Too bad, I was considering their service when my VPN service ran out. Not excluding them outright, but will have to keep a eye on it.

I don’t think there’s a big difference between using the speakerphone than talking to someone next to you.

While this is true, I would also add that it’s ok and valid to be sad and unhappy. There is no obligation to put on a smile. You can be happy and not smiling, or you can be unhappy and not smiling, just be you.

What made you think they shouldn’t?

I’m pointing to the fickle nature on how we determine what age people should be allowed to do different things, which is particularly ironic in Germany.

I also agree that social media have a lot of risks, but 16 for social media seems very old compared to what we should do about it.

Science is a bad example. It’s a field where our understanding continues to develop. Whether something has happened or not, like the Holocaust, or Russia invading Ukraine, are completely different.

‘Vaccines works’ can mean a lot of things, different types of vaccines, for different issues, and different side effects, and how people personally weigh side effects with the benefit.

That said, you don’t stop trying to do the right thing because it might backfire, because not doing anything at all will probably baby make things worse.

I’m curious about these arguments that people put forward. Pretending to be some kind of ‘absolutist’. Are you really so deluded that you think these efforts to address misinformation and extremism might somehow be used by bad faith actor? Like ‘we shouldn’t do this, what if the bad guys are in charge?’. We all know that when they’re in power they wouldn’t care about the laws or would just make their own up!

Or are you batting for the fascists and autocrats and want to give them more power faster?

In a country were people believe that practice of safe sex can be taught by 14, I can’t fathom why they think responsible Internet practice can’t be taught earlier than 16.

EDIT: Noticed a typo. They always seem to be in bad places… Changed to why they think responsible Internet practice CAN’T be taught until 16, that there are commonly considered more serious things set at a you get age.

I really really hope you’re wrong.

I don’t mind working with the US even with Trump leading, but the EU is clearly a natural partner. They’re right at our doorstep.

There is a difference between authoritarianism and having laws to protect your citizens. Authoritarians have laws to protect the regime, not the citizens.

No one is being jailed for being a Nazi when you say you have issues with immigration policies, nor are people being jailed for being a communist for saying they want socialized healthcare.

You have to draw the line somewhere and say that something is dangerous and illegal, and I think saying you support Nazis and want to do Nazi stuff is a pretty good line.

I know this won’t change your mind, but even as you continue to disagree with this, I hope you can see why this isn’t a definitively wrong thing to do.

Thank you for providing an actual argument.

As we have witnessed in many places, these stuff isn’t always outlawed. In places where these views can be expressed more freely, it either escalate to the point where someone is hurt, or they gain enough popularity that it becomes almost impossible to stop. I believe that the best way to deal with the problem is to address it quickly head on when we know this is universally abhorrent.

This law seems to be explicitly in place to avoid people getting hurt. You have not provided any argument at all how it doesn’t.

Are you worried about being jailed for Nazi views? So you should be, and consider yourself lucky. I’d rather have you jailed for a month to hopefully learn your lesson that we don’t take to hatred and violence lightly, than to allow you a platform to gather support so you can hurt and kill millions.

I don’t think the killing them all part is necessarily a motivator. Perhaps more so that solar and wind have become price competitive, and that investing in renewables have the additional benefit of helping China lead in these crucial areas.

Tolerance of intolerance is not a path to freedom. Choosing to do nothing will only mean that rights and freedoms will be destroyed. Call this the lesser of two evils if you must.

If you let intolerance fester, it will grow and take control, then it will start hurting and squeezing others. It’d be foolish to sacrifice freedom in the name of freedom.

An unusual counterpoint. The ‘krompomat’ the Russians wasn’t really proven, and at this stage I think if they threaten him with releasing whatever Trump can just go ‘LOL like I give a fuck. You seen the shit I did to their face? They still voted for me!’

Things will have to be really really bad for MAGA to notice and then actually acknowledge issues. Even then they might use excuses and blame others.

COVID handling was objectively terrible, with plenty of examples of mismanagement, but they’ve basically completely forgotten about it and the ‘mismanagement’ they might point to are the availability of vaccines, or the ability of workplaces to make people wear masks.

They can also completely ignore the blatant corruption with employing close family members as advisors and diplomats, while on the other side, even leaning on a family name to get a job was too much. Don’t forget that they’ve also come to the conclusion than Jan 6 wasn’t bad.

This would be a fun bit of justice porn after seeing Trump get away with everything.

I don’t think you can pardon a civil case?

On the other hand, it might just be the first sign of the naked corruption we can expect to see more of.

No, the path to an election win isn’t to appeal to the far right cult and hope that enough of them switch sides. They appealed to people switching sides this election and it failed miserably.

Some ways needs to be found to energise your own base, and find a crisis to run on, real or exaggerated.

There are many other things too of course, but this isn’t an essay. Last thing I’d say is that just because one side embraced lunacy, it doesn’t mean the other side has to