I considered PieFed, but ended up sticking with Lemmy. I think Lemmy feels less complicated, there's just less features, which I prefer. No hate for PieFed, of course, I think it's awesome!
db0 has been great! I couldn't bring my communities with me, but it's fine... I didn't really have much anyway.
I do miss lemm.ee, because their very generalist maxims really resonated with me. I really don't think there's a true spiritual substitute.
I think this is much, much harder to pin down than you seem to be implying.
It isn't particularly hard to find research that, at least partially, seems to corroborate or lend credence to some of the more asinine beliefs ripping US public health to shreds. It's also not particularly hard to find people with degrees or certificates, people in positions of authority, that spout that stuff. Tylenol? Yeah. If people take this law to mean that "if you see the Qualified ExpertTM badge on a video, you can trust the information," then I fear misinformation might have a new weapon.
What I mean to say is that, at the end of the day, it seems like it'll be up to the state authorities to decide (1) who counts as a qualified expert, and (2) what subjects require qualifications to be discussed, and I do think that both are dangerous premises.
I'm not certain it's a bad idea though, I really can't say which side I land on, for now.
I think it depends on how you define “influencer”.
It seems to me that it's basically anyone that posts content. I read both the linked article and the referenced CNBC article, and there doesn't seem to be any clarification on the issue...
Of course, I see the good side, too. However, besides the possible negatives you've already mentioned, I feel like this measure begs the question: Should everyday people be allowed to sway public opinion?
I think the answer is, unequivocally, YES! I think it is wrong to say that you need a degree to comment on a topic or that you need a degree to say what you think, publicly, about a topic.
I very much appreciate stricter regulation on misinformation, but this is concerning.
I suppose it will depend on how and how much they enforce this.
I do have to say I didn’t consider that you might actually like wearing suits.
That's literally the whole point.
Other individuals yes, but not being part of a group.
This is more of a philosophical discussion, I guess.
However, maybe you are in the US?
Nope, I'm European. I'm also much further left than Bernie Sanders, and yeah I definitely see the lack of suits there. It might be a rejection of formality, but I don't know... I'd be much more inclined to say that it is a rejection of the establishment and a way to approximate themselves with everyday people, by dressing more like the average person dresses on a daily basis.
The point of the dress-code in politics, at least partially, is to signal that you are meant to be there. It's supposed to help you be taken more seriously -- this goes in tandem with that thing I said about the suit looking intentional. It also equalizes everyone; By looking similar, you can focus on what they have to say and less on what they're wearing ("Oh look, that politician is wearing a cool shirt... Wait, what did they just say?").
Not wearing a suit definitely brings some eyes your way, which is also a reason some politicians do it -- like Zelenskyy, who's not wearing suits because of the war, but also because it stands out and forces people to think about the war. Still, as you might've seen, the White House was rather upset with him over this; Not wearing a suit signals that you don't belong there, and many people (American fascists or not), are gonna see someone that can't even wear a suit ("Can't even put on a suit, how're they gonna steer a country?").
The suit has meaning. It's communication.
By having rules, this communication becomes clearer. Every deviation matters and is noticed.
Here in Europe it’s definitely often associated with “old money”.
I mean, I just don't see this at all. We might be from different countries (probably), but I just don't get that association at all. It's a suit. It's the uniform of business, as you said, but... Yeah, it's formal. It says special event, or lawyer, or something. Then again, it depends on the suit, so I wouldn't even go that far, frankly. Some suits just say "fashion". That's my opinion, anyway. Maybe it's because over here we have suits as traditional academic wear... Some pictures follow.
Oh yes I’m AuDHD so yeah I am definitely neurodivergent.
Yeah you definitely sounded like it, but again I just didn't want to do some virtual-armchair-diagnosis or anything LOL I've heard many neurodivergent people have trouble with clothes and formal events. I have some pretty bad social anxiety, so I relate to that, to a certain extent.
It’s not the people per se but the events and what they represent.
Well, yeah, but those are just shitty events for shitty things. The only event you listed that I would maybe debate was the restaurant, but then again I haven't ever stepped foot in a restaurant with a dress-code.
Well I see they are a different colour but they are essentially the same to me.
The colour is different, the fit is completely different, the shirt is different, and yeah the tie is different (the 2nd suit is wearing a camp collar shirt, which is actually explicitly informal). I mean, pretty much the only thing they have in common is that the pants match the blazer, meaning, they're both suits.
Is this the same as well?
To me, they're clearly all completely different, quite frankly. They're all suits, but very different suits for very different occasions.
I considered PieFed, but ended up sticking with Lemmy. I think Lemmy feels less complicated, there's just less features, which I prefer. No hate for PieFed, of course, I think it's awesome!
db0 has been great! I couldn't bring my communities with me, but it's fine... I didn't really have much anyway.
I do miss lemm.ee, because their very generalist maxims really resonated with me. I really don't think there's a true spiritual substitute.