Remember your words when Netanyahu bombs Gaza and people want to ask the community about it.

Just because YOU don’t want to hear about something doesn’t mean en entire community should BAN discussion of it. It’s absolutely bonkers that anyone can rationalize this position.

upset you can’t talk about US politics everywhere in the platform

I’m upset that a moderator believes that banning the discussion of a major national / international event is healthy for the community. I could understand that for a niche community like Music but not one of the most popular general purpose ones. There’s no reason this should be banned other than a personal preference. This informs me that the moderators of this community are not interested in an open platform for genuine discussion.

If some other country had a historic election, I would HOPE to see open dialog spread in places like this for people to express themselves. Why ban an internationally relevant discussion when people have the choice to be members of the community. How about - if you don’t like it, you can leave.

Ridiculous copy/paste reply. You’re not making a good case for people leaving corporate media for Lemmy. You’re encouraging them to stay where they are.

How the fuck is Lemmy supposed to serve as an open alternative to corporate controlled social media when the mods ban discussing one of the most impactful events of the day? You should be begging people to talk about politics here. Unsubbed. EDIT: AND BLOCKED. If I wanted to hang out in a fascist community I’d join twitter.

I just got banned from a sub for trying to explain this exact thing. Their response was “not that’s not how voting works - if I vote for a person, they get my vote. If I don’t vote for someone, they don’t get my vote.” and “Harris is literally saying the same thing.” I sent a thank you to the mod for banning me because my brain was breaking.

Reading more than a headline.

And yet here we have an unbiased explanation about tariffs, how they would be worse for everyday Americans under Trump, and how Biden continued Trump’s previous tariffs.

I’ve been a little surprised by the commentary around Trump’s planned tariffs, with some “economists” saying they can’t explain why he would impose them. It’s like everyone has forgotten why tariffs exist at all. That’s not to say it’s a good thing or a bad thing but I’m disheartened that we’re not taking this opportunity to educate ourselves. It feels to me like people are playing stupid just to make Trump look bad.

I would suggest that if you’re following some organization who’s only intent on bashing Trump’s import tax and not bothering to explain what a tariff does, that you stop following that organization as a reputable news source.

I say this as someone who’s shocked that any American would ever consider Trump as president (then or now) and as someone who is fed up with the bullshit that fills our media and social feeds. We are all getting dumber.

Edit: So far, these comments are doing a decent job enforcing what I’m seeing. People don’t care about facts, only their own bullshit. Please don’t vote or comment on this post unless you’ve watched the video. That’s what we should be here for.

Awesome. Glad this got caught as the protections are built to do.

People also just drive a lot more today than 40 years ago, in part, because jobs and shopping are further away (it’s gone down since COVID due to more WFH). A car with 100K miles on it was an old car. Now it’s not unheard of for people to put that kind of mileage on their car in under five years. I have no argument that vehicles are much more well built today.

As I said in another comment, I’m not arguing that cars are more capable of being on the road, just that I don’t believe people are going to choose to drive a ten to twenty year old car in 2035 - 2045 as much as they had fifty years prior. You could put less than $1,000 into a 100k mile car in the 90s and expect to get another 50k+ out of it. At least, I can confirm that that’s what I did with my 1976 Ford Elite and later my 1980 Camaro.

Moreover, there’s nothing aside from the maintenance of the vehicle and maybe improved gas mileage that would deter anyone from choosing to drive an older vehicle. There are far more reasons today to not choose a ten year old car than there were 30-40 years ago.

My point is about consumer choice and the advancements of technology. Will people choose to drive vehicles that aren’t compatible with future technology.

I’m not arguing that. My argument is actually because cars are far more reliable, doesn’t that decrease their resale value as more and more modern convinces are added to newer cars?

You’ve got a window of less than ten years on a modern car where then the technology in it is so old that few people would consider purchasing it to keep it for another five - ten years.

For example, my mom just bought a '24 Subaru with a huge touch screen in it. Will it keep working in ten years? Probably. Will anyone want to buy that phone on wheels in ten years? Not likely. I just bought a 2013 Mini Cooper. It “has bluetooth” but it’s strictly for (shitty sounding) phone calls and not audio streaming. I’m one of few people who’s okay with this because I’ll only drive 1500 miles a year.

Whereas a 25 year old car in 1998 was, aside from your accurate claim about reliability, perfectly fine as a daily driver. If you can find one and are capable of proper maintenance, you could still drive a 1960s car today. But because modern consumer tastes expect advancements in vehicles the same as they expect them in phones, I just don’t see used cars living as long as older cars have.

So, it’s not so much about the ability for a vehicle to remain on the road but consumer choice.

improvements over the next couple years will make current electric cars obsolete

This is my problem with any new car. Practically every new car (even ICEVs) is just a smart phone on wheels now. It’s not like in the ‘90s - ‘00s when you could still legit buy a car from the ‘70s and daily drive it and repair it in your own drive way for cheap (most people in the 50s - 80s were capable of basic tune ups, etc).

My concern is that at some point the parts won’t be made anymore. Or if the LCD command console gets cracked or something your car’s totaled. I mean, people used to own cars for at least ten years, twenty years wasn’t uncommon. Do you think a 2025 XYZ is going to be on the road in ten years- twenty years? What’s the resale value on that / who’s going to buy a twenty year old phone on wheels?

As much as people believe EVs are better for the environment, aren’t they increasing the rate at which a vehicle ends up in landfill? I hope recycling is part of the car’s lifecycle.

At the same time though, I have to acknowledge that, without an ICE, EVs have far fewer points of failure. There’s a potential for them to be on the road much longer. I just don’t see that happening due to consumer demand. Even if you’re able to update the software and swap out worn out parts, is that enough to keep the car on the road as long as or longer than an ICEV? What happens when technology changes and they find better batteries or charging methods? How much do you have to invest in the phone on wheels to keep it on the road?

It strikes me that someone asking if using a toaster oven as a space heater is “anti-inadvisable” is very much not someone who should attempt such an action.

ProtonMail, Nebula, Backblaze, Parcel, BigNews, Glass, my local paper, local coffee delivery.

I pay for Apple iCloud too but I’m trying to figure out how to get away from it.

Are you legitimately asking a question that’s answered in the article you’re posted or are you promoting something?

Since you’re evidently unaware of what the Magna Carta is, it’s like the United States’ Bill of Rights. The Mueller Report is a report about a DOJ investigation into collusion with a foreign power to impact an election. There is no rational reason to mention them in the same statement, let alone the same sentence.

I’m thinking this may be an AI bot given the incoherence in the post.

I use both. I’m a member of a local instance on Mastodon. On Bluesky, I follow more mainstream outlets.

I’m not on board with having one account to interact with the fediverse. I like the compartmentalization of using one account for some things and another for other things. I also see value in diversification in case something goes wrong or takes too long to be improved or repaired. However, I also see substantial value in all social networks communicating with each other so you can choose a platform that aligns more with your wants and needs while still getting the information that’s relevant to you.

I just wish more “mainstream” outlets would get on board with the fediverse - either Mastodon or Bluesky. I really think towns and cities should invest in Mastodon instances where local government and other agencies could engage with the community (who may be members of other instances).

The “mainstream” outlets I follow on Bluesky are: Media Matters, The Conversation, Washington Post, BBC (unofficial), MacRumors, AP, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, etc.

The local outlets I follow on Mastodon are mostly twitter bots via bird.makeup: the local police department, the mayor, the newspaper, sports reporters, etc. I wish more bars / restaurants, music venues, local blogs and reporters were on the fediverse (looking forward to cross-posting from Threads).

I’m actually using RSS a lot more than either Mastodon or Bluesky because so few outlets are accessible on the fediverse.

You could very easily take a photo to show proof of who you voted for in order to get paid. Plus, voting records aren’t 100% private.

Legally, the argument that he’s specifically trying to pay people to vote for Trump would get thrown out of court.

I would personally argue that Trump is very much opposed to, or in favor of restrictions to, the first and second amendments (as is Musk) while Harris intends to uphold them. So, from my perspective, I see this as enticement to vote for Harris.

I would imagine that paying money to sign your petition is also problematic.

Title of article:

Trump Backer Elon Musk Accused of ‘Clearly Illegal Vote-Buying’.

I’m not sure what reality you all are a pat of. I’m just sitting here reading and commenting on what was shared. It is a fact that Musk is not buying votes. Had the article made the claim that “Musk pays registered voters to sign a petition”, that would be legit.