There are ways, like double blind age verification, in which neither the website knows anything other than "yes, >18", nor the verificator knows anything other than "I was asked if user X is >18, checked, yes". Website doesn't know actual age, verificator doesn't know which website it is or for what action was the request performed.
FYI American exceptionalism is stuff like having, bar none, the worst school shooting rate in the world, and by far the highest murder rate in a developed country, and stating that what everyone else is doing wouldn't apply to the US. Or designing cities wrong and saying that everyone else doing better by any imaginable metric wouldn't apply to the US.
> We’re talking about a group of countries with active, enforced blasphemy laws
In a very narrow interpretation, yes. Everyone with a modicum of common sense would realise that countries with laws on the books against offending religions / inciting hatred against them are still more free than a country where the fucking Bible is cited in court rulings and political speeches, and where there are active laws prohibiting non-religious people from holding office.
One is for keeping the peace, the other is actively meddling religion and politics.
> baseline level of freedom of speech
Being unable to spout Nazi ideology is technically a restriction on freedom of speech, yes. But again, anyone with a modicum of common sense (and a bit of historical understanding) would understand this to be a good thing.
The far right is ascendant in Europe; obviously restrictions on speech haven't prevented that. I am Jewish, I have a strong dislike of Nazis, and yet I think Nazis legally being able to "spout Nazi ideology" is a healthy thing for our society. Criminalizing speech doesn't stop people from holding abhorrent beliefs.
It's fine if you think the American approach to free speech is bad - you don't have to live here - but please justify that rather than just name-calling.
> yet I think Nazis legally being able to "spout Nazi ideology" is a healthy thing for our society
How did that end last time? We know where it ends, we know there's nothing redeeming. Nobody needs Nazis, there is nothing to be gained by engaging with them or giving them a platform.
That they did not apply. They let a guy who tried to overthrow the government free to run for election again. This kind of thing should never be allowed. Someone who physically demonstrates they have no business in a democratic society doesn't belong in it.
> Imagine the outrage EU would have had if US seized immigrants jewelry
The US literally deports people to concentration camps in countries with no civil liberties. Many have disappeared there. A whole other group have been raped and become pregnant and are being moved around to force births.
And you are concerned about fucking jewelry. Genuinely, are you taking a piss here?
Most European countries have functioning legal and electoral systems, and more than two parties. On top of that, constitutional courts aren't political appointments.
So it would be incredibly hard for a political entity like AfD or RN to gain full and absolute power like the orange has achieved. Even in the worst cases, those parties usually only have ~30% popular support at most, which usually translates to at most ~30-40% of seats in parliament. Which means they cannot even get parliamentary majority, and probably can't get head of state either.
Americans just like to pretend things aren't that bad and they aren't the only ones falling into the abyss.
Could you explain to me (non-US and non-EU resident), how people in EU are okay with mandatory photo scanning on your devices(aka CSAM protection)?
Who does this weird proposals like Chat Control?
AFAIK, it is not "alt-right" parties - so it really does not clicking for me, why AfD and others constantly brought in during online privacy discussions?
I am not saying passing, but seems there is a large group of politicians(supposedly backed by voters?) who lobby such initiatives who are not some alt-right fascist outliers?
I'm not pretending things aren't bad, I'm pointing out that things could be bad for you as well. America had functioning legal and electoral systems too, and we only need to look at Brexit for a shining example of how parliamentary systems can also fail to resist a populist wave. By refusing to acknowledge that, you look no wiser than the Americans who were laughing at the idea of a Donald Trump presidency just ten years ago.
> Taxes on unrealized capital gains would be a start
A start to what? There is no way of taxing unrealised capital gains that makes sense. You're taxing theoretical value that may or may not actually exist. Rebates (e.g. you're taxed on theoretical current value, but when you realise the actual gain, you get back the difference if there is any) just moves the problem around, makes everything complicated, and penalises attempting growth.
> There is no way of taxing unrealised capital gains that makes sense.
There is - tax it when it is being used as realized gain (e.g. when you get a loan like our billionaires do). fine to leave it alone as unrealized and not be taxed but as soon as you use it as real/tangible thing you gotta pay taxes, it is that simple
Ok, and on the 2nd the price crashes, company goes bankrupt, stock is worth zero. You were taxes on theoretical value that you can't sell at to pay that tax.
For me, a lot of these issues become immaterial if the threshold is high enough. If the threshold for a particular tax is assets over $100 million, or a billion, then the answer can just be "you are totally screwed" and I'm basically fine with that. If you don't want that risk, just don't get that rich.
Now no one has a billion dollars but they have 100 companies they control each worth 10 million.
These lawsuits have to be designed with the idea that the people with the most resources will try to exploit them, and the people with the least resources will be unable to.
Because some of them still have standards. They will correct themselves if something was wrong.
Everyone can write a comment on Reddit / make a podcast / video / whatever claiming whatever they want. Unless you already know and trust them (which requires you to be able to cross-check their information), it's potentially as useful as a random LLM hallucination. Could be brilliantly spot on, or could be completely nonsense. No way of knowing unless you already know enough. (Because even cross-checking won't necessarily save you, if you cross-check multiple bullshit sources).
Media with standards (like the BBC, Guardian, Liberation, etc.) will do their best to report truthfully (even if sometimes with some bias), and will fix their mistakes if they're caught later on or the story evolves. Independent media checking organisations have shown time and time again that there is trustworthy media, you just need to know which it is, and always take a pinch of salt. It's wild to me that people will just dismiss rags such as Fox News and relatively quality media like Guardian in the same breath.
The same Iran that just launched missiles at Diego Garcia, a critical American base? The same one that severely damaged Qatari LNG infrastructure two days ago? The same one that continues sending missile and drone attacks at various targets? Has effectively blocked the Strait of Hormuz and forced a +50% spike in oil prices? Ruled by the regime that has no intention of going anywhere?
> Iran will be better as a whole if the IRGC is all dead
Which is an impossibility. We're talking about a military force of more than a million religiously fervent men that have martyrdom as a core tenet of their religion. They are not going anywhere, and assasinating their leaders and bombing their bases will not make them easier to enforce anything on.
The opposite: Trump and Netanyahu have just proven to the bulk of the Iranians that the mullahs were right all along. They have helped IRGC more than they've hurt them by taking out their leadership. The mistake here is to think that the IRGC is structured along the lines of NATO or something like that. It really isn't. It's more like a 'instant guerilla mix' where all you have to do is add some water and stir it up. They learned a lot of lessons from looking at Iraq and the fact that their command structure is still in place should tell you something.
In fact it's even in the EU Commission's official guidance on how it should be done : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C... (point 46).
reply