Ray20

> This is mandating taking down content, not surveiling anyone.

As far as I understand, it precisely mandating to monitor EVERYONE.

They are not talking about removing a specific image from the platform based on its hash or something. They are talking about actions that involve automated analysis of all content on the platform for patterns arbitrarily specified by the government.

The technologies discussed differ from totalitarian surveillance by simply toggling a single flag on the platform, and are indistinguishable from such surveillance for the user.

Regardless of how you feel about content moderation, we are talking about a situation where the government is DEMANDING corporations to implement automated, totalitarian surveillance tools. This is the key factor here.

The next step would be for the government to demand direct access to these tools. Then the government would be able to carry out holocausts against any ethnic group, only 10 times more effectively and inevitably than Hitler did.

> It seems like you're responding just to argue and not in good faith.

It's a convenient position when the FACTS and MATH completely discredit your narrative that American workers are not actively contributing to what's happening because it's VERY beneficial (more than x20 benefits) for them.

> The majority of the US electorate is politically and literally illiterate.

Are you sure about that? Because it's hard to blame illiteracy on something that brings you 20 times more money (speaking of economic sentiment) than everyone else. It sounds more like malicious intent.

> wealth gap disparity has only gotten worse for Gen X, Millenials, and Gen Z

And how much do they make? $35 an hour? Okay, let's even go very safe and go with a large margin, say they make $30 an hour. And compare that to LESS THAN $2 an hour, which is what 90% of the rest of the world makes. That's still a difference of MORE THAN 15 times. You can't argue with math.

> The primary beneficiaries are the rich.

No, that's bs. The main beneficiaries are the American working class. They YEARLY have more income than American billionaires accumulated over generations. They elected Trump. Twice.

Meanwhile, 90% of workers worldwide earn less than $2 an hour.

And how many Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z have given up most of their tens of dollars hourly salaries for the benefit of the world's workers, earning less than two dollars an hour? Zero!

Are you deliberately trying to manipulate?

All the research clearly shows that higher turnout would have led to an even better result for Trump.

And the American polls are little more than a reflection of the less and less popular mainstream media's position and weakly correlate with what Americans actually do. We've already seen this twice in elections won by Trump: Americans follow the media, say how they disapprove of Trump, but then go out and vote for him.

> pacified and domesticated the working class through threat of poverty and state sanctioned violence.

More likely through outright bribery. What's the average hourly wage in the US? About $40? While 90% of workers worldwide earn less than $2. The difference is more than 20 times.

The American working class voted for this, the American working class is the main beneficiary of this, and, as far as I know, NO ONE in the American working class, even in solidarity with other workers, has handed over to them the money they unfairly receive at the expense of the rest of the world.

> What happened to the protests? The indignation? Get rid of this guy already you complacent fucks

I'm just reminding that this is exactly what Americans voted him to do. And in their opinion, the main problem is that he does what he does not effectively enough.

> The rest of the world is also pretty much on board with this clean air and climate change stuff as it turns out people generally like clean air

Are you sure about that? Or you mistaking the world's opinion for that of the out-of-touch elites living in their lofty ivory towers? Because in the world, outside the media controlled by these elites, I see the exact opposite: it turns out THE WORLD generally like electricity at 2 cents per kwh (not 50 cents how elites like it), no matter how much carbon dioxide it emits.

> the lazier and more bored they get

People don't become "lazy". They're lazy from the beginning. Laziness is something they overcome for personal gain. And if the system promises fewer personal gains for overcoming laziness, then why bother?

Private money in politics is one of the counterbalances to the emergence of a totalitarian state. The government gains a huge advantage over the opposition due to the fact that it is the government and receives free media coverage.

> this kind of "literacy test"

Where did I mention a "literacy test"? I'm against such tests for exactly the same reasons I'm against prisoner voting.

> If prisoners can't vote, what's stopping the party in power from preventing them from ever losing an election by just jailing everyone expected to vote against them?

Prisons, by definition, are built on the principle that prisoners are under the full control of prison administrations. If everyone who will vote against could be imprisoned, there would be no problem allowing prisoners to vote: prisoners would still vote in the manner desired by the prison administration. That's how prisons work. And I don't think there's a need to increase incentives for authorities to imprison more people to achieve the desired election results through prisoners' voting.

> any kind of tech company with any government contract.

Obviously, this shouldn't apply to "any" government contracts. But if the majority of a contractor's income comes from government contracts, then yes, employees shouldn't vote.

> Anyone living in a state which receives more money than it contributes in taxes should be banned from voting. Anyone using government resources should be banned from voting.

I don't understand why you're trying to reduce this argument to absurdity. The goal is to preserve democracy by reducing the government's ability to build a totalitarian dictatorship through its ability to control taxes. And yet you're proposing measures that would proclaim such a dictatorship.

Yes, and most of this measures result in decisions being made by the most irresponsible people.

Prisoners voting is madness. They are in too dependent a position to believe that their vote will reflect their votes.

On the contrary, voting should be banned not only for prisoners but also for people working for the government in any capacity. People who live off taxpayers should not be able to decide how to spend their taxes.

Registration procedures should be more complex and strict, not simpler. If someone is irresponsible, disorganized, or illiterate enough to fail to fill the form on time, then why should we consider their vote meaningful? If someone believes they have more important things to do than vote, why force them to vote?

This is all terrible. But how does this change the fact that Europe has a more totalitarian government, committing more political assassinations and persecuting political opponents, while Europe is mired in poverty?

I mean, compare the median wages of factory workers in Europe and in the US and the amount of taxes they pay to support gangs of alien rapists.

> How come the US has a higher rate of struggling with groceries (12.2% US vs 8.5% EU), healthcare (44% US vs. 18.6% for costs) EU, education costs, etc.?

Reliability of statistical data. The more totalitarian a state is, the more out of touch with reality it can be in its statistics. If we look at the statistics provided by North Korea, they have zero on all the points mentioned. Europe isn't there yet, but it's moving at full speed. Their cars even safer and cheaper to own and run than European ones.

But that isn't capitalism. It's socialism, which uses many market mechanisms to manage the economy.

> If $50k is competitive for you, that should be a sign something's gone wrong.

Or, on the contrary, a sign that something went right. If Europeans weren't drowning in poverty, they would also buy more expensive cars.

I even envy this level of privilege. How exactly work-to-rule will protect you from the same consequences?

> How about plain civil disobedience? Like just stop working?

An amazing level of privilege. In half of the world, if you stop working, you will very soon die of hunger.

> I'm grateful to Russia for standing by its principles and asserting its sovereignty.

But we see how exactly the opposite has happened, and Russia is giving up its sovereignty in favor of China.

> I like rule of law and due process.

Many people like this. It's just that the choice, as far as I understand, is not between rule of law and authoritarian dictatorship.

> I like the Constitution and its balance of powers.

And here, frankly speaking, I'm unfamiliar with the American Constitution in these aspects. How does it work? Does it only protect citizens? Or residents too? Does it protect illegal aliens too? Does it protect everyone in the world? Or does it operate on territorial principles, and begin to protect any person who sets foot on American soil, but does not protect everyone else?

> Get all the cleaners, cooks, hotel workers and other "servants" to strike, pool up to fund a salary-light for them while they strike

You mean to try to get them all and find out they're not really against what's happening? There's a reason why socialists, originally fighters for workers' dictatorship, have almost entirely switched to supporting minorities and not workers.

> I hope the cartoon villain responses coming from the administration when they're challenged on any of this will get more people to stand up against it all.

I don't think we should expect people to stand up against all of this. Even if most of them don't like it, let's be honest, it's not a dealbreaker for them. Especially if the next election other party puts forward some deliberately hypocritical, racist, out-of-touch elitist like Kamala Harris.

> The question IMO is, who will be creating the demand on the other side for all of these goods produced if so many people will be left without the jobs?

There is no reason why people will left without jobs. Ultimately, "job" is simply a superstructure for satisfying people's needs. As long as people have needs and the ability to satisfy them, there will be jobs in the market. AI change nothing in those aspects.

> You would simply be insane to think Alabama was in any way wealthier than Bavaria.

Is it accurate? Europe has a fairly low standard of living compared to America, but their totalitarian governments are quite effective at silencing all dissent.

> They rather hire immigrants than retrain or educate existing workforce

The existing workforce is literally the most expensive in the world. And if you add to that its toxicity, what specifically surprises you?

For most poor people, raising the minimum wage doesn't mean increasing their income, but rather reducing it to zero. It literally prohibits workers from working for low wages, effectively putting them out of job.

I think in this case, just about everyone falls into the funnel. I think it's difficult to find a potential buyer of tailwind who doesn't visit the documentation.

> the popular conspiracy theory among Russian opposition is that Maduro exit was negotiated, so he will do small time at a Fed club and would preserve significant amount of his money

It sounds stupid. Maduro has no way to enforce the deal, and the US has no incentive to fulfill this deal.

> We can see that nobody was going to resist the operation in Venezuela, so it doesn't really matter that Venezuela doesn't have nukes.

To use it, no resistance is matter. One person must do their job to launch a nuclear weapon. That's all.

> it involves a lot of people and processes

It doesn't matter. Nuclear deterrence exercises are conducted regularly. And their peculiarity is that no one except the person with the red button knows whether it's an exercise or whether the missiles will actually be launched this time.

So when the order to launch comes, many people will be performing a large number of complex processes which will result in the use of nuclear weapons. Because they regularly receive such orders and carry out these processes.

> If Zelensky were to give an order to launch hypothetical nukes, I'd think there would have been a coup and no launch.

Do you understand that nuclear weapons don't work like that, and leaders with nuclear buttons give orders to launch nuclear weapons every few months? And only they know they're using a training launch code; everyone else finds that out when the missiles does not fly off at the end of the launch sequence.