What would be an example of this? It’s not obvious to me that by simply voting in a manner that benefits “the rich” then also means it’s against your own interests. When someone gains something it doesn’t mean I must lose something in exchange.

To claim they’re not trying to combat the problem is a lie. I used to get several bot followers a day around a year ago. Now I got none and I’ve lost a ton of subscribers because the bot accounts are getting deleted. The amount of bots was also the reason Elon wanted to turn down the deal to begin with because twitter lied about it.

Also, misinformation can be combated with community notes. An open source feature I’m not aware of any other social media platform having.

Name a social media platform without bots pretending to be real people.

So you want to ban the platforms you dont like/use but leave the ones you do?

The other is the same thing said differently. Not misinformation either.

5 million actual people telling you that ‘x’ political view is common and popular, causing you to doubt, or at least temper your own personal beliefs.

This isn’t misinformation. Lemmy gives you skewed image of what political views are popular. Truth social does the exact same thing but from the opposite perspective. These are just groups of people self selecting onto platforms they most feel comfortable at. Having different political views to that of yours is not misinformation and platforms shouldn’t be banned because of it.

Tell that to Musk; X bans TONS of people over their viewpoints.

Again, not in any way exclusive to twitter. Go take a look at lemmy.ml/modlog for example. These are both privately owned and the people running them are free to moderate however they desire. If you don’t agree with it, then don’t go there. That’s what I do with .ml instances too.

I’ll rather choose myself which social media platforms I use rather than let the authorities decide for me. Banning things you don’t like is not a solution because soon the things you do like are getting banned too because someone else doesn’t like them. This is so incredibly narrow sighted.

And Lemmy, Mastodon, Bluesky etc.

Is there no disinformation on other social media platforms?

How is that even remotely equivalent comparison?

surely they would know they are (edit: seen as) the bad guys?

This is a popular view only on left-wing social media. The vast majority of people just see them as wealthy individuals, without thinking of them as particularly bad. If I didn’t visit Lemmy, I wouldn’t even know how many people dislike them. Everywhere else, I mostly see people looking up to them. Criticism does exist, of course, but it’s usually focused on specific traits - like Elon’s Twitter addiction - rather than condemning them as a whole.

To answer your question, Elon Musk plays a lot of Diablo IV and is actually quite good at it. He claims to be in the global top 20, though that’s debatable and hard to verify. However, he is ranked in the top 20 on the leaderboard at helltides.com.

I mean the pro-life stance is clear in the sense that they generally don’t accept abortion unless the mother’s life is in danger. So when someone is ‘pro-life,’ I know what that means. However, when someone says they’re ‘pro-choice,’ I don’t always know what they mean. I’ve assumed most people draw the line somewhere around three months, after which you’d need a medical reason and a doctor’s statement to proceed. But based on the replies I’ve gotten here, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Many seem to suggest that no such lines should be drawn at all and even go as far as calling the baby a parasite, which seems a bit crazy to me to put it lightly.

I know such lines are arbitrary and there’s no practical difference between one day and another but what seems obvious to me is that a total ban and allowing it at 8 months for any other that a serious medical reason are both equally extreme stances and the ‘truth’ is there somewhere in between.

Then have the child and give it up for adoption? If you don’t want to keep it, you can freely abort it until, say, 12 weeks, after which you’d need a medical reason and a statement from one or two doctors. I don’t see what the issue is here.

I’m not saying this is exactly how it should be, but something along those lines. The idea that someone should be free to abort a 7-month-old fetus if they choose seems quite extreme to me.

Maybe I should’ve been more specific - I meant the point after which you need to consult a doctor to go ahead with an abortion. I think most people agree that a fetus just a few weeks old is barely a living thing, so aborting it is hardly different from, cumming in a sock. However, there is a point after which we’re no longer talking about a lump of cells but a sentient being, and to me at least, it seems reasonable that after that point, you’d need a medical reason to do it.

Where I’m from, that line is at 12 weeks. Until then, you’re free to do it for whatever reason you want. The unwillingness to draw any line like that means they’d be okay aborting an 8 month old too even for financial reasons and that just sounds fucking insane to me.

I’m pretty sure an 8-month-old fetus can feel things and is sentient, so that’s a moot point unless you’re going to argue that sentience appears at the moment of birth - which we both know isn’t true.

So… Why can’t we abort 3 year olds?

I don’t think that drawing a line means it wouldn’t be allowed under any circumstances after that. Before the line, it would be at the mother’s discretion, and after passing the line, you’d need a statement from one or two doctors and a valid medical reason for it.

Where I live abortion is legal untill 12 weeks and after that you need a medical reason for it and a statement from 2 doctors. What’s wrong with this?

You are being forced to feed a parasitic being in your body, a being that destroys your body in the process.

Okay, let’s take this reasoning even further then. Why can’t this same logic be used to a 3 year old?

Death penalty is justice. Abortion is cruel & horrifying.

See? That’s how convincing your reasoning is. Luckily the other people responding are atleast addressing the question.

The thing I’ve yet to figure out about the abortion debate, and what likely gets me labeled as a right-wing bigot for even daring to ask, is where ‘pro-choice’ people draw the line. The ‘pro-life’ view is clear: life starts at conception. However, I don’t know where the left draws the line, and in my mind, refusing to do so seems to suggest it would be fine even a day before birth, which seems like an equally extreme position.