Are they blocking illegal content (such as content that promotes violence or issues threats) and content against the terms of service (like hateful, trolling, or disrespectful content)?

Or are they banning people based on their political beliefs or who they voted for, even if their content is not political in any way whatsoever?

And how are they defining alt right? A literal Neo Nazi? Or someone who voted Republican?

@ronflex said:

The problem with left leaning individuals on the internet is we have a lot of drive and conviction behind our ideas which is a good thing, but that should translate into real life activism or doing something that will combat the current political system and promote change. But we are beaten down since that’s basically a total pipe dream, we realize what the problem is and feel powerless to fix it.

In many ways, that's what they want you to believe: that you have no hope to change things, so most people never try. That leaves the powers-that-be in charge.

But the reality is that people have the power to transform the country, and it does not have to be through the government. For example, if you are socialist or communist, you can establish your own communes, cooperatives, and employee-owned enterprises yourself, and it is totally legal! And, there are plenty of them already in existence.

People like to complain that someone else should fix their country, but the reality is, they can do it themselves, even when they have no political power whatsoever. But it takes hard work, and that is something most people aren't willing to do.

@Blaze (he/him) I heard someone mention Blacksky a couple of times. I forgot who, but apparently they are trying to set up alternatives for Bluesky on the AT protocol network.

@BrainInABox Yes they are. And those are the bad kinds we all disapprove of.

There is also a kind called stakeholder capitalism, where all of the stakeholders (employees, vendors, consumers, investors, communities, environment, etc.) are all considered. In some countries, such as the U.S., you can even form a public benefit corporation (PBC) which requires you to, by law, to consider all of the stakeholders and also support a public benefit.

There is also cooperative capitalism, where people can form private cooperatives that are owned by the consumers and/or employees, without centralized control by the government or some central corporation. Basically communism, but without the centralized planning and single party rule.

There are many flavors of capitalism. Some of them are toxic. Some of them are not.

Capitalism may not be prefect, but I don't like any of the proposed alternatives to capitalism:

Corporatism - I don't like power and money being centralized into corporations. They get wealthy and everyone else gets poor.

Communism (with centrally controlled economy) - I don't like power and money being centralized by party leaders and politicians. They have too much power, which results in abuses. Meanwhile, the elites at the top (unofficially) live rich lifestyles at the expense of the workers at the bottom.

Crony Capitalism (our current sociopolitical economic system) - I don't like the government and corporations colluding against the people. Works like corporatism except the government is helping them.

Laissez-faire Capitalism - Unregulated capitalism leads to abuse, so there needs to be some sort of regulations.

Anarchy - I don't like the strong ruling over the weak. It results in abuses and arrogance.

Dictator, King, Emperor, Single Party Rule, etc. - I don't like any system that gives a single person or group of people nearly unlimited power over everyone else. Any political minority gets stepped on. It also means that you may have a benevolent ruler now, but the next ruler may be malicious.

I'd rather see the break up of big business AND big government, and I would love to see more small private voluntary cooperatives and small businesses and small non-profits. Give the power back to the people, not to big business and big government. People should have choices.

I am not sure if there is a name for that.

That's the problem with labels. They often mean different things to different people.

@mortemtyrannis It is pretty simple, really. Don't screw over other people.

So that means I am against big business, monopolies, unfair trade practices, surveillance capitalism, hoarding wealth, etc.

I am also against big government, corrupt officials, police brutality, law enforcement overreach, government surveillance, tyranny, and dictators.

I think we should have free speech, but at the same time, I don't think we should allow harassment, doxing, slander, libel, or intimidation.

I think that people should get paid fairly based on what they contribute. Contribute more, get paid more. I also think that there should be a safety net for people who are struggling.

I think that we should have health care reform, but I don't like the choices that are being presented. Option 1: big business and big health care. Option 2: a government monopoly on health care. There is a middle route where you get rid of both big government and big business in health care. It would require some fundamental changes on how we handle health care, however.

I think we need less big business and less big government, and more small cooperatives, small businesses, and small non-profits. Smaller entities means it is closer to the people and they can chose who they want to deal with. Regardless of whether it is private, non-profit, or government-run, if you only have 5 choices or less, you really don't have much of a choice at all. Because if you have less than 5 major players, they all start to collude to keep policies and practices in place that benefit them and not the consumers or taxpayers.

I can go on. I may be an independent and politically non-binary, but I do have principles.

I said moderates. This includes left-leaning centrists.

Most people's grievances right now are the economy and inflation. And they want change. They want the elites to have less control over their lives.

Sure, the right has some crazy ideas. So does the left. But the middle decides elections because they are the swing voters, and the middle's main grievances are the economy and that they feel helpless in a world where the wealthy control everything.

There is what the public thinks they rejected due to propaganda, and there is what is really going on.

In this case, the propaganda said that Trump was fascist and Harris was leftist.

The reality: both parties are market capitalists, and cater to their wealthy donors, and disregard what the public wants if it conflicts with what their wealthy donors want.

Even if their thinking is based on false premises, as you claim, they have legitimate grievances. The Democrats will never get their votes if they don't address the grievances with a realistic alternative plan.

I think I know who you are talking about. The loud and proud ones. But what the loudest people are saying is no necessarily what most people are thinking. So you can't assume everyone thinks like them.