People in Europe live in actual democracies (for the majority). The laws restricting speech were born through democratic processes.
Who do you think you are to pretend to know better than these citizens? You seem to want to impose some unbridled "free" speech that seem to have pretty disastrous effects in the only country where it supposedly exists... is this your idea if "freedom"?
We have tested the limits of tolerence at the cost of literal tens of millions of deaths during the last World War in Europe, I don't think we need any lesson on how we should run our societies regarding free speech because we have done a lot of painful learning.
Looking at the direction/unstability of the American system currently it's not impossible that its people will do the same kind of learning soon unfortunately, might be better to focus on this rather that trying export ideas that we democratically rejected, with purpose.
Good point. If you let the government silence extremists then they can also do it to the moderates next. Those are subjective definitions after all.
Paradox of of tolerance makes it clear that what can't be tolerated is anyone promoting law that restricts or hinders freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Lest we be left with no reasonable tolerance for any moderate speech at all, and we're left with intolerance toward all speech. Fortunately the first amendment exists and we don't have to worry too much.
Thanks for pointing that out though, it's a great talking point for free speech absolutists.
People in USA live in a constitutional republic based on self-evident natural rights given by god. We just have (somewhat) democratically elected representatives.
In an "actual democracy" with no constitutional rights, the majority can (legally) genocide the minority - and that's happened more than a few times in "actual democracies" in Europe in the very recent past.
You should probably think deeper about what you're advocating for.
That's also bad. But two wrongs don't make a right. Natives should have been afforded citizenship and constitutional rights also. The solution isn't to undo progress and take rights away from people again. I thought you were progressive?
> Our president wants to genocide brown people.
This discredits you quite a lot, since I've never heard even the most left-wing public figures insinuate such a wild unsubstantiated thing. If true, that would be deplorable also.
Whether what you're saying is true or false has no bearing on the truth value of what I said. You're just making unrelated angry hyperbolic claims that lack any nuance at all.
Whenever someone uses "we" to refer to a body politic, and doesn't otherwise specify, it's meant to refer to the collective polity throughout its history.
So, the democratic-republican "we". As compared to the royal "we".
As to why no one was behind bars? Because "we" also made those bars.
Their polities weren't then part of the US polity, so they'd have a separate we. Now they are part of the US polity, so they could include themselves in that we.
But to honestly answer your sarcastic question: There were a bunch of them, and they typically didn't include their fellow natives in their collective understanding of "we" until later years. At the time, and even prior to colonization, various tribes did indeed commit, or participate in, genocide on other tribes. Just like the pseudo-collective "Europeans" did among their tribes.
You are talking about Kash Patel's FBI. The guy who has a hit song and book called "The Plot Against The King" pretending the 2020 election has been rigged and who maintains it to this day.
The FBI does what Trump tells them to do, that's it.
And why aren’t the people who “stole” the election being prosecuted by Trumps DOJ and FBI? He had proof remember? I wish liberal media would hammer this point and expose the lie for what it is.
Also most of it is from ads, not from their AI or cloud products. I wonder when OpenAI will start to serve ads as much as Google does, they certainly have people's attention a lot of times throughout the day looking at how people around me use their services.
I find it funny that people think OAI can enter the ad business and just compete easily with Google, given the years Google has had investing in research etc to build the behemoth it is today in the market for online advertising.
By the time OAI even figures it out, they will have run out of funding. All they can do now is prop up usage numbers to signal to investors that their market position is durable.
Sarkozy himself tried to reform it and remove a key position in that system the "juge d'instruction" who conducts investigations indepedantly of the executive power in complex cases (like his many cases). It makes the procedures much more efficient and less prone to influence from the government.
Fortunately he failed to do it when he was in power, and this is in my opinion a big factor in his current demise.
And arguably it should not be given to someone who requests/asks/begs for it constantly and openly. It would brign about all sorts of bad incentives in something that should be a reward for good intentions and efforts.
Go on ..? On the face of it, a prize for holding back from being an asshole seems like a good thing, and perhaps a more worthwhile incentive than a prize for saints who would have been extremely virtuous anyway.
Incentivizing foreign interventions in conflicts "just" to earn a prize and risking to aggravate a situation/conflict/war does not sound good at all to me.
It's not about rewarding saints, it's about rewarding people who do genuine efforts to bring peace in this world.
You wouldn't want to incentivize a reckless vigilante just because some of the times it might lead to a desired outcome, disregarding all the times they'd get it wrong and would cause injustices (leading to more chaos, and not peace) just in their selfish pursuit of accolades and prizes.
Trump is openly mentioning that what he's doing right now is worth a prize, can't get closer to doing it "for the prize". He exaggerates all his accomplishment (no he did not end 7, 8, 9, etc. wars... barely even one).
All of this is done/said for one purpose, and it's not actually peace. It's one thing you can't reproach to him, he is pretty transparent in his intent when you give him a microphone. Do you think he will lose sleep over the peace in the middle east failing (once again)... or do you think he will care more about not getting the prize he literally mentions every time he's questioned about a war?
I find your comment funny considering the OP, it's literally OpenAI claiming ChatGPT can start conversations now (in extenso give you inspiration/ideas).
Most of these at least in my region are made from cornstarch. They decompose well/without "microplastics" but only under correct conditions.
Home composts aren't usually meeting these, their temperature isn't going high enough for full decomposition and you can have traces of polymers left behind. I throw them in the trash for compostable waste because thankfully my collectivity collects these to generate biogas and my guess is they do end up in much larger/managed composts where they can fully decompose.
PLA doesn't actually biodegrade outside of specialist industrial facilities, it was much vaunted as an eco friendly thing when 3d printing started using it, but we rapidly found out it can last decades without breaking down much if at all.
In a way I see these algorithms as segregstionist, their goal is ultimately to isolate certain groups and perniciously expose them only to the rage inducing bad aspects of the other group(s) to generate more posts/likes/comment.
Segregation applied to public spaces should indeed be banned, when these platforms become so huge, they become a defacto public square that you can hardly avoid effectively without missing a good share of the conversations that need to happen in public for a healthy flow of information, so I would not see an issue with law makers to regulate this... obviously as long as it's applied fairly.
The issue is that currently even platforms that are getting regulate, for even more concerning aspect (national security, undue foreign influence on fair elections) like Tiktok seem to be exempt of the law itself and the US Congress seem unable to get the laws they voted in a bipartisan manner enforced... the only reason I see is that a certain tangerine tinted individual sees it as a tool to control the American discourse in his favor, and thus refuses to enforce the law. So these concerns about healthy public spaces are taking the backseat for now.
Who do you think you are to pretend to know better than these citizens? You seem to want to impose some unbridled "free" speech that seem to have pretty disastrous effects in the only country where it supposedly exists... is this your idea if "freedom"?
We have tested the limits of tolerence at the cost of literal tens of millions of deaths during the last World War in Europe, I don't think we need any lesson on how we should run our societies regarding free speech because we have done a lot of painful learning.
Looking at the direction/unstability of the American system currently it's not impossible that its people will do the same kind of learning soon unfortunately, might be better to focus on this rather that trying export ideas that we democratically rejected, with purpose.