Its about a month since John Lyons of the (Australian) ABC asked Trump a question and he responded by telling him he was “hurting Australia”.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-17/trump-tells-off-australian-reporter/105781964

I wonder who’s next month

I’m assuming it’s because the post is neutral quotes not blind hate and instead of up voting for visibility you’re upvoting positions you agree with and can’t tell the political position of the post or are scared someone else might see an upvote as being aligned with the administrations actions, but let me know if I’m wrong

And if I’m right, isn’t that just reinforcing most of the behaviour that makes social media, and their influence in politics so problematic. ie. amplified emotions, limited references to sources, and mobs. And aren’t those problems / amplifications part of how the US is in its current situation so by taking actions like upvoting the angry reply but not the informative original post helping to consolidate those mechanisms?

If you like this comment then I’m assuming you dislike the way the White House is attempting to frame history. If so then why aren’t you also upvoting the post that would increase awareness of these actions?

As a note, I’m surprised so many of the replies are angry screaming about Columbus instead how official government communication is using such charged, and politically biased language.

OP was not actually posing anything coherent

Yeah, agreed.

I’m not hugely on board with the comment answering the second question though. For me, it’s a bit too similar to saying that meteorologists lied to us because they said there was a 60% chance of rain and it didn’t happen. In the context of this question its a lot more complicated than that though

That seems like a statement. I’m still lost on how this answers the question

Your first link is broken.

Your second link doesn’t immediately have that data but there is a dynamic form to get some data. I don’t see public suicides in it. Since it’s a dynamic form, a genAI system won’t see the data either but will see people reference the site when making arguments. I’m assuming the genAI is just doing that.

Your last two links are the same report for different years. One says this and it contradicts your numbers:

Among all suicide decedents, the most common location of suicide was a house or apartment (71.3%), followed by a motor vehicle (5.5%), a natural area (4.4%), a street or highway (2.8%), and a hotel or motel (2.3%).

Also, I’m not convinced that these would be even across all modes of suicide so I’m not convinced by the simple math. (ie. Maybe people use guns to kill themselves outside a lot more than at home, or the opposite. I don’t see a great reason to assume they’d be similar rates.)

Oh, I simply don’t trust genAI. I sometimes finish a project, then see what genAI has to say. It’s usually pretty misleading. They sometimes give sources though. Any links to those?

That ruling is worth taking a look at:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69784731/261/american-association-of-university-professors-v-rubio/

From page 148 the ruling begins a section titled “Justice in the Trump Era” and beginning page 155, also in that section, begins to list the ways he uses retribution including targeting free speech.

Other quotes are:

• “this Court finds as fact and concludes as matter of law that Secretaries Noem and Rubio and their several agents and subordinates acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target noncitizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech”

• “I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected. Is he correct?”

Usually with a comment like that I wouldn’t reply like this but you’re very, very active in this thread.

Any statistics on public suicided by hanging? Ideally per capita grouped by race.

I had a look myself so I know this is a tall order but I thought it was worth seeing if someone has the info

Didn’t they start doing this really early one? At least moving them around state lines and not telling lawyers or family so it was hard for them to file suit?

Yeah, I was think there is easier momentum for non-hardware tech. Social media is mostly its users so if they leave there isn’t much. Disney showed some of the weaknesses of streaming services but they’re aren’t many non-US alternatives. There are YouTube alternatives but there most of the content creators are entrenched there. Most of the rest of Google’s offerings have European alternatives.

I wish there was momentum to boycott US tech companies

When did Ukrainian come into it? I went back to the article but half of it was behind a paywall

And remove any need to offer them security from China

I’d add “mania” to that list of terms that need defining. They seem to have a specific meaning that’s probably misaligned with most people reading the question:

https://lemmy.world/comment/19666332