Maybe in the mainstream, but the open source, socialist and anarchist communities that populate lemmy tend to be very critical of ideas like intellectual property and copy right.

it’s between North America and South America

You’re thinking of the Caribbean sea, the gulf of Mexico is bounded by the united states to the north, Florida and Cuba to the east and Mexico to the south and west.

It being called the gulf of Mexico or gulf of America isn’t really going to change anything

It will literally require changing every map and GIS database in the country. Think of all the work NOAA will have to do deal with this BS. Even besides the annoyance and cost of updating all of those it will cause confusion with the rest of the world who will still call it the gulf of Mexico.

It’s definitely censorship, you can see it on there app as it’s still buggy and will generate a response then halfway through it will delete it and say “sorry that’s beyond my current scope”

It did actually give a good multi paragraph response to “what is a tankie” before it realized that it was a no-no topic.

It’s even worse / funnier in the app, it will generate the response, then once it realizes its about Taiwan it will delete the whole response and say sorry I can’t do that.

If you ask it “what is the republic of china” it will generate a couple paragraphs of the history of China, then it’ll get a couple sentences in about the retreat to Taiwan and then stop and delete the response.

What, it’s not e commerce , its massive amounts of data, and a massive amount of content. Most people i know who use tik tok never use the store, they use tik tok because it gives them a seemingly limitless amount of content that interests them. They’re able to do this not because they have some secret sauce but because of the sheer volume of people using and posting to the app. The more people watch the more data they have for there algorithm to identify trends, interest groups, interest groups correlations etc. to allow them to identify and target content to an audience. The more people that post the more you can inundate that audience and keep the infinite scroll going.

If tik tok did get shut down and everyone switched to reels or YouTube they would benefit from the increased scale and it would be pretty much the same app within a couple months.

While I agree with the sentiment, I’d say this qualifies as news. Elons not buying shake shack, he’s buying a social media platform with a very opaque algorithm that has the power to influence a large chunk of the American public. Even if he tanks it, twitter has shown that through network and data ownership combined with sheer inertia many people will remain on an app even after its been revealed to have its thumb on the scale for one side.

170 million people

Where’s that number coming from. Maybe you mean the 165 billion installs , but that’s not active users and double counts people installing on multiple devices. Tik tok has 50 million dau Of those maybe 10% is actually “speaking” and creating content that the other 90% consume so around 5 million people.

And those 5 million people aren’t silenced, they can still go on to one of multiple apps that provide the same service and allows them to get there message out. He’ll they could come on to the fediverse and post blatant ccp propaganda and no one will do anything.

X is years of experience , y is a combined axis, technical knowledge for the green line and salary for the red line

Full protectionism does cause problems with inflation and degrading the competitiveness of firms, but full neoliberal globalism leads to a race to the bottom on wages and working conditions.

The answer is somewhere in the middle, we shouldn’t be putting blanket tariffs on a country or the entire world. But we also shouldn’t turn away from possibly helpful protectionist policies.

Tarriffs can help in new and developing industries to make sure they aren’t strangled in the crib by foreign competition. A large reason for the success of the development of south Korean and Taiwanese economies was due to initial protectionist policies . The tariffs have to be understood to be temporary though but they can help in getting an industry off the ground.

I’d argue electric vehicles are an emerging industry that will be very important if the world shifts to a greener economy. Letting China take over that market and dominate it would be detrimental to the strength of our economy long term.

On one hand this will slow the ev transition.

On the other car manufacturing is one of the few industries left in America with some union density and decent wages and having to compete with subsidized Chinese evs that are made with a fraction of the labor costs would destroy that industry.

Globalism hurts workers and helps consumers. One of the triumphs of neoliberalism is to get people to identify as consumers first and workers second.

Implying that the Democrats are now “the party of big business” is arguably true (and very boring)

While true in some scenarios, in anti-trust Lina khan’s ftc has done significantly more than trump ever did. Biden keeping her over the protest of countless business execs and daily articles in the wall street journal on how she’s ruining America shows some commitment to prosecuting big tech.

Meanwhile, trump’s anti-trust moves were mostly based off petty issues he had with the ceos or the platforms having a “liberal bias”. Now that every big tech ceo has fallen in line and given him $1 million for his inauguration I doubt we’ll see much movement on that front.

She’s working on it:

Mexico’s president claps back at Trump, suggests new name for U.S. — America Mexicana

Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality; socialism without redistribution is a tyrant trying to trick you

- Bakunin if he was alive to see this bullshit

Yep, the first were the communist then shortly after they rounded up the trade unionists and the social democrats / democratic socialists.

Taboos aren’t new, they’ve just shifted. Before they were based more on Christian morality but nowadays it’s mostly from a secular multicultural morality.

If someone repeatedly called you a slur you may not break down and cry, though I don’t judge those who do, but wouldn’t you at least stop talking to them? Wouldn’t you tell other people to also stop associating with them? I know I would and that is the social ostracization that I think should be a punishment for offensive behavior.

I don’t see how you can make the case that verbal abuse doesn’t harm people without completely ignoring psychology and mental health. If someone becomes depressed due to harassment are they not harmed? What if they commit suicide, is it purely their fault since they couldn’t toughen up and the bully is absolved as some fucked up form of natural selection?

Even ignoring mental health words can damage your respect which is a valuable resource that is being unjustly taken. If your bosses right hand man keeps making misogynist jokes and using slurs against you and then you get passed over for a promotion because your boss doesn’t take you seriously then those words cost you monetarily. Your level of respect can open or close many doors in your life and having someone degrade that which you may have worked very hard for is harmful.

No, speaking truth to power is an important part of satire and political discourse in general. I haven’t seen the original cartoon but if that’s what it was then I’m all for it, though Muslims are very marginal in France and don’t hold much power.

This was in response to all the people, including a lot in this thread, that also probably haven’t seen the cartoon but want it published everywhere and for us to show more pictures of Muhammed. In that case people are valuing something not because of its message but because it offends and “triggers” people, which is the same rational for some of the worst right wing “comedy”.

Offensiveness can be a means to an end, such as showing the corruption of the powerful, but when it becomes an end unto itself it simply becomes cruelty.

It’s not a slippery slope, it’s an ambiguous gray area which a lot of moral rational debates like this don’t do well with. For example I think we can agree that white people shouldn’t call black people n*gger, but what about negro? There are some people who will do the victim hood Olympics and say calling people black is bad too.

If we follow the free speech absolutist line then we get a bunch of white men demeaning every marginal group with horrific slurs. If we follow the no offense at all costs line then we’re walking around a term for Mexican food because someone said that it’s racist. We need to find some sort of middle ground and that ground is going to be very blurry, socially determined and subjective, and it won’t have any easy hard rules that people desperately search for in stuff like this.

The punishment for leaving this area should just be social ostracization though, not violence or death. There shouldn’t be an assassin’s veto but there also shouldn’t be an asshole get out of jail free card.

This all wasn’t my argument though, I was arguing against the people in this thread saying we should’ve doubled down, published the cartoon in all major publications and done more Mohammad drawings simply to assert free speech. That’s saying that speech is valuable and should be spread simply because its offensive and caused an overreaction which is the same logic as those annoying right wing assholes who say horrible shit to “trigger the libs”. Offensiveness can be a means to an end but when it becomes an end unto itself then it just becomes cruelty.

Obviously it’s horrible to kill people over speech. Cartoons do not justify violence or terrorism.

But we also shouldn’t pretend like speech is necessary or valuable just because it’s offensive or that offending people to the point of violence is noble.

If someone was killed for saying the n word that would be a tragedy and should be condemned. But we shouldn’t all go around yelling the n word just to assert our free speech or pretend like the guy saying the n word was a hero for doing it.

Would your response be the same if an outright racist or transphobic comic was murdered? Would you spread racist and transphobic content to assert your free speech?

Society bends over backwards to not offend Islam out of fear.

Not drawing cartoons is not bending over backwards. If they were trying to get women being veiled, or ban abortions or homosexuality then yeah we should tell them to fuck off. But if they’re just asking to not say a word or draw something that isn’t necessary to political dialog then it’s fair for society to respect that. It should be enforced by being ostracized not killed though.

People shouldn’t be shot for saying the n word but if someone did get shot for saying it we shouldn’t all go around saying the n word because being intentionally offensive is still a dick move. Again not one that should be punished with death.

To be fair, Norway and those states rely heavily on hydro, which is great if you have the geography for it, but it’s not a route that can work for every region.

Excluding hydro renewable sources tend to cost more if you include storage currently, though that premium has been and is coming down.