When people reliably make stupid choices in a situation, you shouldn't blame the people, but rather the situation. When all people are told about a problem is sound bites, their decisions will reliably be shallow and short-sighted, looking only for immediate gain.

The problem is that the "news media" thinks it's in the entertainment business. I've dropped all my newspaper subscriptions because none of they told me what was going on, they told me what they thought I should think about what was going on. That's a very different thing.
N.B.: The news media has a lot of reasons to thing it's in the entertainment business. That's what pays it's bills. But it may also be one of the reasons newspaper subscriptions have been dropping. If I want opinions, I can get them for free over the internet.

No. Just double the fine every day they're not in compliance. After a month you'll own them.

Well, we are certainly not hearing all of the story. The question is "Why?". My guess is that while the believe that the attack required (support from) a nation state to happen, there isn't definitive evidence as to *which* nation state.

And, of course, it's also true that things that someone believes requires the support of a nation state may not actually require that.

That's not an argument in favor of the current approach. You've identified a second problem, but that doesn't eliminate the one being pointed at, and this is a (largely) technical site, not an administrative or legal site, which is the kind of answer you're asking for.

The proper approach is to peruse solving BOTH problems. The one this site has expertise available on is the technical one. And it *IS* a real problem.

P.S.: You can't fix stupid. You need to reframe the problem so it's a different kind of problem. Then design your systems and procedure so that the problem cannot occur, even in the presence of stupid. (This won't stop malign actors, of course.)

But we COULD use ".mil.us", and if we did it would be easier to secure.

IIUC, this time you need to consume an insane amount of aspartame to (probably) raise your cancer risk a tiny bit. So they're probably both correct...sort of.

What make you think they were deleted rather than just made inaccessible?
If, as some have claimed, the goal is to be able to feed the stuff to an AI as training material, deleting them wouldn't be a good idea. But it might be a good idea to remove the ability to prove authorship.

OTOH, you could be right.

Sorry, but I'm not familiar with that industry, and I expect most people aren't. My meaning is derived from common usage dating back to the ... probably the 1940's, but certainly the 1960's. An it includes "racy language", because that was included then.

I would suspect that the "stand-up comedy" used language that was considered offensive because of it's sexual connotations. And I was including that within my parameters.

(OTOH, this is the first time I've encountered the term "adult animation". And I still don't know what this one is about. Some how I don't think it's Joe Palooka vs. someone in the ring.)

I don't think I've ever heard the term "adult content" used when it wasn't referring to either porn or at least erotica. And not just online.

Most people only hear about the ones pushed by the PR departments.

I thought you could unsubscribe by deleting your Instagram account...or was that some different project.

Did you have a charismatic leader that everyone accepted?
FWIW, I have lived in a (very small) "commune". I've seen it work, and I've seen it fall apart. One failed example doesn't prove much. Every kind of organization can fail.

FWIW, The "University Students Cooperative Association" lasted from at least the late 1940 through the 1980's, and I've no reason to believe that it failed then, I just lost touch with it. The current students that were members were the collective owners. It is/was a mix of socialist and capitalist themes. (OTOH, somewhere during the later part of that period it changed from being modeled on a student dorm to an renter of apartments, and I'm not sure the conversion was a stable one. Apartment renters feel less loyalty to the group than do those who reside in the same dorm.)

Genuine communism has many virtues in social groups smaller than 50. It doesn't scale well, however. And it needs to be accepted by the group for the virtues to manifest. This is most commonly because of a shared religion, but that's a mechanism, and there are others. You do need a charismatic leader who's accepted as such, however.

Socialism comes in so many forms that I don't think a global statement about it's virtues is possible. Some of the forms don't have even as many virtues as scaled up communism. Others are as good as any other form that I know. Again, it depends a lot on the leadership, not just on the structure.

FWIW, there are forms of anarchy that are also socialist. Not all forms of it depend on a centralized government. But that may be necessary for stability. (Anarchy can be stable if there are no external stresses, but tends to collapse in the presence of such. And famine counts as an external stress in this sense. It's not just foreign competitors.)

The only time when there was only one language was back when Babbage was designing machines and Ada was the only programmer. Ever since then there have been multiple languages, because the hardware used different models. The German machines didn't have the same op-codes as the US machines did, and neither was the same as the British. Then there were multiple groups in the same country designing computers..and programming them. And things got more complex. They started to get simpler around the early 1950's when Fortran, Cobol, and Lisp became nearly portable across machines from different manufacturers. Then computers spread, and the languages diversified again.