which means its ok for you. I cant follow

Yes but no. I see the issue in terms of late stage capitalism too - but I think in a sibling comment this discussion already happened.

Id just love to see more corporations being like Mondragon(spanish) in the top ranks (i.e. stock corpos) but I would not want governments specifically to gain ownership forcefully.

So I’d call it regulated capitalism - as you said, just not paleo libertarian laissez-faire as we clearly see how that doesnt work once all markets are established (and even the competition phase was, as we all should know, pretty questionable historically cough imperialism cough)

So “how” is there no regulation solution – my initial statement in question

Now also actually discuss. Would love to know “how” I’m wrong

to you, the 9 other likers and the one disliker:

I’d argue “under unregulated capitalism” and would love to hear how Im wrong here: When you buy an apple from a farmer in EU thats local to your small town, I’d say thats pretty ethical? Isnt it??!

deleted by creator

isnt the proton ceo praising trump publicly?

deleted by creator

The extra detail couldve been placed on another more direct position of the sentence is what Im saying… “trying very hard” not “clearly stating the wrong”

But thanks for being so helpful

The extra detail couldve been placed on another more direct position of the sentence is what Im saying…

“trying very hard” not “clearly stating the wrong”

The Trump administration cut funding to Yale University’s Humanitarian Research Lab, which was compiling a database of alleged Russian war crimes, including the abduction of an estimated 35,000 children from occupied areas of Ukraine, last month.

I mean the article is very tragic and all. But I cant help it to think the author’s sentence structure here is trying very hard to suggest the numbers were from last month. Am I the only one?

Oh wow, theres more to this discussion, nicely useful!

says:

evaluate on case-by-case basis

So its kind of in a grey zone, not reliable doesnt mean bad source in that case. Useful link, altough wikipedia is also a grey zone in the sense that its information based on open source (everybody can edit it, and most liked proposals get through as I understand)

Thanks for the confirmation

Well what ground news wants to do -critical evaluation and media literacy- is so vital.

But ground news deciding on what exact position on the spectrum a source is, seems to achieve the exact oposite: make people depentend in questioning and finding a variety of sources.

Nowadays everything needs to happen in an instant.

If theres a solution that only takes half a snap, that will be the only relevant choice for the mass. Thats why Im instantly asking, because just today I referred to this source to someone else as a might-be-bad example but instantly realized, I will have to ask this on the next situation (now)

Anyways thanks for the correction!

maybe as European im not too well versed in US sources and judged too harsh based on anecdotal experience. All the news Ive seen are always on the “nothing has been said” or “thats reaching” side.

my bad then

sorry for derailing a little:

why is there multiple links to choose from as a source? What exactly created that choosable format - are they automated, is this some system like groundnews or something?

is newsweek considered a serious source? even this objectively right seeming headline is kind of a nothingburger, isnt it?

sorry for derailing. if thats not tolerated, i will stop

oh my bad, sorry im not well versed.

Thats why I asked :p

How could you ensure AI to privately sort your pictures, if the requests to analyze your sensitive imagery need to be made on a server? (that based its knowledge of disrespecting others copyright anyway, lol)