Not-so-fun fact: Surveillance drones, that we know of, go back as far as the Vietnam War.

The first UAV attacks date back to the middle of the 1800’s.

Went to turn it off.

Apparently I already did. Marvelous.

This app sounds exceedingly useful to me.

Not sure if he pushed the original measure but he was definitely instrumental in the compromise they attempted to insert into it.

That vote tally, though.

Totally, and the deal’s going to happen in two weeks. Definitely two weeks.

it becomes a form of censorship when snall websites and forums shut down because they don’t have the capacity to comply.

In this scenario that’s not a consideration.

We’re talking about algorithmically-driven content, which wouldn’t apply to Lemmy, Mastodon, or many mom-and-pop sized pages and forums. Those have human moderation anyway, which the big sites don’t. If you’re making editorial decisions by weighting algorithmically-driven content, it’s not censorship to hold you accountable for the consequences of your editorial decisions. (Just as we would any major media outlet.)

You’re not wrong. There are lots of holier-than-thou types around here.

Same, took some legwork to get files for my 700-song library, but we did it. Fuck 'em.

It is possible to get off Spotify.

What you can’t buy legitimately via other means you can use a Youtube-To-MP3 converter to rip and add the file to your music library.

It’s not censorship to hold people accountable for making editorial decisions on media platforms, and as long as FB, Twitter, and others are weighting different kinds of content in their algorithms (which they are), they should be held accountable financially and legally for the consequences.

It’s almost certainly programmed to find damage that doesn’t exist and price gouge you for it, but they haven’t found that sweet spot yet, where you can get people to pay more without putting up a fight.

Same Ada.

I’d rather see nothing than the slop the algorithm keeps plastering across my screen. (Though I do like the topic buttons at the top.)

I like it.

Lots of social engineering incoming, no doubt.

Correlating education to wealth is fine overall but you are intentionally avoiding more direct metrics of wealth and inequality to make it seem as if this is direct causation for women having some upper hand.

No. I’m illustrating that the machinery of government can and has elevated women and minorities in measurable ways.

Women absolutely make less and hold a significantly smaller portion of the overall wealth in this country.

What I’ve suggested above would benefit them as much as men.

Women routinely have to leave their careers to manage the home and their family (due to archaic misogynistic gender roles). There is also just straight up bias in management decisions about pay.

Sometimes yes, hence why there needs to be more regulation, as I’ve suggested.

Your inference that I’m blaming women is projection. What I’m doing is essentially advocating for DEI, but income-based and not based on any one demographic with the dual goals of lessening poverty and improving the overall functionality of society. (So we don’t have entire generations of people being radicalized.)

Thank you for reading it.

There are two factors here in the US that correlate significantly with a person’s lifetime earnings potential: their zip code of birth and attainment of a college degree. It’s exceedingly significant (in a positive way) that women constitute the majority in college enrollment. I think that’s a good thing, but it also demonstrates inequality.

I want to see policies here that mirror those in more progressive European countries: Free college, a federally-mandated living wage that adjusts with inflation, and universal health care. I also want to see universities’ federal funding tied to expansion of enrollment rates, as there are many that keep them artificially low and yet still raise tuition rates every year. These benefits should target low-income communities without regard to race or gender.

In short, I want to see the economic ship lifted for the poor, and that’s how it should be done.

Most young people, and in particular young men, have three choices when entering adulthood: Work for sub-standard wages and struggle alone and/or live with their parents, join the military, or take on permanent debt on the hope of a college degree and an elevated life. (If they’re fortunate enough to land a spot in enrollment to begin with.)

Rampant misogyny has spread because people who consider themselves progressive have ignored these economic calamities and right-wingers have, conversely, highlighted those inequalities, created communities for young men, and gotten rich in the process. Currently the functional unemployment rate in the United States is 25%.

The solution, is creating an economy where prosperity is distributed among a more diverse population of people.

(But I suspect people will continue to vote Democrat and Republican and this conversation won’t matter much in the grand scheme of things.)

I think this person sees someone pointing out the problems facing young men and automatically thinks ‘incel’. It can be disorienting to see people who don’t hate women advocating for young men.

Respectfully, your hostile and reactionary tone demonstrated quite well that you had no intention of discussing things in a rational manner. You toss around terms like ‘redpill’ like they’re Halloween candy, and it demonstrates that even having the discussion is enough to set off your temper. I even gave you an example of the imbalance in economic opportunity favoring women and minorities, and you just ignored it.

And that’s fine.

Be angry, but the least you could do is try to be productive.

The problem is the systemic impoverishment of young men is the root cause of all this, and that is what needs to be fixed if you want to fix misogyny.

I’d suggest you read the entire thread.