If a company loses value and that's distributed to people, that's tax and welfare no matter what name you give it or what currency it's done in. If the company does not lose value, no value is given to the currency.

Between corrupt billionaires and a corrupt government, the problem is the corrupt billionaires who own the corrupt government.

It's great that the people are being payed well, but as with other stock-based arrangements this only counts if it's immediately vested and can be sold. Even then if they all try to cash in it will lose most of its value.

Whatever the fig leaf, these policies have one goal: to initiate control over internet access by the state. None of the stated reasons are invented, but none of them can or should be solved with an attempt at controlling who can get on the internet. Remember when Rock and Roll was destroying a generation and the radio had to be regulated? Remember when it was video games?

Don't get me wrong: we need to fix the problem of dopamine addiction in our young (it has never in history had such an easy source), but the solution to that is good parenting. This? This is just opportunistic authoritarianism.

They lost me at "marginalized groups". The only groups that matter in this context are economic ones.

There are differences in brain structure visible on an MRI between most rapists and non-rapists.

Innocent until proven guilty. At which point if he were to be placed in a cell with someone prone to fits of anger and accidentally fall onto a shank a dozen times I won't shed a tear.

The names being protected in these files, the ones in the many, many pages they decided to not include in this redacted release, are the names of the people who really own the world. If all the files are released exposing them who push whole national economies and manipulate hundreds of millions, who are de facto above the law, I will eat my shoe. American politicians (D and R) aren't the kingpins here, they're the puppets. Here are some real names: Saud. Charles III. Jinping. Rothschild. Rockefeller. The trillions of dollars controlled by those names, and names we don't know, are a sun to the candle of the power of these left and right politicians you people want to pretend are influencing anything.

It's not left vs right, it's They with a capital T vs everyone else and it has been for 90 years.

It's malicious to obey the law and release some of the data that should have all been released long ago? I say not.

Something something whistleblower.

The reason food is becoming less nutritious is that is costs way less to make something full of carbs, stabilizers and preservatives so it lasts forever on the shelves and in the warehouses and sell it as food. Nutritious food is also nutritious to mold and bacteria and tends to oxidize.

It's not hard to make a new website.

I said it when the left was in power and trying to censor the right, and now I'm still saying it. Freedom of speech is paramount. It is the primary mechanism by which truth is contested, refined, and occasionally discovered. No authority, left or right, well-intentioned, or evil is reliably capable of distinguishing true ideas from false ones in advance. Or at all, often enough. History is littered with doctrines once deemed dangerous or heretical that later proved correct, and with orthodoxies that collapsed under scrutiny. By protecting speech broadly society preserves the feedback loops that allow error correction. This is true regardless of the political aims or claimed political aims of the group attempting suppression. Free speech is a matter of individual dignity and moral agency. To speak is to participate as a reasoning adult rather than as a managed subject. When people are allowed to articulate beliefs, argue, persuade, and dissent, they are treated as responsible actors capable of judgment. This openness reduces the pressure toward violence and extremism by providing lawful outlets for grievance and reform.

On the internet, these principles become even more important. Online platforms function as the modern public square, mediating discourse at a scale no prior medium approached. Section 230 recognizes this reality by drawing a crucial distinction: platforms are not the speakers of user-generated content, and they should not be legally punished for hosting lawful expression. Without it, platforms would be forced into extreme over-censorship or simply cease to host open discussion at all, chilling speech through liability fear rather than democratic choice. I say repeal section 230 and replace it with something MORE potent.

That's odd, for my purposes -- story writing, research, and keeping my schedule -- I've found Grok to be very inferior to Chat GPT. Only in image editing is it superior.

The class in question was given IN PERSON. I didn't carefully review the article but that happened. Anything about Linkedin Learning is a deliberate decoy, same as the coke can. This is my last post on the topic. You may now reiterate that I'm wrong and pretend it never happened. Whatever makes you feel comfortable.