Americans are, apparently, tired of having every last shred of personal data over-collected, hyper monetized, then improperly secured by a rotating crop of ethics-optional corporations and lazy exe…
Run on “Government doesn’t work! We need less of it!” and then once you have the job, do fucking nothing except obstruct, obstruct, obstruct to make sure jack shit gets done so you can turn around and say “See, the government doesn’t work, we need to get rid of it!”
And for the cost, they get to retire with nice government pensions and better healthcare than any of their voters will ever see.
This is not just a partisan issue. As the article points out, its been like this for 30 years. The Dems failed to pass any meaningful legislation too.
It’s because it makes gobs of money that both parties are taking, and it also kind of projects US power to other countries since US tech is doing most of the data collection.
The only Dem I know who even bothers to talk about this stuff is our local senator Ron Wyden. Apart from that, most seem satisfied with the status quo.
I think many voters “feel” tech getting junky, but the connection to why is just way too complicated for most to dig into. It’s not a direct line like tipping waiters or getting abortions.
the dems failed to pass any meaningful legislation
Yeah those tens of millions of people utilizing the ACA sure don’t count. I guess the infrastructure bill didn’t happen, I’ll go tell my city to return the funding it’s using right now to repair roads and sewerage issues that have long been neglected until that money came.
I mean seriously? Nothing meaningful? Let’s just skip the part where you give me some dross about how the ACA was Republican due to compromise blah blah blah we all know but it wouldn’t exist at all without Obama and the democrats expending an enormous amount of political capital. Like it or not, to not call it meaningful is ridiculous.
Relax bidey-bro, this thread is about data privacy laws, not general stuff. The only relevant one I’m aware of is DMCA, which was in fact signed into law by Bill Clinton.
It’s unbelievable how any time somebody starts complaining about “echo chambers“ it’s basically an argument for how they are entitled to somebody else’s attention.
When you go out for drinks or dinner or some other social activity, do you always make sure to invite people with beliefs and practices that are diametrically opposed to your own? Do you not mostly keep friends in your orbit who largely agree with you and your values?
I have family I don’t agree with. I have colleagues I don’t agree with. Yes, I also have friends I don’t agree with. But these echo chamber arguments are almost exclusively used by the right to say “you have to listen to me because it’s a moral imperative” then whenever someone like me tries to show them the door, they scream about echo chambers as if they aren’t the problem.
No, we don’t have to keep these people around. I don’t have to listen to every opinion or argument that I disagree with every single time. Sometimes I’m just going to tell people to fuck off and hang out with people who aren’t actively trying to upset me.
Great analogy but how does that even remotely apply to this scenario where you replied to someone else’s comment and then didn’t like the response followed by someone telling you to just block people when they aren’t part of your in-group of folks who think exactly like you?
This is social media not a dinner party and this is exactly how people wind up in social media echo chambers.
I’m with Shepard on this one, even if he’s being a jerk about it.
Lemmy is a filter bubble, an echo chamber. You miss information that would be personally important to you, but is excluded because it doesn’t fit with the US Democrat party line, and the very specific part of it Lemmy’s politically active base likes.
Like, I’m a raging Trump hater, but I’m kind of aghast at how many knee jerk reactions (like, to me, your original reply) I get when I imply something vaguely critical about the Democrats.
And for the cost, they get to retire with nice government pensions and better healthcare than any of their voters will ever see.
They get way more than just that if they are good little piggies for the ownership class. They get “advisory” positions and board membership that give massive salaries for doing fuck-all as they already did their “job” in government. Totes not a bribe of course, because technicallyyyyy…
Republicans have such a fucking easy job.
Run on “Government doesn’t work! We need less of it!” and then once you have the job, do fucking nothing except obstruct, obstruct, obstruct to make sure jack shit gets done so you can turn around and say “See, the government doesn’t work, we need to get rid of it!”
And for the cost, they get to retire with nice government pensions and better healthcare than any of their voters will ever see.
I hate this fucking planet.
This is not just a partisan issue. As the article points out, its been like this for 30 years. The Dems failed to pass any meaningful legislation too.
It’s because it makes gobs of money that both parties are taking, and it also kind of projects US power to other countries since US tech is doing most of the data collection.
The only Dem I know who even bothers to talk about this stuff is our local senator Ron Wyden. Apart from that, most seem satisfied with the status quo.
It just doesn’t resonate with voters.
I think many voters “feel” tech getting junky, but the connection to why is just way too complicated for most to dig into. It’s not a direct line like tipping waiters or getting abortions.
Yeah those tens of millions of people utilizing the ACA sure don’t count. I guess the infrastructure bill didn’t happen, I’ll go tell my city to return the funding it’s using right now to repair roads and sewerage issues that have long been neglected until that money came.
I mean seriously? Nothing meaningful? Let’s just skip the part where you give me some dross about how the ACA was Republican due to compromise blah blah blah we all know but it wouldn’t exist at all without Obama and the democrats expending an enormous amount of political capital. Like it or not, to not call it meaningful is ridiculous.
What does that have to do with internet privacy legislation?
Relax bidey-bro, this thread is about data privacy laws, not general stuff. The only relevant one I’m aware of is DMCA, which was in fact signed into law by Bill Clinton.
You’re trying too hard
@SteveFromMySpace @[email protected]
I just immediately block people who use terms like bidey-bro.
Life it too short and my feed is too long.
As if surrounding yourself in an echo chamber of sycophants is the better solution. It sure works well for MAGA folks.
It’s unbelievable how any time somebody starts complaining about “echo chambers“ it’s basically an argument for how they are entitled to somebody else’s attention.
When you go out for drinks or dinner or some other social activity, do you always make sure to invite people with beliefs and practices that are diametrically opposed to your own? Do you not mostly keep friends in your orbit who largely agree with you and your values?
I have family I don’t agree with. I have colleagues I don’t agree with. Yes, I also have friends I don’t agree with. But these echo chamber arguments are almost exclusively used by the right to say “you have to listen to me because it’s a moral imperative” then whenever someone like me tries to show them the door, they scream about echo chambers as if they aren’t the problem.
No, we don’t have to keep these people around. I don’t have to listen to every opinion or argument that I disagree with every single time. Sometimes I’m just going to tell people to fuck off and hang out with people who aren’t actively trying to upset me.
Great analogy but how does that even remotely apply to this scenario where you replied to someone else’s comment and then didn’t like the response followed by someone telling you to just block people when they aren’t part of your in-group of folks who think exactly like you?
This is social media not a dinner party and this is exactly how people wind up in social media echo chambers.
I’m with Shepard on this one, even if he’s being a jerk about it.
Lemmy is a filter bubble, an echo chamber. You miss information that would be personally important to you, but is excluded because it doesn’t fit with the US Democrat party line, and the very specific part of it Lemmy’s politically active base likes.
Like, I’m a raging Trump hater, but I’m kind of aghast at how many knee jerk reactions (like, to me, your original reply) I get when I imply something vaguely critical about the Democrats.
deleted by creator
They get way more than just that if they are good little piggies for the ownership class. They get “advisory” positions and board membership that give massive salaries for doing fuck-all as they already did their “job” in government. Totes not a bribe of course, because technicallyyyyy…
Hence, why they call folks who actually want to make government do stuff “rubes” back home.