Eldritch

The internet is what you make it. I've never spent much time on overtly corporate media social or otherwise. Combined with largely avoiding the most politically toxic places both maga or ML.

Most of my time online is spent visiting places focused on retro Computing, Retro Gaming, music or some other hobbies. The internet hasn't changed drastically in 30 years. Just the way average people use it.

The corporate sites will never respect your time or privacy. They're just endless treadmills to keep you busy and engaged. We've always been able to hop off.

I think we would have been better off had it stuck around as well. But I also think that we've somewhat arrived at the best of all situations. Where access to Media is much more democratized. You don't have to rely on a big wealthy owner Etc allowing your Viewpoint to be heard. The modern problem is AI generated fire hoses of disinformation. They can output so much more misinformation through seemingly so many more Outlets than an actual person can. So it's going to rely on a lot more word of mouth and Trust. People finding good journalists and presenters like coffee Zilla for instance and sharing them with others to help build up trusted networks of Representatives.

I think a lot of people assume that had it stuck around it would have eventually been applied to cable. But cable was a big new thing at the end of the 1970s early 1980s. Specifically because it didn't have a lot of the regulation and restrictions that broadcast did.

I think a lot of people would have also assumed that the ERA would have been ratified by now. Or that a woman's right to abortion would have been enshrined in law by now. But that didn't happen either. So it's never good to assume.

And then the real rub, what actually constitutes a Viewpoint worthy of being heard. Yes the fairness Doctrine was supposed to give other viewpoints air time. And it did. But not all of them. Fox News in fact was really good with this formula. Early Fox News often tried to provide the appearance of that sort of balance. Toe-headed Sean Hannity did not have his own show for a long long time. Granted the show was his in all but name. But for a long time he was saddled with a limp wet noodle Democrat. Who was little more than a foil for Sean to stomp over. But Alan Combs did provide some token Democrat views and pushback.

The equal representation was only as good as the honesty and the sincerity of the people behind allowing it. Which was often quite dubious itself.

While removal of the fairness Doctrine was a horrible thing. It would not have impacted Fox News in the slightest. It may have had some impact on am talk radio, or Sinclair propaganda. Which would have been a good thing. But zero impact on OANN or similar ilk. Not even CNN or MSNBC or any of the others would have been affected either. It was strictly broadcast only.

Last I saw deepIn wasn't far off. But it's always been a similar project to KDE in many ways. (QT based, complete ecosystem including desktop and apps) Though they have had some rather staggering refactors between versions.

It changed a lot more long before that. But that's probably also why you're not wrong that it should have ended. Much of the movies were from a time with a different mentality than modern times. They were often sexist and a bit campy. Something which late 90s into 2000s certainly wasn't going to fly the same.

Though ironically. The kingsman films actually ended up being much more enjoyable in the same vein even without that. At least for myself than any of the Daniel Craig bond films. Which is no shade against Craig. He's a good actor and has been in a lot of good things. They're just something about him to me was off for that particular role.

Well none of the Craig bond series were for me. I grew up with Connery and Moore. Craig lacked or simply didn't bring what most other actors had to the roll. That said I wouldn't say they sucked. And I say that as someone who enjoyed the Woody Allen/Peter Sellers Casino Royal more.

Had they made him a different double aught, honestly they could have done that with most of the re castings. He's not a time lord after all. I think I would have enjoyed Craig's run more. But plenty of people seem to enjoy his run. People like what they're going to like. Which doesn't make it trash if we don't. Because honestly I love a certain type of good trash.

That you cheerlead worst of the wealthy. And then disingenuously say that like it wipes away everything else you've done. People can clearly see you're disingenuous.

You mentioned it because they were rightly calling out your obvious bias and misrepresentation. And that was tiniest smallest shred of anything you could push back on. No more no less. And to this point you have still not defended your possession in any way shape or form. Simply playing off imagined sexism and bigotry pretending to be the victim. Just like you're pretending that Ukrainian isn't.

Oh no I get that that's why I said they're experts at hiding their income. All those loopholes would ultimately make it less functional. It would still be more fair than paying the same dollar amount but you're not wrong they will cheat every way possible in order to steal a few dollars more.

Well a flat % tax wouldn't be too bad. But that's never what they mean. They want trillionaires to pay the same dollar amount in taxes as someone in poverty. And even if we could get them to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as someone in poverty. The wealthy are experts at hiding their income.

Though honestly thieves like the wealthy need to be taxed harder than anyone else as punishment for their theft.