Well, maybe he can become the modern Brian Boru and kick some medieval ass in the US — apparently, they can’t defend themselves against the tyranny of the savages.

Yes, forum was and is a good term because it also conveys the roots of democracy in ancient times (a physical place where people met to discuss things of common interest). That was precisely the point a few decades ago: to distinguish between interactive communication media and mass media, which were characterized by one-way communication from a central sender to many recipients.

Unfortunately, however, forum is now a term that sounds outdated because it is associated with the internet before Facebook (2004) – and I would classify Facebook today as a mass medium rather than a social medium, even though, unlike classical publishing media (newspapers and so on), it does not produce any content itself.

I mean everything that falls under the term social media as of now, which includes Lemmy as well as reddit.

And this is precisely the problem I see: The internet is a medium that implies mutual exchange - it is a social medium - this was already the case before the advent of so-called social media in the mid 2000s, a term that was coined to distinguish between classical mass media and “user generated content”, meaning posts and comments by people who are not directly involved with the “Host” of the content.

Now, however, we have the problem that the term, at least in the broad sense, describes services that, in my opinion, do not stand for free exchange between equals, but instead function more like traditional mass media, such as television stations or magazines and newspapers - they are centrally controlled and do not allow open discourse just as publishing media of old did.

The Fediverse is structured differently -more like the old internet, but for applications that people would call social media today. I don’t think the difference can be made clear by insisting that Fediverse apps are in fact much more in line with social media than what the term really describes for most people (meta, tiktok, LinkedIn and the like).

So I think the term is burned and we need a new one that is understandable to the general public and clearly distinguishes the Fediverse from todays’s so-called social media.

The thing is, however, that it will be difficult to find a term that describes social media without using this very term, which is likely to cause confusion with services that today are actually more akin to traditional mass media, which did have letters to the editor but were not in the least “social” in a sense of exchange between equals.

This is not a war being waged there, but systematic mass murder committed by a well-equipped army.

It is, of course, commendable that this soldier has the courage to speak to the press, but the fact that this is still necessary speaks volumes about how morally bankrupt the governments of the Western world are: they continue to conjure up tales of terrorism against Israel, of a defensive war against terrorists, and in doing so condemn an entire ethnic group to the most brutal extermination.

What they are saying is exactly what the monsters in Israel are saying: All Palestinians are terrorists, all deserve to die, regardless of whether they are unarmed, starving, and just want to live—regardless of whether they are children or pregnant women.

This is genocide, not war, but the West is making common cause with the monsters and even supplying weapons for crimes against humanity.

I am ashamed that I have to watch my government do this, and I am also ashamed of my fellow citizens who are against it but are frozen in their apathy and do not have the guts to take even the slightest risk and stand up decisively against this unspeakable inhumanity that our politicians actively support out of greed for money and power.

This could be an opportunity for decentralized applications such as the Fediverse, which are not so easy to bring into line. But I fear that the apathy of the majority will make it impossible for people to recognize this alternative, even now. They will not take action on their own, even if it only means showing a little initiative and perhaps giving up some convenience. Instead, people will continue to be lulled into complacency and pretend that everything is fine, thereby forming the widely visible majority that serves as an excuse for their individual irresponsibility.

This vicious circle is the most frustrating thing: All this is only possible because the majority allows it to happen.

I find it remarkable that headlines like these are always phrased passively, as if it were a natural disaster sweeping across the country without anyone being responsible.

Because Musk made a lot of money being Trump’s henchmen.

That’s a good approach.

I myself don’t see progress as a technical thing, but rather technology as something that could help us overcome our animalistic traits in order to enable us to live together in a good, forward-looking way. I mean, of all the mammals in the world, we are the best at building tools, but I wonder if we are making the most of this or if, despite all our tools, we are ultimately incapable of overcoming our instincts.

I don’t know the answer any more than anyone else. However, your answer, which I share, suggests that despite all our technological achievements, we are not evolving significantly, but remain trapped in our animal nature.

Since technology would presumably make it possible for people to no longer have to fight over water sources, I ask.

That’s true, of course — I completely agree with you. It’s just that, with all the news from the US that I read every day, I’ve unfortunately become quite pessimistic.

I’m keeping my fingers crossed that things will turn out alright after all.

I don’t think this would poses much of a additional threat, as the US legal system already appears to operate largely arbitrarily.

I think it’s highly likely that Trump will pursue, deport, or detain other genuine political opponents who are US citizens on the basis of their heritage anyway. Therefore, I assume that this will be a thing regardless. The only difference with Musk would be that even the super-rich would no longer be safe - but hey, I’m sure that the courts will continue to make exceptions for people with deep pockets anyway.

In Germany, pretty much all established parties and even Organizations like the churches do this – without taking the opinion of the population into account in the slightest.

I really wonder what leverage Israel has to achieve this. Instead of decisively condemning all the war crimes, violations of international law, cold-blooded murder, and systematic genocide in light of Germany’s past, our politicians even invoke our “historical responsibility” while aiding and abetting these unspeakable crimes. I simply cannot explain how this is possible, even with arguments that would be remotely plausible, especially since the International Criminal Court has long issued arrest warrants against several members of the Israeli government, which are binding in Germany.

It is a declaration of moral bankruptcy that extends across virtually the entire political system and even into civil organizations.

Do I have to provide this information to Palantir myself, or will the authorities do that for me?

Only fitting for the guy - everything he does is based on a lie.

It was a 5-4 decision. Thomas agreed with the majority, or rather, his vote constituted the necessary majority.

With this decision the Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court and effectively stopped the recount of votes, resulting in George W. Bush winning Florida’s electoral votes and thus the presidency. Here you can find a summary.

Whether Al Gore would actually have won with the recount is impossible to say with absolute certainty in retrospect, since the votes were not recounted. However, it was a neck-and-neck race, and numerous indicators suggested that Gore would have won - it was considered likely at the time. And that is precisely why it is scandalous imo that the Supreme Court prevented a manual recount, as this would have made it easy to verify the will of the Florida citizens without any disadvantages.

Overall, I think it’s fair to say that many aspects of this election were rather flimsy.

If you’re interested in the somewhat strange events surrounding this election, you can find the complete documentary “Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election” here. This documentary is a bit sensationalist in places, but it does highlight some of the rather undemocratic methods that were used.

Hope that’s what you were looking for.

Not so fun fact: Even back then, a certain Clarence Thomas was involved in the Supreme Court decision that prevented a recount of votes in Florida (source), which would likely have resulted in Al Gore’s election victory. And: Also even back then, this Supreme Justice was associated with a certain billionaire named Harlan Crow who supported him with various favors - he continues to do so to this day.

The Republicans control both houses of Congress. But the usual rules don’t seem to apply anymore. Isn’t Trump currently starting a war without the approval of Congress?

That would be desirable, of course, but I wouldn’t count on it.

German here: The overwhelming majority of politicians in my home country are also doing everything they can not only to silence voices denouncing the genocide of the Palestinians, but also to actively support these crimes against humanity, among other things by supplying weapons - all this while invoking “our historical responsibility.” This seems almost worse to me, especially because I am convinced that the majority of the population firmly rejects this and wants the opposite course - namely, to hold these monsters in Israel accountable for their crimes.

I am truly ashamed to be German, and I think many of my compatriots feel the same way when they read the daily horror stories from Gaza and have to admit that we are actually promoting this barbarism on the part of Israel. It’s enough to make you cry.

I’m hardly surprised - just seems like a US thing. I mean, who else would leave it up to Trump of all people to decide whether the Epstein files should be made public?