DandomRude

joined 2 years ago
[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I agree. Nevertheless, people here prefer arbitrary decisions based on rules that are so broad that they only encourage arbitrary decisions by the moderators. From this, I can only conclude that even the people here would rather be entertained than face the adversities of reality.

For me, that is unacceptable - so I'm moving on.

 

This is a Nazi's wet dream, because they have always been enemies of thought, and now they have a machine that eloquently sells their animalistic ideas.

 

I don't mean those who are paid to do so -their motivation is obvious. I mean people who are destructive out of their own motivation and represent untenable points of view. Are they really serious about this?What's the point?

I mean, it can't all be the propaganda machine. What would be the point of trying that with Lemmy, who is paid for it? With LLMs, I can still understand that it could be done very economically, but even here there are real people who do it. Why? How did they come up with that? What is the goal? What drives them to do it?

I don't get that at all.

 

Should such a clause not be added as standard today, similar to the "salvatory clause," provided that the content is not intended for the widest possible distribution?

 

Here are just a few examples from Europe:

  • Milka | Mondelez
  • Toblerone | Mondelez
  • Philadelphia | Mondelez
  • LU cookies | Mondelez
  • Pampers | Procter & Gamble
  • Ariel, Tide | Procter & Gamble
  • Oral-B | Procter & Gamble
  • Gillette | Procter & Gamble
  • Head & Shoulders | Procter & Gamble
  • Colgate| Colgate‑Palmolive Company
  • Lay’s | PepsiCo
view more: next ›