No western country is likely to step up at this point, in my view at least. The conservative leaning folks are going hard into authoritarian xenophobic trends, and the left leaning folks consider anything that alters the existing culture of an area to be genocide.

The latter is really kinda tragically hilarious, cause we see countries like Canada declaring themselves genocidal and shaming their non-indigenous population as though they’re monsters, while simultaneously defending Israel’s actions in regards to Gaza. There’s even talk of making it a crime to question how horribly genocidal Canadians are, and also to make it a crime to say anything bad about Israel. If we see a religion-backed school, we’re to think “genocide! You’re attempting to subvert the student’s cultural religion and norms under the guise of teaching people to read and write! Their traditional culture doesn’t have reading or writing, you’re genociding their oral traditions too!!”; and when we see a mass grave filled with civilians, we’re to think “Totally justified, those bulldozers are just defending themselves against the toddler / journalist / civilian corpses, and mass graves are just practical! No moral issues or crimes here! Definitely not a genocide”. These things were brought forward by our left-leaning government parties. Not sure if those’ve passed yet, but they’ve definitely been on the table.

Strange semi related old person story – back in highschool, one of our teachers had the class write essays on whether nationalism was good or bad. We were then given an option to either present our papers, or do a debate exercise with a kind of round robin pro or con. So you’d partner with 1 other person, debate if it was good or bad, then groups of 4 doing the same, until it was the whole class. In my paper and in my discussions, I had used a similar approach as this comic – basically just establishing what nationalism was vs patriotism, and drawing nazi’s in as an example too. No one in those discussions contested that Nazi’s were nationalists – but they still argued in favour of it.

By the end, I was the only person who thought nationalism was overall ‘bad’. The tide had turned in the groups of 8 stage. Because a hot girl had declared her support for nationalism. That’s all it took for people to like/excuse nazis, even back in the early 2000s. An excuse.

In this case, it makes sense though. The recent techbro crypto bank announcement, a bank created by the same tech billionaires that intentionally crashed/destroyed SVB, is basically a play to shift the American financial system into stablecoins / cryptocurrencies entirely, as it’s something that the tech bro class figures they can control for their own benefit.

That’s all moving ahead on schedule, and is in line with Curtis Yarvin’s whole techno fascist monarchy dream for how democracies need to die. They really only need to appease Trump for so long as it takes to get control of those purse strings. Egging on destruction / chaos for things like social services also feeds this pattern, it’s easier to convince someone they need to make drastic changes to their home, if that home is currently on fire.

Having a constant tech-fascist publicly whispering these sorts of things in Trump’s senile ears helps to keep up the facade within the maga-bubble that it’s a “broadly accepted” approach to benefit everyone, that’s been agreed upon by a bunch of “data driven” science types, when it’s absolutely not. It’s tech oligarchs looking to dismantle and own most western democracies.

It’s hilarious in a way that Thiel, one of the billionaires who triggered a liquidity crisis that sunk SVB, is off proposing to fill the gap that he created. It’s also entirely fitting with the conspiracy theory of the tech bro fascists wanting complete autonomy to setup electronic fiefdoms.

I don’t really get how this would work though, in more practical terms – as a lot of the crypto stuff is just antithetical to the banking industry. Like even the whole schpiel the crypto bros often go on about how you can send money quick from wallet to wallet, with the old “OMG we did it! How can banks be so stupid and slow!”. It’s largely due to regulation. Like anti-money laundering regulation, where countries don’t want citizens funding things like foreign terrorist groups with untrackable/unblockable wallet to wallet money transfers, so they tell banks they gotta scrutinize every transaction quite a bit, under threat of hefty fines – and where the govt can overtly tell banks to block payments to unfriendly countries (eg. Iran).

Meh, it’s clear they won’t care about the fundamentals at all, nor do they care to understand how the industry works. They’ll likely use the bank to undercut existing players, while propping it up by manipulating the stock / piling in their billions. The regulation comment is a misdirect, alot like claims of wanting to be regulated were a misdirect back with FTX – these guys are far more likely to aggressively lobby for / pay the republicans to dismantle regulations in their favour, changing the landscape to their personal benefit. After the competition starts crumbling / they start moving towards a monopoly, they’ll either turn it into a regular bank in terms of service (but under their control of course), or they’ll intentionally tank it to gobble up whatever reserve/insurance funds exist, shifting that wealth into the billionaire’s pockets too, and leaving people with few options other than “under the mattress” for their savings. That’d make people almost entirely dependant on maintaining a regular working income, completing the tech bro fascist wet dream of having indentured slaves that can’t push back against any of their bullshit.

Dude should license some Basil Poledouris theme music. Get some wizardy guy to do a new intro – maybe ask Bernie for a hand. “Let me tell you of a time of EQUIIITABLE treaatment!!”

A conservative literally went and shot a sitting democrat politician and her husband dead. It was a news story for about 10 seconds before being replaced by the latest Trump shenanigans. They’re literally assassinating / murdering democrats in their homes man, and no one in America seems to care all that much.

And you think something’ll happen if they deport a dude who is just… in the running for mayor?

Yeah, ok, sure.

Totally misses the point. I don’t think anyone I know started avoiding US products to try and “hurt” the USA, we’re not idiots thinking our tiny population is gonna have a huge impact on their economy or anything.

We avoided their products, cause they started making threats / acting hostile towards us, and we’d rather our money go to support either local Canadians, or to support companies from countries that aren’t threatening us / acting hostile. We didn’t/don’t want to be in any way reliant on someone that views us as an enemy, nor do we want to support the fascist crap that’s going on down there currently.

Most likely it was a move primarily about getting senior level execs at those companies into the military machine – and into the chain of command of that machine. It makes those companies ‘disclosing’ data to the military much more likely, as well as tweaking apps to aid in military operations.

Like havin the CTO of meta “in the circle”, likely gives them complete access to meta’s tracking data for any target they want, in a more efficient way than previous.

Such a wimpy style of governance from the look of all these proceedings. Even if there are legitimate complaints, the person ‘getting grilled’ could practically sit there singing the alphabet, and the outcome would be the same.

It’s like those odd sport interviews where the person just responds “I’m just here to not get fined” to every question – ie. I’m forced to be here for pageantry/contract reasons, but there’s no real point to any of it. Both the questions, and the answers, are ultimately pretty meaningless.

There’s no particular reason they couldn’t. Even a simple dirty bomb detonated in a high population area could wreak havoc – and any country with centrifuges can basically make one of those in no time.

Basically every sovereign state now has a very clear risk calculation supporting the development of nuclear arms and for ignoring all the UN’s attempts for international cooperation / non-proliferation. Iran was compliant, from all accounts, with the vast majority of requirements that had been set out for it – something that Israel’s nuclear program is seemingly not required to adhere to (it’s still “unofficial” that they have between 90 and 400 functional warheads).

Opening yourselves to international inspectors just gives the USA a very clear target list + floor plans. Further, not having a nuclear option means the USA will potentially attack you. Even if rules of engagement say they shouldn’t attack civilian power plant infrastructure, the USA, Israel and Russia do it without hesitation. North Korea, China, and Russia have shown that having a nuclear deterrent will keep the USA away. It’ll even make the USA suck up to you / praise you, and let you attack/invade your neighbours without the USA taking action.

What Trump and the States have done, in my view, essentially translates to destroying any semblance of international cooperation between nations (cause why bother trying to appease the EU, if the USA is gonna ignore international norms and bomb whoever they want anyway), and has made it so that every nation should now pursue weapons of mass destruction as a “deterrent”, which will no doubt lead to catastrophe in time. But there aren’t really many ways I can see it playing out otherwise.

Like that 5% NATO military spending… should prolly be every NATO country building a nuclear / WMD program of their own, unbeholden to US constraints, “just in case”.

The US officially giving tech execs military ranks is… interesting. One of the stronger reasons to avoid companies like Huawei, was that the CCP had direct military ties / agents working within Huawei. The argument in favour of US tech companies in comparison, was that while they may have agreements with the US military, they were at arms length. Now they aren’t, and the rationale seems to be attempting to shift to “just trust us”, while they openly start major wars/conflicts and support genocidal actions in the middle east.

idk. If I were involved in the decision making for any critical area, I’d avoid the hell out of foreign controlled anything in my regular stacks at this point. Even if it means you have some efficiency hits until there may be an in-country provider available. It wouldn’t matter who the other country is at this point, as the US going awol is something most wouldn’t have ‘bet’ on like a decade ago, but here we are.

Yeah – I’ve literally been at the same CU for decades, got signed up as a kid by my parents. A small (like 5000-10000 members?) local community credit union. I’m an old grumpy guy now with a mortgage and all that crap. Didn’t even bother with a mortgage broker, as the rates I was offered were pretty good based on sites like ratehub, and they were flexible on a few of the ‘standard’ requirements that I was sorta borderline on (like gds/tds and ltv). Almost have it paid off now, faster than anticipated in part because they were also pretty flexible on my repayment schedule. When its term renewed, I asked if I could just overpay a bit more regularly in addition to the once per year lump sum and they were cool with it. Even though my longer term GICs and whatnot are ‘slightly’ worse on rates than I imagine I could get if I went elsewhere, I’m totally fine with that if it lets em keep doin what they’re doin for the next generation.

I am a little concerned they might not be around in 10 years though, cause Canada (where I’m at) is seeing smaller financial institutions disappear left right and centre – mergers to try and get big to be able to pay for govt regs and payment industry stuff. As soon as the management is ‘national’, from what I’ve heard, they basically just turn into banks for customer service, and you become a number.

Haven’t run into that nonsense. I bank with a Credit Union, and they tend to treat me like a person.

I think it became inevitable that traditional ‘sites’ were going to be in trouble once AI bots gained ground. The user interface is much more organic / user friendly, given that it can be conversational.

It’s why big corps were so quick to start building walls/moats around the technology. If end users had control over what sites their AI bots used to pull information from, that’d be a win for the consumer/end-user, and potentially legitimate news sites depending on how the payment structure is sorted out. Eg. Get a personalized bot that references news articles from a curated list of trusted / decent journalist sites across a broad political spectrum, and you’d likely have a really great “AI assistant” to keep you up to date on various current events. This sort of thing would also represent an existential threat to things like Googles core marketing business, as end users could replace many of their ‘searches’ with a curated personalized AI assistant trained on just reputable sources.

Big tech wants to control that, so that they can advertise via those bots / prioritize their own agenda / paid content. So they want to control the AI sources, and restrict end users’ ability to filter garbage. If users end up primarily interacting with an AI avatar, and you can control the products / information that avatar presents, you have a huge amount of control over the individuals and their spending habits. Not much of a surprise.

It’d be cool to see a user friendly local LLM that allowed users to point it at reference sites of their choosing. Pair that with a news-site data standard that streamlines the ability to pull pertinent data, and let news agencies charge a small fee for access to those APIs to fund it a bit. Shifting towards LLM based data delivery, they could even potentially save a bit in terms of print / online publications – don’t need a fancy expensive user-facing web app, if they’re all just talking to their LLM-based model-hot AI assistant anyway.

Israel’s actions in the past couple years have all seemed like sorta a desperate attempt to leverage the US Hegemony that’s protected them, before the US buckles.

Sorta like imagine a kid in Grade 1 who’s a total racist bully to his classmates. But the kid has an older brother in grade 6 who has no issue beating the shit outta any Grade 1 kid who fights back. When the older brother nears the transition to middle school – at which point the younger will lose his protection – the younger brother starts instigating like crazy, to try and establish dominance while still protected.

You can get banned here for similar reasons as you’d get banned from things on Reddit. In theory the federated setup helps to mitigate it somewhat, in that if you get banned from your primary instance you can hop over to one that’s a bit more agreeable to your perspective and continue on.

For example, I was recently banned from LGBTQ+ on, I think the world server, cause I posted a fairly benign straight opinion to a post that had an image basically asking for cis commentary. It had like 5-7 upvotes, about 13-15 down votes at the time the mods kicked me out – so even amongst the community it was a bit wishy washy, but the mods still opted to take action. On Reddit, that might’ve gotten me flagged / banned site-wide, depending on which White House narrative the company is marching to on that day. Here I just lose access to the LGBTQ+ community, shrug at them echo chambering up, and continue about my day.

In terms of “Why do we only control the speech of leftists”, I imagine it’s because the threads you continue to access are left leaning – meaning those left in your bubbles, are the left-leaning sorts saying they’d been banned. Right leaning comments, and even (in my view) some centrist / neutral comments, still get people banned. These days we all basically have to assume that there are companies / algorithms creating bubbles in online spaces; you need to temper it with a good bit of secondary sources outside of ‘social media’ to get a more accurate picture of people’s mindsets/trends. Eg. Social Media + direct views of national/local news paper sites + in person discussion with various sorts.

I agree that this is a significant issue / problem for democratic countries, and that the trend of violence towards journalists in America is an obvious concern.

That said, the media has generally turned a blind eye as Israel killed a record number of journalists the past few years - and not only that, but they continued to broadcast out that regimes narrative. Given that the media / journalists “at large” have ignored this sort of issue in another “democratic” country that’s gone authoritarian, I find it totally unsurprising that another authoritarian-trending regime feels emboldened / empowered to treat journalists the same.

I’m not sure the intention of this sort of note.

Yes, Harris may’ve made those predictions. People heard em. They still preferred Trump, compared to Harris. It’s not like people, outside of the potentially fringe / outlier cases highlighted in some left-leaning media sources, are all that surprised. People didn’t vote for Trump because he was promising to treat immigrants with respect and dignity.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if many of the red-voters are looking at LA, and thinking things like “Look at how bad that immigration invasion got, they’re literally destroying the city and disrupting government. Even the governor of the State is part of the problem at this point, making noise about defending the public disorder. Tut tut. Send in more marines”.

More realistically… AI Trump.

They could feed all of his bullshit into a model, and have an AI Trump spewing nonsense forever. Bet it’d even take AI golf trips.

Is this a questionable move under the current administration? Definitely. I can imagine it essentially being them wanting to broadcast racist/discriminatory things, without worrying about foreign country hate speech laws generating lawsuits for US social media companies that put that sorta thing out there. They want media companies like X to be free to broadcast as much right wing hate as possible to democratic nations, to more easily influence things like political elections. The Trump admin/repubs would almost definitely abuse the hell out of it.

But awkwardly, is there a case, generally, to be made out of this sort of thing? Yeah, I’d say there is. But the approach to resolving it is kinda extreme, and authoritarian in nature. Like step 1 of trying to have control over your nations online media, would be to bring in a China/Russia style national Firewall. If the government wants to allow people to make online comments without fear of repercussions from foreign actors, or to have social media options that are uninfluenced by foreign actors, governments need some level of control over the geo-location and flow of internet traffic. If America wants to let Musk goose-step around Nazi saluting, while ensuring that Americans are uninfluenced by how the rest of the world views that sort of thing, they need to be able to block connections to/from foreign countries. If they want to block Chinese bot farms from manipulating the public image of the CCP on social media, they need more direct control over how data from China flows into the USA. And they likely need more ‘direct’ influence/control over social media companies via stricter regulation on things like knowing your customers.

I’m not sure how you’d have to structure that sort of thing’s governance, in a democratic nation, to ensure that it doesn’t get abused, and I imagine the only politicians that would be interested in this sort of thing would be the ones hoping to abuse it.

But that wouldn’t even be full mitigation. Someone like Khashoggi, who is sort of a poster child for this concern, was killed by Saudi Arabia due to expressing his opinions in Journals / online about the SA regime (to my understanding at least). It’s questionable, had his opinions been “successfully” kept within nations that view free speech as paramount, whether he would not have still been targeted/killed. Even if that story was successfully “kept” from the population of a dictatorship, there’s no particular reason to think that the dictator would not seek vengeance for the slight. Like Kim Jong’s got a pretty tight stranglehold on the media in North Korea from what I understand, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he isn’t above trying to assassinate foreigners who campaign aggressively against him or who end up going viral for insulting him.