this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
259 points (94.8% liked)

Technology

58123 readers
4835 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 154 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Anti-capitalist regulations, I imagine.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 46 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

Anti monopoly and regulations against anti competitive practices are cornerstones of capitalism ensuring free and fair competition.
So no, what we need is a return back to when these practices weren't allowed, away from allowing these things more than ever as we do now.
It's easy to see Russia has become an oligarchy, why can't we see it's happening to us too?
But we can't dismantle capitalism altogether, without creating an even bigger monopoly problem, the monopoly being corrupt governments like the soviet union and their 5 year plan economy, that very obviously wasn't a very good concept.

Maybe that's what you meant, I'd just not call it anti-capitalism, when regulations are for the purpose of making capitalism work better.
So just "regulation" is better.

[–] coolmojo@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 29 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Repubtard: HEY THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!

Except Scandinavians have more freedom, and better free market than USA.

Repubtard: BUT IT'S SOCIALISM!!!

Ehrm, they also have better freedom of speech.

Repubtard: WHAT? ARE YOU A FUCKING COMMIE?

Actually they also rank way higher on democracy.

Repubtard: WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?

I don't, but wouldn't it be nice if everybody had healthcare, free education and social security so you didn't have to fear to starve if you got ill and lost yopur job?

Repubtard: HEY THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!

....

[–] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Ugh, my elderly neighbor was going on about how Harris was going to take away this and that, most of which I’d never heard her say or even read about her plans doing, and I said, “where did you hear that? It was Fox News wasn’t it?” He replied with, “well, what news do you watch?” I said, “it sure isn’t Fox where they lie constantly. Harris hasn’t said any of that crap … you need to get your news from multiple sources.”

We’d be a heck of a lot better off if the news agencies were held accountable for telling lies and making up stories. Yeah, I know it’s a fine line but it’s one I’m willing to walk at this point.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

We’d be a heck of a lot better off if the news agencies were held accountable for telling lies

Yes, other countries have that, it's called responsible journalism.
You can't just parrot some source, and claim it's reporting. You need to check your sources.
When they help spread lies, they are part of the problem.

[–] DMBFFF@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

What is your elderly neighbor's view on Republican policies for the elderly compared to the Democrats; and does Fox care more about their elderly viewers half as much as their younger viewers—i.e. the ones who justify more money from advertisers?

In 30 years, Trump will be as cited by Republicans as much as Reagan is today—i.e. rarely if ever—probably less—Reagan at least won twice and in one election he won 49 states—as did Nixon in 1972—and back then, Nixon was about the same age as Harris is now.

Did your elderly neighbour support Ross Perot back in 1992?

a Texan speaks:

Ross Perot [Independent] 1992 Campaign Ad "Snapshot - :60"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naHdnyogJjA

1:02

[–] DMBFFF@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

I wonder if a typical Republican could point out Sweden on a map.

[–] DMBFFF@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Accountability is probably easier in a smaller country.

[–] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Regulations only exist because Capitalism would consume itself without guardrails.

[–] DMBFFF@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I wonder if it's consuming itself a bit right now.

[–] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Late stage capiyalims, Baybee!

[–] DMBFFF@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

"EEHHx-cellent."

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Anti monopoly and regulations against anti competitive practices are cornerstones of capitalism ensuring free and fair competition.

No, that's the opposite of capitalism.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

No unregulated capitalism is super capitalism.
Regulated capitalism is capitalism we actually try to get to work as intended or "normal" capitalism.
Social democracy is "Caring" capitalism. Where free markets and capitalism still exist, but is regulated to prevent exploitation of ordinary people.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

Normal capitalism has a drive to become super capitalism. You can try to stop it, maybe you’ll succeed, but it will always strive to turn itself into super capitalism.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

That's why they do regulatory capture to prevent that from happening. It all starts with money being equal to influence. This can temporarily be reset after a big crash of the system but sooner or later they start again.