Not a great argument: why shouldn’t they track down a real victim to confirm actual abuse took place? Seems like an argument for lazy police work & a surrender to authority.

I don’t see this argument come up with fictitious depictions of homicide & other crimes.

it seems you are a low level troll

You’re telling on yourself here. They disagree with you. Plenty do. Your argument is speculative, slippery slope shit. Deal with it or don’t.

Having a firm conviction about realizing fundamental rights & liberties to their logical limits isn’t suspicious. Anything less is cowardice. The decision was sound.

All answered by *drum roll* reading the article.

Feat of mental gymnastics. They consider themselves a looser sense of democratic that isn’t a liberal multiparty democracy with competitive elections. With a twist of idealization, they rationalize that their dictatorship of the proletariat headed by a one-party leader serves the people: their bottom-up hierarchy of councils culminates to their single-party leadership whose final decisions (that close discussion and demand absolute obedience) somehow reflect the collective/people. They might call it democratic centralism or dress it up in more elaborate pseudotheoretical jargon.

• Age Assurance: We work hard to find and remove underage accounts from our apps and, as part of our agreement, we’re investing in even stronger technology to proactively catch accounts that may belong to under-13s. We’re also strengthening the technology we use to identify accounts that may be between the ages of 13 and 17, so we can ensure those accounts are placed in experiences designed for teens, even if they give us an adult birthday. However, to ensure teens are consistently protected across the many apps they use, app stores must provide developers with verified age information. This will allow platforms to put age-appropriate protections in place for as many teens as possible. That’s why we’ll continue to advocate for legislation that empowers parents by requiring app stores to verify age and obtain parental approval before a teen downloads an app.
• Age-appropriate content restrictions: We will maintain our current content standards so that, by default, teens are placed into 13+ content settings, inspired by movie ratings criteria and parent feedback. We will also continue to prevent teens from following or interacting with accounts we consider age-inappropriate. We will work to continually improve these systems to ensure age-appropriate content experiences for teens.

So, more powergrabs by the state to force these invasive anti-features down everyone’s throats.

I really despise the suckers falling for thin pretexts of “child safety” & “mental health” as excuses to assault our liberties and the free flow of information with measures enabling authorities to more closely track & control our activities on information systems of all things.

The self-control issues you wrote about seem a you problem. I don’t imagine any agreement out there fixing that unless we assume we can’t treat you like an autonomous adult making grown-ass choices when you know what you’re getting into, so an authority must step in to stop you from yourself. Surrendering that to authority frankly goes against the social contract that respects individuals’ basic liberties.

Is the answer to this question no?

Next step: 0 parties!

Aye, comrade. It is the only way! *tankie salute*

Yet another one who doesn’t understand primaries or getting better candidates on the ballot of a major party. Not believing this one simple trick: confirmed.

Reality is not all rainbows & butterflies. Systems operate according to rules we don’t control no matter how much we stubbornly refuse to accept them until we work the system to change it. Denying the system exists doesn’t change it.

Fact: the US voting system (plurality voting) lacks the sincere favorite criterion^[1]. Fact: that means strategy exists to optimize outcomes, and not following it with protest(-non)-voting can functionally help elect the candidate you like least, directly backfire, and cause worse real-world outcomes for your own values. Fact: that means lesser-evil voting is necessary in close, high-stakes races to minimize losses.

Voting in a way that backfires has real-world consequences. Denying it is like denying the consequences of pulling the trigger when a loaded gun is aimed at your nuts. If you have to vote for the only viable candidate who will realistically refrain from pulling the trigger & don’t (in a cute little protest), then you’re still getting nuts blown off. Protest(-non)-voting to blast your nuts off every time doesn’t lead anywhere.

There are viable ways to reform the system: lobby legislation with enough organization & support, elect your candidates to other offices (local, congressional, etc) to build popular support, get your candidate to run as a major party in national partisan races, vote lesser-evil in national partisan elections until your candidate is on the ballot as a major party.

Anything else is blasting yourself in the nuts. Worse, it’s blasting off your neighbors’ nuts & ovaries, too. Your neighbors don’t want to vote lesser-evil either, but they’re not stupid enough to pretend that other moves won’t blast off their nuts.

How is denying the right of the people to reelect whoever they want to office more democratic than fulfilling their right? Claiming democracy restricting such liberty is somehow more democratic is impressive mental gymnastics. Even with modern democracy the guiding philosophy is to restrict government to promote & protect individual liberty, not undermine liberty of the people.

Is that another way to say you can’t? It is.

We can all see you’re making unfounded assumptions. Making more when your ego is threatened (by claiming anyone who calls out your baseless assumptions is right-wing in lemmy of all places), tossing insults, and refusing to rationally support your point doesn’t help your credibility. It just makes you a sore loser.

Stay mad: your opinion remains worthless & you need to work on your narcissism.

They can also be funny with them. Comedy doesn’t need or care about preconceived constraints. Irreverence that challenges our arrogant conformity & self-indulgent vanity that anything is sacred or off-limits is a goal of comedy. It’s part of gaining humility to question & laugh at ourselves & conceited ideas.

Because you can’t: worthless opinion discarded.

Explain how the post is right wing.

Trolling seems like a catch all for unpopular ideas/“things I don’t like”. How is unpopular expression & expression in general not the whole point of social media?