I can call Spaghetti with cream cheese and ham Carbonara, I’d still be an uncultured swine for doing so.

So?

We know for a fact he doesn’t, because we know that Angela Merkel had to explain to him on multiple occasions that he couldn’t negotiate trade deals with her but had to go to the EU as a whole. But since he later had to memorize “person, woman, man, camera, TV”, that information was then erased again.

It’s already warming, and the disasters are already happening.

That’s different from what you said before. (“Money is material resources”). Money can be used to buy material resources, but it is not equal to material resources.

Believing the latter leads to the assumption that money is somehow sparse (for governments) and governments should e.g. reduce social or infrastructure spendings to finance the military instead of taking on debt.

Material resources are material resources. Money is a declaration of mutual trust that is created in the central bank’s computers.

Depends. Are you white? If not, I sadly can’t recommend it. We just elected a Nazi collaborator.

Not even the lemmy instance you’re on needs a license to your content, and it is stored there and displayed for the world to see. Why is that? Because storing and displaying your posts is the very thing you want it to do. That is the service it is providing for you, and you declare that you want it to do that by clicking “send”. They would need a license if they wanted to do anything else with your stuff, which doesn’t directly have to do with displaying your posts in the fediverse.

The browser is supposed to take my requests and inputs, carry them to the server that I’m talking to and bring back the answer. The mail doesn’t need a license to my letters. That only changes if they want to open them and do something I originally had not intended.

But you know who claims a license to your content? Meta. Because you’re the product there, not the costumer.

And let’s remember that the last thing Mozilla got heat for was the introduction of a method to anonymize bulk user data for sharing & selling purposes, as opposed in addition to the granular, extremely invasive tracking that 99% of websites are doing these days.

Ftfy. It’s never going to replace more invasive tracking and just constitutes yet another party collecting my data.

I see a company that needs to make a decent amount of money

Mozilla already makes enough money from passive investment income. They don’t need to make any money from Firefox at all (but they do, it’s from google). They also don’t need to pay their CEO 6 Million a year.

Edit: Typo

2%

It’s called inflation.

Then how about putting that in the language? “We don’t sell your data, except if you’re in California, because they consider x, y and z things we might actually do as selling data.”

The browser manufacturer doesn’t need a license to my inputs to process them and give them to the server it’s supposed to give them to. If you type a text in Libre office, does it ask you for a license to the text in order to save it?

I switched to waterfox. Looks pretty much the same, no issues so far.

Switched yesterday, feeling right at home so far.

Which jurisdictions? What kind of broad way? Give one example please. I dare you.

Firefox is in the process of enshittifying.

Those don’t work because these issues are not the actual reasons for far right votes. Wealth inequality is. Your kids not having it better than you anymore is. Rising cost of living and stagnating wages are. Right wing voters see these issues and blame them on immigrants, but fixing them with strong progressive policies and actually improving living situations for the majority would go a long way in reducing those numbers.

It’s just that conservatives don’t want to do that because it would cost their donors money.

A core principle of modern (western) legal states is that it’s preferable to let 10 guilty people walk free before wrongfully punishing one innocent. I’m aware that we often don’t manage to live up to that, but it is the ideal.

That’s why guilt of the individual (!) has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, it’s why certain evidence may become inadmissible if it’s been acquired illegally, it’s why suspect’s may walk free due to formal errors. We try to make absolutely sure that cutting corners doesn’t lead to wrong conclusions, even if it means that we sometimes have to let criminals go unpunished.

Following that same principle, “it’s possible that there’s a significant majority” isn’t enough. Where’s the proof that there’s not a single inhabitant of Gaza who doesn’t support Hamas?

Also, since when is it a crime punishable by lifelong imprisonment or death to be hateful of someone?

And if you and your entire people were held in an open air prison for as long as you could think back, would you not grow hateful of your jailers?

Last but not least: The logic that “there are no innocents [on the other side of the fence]” applied by Hamas towards the Israelis led to October 7th. If it was flawed then, how is it not flawed now?

Fork in the strong hand, knife in the other.

We Germans will soon stop hating on Trump because we just elected our own version.

Archive

But yeah, you’re 100% right.