You don't get fewer war machines by rewarding aggressors for their invasions. You shut them down swiftly, and make it clear that war isn't an acceptable means to resolve conflicts.
"If you invade us, we'll try to sue for peace as quickly and obsequiously as possible to end the war so there are fewer wars" just encourages imperialist aggression.
Dang, this is really serious. You don't call in leadership from Boeing and NASA unless there are some serious issues to hammer out, that go beyond engineering.
We know by now that the economy doing well won't translate into helping us. And any minor benefits we do see will then be hoovered up by landlords, businesses that gatekeep essential goods, and legally-required expenditures like insurance, before we even have any chance to decide for ourselves how to allocate it.
"Hey, SF raised minimum wages by 2.50? Great! That means I can bump the rent on my non rent-controlled properties by a couple hundred bucks next lease! Thanks, SF!"
Yep, people sadly are bad at extrapolating how restrictions on something they dislike can be cross-applied to limit things they don't dislike, by others.
Businesses are not moral entities, and the sooner people stop expecting them to be, the sooner people can start pushing for regulations that control and limit them, instead of trying to "work with" them.
People often decry accelerationism, but the reality is that the slow-boiled frog is the one that sits and dies. Chipping away at freedoms, consumer protections, product benefits, etc is all less likely to spark backlash than when they drop sharply in a short time.
That doesn't mean you should help to make things worse, but it does mean that you may want to reconsider constantly mitigating every bad thing that others are doing, rather than letting them shoot themselves in the foot. When people are being hurt, help them. When people are being inconvenienced, let them get angry.
The EFF's response is right on the money, as usual:
Communications platforms are not comparable to unsafe food, unsafe cars, or cigarettes, all of which are physical products—rather than communications platforms—that can cause physical injury. Government warnings on speech implicate our fundamental rights to speak, to receive information, and to think.
There is no scientific consensus that social media is harmful to children's mental health. Social science shows that social media can help children overcome feelings of isolation and anxiety. This is particularly true for LBGTQ+ teens.
We agree that social media is not perfect, and can have negative impacts on some users, regardless of age. But if Congress is serious about protecting children online, it should enact policies that promote choice in the marketplace and digital literacy. Most importantly, we need comprehensive privacy laws that protect all internet users from predatory data gathering and sales that target us for advertising and abuse.
This warning label announcement just feeds into the right-wing "tech platforms bad, full of librul thought, must protect the kids by surveilling everyone and blocking the harmful (minority-focused) content" agenda.
Keep in mind that this is not happening in a vacuum; many states have already put in place age-verification for sites they deem 'harmful' (and California is considering one as well, so it's not just braindead red states getting in on the surveillance action), and this directly makes the argument that social media spaces (and the speech on them) are harmful, and should be subject to government approval.
I'm confused. Are Feiglin, Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich not Israeli?
Him quoting Hitler isn't even the main issue in this case (to me), it's really what he's using the quote to justify, which is the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine/ Gaza, which is, as the article demonstrates, a much more broadly-held viewpoint among Israelis, including ones who unarguably do have a lot of political power.
Lastly, if there are not a lot of public quotes condemning this coming out of Israel, for them to quote, isn't that itself kind of a problem?
Just because something is built out of love does not make it safe, and attestation is about safety. You wouldn't trust an un-attested surgical device, just because there's a really positive community around its design.
This is an extreme acceleration of what is happening in the US as well. Any time employment or compensation is based on research outcomes, it is by definition a monetary incentive to doctor your outcomes.
In China this was down to their ranking system and grant eligibility. In the US this usually happens inside companies (see literally the entire history of DuPont and the research they did, or all the research that is funded by Nestle or Petrochemical companies), or in order to secure or keep tenured positions, or retain grants.
Good research needs to be publicly-funded, and devoid (as much as possible , from a methodological standpoint) of desired outcomes.