The news stories seem to just leave out that the Israeli fans stole and burned a Palestinian flag, assaulted a taxi driver and vandalized a taxi, and marched through Amsterdam chanting racist slogans and celebrating dead children in Gaza. Then during the match they disrupted a moment of silence for Spanish flood victims with chant and firecrackers (because Spain acknowledged the genocide and initiated an arms embargo).

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/8/israeli-football-fans-clash-with-protesters-in-amsterdam

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/11/what-happened-amsterdam-israeli-football-fans

But no, instead of a relatively straightforward escalation (still wrong) stemming from foreign racists staging a provocative march and being violent to citizens of the city, we instead just see the news parrot “it was a pogrom on poor Israelis just trying to enjoy some football”.

Major news organizations believed these quotes were accurate enough to run the story in Israel and Gallant has not issued any countering statement.

Everything in that article was something someone said he said. It’s all reported by the families of hostages that were at the meeting.

I’m in the US and was specifically drawn toward European instance because my (admittedly very lightly informed) understanding is Europe just has better laws on internet freedoms. IIRC a US-based Mastodon instance (Mastodon maybe?) was seized by cops at one point for pretty questionable reasons. Our legal system gives far too much power to police and corporations to enact spurious searches and punishment.

Man, they could have made the letter something that would persuade people about the importance of ideas and how no nation is a monolith, but they just couldn’t help but make it a blatantly “Israel is right” letter.

“We continue to be shocked and disappointed to see members of the literary community harass and ostracise their colleagues because they don’t share a one-sided narrative in response to the greatest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

“Israel is fighting existential wars against Hamas and Hezbollah…"

Someone here is obfuscating reality, and it’s not the boycotters. These people are insane.

Because the international order is based on economic and military might, not any sort of higher ideal or codified rules.

I don’t trust it because there’s no believable plan to make it commercially viable, so it’s just going to end up defunct or enshittified. Mastodon is up front, it’s a volunteer service that you can either pay for or roll the dice on the instance staying up. And there’s a built-in way to move on when one goes down.

BlueSky is a B-corp, which theoretically means they can say their mission takes priority if sued by an investor in court, but doesn’t in any way require them to make it the primary goal, and the reality of funding and money and investors means that’s almost certainly not going to happen.

If you browse a news aggregator site, you’ll notice how few of the headlines provide any indication the protesters were Jewish rather than just “anti-Israel” or “pro-Palestine”. While the latter is a more precise descriptor of their organizing cause, the former is also a very important aspect for this protest. It’s just not in line with the narrative the corporate news organizations have been cultivating.

The ethno-state problem exists regardless of where you draw the lines. A state cannot be both designed for ethnic superiority and treat those from other ethnicities as equals. You can’t maintain that inequality without violence.

I didn’t ask whether you thought they were diverse, I asked whether you thought they would ever be given the same consideration in the name of “diversity of thought”. We both know they won’t.

Diversity of thought is very important

So she’s going to appoint a Democratic Socialist? No? Someone from Sunrise then? No? A Palestinian-American Democrat? They couldn’t even get 2 minutes at the convention. How about a BLM activist? She marched for that cause, surely that’s some diversity she’d want to have represented. Not that either? Hm.

Maybe this isn’t about diversity of thought and instead about the doomed Democratic instinct to try to coopt the center-right, which according to the theory of centrism will make them win forever! Just not any of the times they’ve already tried it.

I know fuck all about French politics, but it seems strange that he doesn’t just appoint the candidate from the left. It sounds like it’s a fucked up non-functional situation, so he should just let them try to do the impossible and then fail. He’s probably worried that she might actually succeed and is holding out hope for some way to cobble together something as close as possible to the centrist coalition that shit the bed in the first place.

I wonder whether this is because the subscription method was overpriced compared to the number of articles they actually accessed or if academics are now just thinking twice about whether they really need to access a particular article if it’s not easy and “free”. I’ve certainly downloaded articles I never actually got around to reading.

It’s still wild that universities don’t just en masse refuse to use the for-profit journals. They services they provide could easily be managed and funded by a university consortium. They just need to actually make the leap.

You’re just not addressing automation at all. We have no where close to a billion people specializing in tasks that can’t either currently or in the near-term future be either automated entirely or made so efficient the required workforce would be drastically reduced. You don’t need 4 billion people to maintain (and improve) our standard of living and we’re rapidly approaching the point where many jobs are better automated than done by people.

If you want people to be free to innovate or make art or explore, the best way to do that is to not have them working pointless jobs for half their waking hours.

Why do you think all that good stuff is due to more people rather than just technological advancement yielding faster technological advancement? The person tending to an ever growing landfill isn’t an essential component of modern life. The well-functioning landfill might be, but the person is just moving trash around. Replace them with a robot and the trash still gets moved around, will no reduction in art, freedom, or QoL.

I think there’s gray areas where someone comes in hot to play devil’s advocate and if they have a history that looks like a normal contrarian person elsewhere they might just get a removal and/or a warning, but if they’re a 2 day old account with 5 one word comments, there’s no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Granted, you shouldn’t expect mods to try to figure out your personal history and state of mind to know you weren’t trying to troll in your very first post in their community, but it’s at least something to try to sort out those gray area comments. Or something to review if the user appeals their ban.

And yeah, taking your bans with you in migration would be the cost of maintaining that history. It’s a commitment to owning your own posts and history.

From experience moderating on Reddit, user histories were pretty useful in judging whether they just made a mistake or were ban evading or trolling. If a fresh account drops in with a trollish comment as their first interaction with the community, they might just catch a ban rather than being treated as a good faith poster who came in too hot and deserves a second chance.

So if you migrate accounts in Lemmy, you’ll have to pay that price over again and risk more strict moderation because you have no history, whereas a Mastodon-like link to their previous account would establish a baseline.

Are you questioning whether Joseph Stiglitz is a secret communist? Because that’s the only genuine sentiment at play for your top level comment. If you instead wanted to call out some other poster and argue with them about communism, maybe you should have replied to that person?

Or maybe you should have read the article before you commented so you wouldn’t have to be trying to figure out a post hoc justification about the nonexistent context making your comment correct all along.

I think I don’t understand the context because you’re not responding in context, you’re just continuing an imaginary conversation you’ve had elsewhere because you saw some keywords.

This is not an article about communism or socialism or dictatorships or any of the other things you’re talking about.