The American Revolution wasn't "progressive", it was one of many steps that led to the genocide of Indigenous Americans. Using the military to murder Muslims isn't "progressive" either.
You should talk to actual lefists, they hate neo-liberalism even more than the right.
This is a prole leftist take and proles by definition are very ignorant and don’t understand elites or what they’re seeing (if someone could they would be an elite). A prole leftist is basically just a sad walking disaster that is angry and wants free stuff and wants others to suffer. They’re not engaging with leftism on an intellectual level, they’re not romantically captivated by it.
As far as mass murder goes, generally speaking the purpose of the Great Leap Forward, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and other types of leftist movements isn’t to kill massive amounts of people but that is a very common result of putting progressive ideas into action.
You're incorrect and historically inaccurate. Using the US military is not a leftist position, it's imperialism.
> don’t understand elites or what they’re seeing (if someone could they would be an elite
You can't become and elite through observation. You have to be born into it, or successfully do the bidding of those who are. Even then, you'd only be "new money".
> Great Leap Forward, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution
None of these extend beyond the borders of the nation in question. That's my point, imperialism is not and never has been leftist.
I'm not a prole nor an elite, I am however a leftist and I assure you that neither the Democrats or The New York Times are even remotely leftist. They're right wing neo-liberals.
Leftism and “imperialism” are orthogonal concepts. “Imperialism” isn’t even a thing, it just basically means “conquering other land” or “imposing your views/culture”.
Imperialism is definitely a thing and it indeed means conquering other land. It's not orthogonal to leftism at all. Lenin literally called it the "highest stage of capitalism".
The USSR practiced “imperialism” by definition, forced deportations, annexations of territories.
Again, “imperialism” is just conquering territory + negative valence. It’s not actually a thing itself, it’s some other actual thing + It feels bad/it’s against my interests. There are lots of words used in political discourse that are like this. It’s just juvenile nonsense.
If a country was to ban Facebook from operating in their country, people would be on an alternative 2 weeks after. There are reasons why a Facebook ban would be hard to enact, but dependence on the product is not one of them
reply