Alpro Not Milk comes pretty close for me, oat drink.

What if everyone started talking about how “woke” Apple, Amazon, and Google are? Maybe it would pass, then. Remember, we don’t need to define woke, we just need to point and say the magic word and GOP politicians will vote against it.

Nordé VPN

They're like "Wahhh we need to hit 3.5% and then the fascist dictator will totally resign!" and then Trump is like "Oooo my delicate little feefees, oh well, here comes my Gestapo!" while the 50501 protest marshalls chant "We did it! We don't need crushing violence to make a change!" while completely ignoring that the NKD protests accomplished literally nothing.

Lots of people have kids nowadays in their houses, we should ban all of that and out them all in a specialized center or something. I can't imagine what all those people are doing with kids behind close doors under he guise of "family". Truly scary if you think about it.

That’s not the right analogy here. The better analogy would be something like: Your scary mafia-related neighbor shows up with a document saying your house belongs to his land. You said no way, you have connections with someone important that assured you your house is yours only and they’ll help you with another mafia if they want to invade your house. The whole neighborhood gets scared of an upcoming bloodbath that might drag everyone into it. But now your son says he actually agrees that your house belongs to your neighbor, and he’s likely waiting until you’re old enough to possibly give it up to him.

Emacs has panes. Is this supposed to imitate a fraction of the holy power?

Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.