that would likely turn on him in a heart beat.

Again, what happens to him personally or to Facebook as a company is irrelevant when it comes to how our lives are affected. The regulation of social platforms is good for society regardless of the efect regulation has on the owners or the companies owning the platforms.

Your argument is built around the wrong desirable outcome.

A minority that probably hates his guts.

How is this relevant to us? The subject here is about the platform’s influence on society, not of Zuckerberg.

ISIS? Hamas? any number of such organizations would happily use some mass murdering weapons if given access to them. Putin has shown that he doesn’t care about what happens to russian citizens if he can win something out of their suffering so empowering terrorist organizations to harm people, even russians, is not a big price to pay to make his point

i don’t think the nukes are where the drills take place, that would be quite stupid

the bible also contains accounts of god helping his people conquer land and uproot the residing population from it. I wouldn’t use it as a moral reference.

In fact, let’s be honest: there is no point in quoting any religious text, regardless of religion, when discussing morality. These texts are horribly dated and should be considered as historically interesting, but nothing more.

What data though? This article doesn’t contain data - that’s my issue. You’re right, it’s not asking fishermen if they think we should eat fish. It’s asking nutritionists if they like fish.

No. I’m saying that “77% of Top …etc” is a stupid way of conveying the importance of the information.

why does anyone care what experts think?!

That’s not what I said at all, is it? I’m simply pointing out that we’re reacting to a poorly written article which plays on our emotional side instead of discussing the actual facts. Yes, scientists doing research in an area believe that their research is going to confirm their hypothesis. That’s how research works. In this case, I’m surprised it’s not 100% to be honest.

The whole premise of the article is stupid. Not global warming, not the fact that we’re heading towards more than 2.5C global warming by 2100, not the people answering the questions. What’s stupid is the idea of “conducting an opinion poll” in that specific group.

I’m in no way a climate change denier and I too believe that the current path leads us there. However, isn’t it normal for 80% of climate scientist actively researching this to think this way? Would they not spend their efforts somewhere else if they would think this isn’t happening?

A survey among mathematicians showed that 80% consider that mathematics has the answer they’re looking for.

We need to discuss hard data and proper research, not surveys.

that’s a ridiculously superficial take on free trade agreements. And since 10 years have passed since then, you should be able to show some evidence of that happening, but you can’t.

this article is not about acts of human rights abuse, is it?

1. adding sugar to baby food is not necessarily illegal

2. there is already legislation which prevents companies from engaging in illegal activities overseas but it’s really not efficient since it is so easy to offload any illegal activity to a locally owned company. This is more about human rights abuse and illegal lobbying than product quality control though.

3. there is nothing forcing multinational corporations to act as a unique global entity when it comes to quality control and any attempt to enforce such legislation would just be quickly sidestepped with local subsidiaries.

Really, the only defense for the locals is the local government. As it should be.

have you actually read those links? First is a political statement from 2014 which starts with :

Germany and Europe contribute large sums of tax money toward various development programmes in Africa, Nooke explained, but the economic agreement with African states cancels out these efforts.

and it should be easy to see now that the guy was just playing his voters.

the second one is about britain post brexit

the 3rd is about the influence of other markets on the quality of products in the EU.

Which one of those actually proves your point?

Nestle most probably just buys local factories which already produce this crap and rebrands it. Even if Nestle would be forbidden from doing business in those countries, the locals would not be any better off. They really need their authorities to step in. There’s no other way.

America and the EU are imposing the economic and political order that gives those companies leverage over small countries and blocks them from consumer protection or worker protection legislation.

What on earth are you on about? The EU lobbies world wide for consumer and worker protection. Where are you getting your info from?

But as long as our major politicians are Republicans and neoliberals, nothing is going to change.

Those poorer countries have governments too. They should be the first line of defense for their citizens. Fuck Nestle and all their products, but the reality is that there’s absolutely nothing a foreign power can do to protect the people living in those countries

The reason for extremism gaining traction is relatively known, but OP was questioning the more subtle “conservative”-leaning parties being in power globally (seemingly) for the past decade at least. That’s somewhat harder to explain. For example, it’s harder to explain how most western countries became neo-liberal at the end of the 90s.

Extremism gains traction when there’s societal divide with at least one of the divisions significantly poorer than the other.

No, I know that, but the original vaccination hesitancy in UK and Ireland made sense because Wakefield published a study in a reputable peer reviewed medical journal. Since then it has taken a life of its own in US even after the original claim was refuted. Political entities got involved and so on and so forth.

I understand how “Big pharma” type conspiracy theories might appear in the USA, but how the hell can someone believe them in EU where the pharmaceutical and health industries are heavily regulated and vaccines are almost exclusively provided by the state? I just can’t wrap my head around this.

Well, the French Revolution wasn’t really that goes for the people of the time either. It was an extreme event which punished innocents too. The eventual changes in society were the beneficial ones. The same is true about WW2 I guess.