zlacker

>>senkor+(OP)
This seems to be the reason for writing about the topic right now:

> So, yes, in June 2015, I slowed down the whole company [Facebook] by a second.

> Of course, here it is ten years later, and the guy in charge just sent it back fifty years [by ending fact checking?]. Way to upstage me, dude.

>>senkor+f1
The fact checking is the tip of the iceberg — it's what the marketing machine led with because it's the least objectionable. Far far worse is letting queer people like myself be called mentally ill, though not any other group (e.g. religious people). Yes, it's part of the common discourse, but the common discourse is objectively morally abhorrent.

I worked at FB for a decade, and I now am rooting for its complete destruction.

>>sunsho+CD6
If wanting to kill yourself over your sex isn't mental illness, I have no idea why insurance or the state should be concerned about it. We're not collectively paying for flat-chested women to get breast implants, or ugly men to get nose jobs, although they both may be upset about their bodies. We're also not labeling it as "life-saving."

I don't understand how we can insist that these conditions are both the worst mental illnesses, and not mental illnesses at all, at the same time. And maybe you do understand, but it's not so clearly explained that people shouldn't be allowed to discuss it in public.

> though not any other group (e.g. religious people).

Is this made up?

>>pessim+sb7
Is pregnancy an illness, mental or otherwise? Should insurance or the state not cover the medical costs of pregnancy?

What are your credentials, anyway? Why do you think you know more than decades of in depth research and millennia of anthropological evidence?

>>sunsho+Uf7
> Should insurance or the state not cover the medical costs of pregnancy?

Do you think pro-natalist policies (anything that can be seen as incentivizing the act of having more children) need to come from a desire to see more equality, or human dignity?

In fact some of the most evil people of the 1900s thought it was good to support the medical costs of pregnancy, and even thought you should /pay families if they had more children to incentivize having more/ (see pro natalist politics in Western Europe in 30s, 40s, 50s. The ones in my country, France, actually had their strongest push in 1939, and are a large part of the reason why France's baby boom was one of the strongest in Europe later on).

You will find out that people who usually hate social programs will have different opinions about anything related to demographics, and it's not complicated to understand why (whether their motives come from racism, or selfishness ie a desire to preserve the GDP and make sure the country won't be an empty hell hole of old people dying in the hospice when they retire).