Because overall people don’t like it, particularly when it comes to creating “art.”

What is the actual justification for this? Everyone has to pay for this except for AI companies, so AI can continue to develop into a universally regarded negative?

A theory of mine is that one of the reasons people don’t take the various crises threatening to destroy civilization seriously is that we’ve lived through so many crises that were solved without the average person suffering that much.

Y2K, overpopulation, the decay of the ozone, acid rain, all major problems, which received major attention from government, media and the scientific community…and were solved, by the scientific community through incredible efforts that were unthinkable a generation before thanks to advances in science. But things didn’t really change that much for your average schlub on the street. The change in fluorocarbons in bug spray or air conditioning units may have changed the price a bit, but not enough to really hurt the ordinary person’s wallet.

In World War II, everyone participated, everyone did something, be it as big as risking their life on the battlefield, or as small as collecting old newspaper to recycle. Nothing in the past eighty years has demanded that kind of investment or sacrifice or commitment. A great swathe of our population simply cannot believe there is or can be an existential threat to life as we know it.

I have a similar theory about politics, that most Americans thinks of the modern American democracy as inevitable and irrevocable, thus don’t take it seriously when the President’s platform seems built around totally destroying democratic norms.

I remember reading somewhere that one of the reasons the War in Ukraine has gone on as long as it has is because of how much of the conflict has been taken up by the use of militarized drones, cutting down on (but not eliminating by any means) the amount of people getting killed.

Which is good in that it means fewer people dying in a pointless war for Putin’s ego, but bad in that in that it dulls the human cost that has been known to really kill war efforts, even in dictatorships.

Yes. Which is part of my point.

In no way does that answer my question.

Is it possible that people driven out of their homes by war and disaster might understand the promise of America better than you?

I really hate it when corporate Twitter accounts try to be quirky. Wendy’s trolling McDonald’s was funny for a bit but even that got old and I blame it for making this sort of thing common.

In all honesty, if he left politics and stayed out of it I wouldn’t my just leaving him to his harem and 40k.

America’s democracy is in dire enough straits that we don’t need to be stuck fighting the world’s richest man on top of the whole mechanism of government. If he’ll get and stay gone, I say leave him to it.

On the other hand, he’s rich enough that he can jump back in at any time and go back to fucking our democracy and he’s proven to be impulsive and mercurial, willing to throw his lot in with fascists because he got trolled on Twitter over how skin deep his progressive credentials are.

Again that would be you.

All I have to do because it’s the truth.

What should the Democrats be doing then?

I agree but until we fully go the way of the French Revolution that’s unlikely happen.

Says the mfer who has never done any independent research and guzzles CCP propaganda.

Your username is very accurate. You uncritically accept Tankie propaganda supplied by a totalitarian dictatorship.

But not from being sent to concentration camps lolol

We don’t call it genocide because words mean things and that does not constitute genocide, whereas China’s attempts to wipe out the Uighurs do.

They’re not being subjected to a genocide.

You don’t suppose there might be reason people don’t trust the news coming from a country with no freedom of speech or press?

Tell it to the Uyghurs.