Everyone's (rightfully) bitching about this, and I agree, but none of that solves the problem.

What's the alternative? Give me a TV brand that gives you, ideally, a dumb TV, but alternatively a decent smart TV that is easy to work with.

Responsiveness is an important, and often overlooked, characteristic. It's important.

Brand/model recommendations; go!

The bots are the most interesting part of reddit. It's fascinating to me what foreign actors want us thinking or believing.

It's not like the organic reddit content has any value. This will be like the time onlyfans pretended they were going to get rid of porn.

Since when has "Free speech on the platform" been a consideration for either Alphabet OR Meta?

You think they'll take the loss out of the goodness of their hearts? Absolute bullshit; at most they'll shuffle the numbers around so it's hard to trace how it's being passed on to the consumer or local community.

Remember when "Think of the children" was a phrase which was rightly mocked as manipulative and only fooled the smoothest of the smooth brains who couldn't think beyond their emotional reaction?

Now it's a battle cry that suckers in millions.

Am I the only one who misses the pixel 2? It felt like the best phone. I was/am a huge fan of the rear finger print reader, and I must have been one of the few that used the squeeze functionality.

Every later version of the pixel is fine, but has felt like a step down from the 2.

Your strange obsession with comparing poor people to wild animals notwithstanding, there are plenty of valid considerations with the government being involved with free food for kids.

First of all, despite what many here might believe, I do not believe any child should go to bed hungry. In fact, quite the opposite; I believe every child should have quality, nutritious food. I simply doubt the government's ability to do so, a fear that is not without basis.

You have this almost..magical...belief in the competency of the government to provide food to all kids. I find this to be laughable, dangerously so, particularly when paired with the billions associated with such an endeavor.

I never said anything about "poor" people; in fact, I suspect those who would most take advantage of such programs to be middle class folks. You are woefully ignorant of the situation if you think it's just "poor" people.

The underlying point, of course, is that the food we serve these children would be garbage, inherent in the "lowest bidder" process inherent in the government process. How do I know? Because they currently serve trash at our schools to our children.

That's even assuming a level of success I don't believe anyone involved is capable of.

Remember when "it's for the children" was rightly derided for being manipulative and meaningless? When did people start falling for that nonsense?

I pick and choose how I respond, but let's clarify something; do you really think millions if not billions wouldn't be political theatre?

Oh. Oh princess. How very "brave" and "stunning" you are. Now run along and eat your crayons, the adults are talking.

None of that has anything to do with what I posted unless...wait...have I been arguing with a bot?

Figures.

Agree with your overall point; Republicans are every bit as horrible as democrats. Just, you know, in slightly different ways.

I can see you are extremely emotional about this issue.

I doubt the opposition to feeding children is based on some "out group" bias, but more in the practicalities. The argument is two fold; quality and cost. Free food for children will prompt more parents to simply rely on the government to feed their children, resulting in worse health outcomes for the children. That's the quality argument, and it's not a bad one truth be told.

Cost is, of course, as I mentioned; I have yet to meet a government program which didn't try to grow their budget while providing the least possible to fulfill their job function ( and, federally, often failing even in that ).

Mind you, none of this considers the secondary impact of free food. Probably the most obvious to me is the creation of food deserts; small grocery stores just barely hanging on which then lose this source of income, shutting down.

Giving things away always have some pretty gnarly consequences that should be heavily considered. But no; it's all about emotion: "Starving children!", and all logic and sense fly out the window.

And this is why people have issues with the government feeding children; because, invariably, they choose the worst options to feed children. The cheapest, nastiest, least nutritious slop, but we pay top dollar for it, and every year the food gets worse but the bill gets higher.

I get it's emotional to complain about starving children, but at some point we need to consider how much we're spending on poisoning these children.

I don't know the solution, but I know giving the government more and more power/money leads to worse outcomes, not better.