That’s kind of the point. We live in a system that is supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty”. Not because people who commit crimes should get away with them, but because the opposite system would be completely untenable. How exactly is he supposed to prove that he is innocent? I don’t care how sure anyone is that he did it. Prove it, or by our legal standard, he must be considered innocent.

If you want to live in a society where accusation is tantamount to fact, you’re going to regret it as soon as anyone says anything about you.

AI could lead to the single greatest transference of wealth and power from the people to the elite. It could also lead to SkyNET.

It’s an incredibly powerful and dangerous technology. A handful of poor decisions is all it takes to turn the world into something out of a dystopian/post-apocalyptic novel.

The best we can hope for is that AI makes hundreds of millions of jobs obsolete, and we then have to fight the elite to make sure that wealth is appropriately distributed. I think it will be a lot worse than that.

Keep in mind this works both ways. The progressive outrage machine is arguably even more active than the conservative machine. Look at the reaction to Sound of Freedom. An extremely neutral movie when you consider the politics of its content. But the main actor is a conspiracy theorist, so I guess that means the movie is a far right propaganda vehicle? By that logic most movies are far left propaganda vehicles.

A similar phenomenon has always followed Trump around. Media gets insane hits for anti-Trump content. Some people built entire careers off of reporting on his tweets. The more shocking and exaggerated they could make the content, the more money came flooding in. That’s why so much of the coverage of Trump was sensationalized and uncharitable. It’s also why moderates couldn’t help but root for him. There’s only so much the established powers that be can lie about someone before you want to support him regardless of his character flaws. It helped that his policies were generally great, focusing on anti-war and populist market adjustments.

This is why you should always take the news with a grain of salt. They’re all out to make money, and they all have agendas.

lemmy.blahaj.zone are left wing extremists with zero tolerance for anyone who doesn’t already believe what they believe. I’m not sure why they don’t just defederate themselves. They’ve been openly upset that people who disagree with them on certain issues keep finding them through the all communities tab and, gasp, disagree with them in the comments.

I don’t see how banning everyone who disagrees with you is easier than creating an insulated community of people who do agree with you, but I guess that’s their preference.

I saw a lot of progressives turning into free market libertarians as soon as social media started censoring right wing opinions. Suddenly all I could see was “They’re a private company, they can do what they want!”

It reaffirmed my belief that a healthy portion of either side doesn’t actually have any principles. They just care that their side is winning and the other is losing.

I’m a moderate that a lot of people confuse for a conservative, and I say nail big business to a wall. I think the Microsoft-Activision deal should be declined just on the nature of the size of each business, not because it meets some arbitrary standard of anti-competitive behavior. Businesses as big as Microsoft do not need even bigger market coverage through owning more production houses. The whole point of the anticompetitive corrections is to avoid these giant conglomerates that have their hands in everything.

Microsoft already owns video game production houses. They produce one of the most popular home consoles in the world. They own a lot of the ecosystem that most people use on a daily basis on their pcs, namely Windows OS, Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and more.

Why does one company need to have a bigger market share than this?

I agree with you overall, I just have a different solution. I don’t think command economies work in practice. Demand economies are better because businesses aren’t usually too big to fail, so they collapse when they aren’t providing the products or services that are in demand.

My solution is populism with a demand economy. For all of his many, many faults, I believe Trump had the right strategy to lift up the working class. Bring back value to local labor by putting tariffs on foreign goods, that way local production becomes more profitable. Reduce (not eliminate) immigration to increase the value of promoting local workers.

Imagine a world where we weren’t draining India for doctors, and instead we were forced to invest in our own populations. How much better could the lives of our citizens be if big business and government had to worry about how successful and happy our local populations are?

From a social perspective, I think reduced immigration combined with integration initiatives would go a long way. We need to find ways to get people together and communicating. I know for a fact that exposure to people with differing beliefs is the best way to de-escalate radicals. I’ve sat down with so many conservatives over the years and ended up tempering their opinions, just through casual conversation. We need that kind of humanizing discussion to be commonplace. It’s not healthy to just expect hard left mainstream media and terms of service to censor ideas out of existence. We need to heal through open and good faith discussion.

I believe your goals are the right ones. I just don’t believe the communist economic system is the right way to achieve them.