Sorry, I was super unclear there. This was not Google.
However, Google also sometimes has done their own April Fools bits, and historically Google has been big part of April Fools hijinks. So I did mention them as a company that does these, and I did post this which is impersonating Google as an april fools prank, but yeah, this particular one was not at all carried out by Google.
I almost forgot today was April Fools day. I feel like since Covid, the national mood ™ was such that Google and co stopped doing April Fools pranks, and/or if they did them, they were so safe they were groan inducing.
Looking around at the roundup links for 2024, there aren’t many that happened this year, from the looks of it. So I wanted to post this one, because it’s the rarest of rare - one that I thought was really incredibly well done.
I mean if you are looking for a serious answer, it’s this. You may be able to find equivalences between US and Russian media, at the level of one instance for one instance. What you can’t find is an equivalence in magnitude. For every offense you find in the U.S., you can find the same in Russia but ten times as much, and ten times worse.
And to me, a test of whether you’re a serious person is whether you have the information literacy to understand that kind of distinction instead of whatabouting and Gish galloping it into the ground.
I think there’s a steelman version of that same argument that makes a legitimate point about how Russian disinformation does contribute to the escalation of tensions both in the United States and around the world, and I feel like not only are you not engaging with it, but you’re intentionally not doing so.
I say that because you appear to only be willing to address yourself to the completely watered-down version of the caricature argument, even when you’re in a thread that directly links to an article that makes some pretty direct points about the reality of actual Russian disinformation.
Like if you could just talk normal for a second, you might say something like, “oh in paragraph three of the article it says this. But actually that’s not true and here’s my source for refuting it.” Or even “well these are all true but I feel like it’s emphasizing the wrong things and here’s my argument for emphasizing a different thing.” Like just any signal, any signal at all, any whatsoever that shows that you’re in touch with the same set of facts. But you can’t go there, and so you’re chasing caricatures instead.
Woah, we even have auto TLDR! That’s how you know Lemmy is on the up and up. I was wondered how this worked in the years before Chat GPT, which I assume is still however it works now.
They are both carbon-based life forms. Which means that at a psychological level they’re probably identical. And there’s probably no difference whatsoever between the respective nations cultures, economic or political conditions, or their respective geopolitical interests.
If they’re living breathing creatures, and they both rely on carbon to form complex molecules that make up their bodies, it naturally follows that their countries have identical geopolitical alliances.
Agian I ask of Trudeau made the same claim, or the Prime Minister of New Zeeland, would you be making the same argument
Wouldn’t that depend on their particular geopolitical interests, which could be entirely different from those of Russia?
I feel like these questions are so absurd sometimes not because an answer is being sought but because it succeeds at the goal of degrading the quality of conversation.
Exactly. Putin is really concerned about student loan debt.
He says he wants blue team to win in 2024, but we are blue team and we hate him!
Well we’re off to an awfully bad start because this is about the shallowest bad faith caricature I could possibly imagine. Let’s put it this way:
I’m not even 100% saying I’m right, but every step of this is perfectly reasonable, it doesn’t rely on any outlandish assumptions, and communication about this isn’t helped by mocking people with bad faith caricatures and performative incredulity.
or escalate the war.
This seems to run contrary to everything I’ve read about Trump’s position. The first half of what you said is at least somewhat accurate. But the second half is contradicted by numerous reports from Trump that his approach would have been to “take a deal” and get out, implicitly with substantial land concessions from Ukraine. And then there’s the fact that both of them have profess to having positive relationships with one another and admiring one another.
It can be both - a terrible amoral system that concentrates wealth to the point that major world events are driven by wildcard personalities of rich idiots. And then, the rich idiots themselves.
I just logged in to two smaller instances where I have accounts, anticapitalist.party and mastodon.xyz. I found them in one step and I could see their posts and replies on both of them.
Because even for me, a full time systems coder, just figuring out what server to join was a pain
What was there to figure out in your case?
I couldn’t just find you by searching for p03locke, I’d have to search for @p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com.
I literally just searched “p03locke” from mastodon.social and found them in one step.
for being such a meanie
Lol. You mean literally engaging in insurrection? This is exactly what internet hippo was talking about in their now famous tweet:
New right wing thing is describing crimes as generically as possible to pretend like they’re not crimes. Someone gets convicted of conspiracy and they start yelling “Wow so it’s illegal to make plans with friends now”
I’d love to see a whole chart of how various crimes get described in a generic way. Describing insurrection as being a meanie probably something that should be printed in framed and hung up in a Hall of Fame honoring greatest all time excuses for federal crimes.
they don’t vote anyone into any office, as “being the official candidate for party X” is not an government office. So the judge used A14 on an issue where it does not apply to in the first place
The political primary process still falls under electoral law, and state law can be brought to bear on questions of how the primary process is administered. Even the dissenting justices in this case appear to agree that finding of insurrection can trigger the enforcement of Colorado State law to remove someone from the ballot.
So having participated in an insurrection absolutely can be a factor that’s pertinent to legal decisions about his eligibility, and in fact it’s that very connection that seems to be the entire point of Colorado’s state level law disqualifying insurrectionists from electoral office.
I mostly agree with you - Republicans participating in insurrection should be disqualified from seeking higher office, and one of the best weapons to safeguard our democracy is our legal system.
There are a bunch of other states that tried to disqualify Trump, and Trump’s legal team has won almost every time. He lost basically every case about overturning the election, but when it comes to being allowed to be on the ballot he has mostly won.
I would understand if at least 20% of the Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel would be comprised of western volunteers talking about terrorists and no negotiations.
Now do Russia. There must be more western volunteers on that side, I take it?
This is not from Google. This is Extinction Rebellion registering a domain to prank Google, by speaking in their voice and resolving to stop funding climate deniers. It’s both a cheeky prank and a way to put pressure on Google to take accountability.