Yeah. You’re missing bots regurgitating old posts into new ones, and ai bots responding to that. You’re missing the thousands of samesies “What [movie/video game/song] do you like but everyone hates” You’re missing obvious troll posts like “AITA for defending my 6yo from nearly being a rape victim?”
I have been back occasionally when searching for some specific thing, and sometimes I checked r/all and my former favorite subs. My overall observation:
Top subs already sucked before the API changes, still looking bad. I don’t have too much comparison, as I wasn’t following them anyway, but I would be surprised if they improved
My former favorite niche subs went downhill, with lower frequency and quality of content. I assume this is due to some mods and powerusers leaving
Overall, reddit is still useful as an occasional information source for checking public opinion/sentiment on specific things, but for me, it’s appeal as a general “time-waster” social media, where I keep scrolling for an hour and leave comments is gone.
We protected our borders long before these surveillance technologies existed. We should keep doing it without, because it’s just a matter of time that what is normalized for travellers is normalized for us.
The UK just had a big article revealing that their Prevent database was being shared with border control (edit: link). The Prevent database covers people who have not committed any crime but have shown some indication of potentially becoming radicalised towards terrorirsm or towards some other crime. The vast majority are labelled “no further action” but still have been shared with customs. Some were children as young as 6 and 4.
You absolutely don’t need to do anything wrong to get on a list. Hell, just browsing the internet gets you put on all sorts of lists.
How much time have you got? I guess the biggest factor is that referendums are hard to pass in Australia, especially when the campaign becomes partisan. And this one was VERY partisan. But also Australia has a particular type of racist ignorance when it comes to our First Nations Peoples and our colonial history in general. We’re now currently the only settler colonial nation that has not recognised its First Nations Peoples in their constitution. Settler colonialism is not a competition, but if it was Australia kind of wins the gold. I say that as a white Australian.
I’m Norwegian and even though the Saami have their own government within the nation state of Norway there are still plenty of people in denial of the apartheid that was done against them. For each year the Sami government is delegitemised and it’s done through nationalistic fervour.
Nationalism and intellectual suicide go hand in hand.
There’s a lot of different views, many with some truths to it. I’ll try to give an answer but please take into account my answer is quite bias too.
The question, unlike the title of the article, the actual vote is on
whether the Constitution should be changed to include a recognition of the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
The problem is, how exactly or what exactly is an Aboriginal/Torres strait Islander voice. It’s not like Australia is voting to not give these groups voting rights like many articles seem to suggest.
It’s about what does this voice mean, do they have the power over government, can they stop laws, does it even help, whose even in it?
And there is no answer real answer, most answers I see are “it’s about creating a voice” or “we want to see Aus support before putting into action” etc (this may have changed later but that was the initial info I was getting), so you basically asked the Australian people to vote into changing the consitution on a potential something? Which for many feels like a permanent change or an unknown thing.
So all the no side had to do was be like “oh if you don’t know, then best to err on the safe side and vote no”. “Who knows what this could do”. “You can always wait and change it later”.
Imo the votes would have been very different if it instead just asked “would you like to see an Aboriginal / Torres strait Islander voice in government” and not touched the constitution. Or if they just made the voice/team/group and showed Aus how helpful it was before asking them to change the consitution.
And (I’m prob showing more bias here) if the yes side didn’t just call everyone racist who looked at the no vote (which I believe many are swing voters), it couldve provided enough time/listening to make changes to the argument that would change the voters. For example if they made it clear that it would just be used to support better decision making and help understanding etc. Though I can’t be too harsh when many of the no side arguments felt objectively like lies.
Racism and lack of bipartisan support were likely huge factors as other commenters said. There was also division between Indigenous people regarding the efficacy of the Voice to Parliament. Some saw it as a great step forward, others saw it as toothless or symbolic, others still believed it would delegitimise their sovereignty over the land. The Opposition latched onto this for their own gains I believe. Together with Fair Australia (conservative lobbying group) they dealed in fear, misinformation and distrust. They absolutely dominated over social media and took control of the narrative very quickly. This became a lot easier for them due to the cost of living crisis. Take a White Australian in the outer suburbs or rural areas, tell them to care about this thing they don’t understand instead of their rising mortgage payments and cost of groceries, when the Opposition is feeding into their latent ignorance and distrust of First Nations people that all Australians have, and you’ve lost them already.
This reads eerily similar, so basically the same parallel that the U.S. and Australia have been struggling with together for the last 20 years (and assuredly before then).
so many companies would rather engage in collective punishment rather than just behave – see a similar thing with gamble-boxes in video games, companies are happier blocking countries rather than just publishing the odds/payouts/return-to-player …
It shows they make a lot more money by being unethical than by being ethical. If it were just a little more money they could just do the right thing and raise prices a little. It’s the same reason tech companies won’t let you pay not to be tracked: they make more money from accumulating information about you than you’d ever be able to afford to pay them.
sorry ma’am, your child was one of thirty five killed when we reintroduced wolves to kindercare because they were native here in the 1300s, but their comeback is something to behold, and the survivors have quite a story!
I kid, but also, reintroduce them to areas where they’re least likely to bump up against population, all the areas they natively lived in the past are, unfortunately, overrun by humans. I live in Washington state, where we’re seeing grey wolves slowly come back. I’m all for it. And here in Seattle, we’ve always had Coyotes living around the town, on the large greenways. Keep your cats inside if you love them!
She is also feminist and lesbian and has an Uyghur girlfriend, which was blatantly published by Vice after promises not to do so, which suddenly put her on the radar 😭 It’s a shame because I have big respect for her and her content.
I don’t really understand why China is so against LGBTQ+, I don’t think they have any religious basis for this. But I assume it has a lot to do with their demography crisis (rapidly falling birth numbers). Even though it seems counterproductive to me, them being against LGBTQ+ does not really make it disappear, I think facilitating IVF for happy LGBT couples to raise loved children would be more productive. But anyway…
I was curious about this as I read a few BL Manhua. It was pretty well accepted since at least the Han dynasty, and has been argued that westernisation during the Qing dynasty is what introduced the opposition towards it. I mainly just read about it on this Wikipedia page so I could also be completely wrong ^ - ^ `
Being in the infosec space and seeing her blow up back in 2017-2019, I’m shocked it took the CCP this long to come down on her. She always kept any political criticism at arm’s length, but her not being the Beijing-approved image of femininity was always going to make her a target in Xi’s China.
I wouldn’t call it freedom. If she’s treated like other “security threats” within China, then she does not have freedom to travel. She’s likely limited to her city at most, perhaps even just a small area within and has to regularly report to local police. Think of it like probation for people convicted of actual crimes in the West, except without court order, for an unlimited amount of time and with the constant threat of being tortured/disappeared looming over her head. If Xi ever feels like tightening the thumb screws on the Chinese people even further, she’d probably feel the effects before many others. All of this comes with social consequences, as many friends and business partners will be scared away.
Ironically, I think censoring these kinds of innocuous influencer types is probably a counter-productive move by the CCP (as far as their fascist goals go) compared to silencing actual out-and-out political activists.
I think it’s easier for people in China to accept the silencing of active political dissidents and shrugg them off as “probably extremists”, but censoring a popular entertainment figure forces people in China to ask the question “Why?” which only really leaves the one conclusion; that they’re living in a techno-fascist state. That’s the question the CCP doesn’t want people asking.
I don’t think they have any religious basis for this.
The same applies to Russia. You can say something similar about ultra conservative Catholics, since the Pope has called for tolerance. Yet, they would rather denounce the Pope than tolerate LGBTQ+.
The key idea is that bigotry is not driven by religious affiliation, but rather by authoritarian attitudes. That’s what’s common between China, Russia and the ultra conservatives in the US. Tolerance of LGBTQ indicates freedom and liberalism in some sense. And both are challenges to the stakeholders of authoritarianism. They want a world where people live within the framework they dictate - and thus the bigotry.
Not really. Russia has a strong orthodox influence. They suppressed it during the soviet times but it is back in full force.
You can say something similar about ultra conservative Catholics, since the Pope has called for tolerance. Yet, they would rather denounce the Pope than tolerate LGBTQ+.
That’s a small splinter group though. Most catholics are pretty open. Even Ireland allowed gay marriage now by popular vote.
The key idea is that bigotry is not driven by religious affiliation, but rather by authoritarian attitudes. That’s what’s common between China, Russia and the ultra conservatives in the US. Tolerance of LGBTQ indicates freedom and liberalism in some sense. And both are challenges to the stakeholders of authoritarianism. They want a world where people live within the framework they dictate - and thus the bigotry.
Aha that does make sense. The LGBTQ movement is indeed very progressive and liberal. I do think there is often a religous component as well (though that seems to be missing in China) but this sounds like a good explanation.
The tofu eating wokerati want to trap us on our homes! They want us to wear ankle trackers that ensure we don’t travel more then 15 minutes from the house!
They’re trying to ensure all the most important amenities are within walking distance so they can lock us down forever and control how we breed and what we think!
Then they’ll slowly replace us with the foreigners they’re shipping in on their small boats, and before you know it we’ll all be French! It’s an invasion from within!
It’s incredible. I went to a consultation forum regarding intruding 20mph speed limits and all these conspiracy nuts just came out of the crowd like some zombie apocalypse.
Now this “uplifting” story really has it all. Death, loss, a system of injustice and the sense that even if successful after all is done it will not even address a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the outstanding medical debt.
The only thing more “uplifting” about this would be that one country keeps thinking these stories are not keeping people up at night.
Living in a city with many bicycle lanes along major streets, the toxicity of exhaust gases worries me and doesn’t come as a surprise. Sucks that most people don’t know or care about that
theguardian.com
Top