Right-wing misinformers and bad actors have already earned tens of thousands of dollars under Twitter’s new ad revenue sharing program
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to 
Technology@kbin.social – 0 points – 
mediamatters.org
stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to Technology@kbin.social – 0 points –
I wonder how proud of the Nazi/KKK mouthpieces Apple is. Something tells me that this money isn't going to be sticking around very long.
Apple doesn't give a shit. Any time a corporation "cares" it's for money-making potential only. Starbucks abandoned Pride as soon as it could have affected their profit margins.
Starbucks abandoned pride at least partially because people were getting assaulted. I agree about performative capitalism but it’s a little different.
I'm sure there could be some level of implied safety in the reasoning, but a local Starbucks was shut down "due to violence near the location" and when the staff were interviewed by local news about the closure they made 2 points: a) they had no idea what "violence" corporate was talking about b) it coincided with multiple stores being closed due to the possibility of unionizing, which that store apparently had been discussing.
Starbucks pulled back Pride right about the same time as Bud Lite taking a sales hit for supporting LGBT. Target did something similar. Seems a little too coincidental, but that's just my opinion based on the factors at play.
"Misinformers" "Bad actors"
Do people actually take these terms seriously?
Yeah, I don't know what's wrong with "fucking nazi dimwits"
I don't support them at all but I seriously believe that by calling them things they are not, you open up the term for more moderate but right leaning people. "If everyone is a Nazi, Naziism must not be so bad."
I don't know how you'd make that leap. Nazism is bad. Hence the people I called nazis are bad.
There's no such thing. lol.
If your definition of moderate is anything right of anarchism, I'm sorry to break it to you but you don't understand the definition of the word. Conservatives are not Nazis.
Many of them still act as apologists for some pretty despicable ideas & groups nonetheless.
Then maybe discuss the ideas & groups to get them to either explain themselves or expose themselves... instead of calling them "national socialists" when that's not what they are.
Otherwise why stop at "nazis"? Might as well straight up call them murderers or rapists.
They should. "Meet me in the middle" says the unjust man. I take a step forward and he takes a step back. "Meet me in the middle" says the unjust man.
Are you quoting someone or did that pure cringe emanate from your own being?
Better way to say it imo, is that you have the extremist on the right expanding at a faster clip than the left. And most people do want to be moderate, they want to believe the middle road is justified & yet it puts them solidly conservative w/o them realizing it.
It sucks it does imo & if I saw equal reactions on the left then I’d call it out but I don’t.
The right has done nothing but contract for the past 150 years. "Conservatives" have continually met leftists in the middle and conserved nothing. In my country even the state church allows gay and female clergy now. I'm not a christian, but that's the perfect example of the Right relenting even in their supposedly most sacred institution (though I suppose the bank has taken over that role for conservatives of the past century). Meanwhile, the Left has expanded at such a rate that the revolutionaries of two generations ago sound like today's reactionaries.
Do you have any value beyond your ability to spew shit?
"Disagree with me!? Life devoid of value!"
Typical heckin wholesome leftist.
Did you disagree with me, or were you just smearing shit on the walls? I honestly can't tell. By the way, I simply asked if you have value. You're the one who answered, "No."
All right, I'll put it in as simple terms as possible, as you seem to need it.
I disagreed with that quote so intensely that I couldn't even bring myself to explain why. I just needed you to know that the act of sharing that quote, let alone coming up with it, was pure cringe. Seriously "in this moment I am euphoric"-tier. I mean "the unjust man"... just cmon. It's basically just telling you to be unyielding. Nothing but banal, vapid propaganda that could just as easily adorn the walls of the NSDAP as the NAACP.
"I simply asked if you have value." All right, let me "simply ask" you if colored people have value. Infer anything from that?
I don't understand how a company that isn't profitable with free content expects to make money by paying people to give content, especially if its any content. It is going to be filled with the stupidest, most cringeworthy content of all time at this point with no advertisers wanting to join. I can't wait to continue to not being on twitter
The value of owning Twitter isn't the profitability of the company, it's the ability to control the conversation. It's the same reason Spez is tanking Reddit. Both platforms were enabling leftist dialogue, and that must be stopped at any cost.
And why does it have to be stopped exactly? Or did I misread and that’s sarcasm?
You really need to ask? Leftist discourse is inherently anti-authoritarian. When people form communities and start acting in their own best interest, they begin working against the interests of capitalist slavers.
Liberal discourse is inherently antiauthoritarian. Leftist discourse, including progressive and far-left rhetoric, is inherently authoritarian.
Liberal discourse is at most anti-regulation, but it's fully supportive of wealthy powerful people being as oppressive as they may feel like. It calls it "freedom" when corporations submit people to their demands, by glossing over power disparities.
In this case, I'm using the contemporary definition of liberalism. I call the type of liberalism you're referring to "classical liberalism". It is the political philosophy that created the United States.
That doesn't change it. Classical liberalism puts the most focus on the importance of a free market, and in a free market the largest financial interests can rule however they see fit.
Economic freedom and individual autonomy are often at odds with each others. Often people even need to change their off-work habits to suit the demands and image that their employers expect.
And this is considering an ideal scenario, not even like, unpaid overtime or prejudice-driven market practices and so forth. Not to mention that monopolies and cartel practices are pretty much inevitable, it's only out of idealism that it's assumed that they are a result of not following the political philosophy properly.
Yes, you're describing classical liberalism. That's not what I was referring to. I was talking about the contemporary definition of liberalism, which "combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a well-regulated mixed economy" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern\_liberalism\_in\_the\_United\_States). Related, but clearly not the same.
I see. In that case I don't see where you draw the distinction from modern liberalism and progressism, and in what way this non-progressive liberalism is anti-authoritarian that is not in service of the free market.
Overall, calling all leftism authoritarian still seems misguided. Leftism is by itself a whole spectrum including philosophies like the social democrat. This vilification of the whole left seems like a remnant of the Red Scare.