I don’t think it’s just the fact that she’s a black/Asian woman.

I saw this on BBC News which is probably correct:

[Trump has] completely “reimagined” the Republican party from its country club voter stereotype to appealing to working class families, while the Democrats had become the “party of Hollywood”.

I get paranoid enough about making sure I’m clicking the correct search result and not some scam. I hope I would avoid any AI answers but yeah, to many people it could be confusing.

It would be more democratic if Puerto Rico had the same congressional representation as a state. Same with DC. Also, maybe the number of senators for every state should be proportional to population, again to make things more democratic.

they’ve killed and continue to kill tens of thousands of civilians in the independent republics

Even if I assume the truth of that statement, do you not care about the deaths of Ukrainian civilians?

We couped Ukraine in 2014

My understanding is that Ukraine’s parliament (Rada) removed Yanukovych from his position as president. That seems fair to me. Many countries, including the US, have legal processes for removing their leaders.

I would wager that every country has far-right elements, including Russia.

What Russia claims though is that the Ukrainian government is full of Nazis, which I don’t think is true.

If the US had a single transferable vote system then you could comfortably vote for a third party, if you wanted to, without helping out the opponent you dislike the most.

You just rank the candidates, so you could rank Jill Stein as 1 if you want, then Harris as 2, and Trump below that. So then if Stein has fewer votes than Harris and Trump each have (likely) then her votes would transfer to whoever her voters ranked 2nd.

Under this system, a third party candidate is more likely to win (maybe you don’t like Jill Stein, but conceivably a third party could produce a good candidate). The ballot under this system looks like this:

You mean Amazon is bad to their workers?

I like Linux but there is some truth to the OP cartoon

For example if I say I use Ubuntu, some Linux users will get angry and say that it’s a bad distro, it’s a beginner’s distro, it means you’re an idiot, etc.

True, I remember the government trying to sell off Channel 4. Anyway I guess my point was that ads don’t necessarily ruin a platform if the platform has a decent purpose other than just profit… although I definitely do hate seeing any ads, even on Channel 4 or anything else.

We all thought Bill Gates was a megalomaniac, but clearly we didn’t know shit

Interesting, maybe the content has changed, I probably don’t watch enough TV to have noticed. But I think Channel 4 news is pretty good, and I liked their Paralympics coverage.

But then you could look at Channel 4, which does show ads to UK people, but I think Channel 4 is still okay and I don’t think it has been ruined by ads. So maybe a profit motive is what causes enshittification, rather than just ads. I definitely hate ads but maybe ads alone don’t destroy platforms.

True, they don’t show commercial adverts in the UK, but they do to other countries. People outside the UK can access the BBC website but they’ll see adverts on there, and apparently BBC America (shown in the US) has commercial adverts

And Channel 4 of course does show commercial adverts in the UK, but I think they still make some decent content, and I don’t think they’re on the verge of self-destruction

Maybe the real problem is when an entity is chasing profits, because Channel 4 isn’t a normal for-profit business, since they’re owned by the government, and I think they have to abide by some rules

I don’t think that’s necessarily true - maybe it depends on (a) the owners of the platform and/or (b) whether there are sources of funding besides advertising

E.g. here in the UK, the BBC and Channel 4 are both broadcasters owned by the government, and both are funded at least in part by adverts. But I think both of them are relatively healthy and aren’t on the brink of destroying themselves.

I think most of the BBC’s funding comes from the licence fee (British people pay for a TV licence) but they make some money from ads shown to international audiences. Channel 4 is solely funded by adverts I think, but it’s owned by the government and I think they have to abide by certain rules and targets.

If someone has bought a Switch game legally, then it’s legal to dump that game to a PC and play it on a Switch emulator, right?

Sure you could say that very few people dump their own games, but those that do are doing everything legally I think?

We all know that social media can encourage extremism in some people, but it’s surprising when it happens to the richest guy in the world

I just use Google with uBlock Origin to get rid of adverts