Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)E
Posts
2
Comments
76
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • We need to reverse this. We need to make sure we only need to win once, to permenantly secure this. This is why constitutions exist. Instead of passively waiting, we need to go on the attack, and strike the final blow, before they do. We need these rights secured by constitutions, so they can't be so easily taken away from us. I read that for instance Germany has article 10 of their Grundgesetz, which, (in this translation), states:

    "(1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable."

    But sadly it's being followed by:

    "(2) Restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law. If the restriction serves to protect the free democratic basic order or the existence or security of the Federation or of a Land, the law may provide that the person affected shall not be informed of the restriction and that recourse to the courts shall be replaced by a review of the case by agencies and auxiliary agencies appointed by the legislature."

    I imagine more countries might have these half-ass measures. Laws that read '(1) X is a fundemental right and nobody can ever take it away from you. (2) except ofcourse goverment, who can do as they please'. I suppose ultimately it requires legislators to give up power, and obviously that only happens under external pressure. Currently people don't seem to care enough to put pressure on these types of issues. I mean, if people cared, they'd move to private services, and if they did then this would be less of an issue. It's an issue precisely because people don't seem to care nor understand the relevance of privacy.

    So we need people to care temporarily, and then use that momentum to get our constitutions changed. And for that we probably need a scandal, one that's completely outrageous, while still being quite easy to understand. I don't know if or how this would come to pass, but I wouldn't say it's completely unthinkable. Perhaps we also need some books or films, like a modern 1984, some AI-dystopia. that atleast gets cultural elites, but preferably larger parts of society, to worry about their freedom. In a sense doing the groundwork, and then when minds are ready, we need to strike.

    Stay vigilant indeed.

  • Thinks people shouldn't take medical advice from him,

    ...proceeds to give medical advice to people.

  • ©

    because of copyright?

  • Been seeing some more pictures of cats lately, and I feel like it's exactly what we need more of on Lemmy

  • True, but Mr. Rogers would probably know how to do it properly so that you'd be at ease.

  • Isn't it amazing that 'not lying to children' somehow seems kinda radical?

  • LibreOffice is forked long ago from the extremely corporate OpenOffice effort, which in turn originated from the non-open-source Star Office. Not all FOSS comes from enthusiasts.

    That's a fair point. I would also be very much in favor of governments subsidizing certain FOSS projects. There's a lot of work to be done, and people certainly deserve to be paid for it too.

  • FOSS software will win eventually. It may take time, but if good FOSS software is being built by enthusiasts then a time will come where proprietary software fucks up. And when it does, FOSS is ready to take it's place. And as soon as FOSS has become a standard in some field, why would there ever be a need to go back to proprietary?

  • Here in the Netherlands our house of representatives has 150 seats and they're filled by 15 parties, the biggest of whom has 37 seats, the second 25. People sometimes suggest that political fragmentation makes things more complicated, because usually at least 3 or 4 parties are needed to form a coalition. I don't really think it matters because I look at it this way: there are different views on things in society and compromises need to be found one way or another, it's where this takes place that's different. In one case it's on the conference of 1 or 2 big parties, in the other case it happens in parlement/government where the many small parties meet. The benefit of a many-party system is that people actually got a choice, if you're on the left and don't like what a particular party is doing, you can pick another leftwing party. You don't have that option in a 2-party system, you'll probably stick with your party despite everything you don't like about it. Here, if a party really fucks up, they're done for, a party can get 20% one election and 1% the next one. The system is more dynamic. At the same time, the actual governments usually have an overlap, like there will be different coalitions, but our center-right party has been in the coalition for over a decade now. There may be a certain charm to knowing that every other election a completely new set of people forms the government, but that also has many downsides I think. There'll be little continuity, republicans undo everything democrats have done and in 4 years we'll see the reverse. Haven't heard any really convincing arguments against political fragmentations. It's just the path towards it that may be difficult if you're in a 2 party system, because as soon as you go third party, you're hurting your side of the spectrum. What would be helpfull is if it would happen on both sides simultaneously. Can't you setup a structure where people from both sides would together commit to voting third-party?

  • Sure, YOU voted dems anyway, but not everyone did. And it's those others that didn't that you need to consider if you want to win elections. Is it that they didn't vote Kamala because she is female and belongs to a minority? Honestly it's not unlikely that that is the case. Obviously it shouldn't matter, but it still seems like it does.

  • You don’t need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don’t obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. And that makes a lot of sense because if you block a road perhaps emergency services need to know ahead of time that they can't take that route. Or others concerns may be relevant. For the very same reasons this is similar in countries around the world. Source: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights

  • What about the online food ordering market. I reckon that might be an easier first step than consumer products. Here in the Netherlands JustEatTakeaway has a market share of around 90% and requires restaurants to give them a 14% provision. Restaurants don't have much of a choice, if they're not on there they miss out on a huge part of the market, it's like they don't exist. Why don't restaurants unite and develop a FOSS protocol that let's them federate, so the consumer has a central place to browse the food delivery market, but simultaneously makes the providers independant because they can run their own instance if they please. Have these types of ideas been pitched to branche organizations? Restaurants have a clear interest to develop this to free themselves from the platforms with a monopolistic venture-capital-driven strategy.

  • People with a burn out

  • That's an unfair representation.

    Money isn't simply given to Elon every day...

    Other people work hard for his money!

  • When Bush jr. was president, we were a funny joke.

    I strongly object to this sentiment. The world has far from recovered from the damage that this man and his regime have done to it, and if the west had any crediblity left in the world then it was certainly gone after his ''war on terrorism''. My point is: war-criminals aren't funny.

  • This is being presented as a sort of cover-up, but the fact of the matter is that most protests never get much attention unless they are extraordinary in scale or in regards to any violence, or anything else. There will always be some protests, so that begs the question, is this always newsworthy? Trump is inaugurated and quite some people don't like this... well aint that surprising? No. I don't think it's a cover up, I think it's deemed rather irrelevant, obvious, nothing out of the ordinary. Had the protests been more massive in scale perhaps that would be different though. Or had people stormed the capitol,. ouch....

  • What about the least essential?

    1. Tax consultants - helping companies avoid contributing to society
    2. Marketeers - manipulating people into buying worse products for higher prices
    3. Middle management - causing a lot of fuzz while doing nothing of significance.

    Just to name a few. An artists contribution may be abstract but it's certainly there. There are others that actively sabotage society and very often they make a lot of money.

  • The darkest bread there is, is usually bread that is articifially dark. Here in the Netherlands we have bread colored as chocolate, that would actually be white but is made to look dark so people think it's healthier.