So there's no evidence whatsoever then.
This conspiracy theory makes as much sense as claiming the reason Republicans are against global warming is Saudi Arabia.
People on this site lose their minds when the word Russia or Putin appears in a sentence. We don't need dehumanized foreign bad guys to explain away and play cover for the actual bad guys we have domestically in the United States. We have the receipts. It's Exxon and other big corps, not Russia.
It's never too late to go back to school.
Isn't the lowest hanging fruit exactly what they're targeting, i.e. the people who currently have loans, and the higher hanging fruit all the other circumstances people are mentioning here like already paid off their loans or future student who will get loans or in your case people who forewent becoming a student due to the loans?
Could you walk me through what you see as these folks' hypocrisy? I don't get it.
Is somebody arguing that loan forgiveness should be a one time thing and no one after them should get it?
Isn't the solution you're implying (and the solution pushed for by OP) if I'm not misunderstanding the exact mirror image? I.e. we should disallow TikTok from platforming opinions you disagree with (aligns with China) while allowing Facebook et al to continue because they mainly show opinions you happen to agree with (aligns with Western interests)?
I think the main opinion I see on Lemmy is that we should either force them all to regulate speech the same way, or not regulate free speech on any of them, but either way with a clear rule that is applied fairly and equally.
That's not what I see at all.
Normally it goes more like instead of targeting TikTok specifically, we should pass a broad bill that targets all social media companies regardless of who owns them.
The point isn't generally that TikTok should be free or Facebook et al need to suppress but that we should treat all of their problematic behavior in the same way.
People always complain on Lemmy about Telegram and point at alternatives that are theoretically better in terms of security and privacy.
Yet the security and privacy on Lemmy are good enough that you routinely see governments complaining about how they can't get at the info on Telegram like this story here, all while Telegram has a UI and experience that blows every competing messenger completely away.
I don't understand, how does that make money for Facebook and the rest of the domestic web companies that can then be funneled into unregulated SuperPACs for the politicians passing the laws?
I just read the linked article.
What's the lesson to take away?
Team Red doesn't actually have anything of the sort in their heads. They already decided on the conclusion, which is that climate change is fake, and then they grasp on whatever the flavor du jour is for the rationalization on why it's true. That might happen to be this thing you're saying about measuring tools in urbanized areas, but if you cut that down they'll just switch to some other rationalization.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't arrive at with reason in the first place.