ChristerMLB

Oh, just a ban on the targeting. The companies would still be alllowed to show as many ads, and as many different ads, as they’d want.

In fairness they would eventually find their balls and be the only party voting against Hitler being given dictatorial powers

I dunno, I think it makes more sense to compare the US to the EU than to individual European countries, given that European countries are more the size of US states.

imagine if people who were good at other things started showing up to those meetings

That’s interesting, and maybe better than what I had in mind.

When I was 19 I went to a sort of social pedagogy boarding school thing that we have in the Nordics, after that I got drafted and did alternative service, after that my brother had long since moved into my room, so moving back home wasn’t really on the table – at least not as I saw it.

I hadn’t heard of the guy, so I searched him up… funny how these guys always look like Bond villains

So you’re suggesting just outright banning social media?

It is apparently a movement, but it gets way too little attention: https://www.politico.eu/article/targeted-advertising-tech-privacy/

I dunno, they will still want people to stick around on their site, so they can see their ads.

Some of it can be accomplished by just setting universal demands for how social media works for all users:

• ban targeted advertising
• make it mandatory for companies to ensure algorithms don’t prioritize posts for making users angry, scared or depressed

Stuff like that. These kinds of regulations don’t involve ID checks, and could take care of a big chunk of the problem.

If you’re very interested, the Norwegian institute of transport economics has an article about it here: https://www.tiltak.no/b-endre-transportmiddelfordeling/b-2-tilrettelegging-kollektivtransport/b-2-6/

You web browser can probably translate it, or you can just check out the references at the bottom

The way I understand it, free buses are not a cost-effective way to get people to stop driving. You get a better effect by using the same money for more routes and higher frequencies.

As a social policy, though, it might have something to it.

If the approach is just “look for evil people and then destroy them”, or “if politicians piss the people off, and they’ll come for their head”, it’s likely to produce more evil through the fear that it creates. A good political system is predictable – politicians should know that if they do evil (clearly defined in law), it will become public, and it will have consequences (again, clearly defined in law). This should also apply to all powerful people, not just politicians.

At the end of the day, the goal is to control and counteract certain ambitions, not to create fear.

It is going to get worse, but it is inequality that is at the center of the problem. Inequality will be a problem regardless of what our mode of production is.

Fear leads people to do stupid evil shit

That sucks, and I hope you’re wrong, I can’t say you’re wrong to prepare, though. Solidarity from Norway

The president is, and is supposed to be, just a dude – not a supreme leader. I get that it might not be politically expedient to sell them like that, but at least realize that whatever candidate wins – even an establishment favorite – they are subject to pressure from within their party.

So, join the party and push from within, or your union and push from there – or both.

In that case, shouldn’t your focus be on building a broad political alliance of opposition that includes as much of the military as possible?

fair enough. why do you think that, though?