Socialism has resulted in the deaths of millions of people through starvation and murder.
There are no redeeming qualities of socialism.
I have never confused socialism with communism.
Although Marx did call socialism "lesser communism".
ššØ, šš¢šš¤š”ššš. šš”šš§ š šš«š š®š ššØš« š¬šØšš¢šš„š¢š¬š¦, š šššš®šš„š„š² šš«š š®š ššØš« š¬šØšš¢šš„š¢š¬š¦ š°š¢šš” š¦š² šš®š„š„ šš”šš¬š, š§šØš š°š¢šš” šš®š©š”šš¦š¢š¬š¦š¬.
And there it is, the extremist trademark. Attack and demonize anyone not in your "tribe". They're just an "other" right?
Thanks for confirming everything I thought about you.
I'm not ranting about anything, I'm just responding to your posts. It's not my fault you choose to speak in euphemisms rather than directly say what you mean.
Anyway, this is not about me. So unless you want to try and defend your indefensible positions... have a nice day.
What I wrote is completely germane, you just can't admit it or argue against what I'm saying because then it would be harder for you to gaslight people into voting for socialism.
So in your fantasy world we would be at 8.5 billion people along with low poverty, hunger, and deaths from war... but replacing capitalism with socialism.
Likely you fantasize no income and instead it would be the whole "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" thing, right?
Unfortunately for your fantasy... the result of socialism has always been the deaths of millions of people through starvation and murder (followed by collapse and/or acceptance of capitalism)
At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution there were an estimated 200 million people and virtually 100% poverty.
Now there are over 8.5 billion people and yet we've managed to reduce both poverty and hunger to the lowest levels in history. Along with the lowest rates of people dying due to war.
socialism didn't do that.
Pretty much they're giving money to people who are most likely to be transitionally homeless and then claiming success even though most if not all of the participants wouldn't be homeless after a year anyway.
No single golden bullet? You wouldn't know that from the coverage of these bunk studies.
Heck, the original article doesn't even reference the study they're talking about. I had to search for it and hunt through multiple sites/pages to find it.
These studies are both bunk.
It's basically... what happens if you give money to people who are only homeless because they don't have money.
They exclude from these studies anyone with problems like mental health or substance abuse issues that can't be addressed with just giving someone money.
Programming in the Microsoft world is like working at McDonalds.
Everything is fine as long as all you want is a McDonald's hamburger. Try coloring outside the lines and you're basically screwed.
It's true, the market has spoken so to speak. However, Android is open source and many providers have "tweaked" their what they deliver (often to the consternation of customers).
I think you should separate the OS (Android) from the ecosystem (Google). You can, in fact, load up any number of Google alternatives on Android phones. With Apple, it's up to Apple to decide what "choices" you have (or don't).
If you want that, use the Fediverse (which, of course, you're already doing). There is no need to legislate people's personal preferences.
"innocent until proven guilty" is a Government thing.
A corporation is treated like a group of people, they're not a Government. Governments are infinitely more powerful than any corporation.
If you don't like Apple... don't do business with them. As we've seen with countless internet companies (including Twitter)... it can be done
I'm surprised your point on freedom of speech in other countries is hypothetical as you expressed the US version is so flawed as to be a "grave danger"
There is regulation.
šš§ š¦šØš¬š ššš¬šš¬, šš”š š¦šš¢š§ ššØš§š¬ššŖš®šš§šš ššØš« š šš®š¬š¢š§šš¬š¬ šš”šš šš”šš§š šš¬ š¢šš¬ ššš š°š¢šš”šØš®š š šššš¢š§š š®š¬šš«š¬' ššØš§š¬šš§š š°šØš®š„š šš šš”šš š¢š ššš§š§šØš šš§ššØš«šš šš”š š§šš° ššš š©š«šØšÆš¢š¬š¢šØš§š¬. šš§ šØš«ššš« ššØ š«šššØšÆšš« ššØš¦š©šš§š¬ššš¢šØš§, š š®š¬šš« š°šØš®š„š š”ššÆš ššØ š¬š”šØš° šš”šš šš”š šš”šš§š šš¬ ššØ šš”š ššš ššš®š¬šš šš”šš¦ šššš®šš„ ššš¦šš š. šš š¬šØ, šš”šš² š¦š¢š š”š šš ššš„š ššØ š¦šš¤š š šš„šš¢š¦ ššØš« šš«šššš” šØš ššØš§šš«ššš šØš« šÆš¢šØš„ššš¢šØš§ šØš š ššØš§š¬š®š¦šš« š©š«šØššššš¢šØš§ š„šš°.
So you think that because Apple isn't forced by the Government to give a platform to an accused rapist America is "in grave danger". We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Can you be more specific? Which countries do you expect will force Apple to restore the app of an accused rapist? We can test your hypothesis.
I'm in the US, and I don't have an iPhone.
See, it's that easy.
And you do have rights as a customer, you have a right to receive the service as agreed, and you also have the responsibility to abide by the terms of service (again, see point 1).
If you don't like how Apple manages their business, your remedy is to not do business with Apple.
If Apple determines some app has broken their terms of service, they remove it.
If you don't like Apple's terms of service, see point 1.
See, it's that easy.
You seem to have no idea what you're talking about.
The 1st amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech (among other things).
Nonsense, no one died to allow anyone to run their apps on Apple systems.