They’re just throwing out ideological phrases from their indoctrination. Nothing coherent.

free market

Imagine believing in this nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion

I guess the Nordic countries, and most of Europe, who act exactly as I outlined,

Not even close to “exact”. You forgot the centuries of violence, colonialism, imperialism, racism, etc.

These are all laughable but the last one is especially wrong:

Our governments can protect us under capitalism against us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion

A lifetime of indoctrination that’s racist, classist, sexist, nationalist/imperialist/fascist, etc.

working logistics

Ahistorical mythology. Search it.

Check #5

Complete history of USA in one meme.

Pretty sure the stormtroopers were murdering 500,000 iraqi kids too… But I guess that’s not a popular tale in the imperial core.

“Worth It” - Madeline Albright

Pretty sure you need to make a fash account if you want to post about that kind of stuff.

The point of the cookie button is giving people a choice. There’s no choice here.

I like the part where the cites techdirt article implies that the authors of the bill are tied to big tech while talking about regulation that big tech absolutely does not want.

A major goal of this nonsense is so that big tech can put a warning on their shitty products and then wash their hands of any responsibility. It’s much easier and more in line with their values than for example censoring nazis, zios, pedos, et al. which are an actual problem.

Facebook and co have repeatedly been caught admitting to trying to make their algorithms as addicting as possible.

What about Lemmy? Pixelfed? Y’all are advocating for the worst people on the planet to deepen their control of the internet based off fake science. The first “social media” sites to go will be ones like this.

Is it well written legislation? No. Are these arguments against it well written? Also no.

No surprise. And yet libs support it. Also no surprise.

Social media may not be as addicting as the bill implies, but to say that it’s pseudoscience is really stupid.

Maybe you don’t understand science but there is actually very little evidence that “social media” is “bad”. Just relying on your feelings is what’s actually stupid. The absolute dumbest is thinking that the state/capitalism is making a good faith effort to help humanity based on solid science.

it has enabled every goober and bad actor with an opinion to essentially have a megaphone

Good anecdote but this is just hegemonic propaganda. Social media has also revealed the reality behind the hegemonic narrative. That’s what they’re actually afraid of.

I think putting a warning on the tin is appropriate,

There is no tin. And then what? Once it’s unscientifically marked as “dangerous” then what’s next? I’m sure they’ll stop there. \s

It’s true that the bulk of the issue arises from the people in charge of the platforms

It’s not true. What about the people in charge of this platform? The bulk of the issues arise from capitalism and this type of censorship is designed to abolish its criticism.

When have warning signs stopped people from doing things that are unhealthy?

Again there is very scant evidence that “social media” is “unhealthy”. But yes, warnings do almost nothing. It’s just another step towards even more entrenched hegemonic control.

This kind of pseudo-science is very popular. People really thinking there’s substantial scientific evidence that “social media” is “bad”. Literally making this false belief into a law.

edit: Lots of downvotes. Zero reliable studies posted. I understand that this pseudo-science confirms your pre-concieved biases but that doesn’t make it scientific. Y’all are yearning for the worst people to have even more power to control criticism and news about capitalism, imperialism, genocide, etc.

edit2: TikTok.

Another shill for the NYTimes… Check their op/ed pages. Full of worthless libs saying dumb shit.

He won the nobel prize for economics and was one of the few sane voices during the great recession.

There is no nobel prize for economics. It’s an even phonier prize made up by bankers. Even if there were an actual nobel, that’s no reason for believing anybody’s opinions far outside their realm of expertise (eg. krugman here).

More importantly krugman has been consistently liberal trash since forever.

If someone says that their grandchildren are perfect little angles, you don’t say “well, actually, angels are divine beings who don’t dwell upon this earth Grandma,

Nobody is murdering angels in the global south. This perspective is a privileged delusion.

The victims of prohibition are real people who are actually being violently attacked.

You do know that the entire rest of the article never mentions drugs ever again

Because the headline is clickbait bullshit… because the author is a grifter.

Paul Krugman is a nobel-prize winning economist who used to have a column in the NY Times.

Aka totally discredited.

The “nobel in econ” is as much of a fraud as econ in general.

Anybody who knows this goofball knows not to listen to his crap.

The usual bullshit Krugman clickbait.

Krugman is a worthless hack. Sensational headline with implicit endorsement of prohibition is a prime example.

Edit about the “nobel”: Everybody who’s talking about this “nobel prize”. There is no nobel prize in econ. It’s a phony award made up by bankers. That’s how pathetic the pseudo-science of economics is. They need to make up their own fake awards for relevancy. So please don’t tout the phony awards of this pseudo-scientists. I could make up an award for flat earthers but that wouldn’t legitimize flat earthism.

(And even if there were a nobel for econ… Who cares about awards if the underlying “science” is still trash?)