Oh my bad, I interpreted the comment as saying it should be a general requirement.

ArXiv uses an endorsement system so that not everyone can post there. However, sometimes dubious “scientists” manage to slip through the cracks, which is why there is moderation for cases such as these.

ArXiv is a place where researchers put papers before they are accepted and peer reviewed (“preprints”). Requiring this would defeat the purpose of arXiv, which is to allow fellow researchers to see material that is not peer reviewed before it is published. Before arXiv, this happened only through informal discussions and meetings during conferences.

The biggest reason is the electoral system, featuring first-past-the-post districts.

Perhaps it’s the top school for secret spies.

Get ready for people losing all that was in their wallets.

Sounds like every crypto firm.

Germany isn’t really getting anything out of it, it’s essentially a form of military aid to the US.

There is a common misconception among conspiracy/imbecile circles (and hence also the administration) in the US that these US military bases are a crucial part of the local economy, and that dismantling them is a way to “punish” allies that display a lack of servility.

Even more impressive that this comes from the same intelligence agency whose former head only months ago led a fifth-column coalition government whose largest party is infamous for having advocated ethnic cleansing, the abolition of freedom of speech and the reintroduction of slavery.

It seems you don’t understand the idea, which wouldn’t be that people would be forced to disclose their identity on social media. Instead, social media would be required to check that users are who they say they are.

Imagine Coca-Cola puts out an ad saying Pepsi instantly makes your balls explode, or that the Daily Mail publishes an op-ed from a Labour insider who is actually an LLM prompted by a GRU operative. It is this type of “free speech” that currently runs rampant on social media, and would be curtailed under this type of proposal.

Chemotherapy does not cure all forms of cancer, therefore chemotherapy is not relevant to cancer treatment.

Anonymity would still be possible, in the same sense that anonymous op-eds in newspapers are possible.

The proposal isn’t to ban pseudonyms.

Greece isn’t in any war that I am aware of.

Me neither, probably. But it’s still a good idea in principle. The spread of malicious misinformation and propaganda has already led to millions of deaths. If we have to give up some anonymous shitposting to curb these excesses, it’s worth it.

Lemmy would not be illegal. Instead, Lemmy would be required to verify that each account belongs to a real person. Essentially, it’s a way to make bots and astroturfing illegal.

It’s really Tobias Fünke-tier wording.

Or even the reality of anyone who has a real job.

There are polls of the general public as well, which provide a more useful measure than the Daily Mail’s readership. Currently, a bit over 30% of the population (still) thinks Brexit was a good idea, and just shy of 60% think it was a bad idea in hindsight.

You’d expect this to be an obvious issue for Labour to run on, but it’s not that straightforward. Directly calling for a re-entry into the EU is basically calling Brexit voters stupid, and voters don’t like being called stupid, even when (as in this case) it is very much true.

Capitalism has been around for a couple of hundred years. During most of that time fertility rates were high in pretty much every capitalist society. This changed within a generation of contraceptives becoming widely available, even in those capitalist societies most strongly influenced by socialism, with low poverty rates and where generally everyone can easily afford to have children. I think we can make a fair guess which factor was more important, between capitalism and contraception.

Humans, and mammals in general, never developed an innate desire to reproduce. It was never necessary in an evolutionary sense, since fucking led to reproduction. There hasn’t been enough time for humans as a species to adapt to the new reality, and we can probably develop new contraceptive technology faster than any resistance to them can evolve (one would expect, for example, allergies to the contraceptive pill or condoms to start appearing and/or increasing in frequency among the population).

The more impactful evolution might be of a sociological nature. Cultures and subcultures that encourage large families should be expected to begin proliferating globally. We have seen some beginnings of this happening, such as the Haredim in Israel and ultraconservative communities elsewhere.

Nazis are leading in the polls in the UK, perhaps they figured West’s antisemitic comments would make for a good selling point.

Perhaps this will backfire and lead to a collapse of the vote for the right-wing parties, as those who are already comfortable with Nazism are cutting out the middle man and voting for the SD directly

What we’ve seen elsewhere in Europe is that the main effect is the collapse of the “left-wing” parties, as racist “left-wing” voters, who previously were somewhat ashamed of their racist views and voted more according to economic policies, switch to the normalized racist parties.