Well, the idea behind these ultra-expensive schools is to have one's kids become childhood friends with the children of billionaires, and then continue that friendship in ultra-expensive universities, so that all that investment pays off in the form of one's kids becoming billionaires themselves, or at the very least members of the inner circle of billionaires. That is, one isn't paying for good education, but for good networking. So viewing these $70k/year as anything other than a financial investment is a serious judgment error.

And yes, that's valid for poor folk who end up admitted into ultra-expensive universities. They entire purpose of those is networking. Going to parties with billionaire teen friends and getting a far from perfect GPA pays off orders of magnitude more than not going to those parties and getting a perfect GPA, with the sole exception of those who want to follow an academic career, in which case, sure, focus on the GPA. Otherwise, focus on making rich friends. Those are the ones who get you high-paying jobs.

Also, yes, I'm being sarcastic. That doesn't mean this isn't true. It shouldn't be like this. Alas, it is.

Let me get this straight: you googled for "disinformation board", copied the first two links that appeared in the search results, and pasted them, without having actually opened them and read them, right? Because, yeah, I just wasted about 15 minutes of my time reading two fluff pieces showing a grand total of exactly zero censorship, which is likely five times more time than you spent sending those useless googled results. The second of which, for the record, having been a link to a video from within an article, so I had to look for the link to the actual article to actually read that piece of garbage.

But that's my fault, really, as I thought, once again, that maybe, just maybe, perchance, a once-in-a-lifetime possibility, a pseudo-conservative might have made an accusation that, for once, miraculously, wasn't a mere confession.

Shame on me for my naivete.

Don't worry. He will use the same cooling technology developed for Hyperlo... wait!

PS: Ops! Seven, not five!

f) That the former president was trying to implement government censorship;

g) And that he was trying to censor you, specifically.

My, oh, my!

Wow. Have you taken your Paranoid Personality Disorder medication recently? I count not three, not four, but five paranoid hallucinations:

a) That there was "uncontrolled illegal immigration";

b) That there's something called "trans ideology" that tries to "mutilate and sterilize" kids;

c) That these shadowy figures are after your kids, specifically;

d) That they're trying to "criminalize" religions;

e) And that they're going after your religion, specifically.

Whew! It must be hard to live under such intense fantasies!

Hope you get better!

Indeed. Back in the day monopolies were hard to develop. Not impossible, but much harder than today, and presumably States would be able to deal with them if and when one sloooowly started arising.

Things changed by the end of 19th, start of the 20th century, thanks to the telegraph and to railway transportation (itself cartelized). This resulted, during the 1920s, in similar levels of despair are currently washing over poor- and middle-class America, which is when anti-monopoly became a very popular topic and ended up approved into law. But it didn't get into the Constitution proper, so it was all dismantled started from the late 1970s onwards, resulting in a repeat of widespread, omnipresent levels of despair now, a mere century later.

Hopefully this time around, after things become much worse, the proper solution gets enshrined Constitutionally so as to avoid another repeat around the 2120s.

Except that I'm not American. Regardless, you didn't provide the law he broke. Or the judicial case. I'd be quite interested in taking the PDFs listing all the evidence and the prosecutors' and defense arguments before the clearly unbiased judges, then getting it all through a LLM do try and understand what it was about. Care to provide any of it?

What law did he break? The unwritten one that forbids publicly saying a government proposal is stupid "or else...", and has a minimum and a maximum term of whatever the Great Leader decides on the spot?

Nah. They want schools to teach the Bible. More specifically, the KJV translation of the Bible. Even more specifically, their own interpretation of specific sentences from that translation.

And I don't mean in Religious Studies classes. I mean in Biology classes, Physics classes, Social Studies classes, Math classes, History classes, Chemistry classes...

Remember folk: whenever a Conservative makes an accusation, it's always a confession. They just love to project, is all.

So, you support China on the one area they intersect with US conservatives' anti-science stance, namely, in their shared dismissal of "inconvenient" 21st-century truths about human biology.

Guess why far-right conservatives want to cease all State-provided public education, and substitute vouchers for it, so that everyone ends up using private schools exclusively? The strategy is simple:

a) Make everyone use vouchers. Providing vouchers to parents technically doesn't involve anything religion-related.

b) Completely de-regulate the schooling market, starting by eliminating the Department of Education, and moving into making it sure States don't have any say on the matter either.

c) Allow educational conglomerates owned by Christianophile billionaires to near-monopolize the private school system, making sure the vast, vast majority of private schools near poor communities are religious, and enforce the teaching of their preferred religion.

And presto, Constitution bypassed!

Then, eventually, and evidently:

d) The educational monopolies and cartels start rising prices, so vouchers alone aren't enough to pay for children's education anymore, thus complementing the whole BS with traditional rent extraction.

Because building monopolies has to be worth the effort, hasn't it?

Well, they're also the ones pursuing renewables with the most intensity. There isn't slowing them down, but with some luck this curve will overtake that one sooner than later.

Sigh, I read incorrectly what I myself wrote then also "fixed" incorrectly.

hires also not approach -> hires also now approach

That if you have several qualified people, you don't hire any of them based on things unrelated to their qualification.

Since you're not hiring based on, let's say, sex, or gender, or skin color, or nationality, or sexual orientation, or any factor that isn't purely, exclusively, their qualification to perform the job, then by the rules of statistics the distribution of people you hired will resemble that of the population at large. After all, you're now, say, perfectly color blind, so there's no reason for, if the population is 85% white people and 15% black people, your hires also not approach being 85% white employees and 15% black employees.

But if your company has something like 99.9% white employees and 0.1% black employees, that looks suspiciously like hiring isn't really based on merit alone, but on skin color, doesn't it? DEI fixes that non-merit-based hiring.