Are US citizens actually aware that this affair already allows only one conclusion, namely that the US is a banana republic where the law counts for absolutely nothing, a nation controlled by organized crime of the worst kind?

As others have already asked, but with different expectations: Have I missed something? I think I am fairly up to date on the published Epstein documents. None of this seems surprising to me - on the contrary, it’s what I expected (even badly redacted files). So is the idea now that there are documents that incriminate the US-President, files that may even be used as evidence that the US president is a child molester and that he is being protected by government institutions, or have I missed some new developments?

I’m just asking because I’m not sure whether US citizens are only now recognizing their president for what he is, or whether it’s actually a matter of holding him accountable for at least some of his particularly terrible deeds. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but I can hardly imagine that happening in this system.

But please don’t get me wrong, I also believe that if, despite the regime’s ongoing attempts at censorship, absolutely nothing happens in this matter, the criminal justice system in the US can no longer be taken seriously by anyone. This is probably one of the biggest scandals in US history, involving immeasurable suffering on the part of hundreds of victims. If there are no consequences, if US citizens let this slide even though it is completely obvious that state institutions are actively covering up serious crimes, then they deserve no better.

So, my initial question again against this backdrop: Have I missed something? Is there any hope that somethin could actually change in the US?

That is absolutely correct, but unfortunately very unlikely, because many of our politicians are either incredibly incompetent or simply corrupt. This is for example evident in the fact that they even want to introduce Palantir, as was recently the case in Germany, where the state of Baden-Württemberg decided to use the US mass surveillance software “Gotham” in a completely unlawful manner and against the will of the population (its use is also already planned at the federal level).

So unfortunately, I have little hope here, but I will still try to do my part.

Our politicians should really stop pretending that the US is an ally. They haven’t been for a long time, but the current regime is so corrupt and utterly unscrupulous that it’s impossible to reach any kind of agreement with them. The Epstein story alone proves this, not to mention the cold-blooded murders of Venezuelan citizens in violation of international law, the blackmail with tariffs, all the Nazi-Shit and so on and so forth - this nation is a banana republic led by organized crime and our politicians should treat it as such.

That’s how it is in the US. However, I’m from Europe, where some legal systems still function reasonably well - legal disputes aren’t exactly cheap here either, but they don’t completely ruin you (can happen tho).

But yes, it’s true, you don’t stand a chance against the giant corporations here either.

Yes, I agree. Explicitly excluding AI training in your terms of use or license probably won’t deter most companies, but I think it wouldn’t hurt to include this as an addition, since a clear contractual prohibition would likely:

• reduce ambiguities regarding defenses such as fair use and
• create an explicit basis for contractual claims that could be additionally enforced if someone ignores the restriction.

For example, when selling a book, you could require explicit consent (checkbox opt-in or similar) to strengthen enforceability. Enforcement would still be difficult, of course, but an explicit clause might at least have a certain deterrent effect and, if necessary, create additional leverage in court, I think.

How Spotify’s $109 Billion Market Cap Stacks Up Against Other Music and Entertainment Companies

Nevertheless, Spotify makes more profit than any music label, even more than all the remaining music labels combined. This is how it works today: music, literature, journalism, and art no longer exist according to this logic - only content. And as disrespectful as the term sounds, that’s how it’s paid for - with scrabs because that’s the business model.

Your pirate approach is no longer up to date, because it is no longer directed against large corporations, but robs artists of the little they have left. This will only accelerate the trend: no one will try to make a living from art anymore. If you think that people will do it anyway because they want to express themselves, I think you are absolutely wrong.

Spotify absolutely deserves to be singled out for its exploitative practices, especially since this company is largely responsible for musicians not being paid fairly for their hard work. It’s just a shame that there’s hardly anything to steal here other than people’s hard work, to which Spotify has contributed nothing - but that applies to all companies that are successful on the internet today. Without exception, all of these companies are built on the same platform logic: the content that these companies exploit is paid for with starvation wages, if at all (not at all in the case of LLMs).

Therefore, I cannot see anything positive in this because it does not change the underlying problem in the slightest.

I completely agree with you regarding Nestlé. The fact that it is a European company does not make its practices any better. I see the behavior of the US as an opportunity to rethink my consumption habits anyway—if I am already researching which products to buy, I might as well weed out those suppliers who stand for the same unscrupulous logic: Nestlé is definitely one of them.

So thank you for the additional information.

Cool things sell well. That’s why there are many brands in Europe that sound American but aren’t actually American. Philadelphia, a brand that has been around in Europe for a long time, could just as easily be from a European manufacturer, but that’s not the case.

Another example: In Germany, there are countless pizza delivery services called New York Pizza or something similar. These are, of course, small local companies from Germany that have simply named themselves that way.

Due to the long, close relationship between Europe and the US, this has developed to such an extent that it is now almost impossible to tell from the brand name whether a company is European or not. Now, for obvious reasons, it is unfortunately necessary to boycott US products - which is easier said than done, because US companies own numerous former EU brands that sound European and, on the other hand, many EU companies have given their products American-sounding names.

They are pure evil, but a company from Switzerland.

Sorry, my mistake, that’s right. Leibnitz is owned by Bahlsen, a German family business.

I’ve corrected the description in the post. Thanks for pointing that out.

Evian is owned by Danone (Dannon in some countries), which is a multinational corporation, but one that was founded in Spain and is now headquartered in Paris.

It should be, but in many countries around the world, the US was long considered cool, which is why brands were named accordingly - that has changed significantly…

Edit: You know, the orange child molester who blackmails all his allies, shamelessly enriches himself, and gets away with it. The rest of the world just doesn’t think that’s so cool…

Yes, Heinz is a US brand that originally belonged to the H. J. Heinz Company and remains a US brand even after the merger with Kraft Foods, also a US company.

Yesterday, I was shopping and saw that various US products were on sale - I still didn’t buy any and won’t be buying any in the future.

It’s only right to boycott the US, and I’m glad that a whole bunch of people in Europe seem to feel the same way.

It is quite a feat to save people from embarrassment, namely from a golden abomination of trashiness, through another embarrassment such as this.

Let anyone say they don’t make progress - quite the contrary: every day brings new lows.

Those responsible for the Antisemite award deserve other awards themselves. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz, one of the few media outlets there that still retains a spark of humanity, hints at this in the following opinion piece: This Is the ‘Crime’ That Got Ms. Rachel Nominated for ‘Antisemite of the Year’

Is there actually still a difference between the so-called democracy in the US and the absolutist monarchy of the Middle Ages? I can hardly see any difference.

In any case, the law seems to be “by the grace of God” and therefore does not apply to rulers, who are somehow also appointed with absolute power in this system “by the grace of God”.

But hey, it probably doesn’t make much sense to worry about it—it won’t lead to anything anyway.