Just a regular Joe.
I think you mean a few million outspoken critics of the US. US citizens abroad are often well educated and critical of US domestic and international politics and policies.
A more effective response would be to give them microphones and platforms upon which to express their views.
Indeed. I suspect it would need to be framed around national security and national interests, to have any realistic chance of success. AI is being seen as a necessity for the future of many countries … embrace it, or be steamrolled in the future by those who did, so a soft touch is being embraced.
Copyright and licensing uncertainty could hinder that, and the status quo today in many places is to not treat training as copyright infringement (eg. US), or to require an explicit opt-out (eg. EU). A lack of international agreements means it’s all a bit wishy washy, and hard to prove and enforce.
Things get (only slightly) easier if the material is behind a terms-of-service wall.
Let me know if you convince any lawmakers, and I’ll show you some lawmakers about to be invited to expensive “business” trips and lunches by lobbyists.
Probably a year or so for the ban, but they have been removing fair and reasonable comments (mine and others) that they don’t agree with forever.
There is method to their approach… it is often well coordinated, with a deliberate campaign to attack any opinions they don’t like, and censor any awkward facts.
The straw in this case was a meme where they tried to frame USSR’s invasion of the Baltics as a positive thing (leading to the dates in this meme).
In particular: Lemmy.MLers love proclaiming soviet responsibility for improving life expectancy and literacy rates … at a time when this was rapidly improving in europe and the world regardless, and it would have taken complete Incompetence for any country to not benefit from this trend. ie. Soviets didn’t fuck up this aspect, but it’s not a win outside of russia itself (which was largely a backwater at the time, for understandable reasons)
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
In socialist states a larger part of the surplus is used to improve the labor pool, which explains the rapid growth.
Sure. If the right policies are prioritized and investments made, it should be much more efficient. Investments in primary healthcare and education in particular tend to be clear winners.
stark contrast from before and after the dissolution
Russia’s sudden shift to oligargchic capitalism was deeply corrupt and destabilising, harming russia itself and much of the neighbourhood.
to say that capitalism improved living standards is just assassine
It’s not capitalism that improves living standards. It’s sustained (and sustainable) growth, stable institutions and investment over time. Both capitalism and socialism can (and have) supported that, each with risks and caveats.
Sorry about that
Thanks
Recovering from WW2 losses was indeed a challenge for many soviet bloc countries. My suspicion is that without the cold war, W.Europe would also have recovered much slower as US investment and interest could have taken quite a different form.
Latin America is a different beast, worthy of its own discussion separate to this one.
The graph serves as simple contextualisation.
All european countries were already on the same trajectory. Russia was lagging behind for perfectly understandable reasons, but it was on the same trajectory. The soviet movement came at the right moment to benefit from this (and yeah, there’s a good chance they accelerated it, and in the worst case were “not bad” as someone phrased it).
A government would have had to monumentally screw up to not benefit from the rapid changes across europe at the time.
If the OP (or many of the commenters here) want to demonstrate uniquely soviet achievements, there are better metrics to focus on than life expectancy.
The original poster was terribly one sided, clearly meaning to shock people into thinking that the USSR’s socialism was solely responsible for it.
That the USSR achieved what it did is not in dispute… that socialism alone could have achieved this is my point… russia was a blank slate, primed for rapid improvement. It also didn’t improve uniformly (not surprising given its size and geography).
Neoliberal shock doctrine aka capitalism does that (followed by a rule 1 violating insult)
Russia’s internal collapse and slide was quite special, and most other former USSR states did better (even pre-1991), including Belarus & Ukraine. That speaks very much to russia, not the USSR of course
I expect people here to be capable of basic research and forming their own opinions. If your opinion is “ussr was perfect, does no wrong” then OK, good for you.
The users here are fully capable of doing minimal research and applying critical thinking without being spoon-fed.
Removed by mod
So long as proper education based on science for all parents is non-optional, it should be OK.
Similarly, it should also be optional to admit unvaccinated (without a medical reason) children to daycare centres, certain schools, sports clubs, etc. There are kids who need safe environments, and they should not be forced into hiding due to a reckless minority.