Yes, US companies have a lot of IP conflicts with China and we do tend to hear about them through media. But that paints a skewed picture of what’s actually happening.

If you were to research it more carefully, you would find out that the vast majority of these claims (>90%) are not pursued by US companies. As a deliberate, strategic decision. They don’t want to.

Ask yourself why.

Don’t believe me? Google is your friend.

You would be correct if that is how the copyright and trademark system actually worked.

But they don’t. They favour the big guy, not the little guy. Crazy, I know. Wait until you find out how modern taxation systems work.

This is insane - Pokemon cannot trademark having mounts in games. Screw Niantic, the Pokemon company and especially Nintendo which basically controls the first two. Screw them

Do not support these companies.

Sincerely, A life long Pokemon fan

deleted by creator

External self-determination cares little about national laws. That’s kinda the whole point. The real question is what type of conditions need to be met before a right to external self-determination arises and is recognized by other countries. In general, most countries don’t recognize a right to unilateral seccession under any condition. At the same time, it is also agreed that if a state were to make the practice of internal self-determination virtually impossible or meaningless, then a right to external self-determination should arise. In which case any “no backsies” rule under US national law (even the constitution) may be seen as a breach of fundamental rights.

With independence, it usually comes down to who has the bigger stick (in both material and ideational terms). The are definitely scenarios in which US states can make a valid legal case for independence but the conditions for that still haven’t been met as most international lawyers will agree that Americans in all states are afforded the right to internally self-determine. For now. Things are changing quickly.

So was Hitler. Thing is, natural law and positive law can diverge significantly, meaning ctitizens will sometimes have to organize against the products of positive law to preserve their decency and freedom.

You need to drink your meds, grandpa.

At least prove a point.

Oh, I think you’re doing just fine on that front. (And let’s not pretend like “proof” or “evidence” have any relevance when making claims that not only have no basis in reality, like “conservatives don’t talk about crypto”, but obviously seek to supplant it).

But again, you’d be much more effective if you dress up facts rather than fiction. You also need to build up to the absurd, not start with it. You can’t just convince people that reality is actually the opposite of what is perceived. You first need to shake up trust in consensus based reality and basic scientific knowledge, and only then start to gradually inteoduce the spectacle in a piecemeal fashion.

I mean, if you’re gonna engage in disinformation then at least read the wikipedia page on whatever topic you are targetting so you can come up with something that’s more believable. Disinfo is most effective when it is based on some true information taken out of context.

Holding those in power accountable is a continuous process. It doesn’t just happen on a specific day or another. Politically active and concious people protest and raise awareness in an ongoing manner regardless of who is in power. The world didn’t end on 5 Nov 2024 or 20 Jan 2025 - fighting for democracy will never stop.

You would know this if you actually put your money where your mouth is, as it were.

There are plenty of ways for governments to engage in strategic communications without having to rely on social media, especially when said platforms are disentangling the fabric of society before our very eyes. Moreover, government communication (and 99% of other communication processes) does not require the constant and immediate production and consumption of information that social media are purposefully designed for. Pretending like people are addicted to social media because we really want to stay in touch with policy is just silly.

And no, one thing is not equivalent to another thing just because they belong in the same category of things. Editorial and privacy policies, ownership structures, the extent to which a company or its owners are politically exposed - these are all things that can differ drastically from one actor to another.

How about just quiting without replacing it with something else? Everyone desperately needs to stop using social media like a crack addict needs to stop doing crack. Shitter, FB, IG, TokTik, etc - it’s all utter, utter shit.

Speak for yourself. A majority of Eastern Europeans see the US as a key strategic ally, and for good reason.