techblueberry

I mean sure, I agree with you in principal, but if not bailing out someone brings down the country or global economy? In a democracy that government is getting punished hard.

Can you privatize the losses if the banks are investing, providing debt to and repackaging that debt into broader instruments?

I worry that one of the reasons that Anthropic has 500 billion in commitments and everyone is running to the credit markets is to make it so that if they fail everyone suffers.

What is this “everywhere else” you speak of. Tik tok is owned by Larry Ellison. Meta we’re talking about. Reddit? Is that smallest of platforms “everywhere else”?

How perceptive of you to notice.

Which far right are you talking about? The lefts version of the far right where everyone to the right of Bernie sanders is Hitler? Or like Joel Webbon / Doug Wilson women shouldn’t vote far right? Who is this anti-free speech moderate right you describe?

Elon describes himself as moderate so is he one of these folks that doesn’t believe in free speech? He would say he stayed in the center and democrats moved left. What speech is this moderate right censoring?

Do you really believe this? Everything I hear from self described culture warriors like Musk was the left in the 80’s and 90’s was anti censorship as opposed to the moral majority on the right? You would find yourself in narrow company to say the left is fundamentally pro censorship, particularly in America.

And I sort of wonder what point you’re trying to make, because you could take two lessons away -

One, Trump may not have been reelected if meta hadn’t banned him. So maybe it was another case of meta trying to help republicans.

Or, if Trump hadn’t been reelected, maybe the republicans wouldn’t be facing one of the worst midterm routes in history.

But honestly I’m not actually sure the point you’re trying to make. Meta hired a Republican strategist into their c suite since then. Sooo much has happened, there’s a lot of historical context to try to put it in.

In fairness I think shutting down “wrong ideas” is just what people do when they think their ideas are prominent and want to protect that.

It’s almost weird the way we talk about free speech in 2026, looking back at the 20th century and the Hayes code, and how staid music and TV were prior to 1985-ish. I’m not defending the censors you’re talking about here - in fact from the other side I might argue there are a whole bunch of perspectives that made it from academia to the pages of the New York Times that never should have escaped. And I make that argument as someone who studied some of this stuff in college.

Maybe my most unpopular of opinions is that - I don’t know if I agree with censorship persay - but I’m not sure it’s healthy the way we’re all in a deluge of all these perspectives. You could get rid of 90% of content in the world and 90% of people would never notice.

I feel like this position is almost quaint.

It’s not that I don’t see the appeal. But I don’t thing even - are Harvard and Stanford good schools or do they just attract the best students?

If this is even possible. Why the market failure? Why aren’t there any private universities out there running circles around the rest of them with their outcome studies and their guarantees.

Fun fact, California’s environmental quality law was signed by Ronald ReAgan.

I dont have an Alexa.

and maybe what I’m taking away from your post is too many god damned things rely on a datacenter.

Is it really confusing?

Like first of all I would call a person who tries to pass the checks and balances of a democracy, even if they fail, the target of the ideals or “no kings”

And while we can disagree with the extent to which any one act or bribe elevates someone to dictator, and whether or not all the accusations are true, can you not understand why someone caught up in the narrative ecosystem happening over the past few years may develop the perspective that Trump is trying to consolidate power?

Also “no folks who incrementally Test the limits of power and fail” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

But from your comment it seems like you think the right answer is to scrub left wing voices, rather than to let everyone speak equally.

Why is the argument we should race to the bottom?