I could see myself paying for a service like X, so that the service quality would be higher due to all the participants putting some money in. And that would be a nice way to keep bots out of the network.
Bluesky is a leftist echo chamber, which is irritating in its own way.
Funny how well these fit into the terminally online far leftist framing too.
1. Mythic past and rebirth: dreaming of the lost socialist utopia of USSR etc. which was taken from us all by force and deception.
2. Victimhood and humiliation: working class is the victim of a rigged system, exploited by capital elite.
3. Hierarchy and dehumanization: world is split into oppressors (landlords, rich people, etc) and oppressed (workers).
4. Contempt for weakness: "liberals" let this happen due to their limp-wristedness.
5. Cult of action: revolts, strikes, protests, even violence against oppressors.
6. The leader as savior: Mamdani, Sanders, AOC? This admittedly doesn't quite work in the same way as in fascism.
7. Purification of institutions: Universities, media, and governments must be purged of "reactionaries" or "liberals" who resist the revolution.
8. Propaganda and assault on truth: dissent is violently suppressed. Various kinds of Big Lies (e.g. "the genocide") are spread as absolute truths and are repeated at every possible point.
9. Merger of state and corporate power: seizing both the corporations and state for the proletariat.
10. Violence and terror: glorifying murderers when they murder those "who deserve it".
I've long described the bureaucratic authoritarian corporatist state as building fascism from the other direction, ala inverted totalitarianism. But your list is a conflation of a lot of things - some valid critiques, straightforward responses to the open fascism of the Republican party, and some flat out straw men (eg there are no significant numbers of people "dreaming of the lost socialist utopia of USSR"). And right from the start you've set up a motte and bailey with "terminally online far leftist". So this list reads more as partisan flamebait/rationalization of the current open fascist dynamics rather than a serious critique aimed at any kind of reform.
There is no "fascism" in 21st century because there are no fascist movements or parties. The term "fascism" doesn't mean much, it is just a word used by certains movements back in the past to self describe. Therefore if a party or movement doesn't self describe as fascist then it isn't. Every attempt to define it becomes way too broad and could be easily applied to almost every country in the world.
The term is recently became heavily recycled by left wing activists to label everything they disagree with (and sometimes even used by more radical lefties aka tankies to label less radical ones).
We can analyze Fascism, summarize its general aspects, and apply the definition to other movements. Hence why we can call Nazism fascism, even though they were separate parties. Trumpism is fascist. This is the point the article is making, and it has been made thoroughly elsewhere as well. At this point, it's is just basic table stakes discussion context for anybody who loves individual liberty or believes in the Constitution and limited government. If you're still unable to even entertain the idea, then you're part of the problem. Based on your touchstone strawmen of "leftists", "radical", and "activists", it sounds like you've got a heavy case of TDS - the real TDS, not the accusation-in-a-mirror version.
>eg. there are no significant numbers of people "dreaming of the lost socialist utopia of USSR"
You seem to be in the happy group of people who have never visited the Lemmy main site. Although you may be right about "significant numbers" even if that site seems to be full of them. They might literally all be there.
Sure, X exists and has a discussion forum isn't particularly interesting in the context of the modern Internet.
You didn't really address the crux of my point though. I don't think it's worthwhile to discuss the proto-fascist aspects of a small group without political power, in the context of open fascism with significant political power. It would seem to be hollow both-sidesism.
Or, perhaps, you are the one who is mistaken and other people ARE having success with large and complex programs?
I am not saying you ARE wrong, but I don’t know how you could be so certain that no one else is having success with complex, AI written, code.
There are well known, established, and respected engineers creating AI projects right now. For example, antirez, the creator of Redis, created the DS4 project. When you see these sorts of projects, do you never think, “Maybe I might be wrong about this.”?
---
Just to be clear, I'm not saying they don't make mistakes. In fact I constantly scream into the void with the sheer amount of absolute stupidity of those models, however I would never say, using them for what I use, that they can only be used for simple and small use cases.
We already received fact-checks and community notes on social media content. What else do we need? Aaron Swartz proposed freedom of speech: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/becausewecan But banning, fact-checking, and community notes interfere with free speech. Especially when the government gets involved.
Also Trump 2 proves without a doubt that at least half of the american voters are absolutely insane or incredibly stupid. For 1 there used to be some doubt.
We in Europe are enjoying roughly 15-20% insane/stupid ratings at this point, which is not great but still a bit better.
The algorithm/method of vote determines a large part of the political landscape (and in the US, only 2 significant political parties can realistically exist. People have to choose between those 2 and lot choose to abstain).
The question wasn't which "team" (grow up!) is "dominant," it was whether the election result proves anything about the American public. It does if you think it was an honest and fair election. Simple as that.
I guess they eventually read their own local (US) laws and figured no one cares about that effort since Amazon is still covered by CLOUD Act, regardless of what ccTLD they happen to use for their landing page.
> The CLOUD Act primarily amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil.
Once that was in place, AWS could host their "EU" servers on the moon for all I and others care, still not a solution to avoid the claws of the US.
Their idea is that the EU cloud's corporate structure is completely independent, so AWS US isn't a parent company' so the CLOUD Act doesn't apply. They aren't a local subsidiary, they are an independent company licensing the AWS tech stack to operate fully independently on their own hardware - which just happens to also have a license to the AWS name.
It's a rather clever idea, and it essentially prevents EU government organisations from excluding them from tenders by requiring EU-based ownership. It obviously won't convince anyone with half a brain that they are genuinely independent, but the government lawyers are going to have a really hard time writing tenders in a way which excludes them from participating.
> Their idea is that the EU cloud's corporate structure is completely independent, so AWS US isn't a parent company'
I'm not sure this is actually the idea, it still isn't so in practice for sure, I'm not sure where this misconception comes from.
The Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security memo says the Dutch government asked AWS who ultimately owns AWS European Sovereign Cloud GmbH and AWS Luxembourg. According to that memo, AWS stated that both are indirectly owned by Amazon.com, Inc, and this is all public information: https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/36acf7a6-1ea3-401e-86ad-...
Besides, it doesn't really matter who is the parent or where it geographically is located, 18 U.S.C. § 2713 states this:
> [...] regardless of whether such communication, record, or other information is located within or outside of the United States.
It'd be a clever idea if it was actually 100% independent, but then it also wouldn't make sense for AWS/Amazon to do, it'd have to be actually independent then, not this weird mix-match of "some stuff in the US and some in EU" which they seem to be aiming for currently.
Bluesky is a leftist echo chamber, which is irritating in its own way.