wampus

Well, I mean, the reason they point out Israel's behaviour is because it's got similarities to what Russia's doing in Ukraine. Arguably, its even worse, given that they're essentially genociding people in Gaza who can't even fight back at all.

But if you're gonna shrug while Israel bombs Iran, because they felt like Iran was a threat so they wanted to pre-emptively strike them / their nuke program... then you have less moral footing to condemn Russia's actions in Ukraine.

And while most sane people think Israel should just... stop killing babies and stuff... the reality is that almost all western governments are continuing to trade / support Israel, even if they attempt to put on angry faces for PR reasons when talkin about it. Clearly Western Democratic nations have no issue trading with / partnering with Genocidal regimes who attack their neighbours, commit obvious Genocides, and threaten nuclear conflicts etc.

I think it became inevitable that traditional 'sites' were going to be in trouble once AI bots gained ground. The user interface is much more organic / user friendly, given that it can be conversational.

It's why big corps were so quick to start building walls/moats around the technology. If end users had control over what sites their AI bots used to pull information from, that'd be a win for the consumer/end-user, and potentially legitimate news sites depending on how the payment structure is sorted out. Eg. Get a personalized bot that references news articles from a curated list of trusted / decent journalist sites across a broad political spectrum, and you'd likely have a really great "AI assistant" to keep you up to date on various current events. This sort of thing would also represent an existential threat to things like Googles core marketing business, as end users could replace many of their 'searches' with a curated personalized AI assistant trained on just reputable sources.

Big tech wants to control that, so that they can advertise via those bots / prioritize their own agenda / paid content. So they want to control the AI sources, and restrict end users' ability to filter garbage. If users end up primarily interacting with an AI avatar, and you can control the products / information that avatar presents, you have a huge amount of control over the individuals and their spending habits. Not much of a surprise.

It'd be cool to see a user friendly local LLM that allowed users to point it at reference sites of their choosing. Pair that with a news-site data standard that streamlines the ability to pull pertinent data, and let news agencies charge a small fee for access to those APIs to fund it a bit. Shifting towards LLM based data delivery, they could even potentially save a bit in terms of print / online publications -- don't need a fancy expensive user-facing web app, if they're all just talking to their LLM-based model-hot AI assistant anyway.

Israel's actions in the past couple years have all seemed like sorta a desperate attempt to leverage the US Hegemony that's protected them, before the US buckles.

Sorta like imagine a kid in Grade 1 who's a total racist bully to his classmates. But the kid has an older brother in grade 6 who has no issue beating the shit outta any Grade 1 kid who fights back. When the older brother nears the transition to middle school -- at which point the younger will lose his protection -- the younger brother starts instigating like crazy, to try and establish dominance while still protected.

Canada ought to invest heavily in vaccine tech / bio firms. Even more so with the states not doing so.

Most obvious reason being basic health concerns, and the response required for things like pandemics, which are likely to increase in frequency as the world burns to the ground. The less obvious reason is that those assets / skills double as bio weapon developers (as we're seeing practically everywhere, things like the Geneva convention / anti-genocide stuff has become very flexible). All the talk about getting nukes is silly, when you can quietly have a team of 2 dudes in an off-grid forest hut, with a chicken coup and a couple drones, potentially do billions of dollars of damage to a country that is... in a rush to further expose themselves as vulnerable to this sort of threat, by firing all their researchers/scientists on the subject.

So we can invest in biotech for generally altruistic and proper reasons, while having a very easy to conceal / clandestine alterior motive that can serve as a bit more of a deterrent / safety net. Win-win.

Sorta like how we ought to roll our climate disaster response teams under a military umbrella, and jack up our spending on things like logistics teams for moving things in and out of disaster areas. We need to hit 2% or 5% GDP spending on Military for Nato? Don't see why we can't meet that target with ease, just by spending more on our own natural disaster response capabilities at the federal level. Can even lend those assets out to assist our allies when they get hit with issues. Again, win-win.

You can get banned here for similar reasons as you'd get banned from things on Reddit. In theory the federated setup helps to mitigate it somewhat, in that if you get banned from your primary instance you can hop over to one that's a bit more agreeable to your perspective and continue on.

For example, I was recently banned from LGBTQ+ on, I think the world server, cause I posted a fairly benign straight opinion to a post that had an image basically asking for cis commentary. It had like 5-7 upvotes, about 13-15 down votes at the time the mods kicked me out -- so even amongst the community it was a bit wishy washy, but the mods still opted to take action. On Reddit, that might've gotten me flagged / banned site-wide, depending on which White House narrative the company is marching to on that day. Here I just lose access to the LGBTQ+ community, shrug at them echo chambering up, and continue about my day.

In terms of "Why do we only control the speech of leftists", I imagine it's because the threads you continue to access are left leaning -- meaning those left in your bubbles, are the left-leaning sorts saying they'd been banned. Right leaning comments, and even (in my view) some centrist / neutral comments, still get people banned. These days we all basically have to assume that there are companies / algorithms creating bubbles in online spaces; you need to temper it with a good bit of secondary sources outside of 'social media' to get a more accurate picture of people's mindsets/trends. Eg. Social Media + direct views of national/local news paper sites + in person discussion with various sorts.

I agree that this is a significant issue / problem for democratic countries, and that the trend of violence towards journalists in America is an obvious concern.

That said, the media has generally turned a blind eye as Israel killed a record number of journalists the past few years - and not only that, but they continued to broadcast out that regimes narrative. Given that the media / journalists "at large" have ignored this sort of issue in another "democratic" country that's gone authoritarian, I find it totally unsurprising that another authoritarian-trending regime feels emboldened / empowered to treat journalists the same.

I'm not sure the intention of this sort of note.

Yes, Harris may've made those predictions. People heard em. They still preferred Trump, compared to Harris. It's not like people, outside of the potentially fringe / outlier cases highlighted in some left-leaning media sources, are all that surprised. People didn't vote for Trump because he was promising to treat immigrants with respect and dignity.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of the red-voters are looking at LA, and thinking things like "Look at how bad that immigration invasion got, they're literally destroying the city and disrupting government. Even the governor of the State is part of the problem at this point, making noise about defending the public disorder. Tut tut. Send in more marines".

More realistically... AI Trump.

They could feed all of his bullshit into a model, and have an AI Trump spewing nonsense forever. Bet it'd even take AI golf trips.

Is this a questionable move under the current administration? Definitely. I can imagine it essentially being them wanting to broadcast racist/discriminatory things, without worrying about foreign country hate speech laws generating lawsuits for US social media companies that put that sorta thing out there. They want media companies like X to be free to broadcast as much right wing hate as possible to democratic nations, to more easily influence things like political elections. The Trump admin/repubs would almost definitely abuse the hell out of it.

But awkwardly, is there a case, generally, to be made out of this sort of thing? Yeah, I'd say there is. But the approach to resolving it is kinda extreme, and authoritarian in nature. Like step 1 of trying to have control over your nations online media, would be to bring in a China/Russia style national Firewall. If the government wants to allow people to make online comments without fear of repercussions from foreign actors, or to have social media options that are uninfluenced by foreign actors, governments need some level of control over the geo-location and flow of internet traffic. If America wants to let Musk goose-step around Nazi saluting, while ensuring that Americans are uninfluenced by how the rest of the world views that sort of thing, they need to be able to block connections to/from foreign countries. If they want to block Chinese bot farms from manipulating the public image of the CCP on social media, they need more direct control over how data from China flows into the USA. And they likely need more 'direct' influence/control over social media companies via stricter regulation on things like knowing your customers.

I'm not sure how you'd have to structure that sort of thing's governance, in a democratic nation, to ensure that it doesn't get abused, and I imagine the only politicians that would be interested in this sort of thing would be the ones hoping to abuse it.

But that wouldn't even be full mitigation. Someone like Khashoggi, who is sort of a poster child for this concern, was killed by Saudi Arabia due to expressing his opinions in Journals / online about the SA regime (to my understanding at least). It's questionable, had his opinions been "successfully" kept within nations that view free speech as paramount, whether he would not have still been targeted/killed. Even if that story was successfully "kept" from the population of a dictatorship, there's no particular reason to think that the dictator would not seek vengeance for the slight. Like Kim Jong's got a pretty tight stranglehold on the media in North Korea from what I understand, but I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't above trying to assassinate foreigners who campaign aggressively against him or who end up going viral for insulting him.

SVB was intentionally crashed by tech bros like Peter Thiel, likely as a strategic move to lobby for change in the banking sector / to gain more access for tech companies. The bank operated in a risky space, with too high a concentration of tech bro customers. This left them exposed to Thiel and crowd going "Hey, look at the balance sheet, if we all withdrew our money at once we can pop this bank and trigger a discussion about banking regulations / reform!".

So, no one forgot, it's all part of the same larger plan really.

I don't get why you're asking a question, when you have a general answer in the body of your post.

far-right populist parties increasingly draw male support through nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-feminist narratives, while women — especially racialized and university-educated — opt for progressive parties promoting equality and social protection.

So one party is targeting (racialized) minority groups, and promoting feminist-style equality (equality in ways that benefit minorities and women, but not targeting areas where men are worse off), and social protections that are historically skewed in favour of women / minority groups. The government screening for "people who identify as an Equity Employment group" is in line with left leaning policies, where Canada defines "Equity Employment groups" as "any non-male, or non-caucasian, person". Programs/initiatives that provide funding / increased access to women, are arguably "anti" men, especially when experienced on an individual level (being denied a job because you're a guy, even if on aggregate it's for some 'equity' balancing, still feels like you've been discriminated against because of your gender).

Feminist theory doesn't hide its intentions, but people don't bother to think about how men perceive it in 'late stage' feminist cultures (where the imbalance is far less extreme than other areas of the world). Feminism is NOT egalitarian at its core. It's defined (a bit loosely) as the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. That means they are not advocating for equality in areas where women are advantaged, nor in places to gain equity for men -- theories about making groups "actually" equal, would be egalitarian, not feminist. Think of it like a list where you've defined the advantages and disadvantages of both men and women, but then there's a giant social movement to remove the disadvantages from just one side of the list.... it gets lopsided real quick, and unsurprisingly the group that's been ignored gets pissed off and starts pushing back. We constantly hear about the wage gap, or health care deficiencies for women... but we ignore that women live 5 years longer on average (so better 'results' at a high level for health care, and longer time in retirement on CPP/OAS) -- they get ~25% more time in their retirement years, which in addition to old age supports, translates to far higher medical costs for that period as old people eat more resources. Even something like increased supports for seniors, a "general" social support program, disproportionately benefits women because of this underlying inequity that's ignored. We ignore men's poor showing in higher education, which forecasts their earning potential in decades to come -- they're now double digits behind women in terms of getting degrees. The govt funds womens centers with Fent task force money, cause 1 in 5 deaths from fent are women.... the 4 in 5 deaths that are guys are just.... whateva, let em die. We celebrate all woman companies, they get special features in newspapers and tons of public support; companies that are men-only are just waiting to be sued. We allow women only spaces like women's gyms, male exclusive clubs are generally not allowed / torn down by lawsuits (if they grow beyond a facebook group or whatever): I've seen local barbers taken to human rights tribunals, men can't even have 'men' only haircut spots.

Discussion of trans rights, are almost entirely couched in protecting women's rights -- preserving their gender-based privileges in a world where men can "identify" to gain those privileges. Its likely partly why they push hard for a clear definition of what a woman is, so that they can continue to exclude men from those privileges. It's super rare to see cases where someone's in an uproar about a FTM trans person playing a sport (I haven't seen any of these, personally). I'd posit that the lack of defined privilege programs supporting men is one reason FTM doesn't raise as many concerns. That even goes beyond just trans concerns somewhat, in that on job applications, if checking "female" means you pass a quota check, why wouldn't every man identify as woman (or as "gender fluid") for gaining employment? It's not like work's gonna force you to fuck in the employee lounge to prove it. People like Rowling are basically feminists working to preserve women's privileges, which is at odds with a chunk of trans folks who want to gain those privileges by 'opting in'. The fear is basically that men will realise there's no reason not to opt in unless there are very clear barriers put in play, which if not planned for could eliminate a chunk of women's privileges.

Anyhow, to rephrase what you said a bit:

One party is about providing programs and benefits to women and minorities. That party isn't really about providing anything for men; it may benefit them in general with its policies, but those policies are "for everyone", while they specifically target additional beneficial policies to "anyone but men". The other party said they'd remove the programs that target women and minorities with benefits, which indirectly benefits men/the majority race. The party that aligns more to men's general 'needs' got more of the male vote. The party that aligns more to women's general 'needs' got more of the female vote.

Really not all that surprising.