xor

That's a very silly take

Why not?

believe that hierarchical violence was invented in the 20th century

Well that's just not what I said - you specifically said fascism, which was invented in the 20th century. It has more specific characteristics than just hierarchical violence; ethno-nationalism, militarisation of the state, flexible suppression of opposition and centralised autocracy.

Just because you're mad about being corrected doesn't mean you need to be a dick about it.

Democracy has existed far longer than fascism has... the earliest fascist movements weren't until the 1910s, while the earliest recorded democracy was around 508 BC, with the earliest recorded usage of the term in the 430s BC. You're wrong by a margin of millennia

My dear god, this is history fundamentals. And the sheer balls you've got to have to be that rude while being just this severely wrong is obscene.

I've seen a lot of answers with other good reasons, but I think the main reason has slipped under the radar: the US wants to control the naval routes (via Baffin Bay) between the Atlantic and Pacific through the arctic which are progressively opening up more due to climate change.

Currently Denmark and Canada each control one side of that passage, but changing either to being under US control would effectively allow them to control trade flows through those routes.

Democracy isn't a magic anti-fascist spell, sorry to break it to you. If someone can convince enough of the population to elect them, then they get into power, fascist or not.

By your definition, there really hasn't been a "real" democracy ever, frankly, since it depends on there being a state with no imbalance of wealth whatsoever. If that's how you want to define it, sure, go ahead, but I'm going to keep using a definition of democracy that's based on how the institutions of elections and the state are built, because that's a useful way to discuss political systems, and "democracy is when only leaders I like are elected" is not.

Brazil's leaders are elected through universal suffrage, its speech and media are (relatively) free, that's a democracy by any reasonably useful definition. There's plenty to criticise in how that democracy functions, especially how money and power can influence those outcomes, but there is no perfect democracy, just the best attempts at what people can build within their existing social systems.

Democracy is a political system, while capitalism is an economic system - understanding how they interact with each other is useful and important, but pretending they're mutually exclusive is unnecessarily reductive, and closes the space to actually discuss those things.

Edit: the mere fact that Bolsonaro attempted to retain power by force, but was unable to do so in the face of losing the election is direct evidence that there are functional democratic institutions in Brazil

And now it isn't, that's democracy, baby

I fully agree that Bolsonaro was a straight up demon, but I also agree with the idea that - currently - the administration of Brazil is probably about as good an example of a good world citizen as it gets

Oh yeah, Russia is real good at keeping those tech oligarchs in check /s

BRICS is such a loosely linked group that generalising like that is just never going to be accurate; Indian and South African, for example, policy on tech regulation couldn't be more different if they tried.

Don't get me wrong, I think BRICS is a good organisation for economic cooperation between these very diverse countries, but there's really no common political, social or economic characteristics.

Brazil is a good example of that, because under Bolsonaro, it couldn't have been more different - regulations on big tech and banning X would never have happened under his tenure (well, at least not with the same goals)

It's somewhat specific to social media, but otherwise is very generic "anything critical of authority" answer imo

Plus, as you say, we have no idea what the actual prompt or response were 🤷

I'm not sure this is actually meaningful - presumably grok doesn't actually have knowledge of the twitter algorithm itself, so this is just a run of the mill AI make-it-up-on-the-spot response

They don't do that, because as a service, it continues to cost them money to provide it as time goes on.

That's not their business model, and acting like it's equivalent to ransomware for them to not use the business model you're demanding they switch to is absurd.

If you want to keep your cloud services, pay the subscription cost, it's that simple.

Okay, I too could afford to pay for your OneDrive subscription, but I'm not going to because - frankly - I don't care about your cloud storage needs.

The fact they're technically capable of providing you something for free has nothing to do with whether they are legally or morally obligated to do so.

You're not the centre of the universe, sorry.