Well, then we find ourselves finding each other out of touch!

I think your line of thinking might be either overly naïve, or maliciously turning a blind eye:

First, "both-sides"-ing, for lack of a better word, is — IMHO — a false equivalence that treats the current democratic transgressions of rights and freedoms from the alt-right government to, for example, democrat's normalizing that saying racist stuff is a faux-pas; i.e. some goons are actively harming humans and that isn't the same as racists being butt-hurt that they were banned from some site.

Second, in this particular case — where there is push back against fascists — trying to reduce the scope of the discussion is like trying to censor police-cam footage to just the split-second segments where the cops get scared and shoot, but that leaves out how the trigger-happy cop broke protocol, escalated the situation, and berated confusing orders at the victim. So, no... We need nuance and context.

I really hope people that find themselves what-abouting for fascists are able to escape whatever information bubble they find themselves in so that they may be able to stop willfully looking past other people's humanity before we all find each other on the wrong end of a power-tripping cop that won't even have to come up with a good lie to snuff our lives out.

If future LLM patterns mimic the other business models, 80% of the prompt will be spent preventing ad recommendations and the agent would in turn reluctantly respond but suggest that it is malicious to ask for that.

I'm really looking forward to something like a GNU GPT that tries to be as factual, unbiased, libre and open-source as possible (possibly built/trained with Guix OS so we can ensure byte-for-byte reproducibility).

> The immigration crackdowns are very popular across the entire (R) electorate, regardless of their wealth.

Sure. The rich (R) electorate gladly watch how the non-rich (R) electorate has taken the bait and is happy chasing after the newly othered.

They won't be happy if the non-rich republicans start taking their aim at lobbying, unfair tax-breaks for the rich, or any form of taxation that prevents them from keeping their ill-gotten wealth.

But are you owning something with a subscription in a market that has normalized hiking their prices?

There used to be contracts with service providers, and that — IIRC — usually shielded consumers from exorbitant increases.

> Why could a court favor the interest of the New York Times in a vague accusation versus the interest and right of hundred millions people?

Can't you use the same arguments against, say, Copyright holders? Billionaires? Corporations doing the Texas two-step bankruptcy legal maneuver to prevent liability from allegedly poisoning humanity?

I sure hope so.

Edit: ... (up to a point)