The character in the meme thought that the person they were responding to was arguing in good faith. Perhaps no one here thinks that you are arguing in good faith. I know I certainly don’t think you are. You’re obviously just aiming for some lazy ‘gotcha’. So why should anyone bother doing policy research and analysis to give to you?

Yes - tortured using a burning hot gas-light, from what I understand.

There are a lot of subreddits which routinely award hundreds or thousands of upvotes for repetitive low value posts. … This is a cog in the well-tuned machine of new-accounts being created and matured to look ‘real’ for when they are later used for advertising / manipulation later down the line.

In the early months of a new account, it is easier to spot. Eg. If you see a post on a game subreddit with a title like “Exciting to try this game, any tips get started?”, you might click the profile and see that their entire history is a bunch of low-effort discussion starters. “Name a band from the 80s that everyone has forgotten”; “What’s the most misunderstood concept in maths?”; “What’s the most underrated (movie / band / drug / car / tourist attraction / whatever suits the topic of the subreddit)?”

A heap of threads like that, on a new account with a very generic name (adjective-noun-numbers is a common pattern); posting on a variety of subredits… is highly suspicious. But it gets harder to recognise as the account gets older and has a longer history - at which point it is ready to be sold / used for its next purpose.

A typical ActivityPub+Lemmy post.

I’m sure Microsoft would be supportive of that point of view. And with their wealth and lobbying power … … Lets not mention it again, and hope for the best.

Yeah, taking precautions to protect your health and the health of other does sound like anti-freedom. Is it still legal to wash your hands in the USA, or are they cracking down on that too? It’s surprising that kind of stuff was allowed to continue for so long.

Notice “free speech” is in scare quotes. The previous comment isn’t suggesting that free speech should not be protected. But rather they referring to the fact that many fascists claim that to criticize them, or to refuse to promote their views is to stifle their free speech.

Hey, no one is trying to stop you from doing that. I’m sure it is very convenient for you.

My point of view though is that automatically uploading my personal files to some corporation computer on the other side of the world should not be the default when I try to save something. Maybe sometimes I’ll want to use that feature, but there are a variety of reasons why I don’t want it most of the time. And I definitely don’t like having to jump through hoops just to avoid it.

deleted by creator

To me it is weird that every day on lemmy I see new posts complaining about all tankies… but I never actually see any of the content they are complaining about. And outside of lemmy, I never see or hear the word ‘tankies’ used at all. I’ve asked a couple of people I know in real life if they ever seen discussions about it in their parts of the internet, and none of them people I’ve asked have ever heard the word before.

So… like I said, I find it weird. It’s like some kind of lemmy boogieman.

Sure. I agree it won’t change unless citizens push for a change. But choosing to not participate is not pushing for a change. That’s just capitulation. Choosing to not vote is not a signal of protest. It’s a signal of someone who doesn’t care what the outcome is.

Voting is the first and most basic step in pushing for change. Doing more is good, but you definitely can’t skip that step.

Whenever I see this gif I think of this SSBM version.

Someone has been feeding you some weird bullshit about 15-minute cities. The concept of 15-minutes cities has nothing whatsoever to do with the things you wrote.

Nar. On Earth we’ll ‘only’ struggle to grow enough food, due to large previously productive parts of the world becoming unusable. We’ll still be able to breathe.

I agree. The rich are the main problem, and that should be top priority. But that also shouldn’t be used as an excuse to not improve oneself personally. My suggestion is that people shouldn’t worry about aiming for personal idealism, but should just make a conscious effort to be less environmentally damaging than their peers, their family, work colleges, and friends. If a person achieves that, then they can be confident that they are not the problem.

[edit] Obviously if everyone did what I’m suggesting then it would be a kind of race-to-the-bottom. But that’s not happening. If it was, then we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. All I’m suggesting is a rough heuristic for what’s reasonable for an individual to do on their own.

I’d think ‘repurpose’ is part of ‘reuse’ rather than recycle. Doesn’t recycle mean that you’re going to destroy the object to extract its raw resources to be made into a new product? Whereas ‘reuse’ just means that you are going to use it again. I’d say ‘repurpose’ means you are going to use it again, but not in the same way it was used the first time.

In any case, I agree that the added words are unnecessary. Maybe they were added to deliberately weaken the slogan. Sometimes people deliberately try to make sustainable living sound like a lot of work, by adding a whole lot of extra steps and conditions.

Peter Kalmus, the scientist who posted the tweet, has been arrested multiple times for his protest actions. So he isn’t just lying around waiting for pitchfork time.

Following the naming conventions of 1984.

That has happened. But clearly that is not how chat-bots and image generating AI work. Even putting aside the style and peculiarities of the results, the AI programs are far too fast for that to be done by a person. Even if a person just read a message and then did a direct cut-and-paste from wikipedia, that would take far too long to be convincing as a chat-bot.

I’m sure you’ll be thinking about this conversation for longer than it took to make the original post.