As the university presidents were trying to explain to Clown Shoes, sorry, I mean Elise Stefanik: Harassment is conduct that is severe or pervasive enough to create an environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. A one-time generalized statement calling for genocide not targeted at a specific individual would not usually rise to the level of harassment per se, but can certainly be part of a pattern of harassment. Similarly, actual bullying is a pattern of abusive behavior and cannot be defined by any single act as it is often used colloquially.
That's the game Stefanik is playing: She knows these universities' policies are bound by the actual, legal definitions of "harassment" and "bullying" but she's counting on her ignorant audience not knowing those definitions and instead thinking the words are defined as what they use them for in their own lives: someone being mean.
ANNs like this will always just present our own biases and stereotypes back to us unless the data is scrubbed and curated in a way that no one is going to spend the resources to. Things like this are a good demonstration of why they need to be kept far, far away from decision making processes.
John Amann told NBC News he bought $2,200 worth of Trump Bucks and other items over the past year only to discover they were worthless when he tried to cash them in at his local bank.
Oh man I want video of him trying to cash them in at a real bank so bad.
Obviously, the ability for a company to make unilateral decisions that severely affect users is a Big Plus for a movement that is advocating for transparency, open access and user control. Perhaps an enterprising lad, laddess or ladx could build the next Reddit, only decentralized.
And as we all know, you need crypto to do decentralization; it's the only way.