When I was working on data protection issues, I asked a specialist lawyer more than two years ago how something like this could be reconciled with the GDPR. He couldn’t answer the question, but said that with the best will in the world he couldn’t imagine that this would be OK under data protection law. Nevertheless, this approach is now common practice for the vast majority of news sites in Europe and also in the EU, which has strict regulations regarding tracking, at least in theory. I still don’t know the legal details, but at least I know that there are no serious penalties whatsoever if there is no distortion of competition involved - and since none of the news companies would sue another in this matter, this has become common practice even in the EU.

Trump is directly responsible for these excesses. In the press conference right after the conviction, he said:

This was a rigged trail by a conflicted judge who was corrupt. (…) This was done by the Biden administration in order to wound or hurt a political opponent.

These are, of course, allegations that have no basis in fact whatsoever. So I wonder: are there no legal means to prosecute Trump for these blatantly false allegations?

Shouldn’t the mere allegation that the judge was corrupt be enough to sue for defamation? I mean, it has to be enormously damaging to the judge’s reputation if someone makes such serious accusations against him.

Indeed. I’ll get to planning then. Maybe we can work together sometime.

We understand that your culture just has a strange lust for genocide which even the shame of the Holocaust couldn’t quell. We understand that Germans are just like that.

Thank you, dear fed up American. I always wondered why I felt this constant urge. I thought there might be something wrong with me. But now that I finally know it’s just my German nature, I feel liberated and full of energy. Oh, what a wonderful time to be alive!

I suppose that was to be expected from a country that has never recognized the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

I would be really interested to know if there was ever a company that tried this - a company for the people, so to say. As I said, I’m not aware of anything like that. Of course, there are also privately owned companies that are less focused on the logic of short-term profit maximization. But even these companies, such as Valve, can ultimately only apply the same standards, because otherwise they would be at a competitive disadvantage. That’s why I find it interesting to wonder whether there might have been a company at some point that, despite all the resistance, managed to assert itself with an alternative logic. It’s very unlikely, of course, but I’m asking anyway because it would be very desirable imo.

Are there any examples of large companies, especially stock corporations, that have voluntarily given up short-term profits in favor of long-term calculation or sustainable management? Or examples of cooperation between competitors outside of common (short-term) profit interests? I am only aware of “sustainability campaigns” that have been staged mainly for publicity purposes, which in the vast majority of cases are nothing more than a drop in the ocean.

As far as I know, it has always been necessary to use legal regulations to force the companies to pay even the slightest attention to the common good. One example of this is the ban on CFCs to protect the ozone layer - and that took more than a decade (from 1987 until 1999).

deleted by creator

Well, all the more need for change then.

You have to decide for yourselves. All I am saying is that choosing between two evils does not correspond to my understanding of a democracy in which politics pursues the interests of the people. Of course, you always have to make concessions, but for me both candidates would be unelectable if there were alternatives, namely a third or even a fourth option. But your system doesn’t provide for that. That’s why I think you should consider whether this system makes sense - but you’ll have to answer this question yourselves, I’m afraid.

True. This exposes American foreign policy as hypocritical as it usually is. What is also sad is the fact that US citizens can do little about it as long as nothing fundamentally changes. In the next presidential election, they only have the choice between an obviously criminal fascist and a halfway normal-thinking politician who does not shy away from supporting crimes against humanity. How one can still speak of a functioning democracy in this situation is beyond me. It’s just a choice between plague and cholera.

I can’t believe that the world still just stands idly by or even supports these war crimes. That is inhumane.

I hope so.

Seriously?!?

Yes, that is true. Just like the USA in Afghanistan, Russia in Ukraine and so on. That is precisely why it is all the more important to create an understanding that war cannot be the means to resolve these conflicts. Especially in the Israel-Gaza conflict, I think this should be obvious by now. After all, it’s not as if Israel didn’t try to force a solution with its military superiority during the last Intifada. Was that successful? I don’t think so. On the contrary. What has been achieved is nothing but a spiral of hatred, violence and misery. But hey, the arms industry is happy.

That is the problem with a so-called “war against terrorists”: Those who wage such a war can always claim that they suspected they were firing on terrorists disguised as members of the press, civilians, doctors, aid workers or whomever. That way, you always have an excuse - no matter how flimsy it is.

Mozilla Thunderbird?