Lemmy technically doesn’t hide your likes - the interface might not show you, but all your likes are public in the Fediverse. Kbin, when I used it, would show which users upvoted/downvoted a post. That’s important because it means researchers and OSI people can still do fact finding - Twitter doesn’t like the idea of having to be open even if it’s a requirement (albeit to researchers specifically) in the EU now.

I swear the “fuck cars” crew are completely deluded from reality.

I see people say what you’re saying (bus vs car road damage elasticity) in “fuck cars” communities, I don’t really see why you’ve decided to attack them collectively. But it’s a pop-community, they’re going to be wrong every now and then either way, please give them some slack. Their purpose is to make an average person aware of car dependency and that it’s generally a negative thing, so that actual urban planners with technical knowledge have an easier time arguing for and implementing realistic solutions, and they’ll take into account the variables you bring up. Think of “fuck cars” like a form of lobbying except it’s done by common people with good intentions - similar to how Japanese coops lobbied for better food safety standards decades ago - rather than wealthy corporations.

No surprise that a housing cooperative is doing a 4 day work week. It’s so sad that the 2010s’ political push for more cooperatives died with the change to Kier’s Labour in the UK. We could’ve had far more democratic businesses today that would be more open to trialing 4 day work weeks - actual risk taking, unlike our current dictatorial bosses who have to be dragged into the future while they wait for others to take the risks they’re too cowardly to take.

Google drank so much capitalist koolaid they thought the company needed internal competition when the main reason they remain so big is because they have big chunks of monopoly power in several key tech fields

What possible use is that?

I’ve noticed “has this sub gotten more right wing recently?” posts reaching the top post of the day in the last 6 months or so. r/norge and r/unitedkingdom being examples. You can automate bots that change a subreddit’s consensus on certain topics by bot-spamming threads pertaining to those topics, especially in the first hour of a thread going up. I don’t know if that’s happening, or if it has more to do with the Reddit protest that saw mods abdicate their positions last June and new mods being responsible for the change… but it could also be a bit of both.

In the EU they’re getting a digital euro which allows them to avoid bowing down to Paypal, Payoneer, and all the services interlinked with them (e.g. Patreon) - the ancillary services can even offer digital euro payouts instead, too. So as long as what you’re doing is legal, you can break the Paypal/Payoneer terms of service as much as you want and avoid their privately enforced authoritarianism that goes beyond the scope of the law for whatever reason. So those problems are being solved as we speak, depending on where you live.

Kind of, the central government did this in response to Mayor of London Sadiq Khan:

In December 2023, Gove used his powers to “call in” Khan’s rejection of the project, overturning the Mayor’s rejection and turning the final decision to DLUHC ministers.

But the project did withdraw anyway:

However, in January 2024, MSG wrote to the Planning Inspectorate officially withdrawing its plans for the project.

I suspect it has more to do with London being left by advertisers right now. A few years back the tube had all the advert slots filled, always. Today, the advert slots are usually half filled and it’s been like that for years. I expected it to change after COVID lockdowns ended, but it has persisted all the way until now.

It makes me wonder if these anti-porn laws are happening because queer people seem to be more likely to watch porn[1], and because of that, conservatives are looking at it as a causal thing rather than a correlative thing. If porn does help with getting to terms with your sexuality, then these laws should be worrying to the queer community. What conservatives may be doing here is trying to statistically decrease the amount of queer people in society, as getting rid of porn may reduce the amount of people who are aware of their own bisexuality, and those people may never engage with and/or have as much empathy for the queer community as a result.

[1] https://www.thepinknews.com/2019/02/28/more-porn-watch-more-likely-bisexual/

Selling sex to kids is just as exploitive and repugnant.

Why are we nuking implied nudity entirely off a website to solve a different problem, i.e. kids having access to their parents’ credit cards?

A lot of which were good mods too. I’ve noticed a lot more racism and otherwise right wing posting being left alone/unmoderated since the protest, in the subs I used to browse actively - nowadays I just check in with them every now and then without an account and the intentional or not lack of moderation is making me want to stop doing even that.

Ah yes, learning moves from porn. Like, we all know women love the finger fish hook in the mouth thing, the violent rubbing of the clit (until she has to physically move your hand away), the slapping of the face, the cock down the throat until she gags and phlegm comes out her nose etc etc.

Are you assuming all women dislike the things you’ve mentioned? Because that’s not true, and you can take a trip to sex friendly commnunities for women and quickly find someone who “likes it rough” or whatever. You can say most people might not like that, and that could be true, but there are still people who do.

If you want to teach sex ed with a better focus on sexual pleasure, then you can do that in the last year of high school or college (when everyone has already reached the age where they can legally have sex), whichever is preferable. We don’t expect to learn maths from a sci-fi movie, but it certainly can inspire smart people to try for new scientific advancements - just like porn can inspire people to try new positions and techniques, if we actually educate people alongside so they’re aware of what is or isn’t necessarily pleasurable to everyone and that you should ask and talk to your partners to get to know what they’re into. Instead of just assuming what they’re into.

It’s definitely a coordinated, global effort. This doesn’t just happen in multiple states and countries all at once by chance, it really feels like some group is conspiring to make it happen. We already got this passed in the UK by a de-facto unelected leadership who whips their party into voting their way.

I have to wonder if it’s linked to how many women saw success with OnlyFans and the like, so they could avoid working in horrible conditions like at an Amazon factory that pretends to have rules on how long you can do work that probably damages your body, and then just conveniently lets it slip that they ended up making you do what was supposed to be 30 minutes, for several hours. Some capital owners are already trying for child labour, so their desire to abuse workers more than usual is already established. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s all connected, but I’m not sure if there’s solid evidence, so this is just a fun theory I have.

The oil industry is on its death bed so I’m not against what you’re saying, but we’re currently subsidizing the green energy sector (a good thing) with nothing in return (a bad thing).

We should look to how Norway avoided Dutch Disease and taxed the hell out of private oil extraction. They subsidise the discovery (the risky part) and then slap a very heavy tax on the oil those companies then extract and sell, all the while having a national oil company they have to compete with it (crucial to keep oil expertise within the government).

Norway already taxes private wind energy and hydropower, because they know the oil industry will be dethroned by the green energy industry soon and don’t want to simply subsidize their profits. Norway also owns wind energy both domestically and in other countries (hilariously, they own more UK wind energy than the UK government itself does), and massive amounts of their domestic hydropower.

“Crazy expensive” doesn’t really matter when you’re a government and can borrow or print to make investments that have investment returns in the form of efficiency gains that go on to improve the economy, much like what corporations do to grow (borrow, reinvest profits gained from growth). There isn’t really any good macroeconomic evidence that inflation is to blame because of said funding strategies, as explained by PhD Joeri Schasfoort in multiple of his videos[1], much to the behest right wing populist politicians who lie about not being able to invest in infrastructure. In the UK, Rishi Sunak is cancelling our HS2 railway falsely citing costs and even sabotaging it by sidestepping the democratically elected House of Commons by selling off gov. owned land so that the incoming Labour government will have a hard time un-cancelling HS2 - even our old conservative Brexit-causing PM David Cameron is criticising it publicly (ex-PMs rarely criticise their own party’s contemporary government).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/@MoneyMacro/videos

This isn’t a great summary, but with the article headings as context it makes a bit more sense:

• YOU CAN TURN OFF AI-RECOMMENDED VIDEOS
• IT’S EASIER TO FLAG HARMFUL CONTENT
• YOU’LL KNOW WHY YOUR POST WAS TAKEN DOWN
• YOU CAN REPORT FAKE PRODUCTS
• YOUR KIDS WON’T BE TARGETED WITH DIGITAL ADS

I agree with you, but in absence of a perfect policy I prefer this outcome to nothing. There isn’t just one party being affected here: the effects of air pollution on life expectancy and early chronic illnesses is well known, in fact I am personally affected by a chronic illness that’s known to be associated with air pollution. I’d rather we keep going forward and push for giving poorer drivers the things they need to adjust, e.g. grants for electric vehicles, public transportation links, or bike networks, depending on needs - rather than pushing for reverting this policy, because it’s not flawed in and of itself, it’s the lack of welfare that is flawed here.

It’s a little bit more “legal” than decriminalisation in more European countries if you consider paying for membership in a CSC, where the buying is more a service fee than one-to-one sale. They’re also non-profit cooperatives (democratically owned), which is pretty interesting.

Although the Nordics which are usually pretty progressive, have not even decriminalised recreational use yet - so they’re definitely being weirdly conservative about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_Social_Club

This means that the role of commercial banks is not canceled with the launch of the single digital currency, but they will still be an important part of the ecosystem.

[…] a ceiling on the liquidity that citizens will be able to maintain in digital euro, in the order of 2,000 or 3,000 euros per user. The goal is for the digital euro to be used purely as a means of exchange and not as a means of accumulating wealth.

The benefits of the digital euro include the immediacy and security of transactions – […] instant payments […] made in a few seconds

A very important advantage of the digital euro is also the zero cost of its use, putting an end to the – harsh in some cases – commissions that banks currently impose on direct payments

Maybe I’m talking from a privileged country, but none of this would benefit me at all in my country as the banking system already does all of this. It’s a bit disappointing that they seem to be intentionally kneecapping the digital euro so that they can placate private banks. Although I wouldn’t mind what they’re doing if they also provided a government run bank that didn’t shoo away customers if they didn’t have the right risk profile, that competed with private banks (e.g. Norway’s state-run consumer bank exists alongside private ones). For example, legal sex workers are often pushed out by private banks.

the fact that the complete lack of any basic check made it available to anyone who just asked for it, does not make it an universal welfare

it measurably does make it closer to universalism than the selectivism you seem to be championing here. They’re not replacing it with a better system, they’re removing something that was closer to universal welfare and leaving poor people to suffer even more. Austerity policies are not new and you can literally just google “austerity excess deaths” for various countries and see the impact of those policies

it was just a failed attempt to let people vote for their party

You have fallen for their rhetoric. This is exactly how they justify anti-welfare policies in many countries around the world - “it was just there to win votes”… yes, good things tend to win votes. Like welfare.

Universal welfare is objectively economically superior to bureaucratic means tested welfare. Calling it “abuse” is just how they get away with turning you into bigger wage slaves with less bargaining power

The findings of the report include: moving from universalism to selectivity increases social and economic inequality and diminishes rather than enhances the status of the poor; selectivity requires processes and procedures that separate benefit recipients from the rest of society, increasing stigmatisation and reducing take-up; universalism is incredibly efficient – the selective element of pension entitlement is more than 50 times more inefficient than the universal element measured in terms of fraud and error alone and without even taking into account the cost of administration; universalism creates positive economic stability by mitigating the swings in the business cycle and creating much more economic independence among the population; on virtually every possible measure of social and economic success, all league tables are topped by societies with strong universal welfare states; universalism creates a higher and more progressive tax base which also improves economic stability, reduces price bubbles and creates more efficient flatter income distributions; and universal benefits promote gender equality and do not suffer from the inherent bias built into a system designed within a framework of assuming a male breadwinner model of welfare.