Call of Duty 1 was the first violent game my mom let me play. Good times.

I’ve only lived in one apartment my whole life, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Less need to interact means less interaction.

I live in a small building with few units. My neighbors and I get along great, although they’re much more eager to socialize than I am. I don’t really mind, but still.

I’d love to see insurance companies get taken down a notch, but what you’re saying isn’t nearly as simple as you think. People regularly get tens of thousands of dollars into debt for lifesaving care, even with insurance. Those without it can go hundreds of thousands or even millions in the hole - I’ve personally known people in that situation. I certainly agree that hospitals are partly to blame, but the whole healthcare system is built around insurance paying most of the cost. This never would have happened if insurance didn’t exist. It’s a captive market. The only way doctors, hospitals, and pharmacists would unite in not accepting insurance was if all insurance companies disappeared. There’s just too much money on the table otherwise.

Very true. There’s some benefit where the business can get a “package deal” of sorts which makes it cheaper than buying individual policies, but it’s still a shell game.

BattleBit captured the spirit of the older Battlefield games better than 2042 ever could. I had the same exhilarating adrenaline highs playing BattleBit as when I played Battlefield 3. There’s nothing like putting a bunch of C4 onto a car, throwing it at a tank, and blowing it up… and that was an everyday occurrence in previous titles.

In the communities I’ve seen, people wail in despair over the update that never was and desperately (satirically?) try to convince each other that the update will one day come. It’s funny to see as an outsider, but it hurts as someone who used to love the game.

Insurance companies make money by indirectly extorting customers, be they individuals or businesses, through pricing schemes with healthcare providers. The American healthcare system is designed and priced around people having insurance, as you’ve noticed. This leads to insanely high bills for what should be simple things. An ambulance ride often costs over $1,000 without insurance, for example. In a nutshell, they’ve created a system where they are both the problem and the solution. Why don’t they start behaving more ethically? Well, from a money standpoint, why would you become less corrupt when you can collect more money by being corrupt?

Changing insurance providers, or even just certain coverage choices, isn’t easy. We have what are called “enrollment periods” in the US when you can do this, and the only other times are under major life changes such as marriage or having a child. As another user noted, most people get insurance through their employer. The company (usually) pays the lion’s share of the premiums; otherwise, the plans would be completely out of reach to employees. My plan would be four times as expensive to me if I was paying for it out of pocket.

As a result, starting something like what you want on a national level would be extraordinarily expensive, hard to compete with established players, and likely legally troublesome. Don’t get me wrong, we need reform pretty badly, but those reasons are why it hasn’t really taken off.

“literally unusable” is a common tech meme about people blowing tiny bugs out of proportion. You see it pretty commonly in video game discussions (like “literally unplayable”) when there’s tiny amounts of texture clipping or text alignment is barely off.

I have several mental disorders that partially disable me, making daily life difficult. I can function, but I’m still at a considerable disadvantage compared to everyone else. One in particular is associated with a 20+ year reduction in life expectancy and drastically higher risk of dementia later in life.

If Reddit has to remove a bunch of posts celebrating/encouraging murder on behalf of a subreddit, that’s not a good look for that sub.

From a mod of /r/medicine:

People - Please don’t make the life of your mods a living hell.

Anything that is celebrating violence is going to get taken down - if not from us, then from reddit. I think all the mods understand that there is a high level of frustration and antipathy towards insurance and insurance execs, but we also understand that murdering people in the streets is not good.

We are a public group of medical professionals, we still need to act like that.

And on a practical note, this man did not create or control the fucked up insurance industry by himself. Other people will take his place and continue to do what he was doing. It’s a systemic issue.

Good addictions, though? Set yourself up for success, get a few of those.

Another problem with the “AI priest” was that people were going online to confess to it. It was replying in character, simulating the sacrament. Problem is, you can’t even confess to a real priest anywhere other than in person. The people in charge realized how bad this was and made the change.

I used to have a college professor who would always laugh at his own jokes. Always. His class only laughed maybe half the time. I didn’t mind much because he was a cool guy in general.

If the problem is churches taking too much money from people, how is taxing them going to change that? Won’t that just encourage them to take more?

Yes, it does apply, because the entirety of what I’ve posted below was classified as “misinformation” and thus removed under pressure from the government. That is censorship. The Supreme Court found you cannot be forced to not publish information from a source the government doesn’t like. The scope of the censorship was specific to social media - again, this information was deleted by Facebook under pressure from the government.

Simply because the government believes the benefits outweigh the risks does not mean people shouldn’t be informed of the risks; that would be censorship, which was what the government did to Facebook and Twitter.

My point there was to point out the efficacy claims were not as straightforward as the media claimed; government didn’t like that truth, so it was censored.

You’re splitting hairs on the remaining points. The point is that the link between surgical masks and the spread of diseases was not what the media claimed. The government didn’t want that to be known, and thus it was removed from social media.

I’m not sure if you’re willfully misinterpreting and downplaying my statements, but the lengths you’ll go to defend censorship and pointless imprisonment are startling. A society should function on the basis of doing good so that good may come, not doing bad so that good may come. I don’t see what’s so controversial about that. I’m only producing information that’s been published already. You’re the one defending what would rightly be called government overreach while refusing to explain what the distinction between is and fascism is.

Again, your arguments could be used to justify Trump removing pro-trans and pro-immigration information from social media. I don’t want anyone to have that power.

I don’t know why you’re accepting a boot on your neck. The Supreme Court is clear that the government cannot regulate the speech of an organization simply because they don’t like the content. If you would like to give the government the right to determine what is and isn’t true and thus permissible on social media, that would mean Trump could rightly censor whatever claims/information he wanted - say, trans rights promotion, immigration assistance, and the like.

Also, here’s some information about what was being censored:

• The link between vaccines and thrombosis
• The vaccines were not as effective as they were stated by the media - in fact, despite this article’s hair-splitting, you can still find a number of sites claiming this.
• Surgical masks aren’t particularly effective at stopping infections, at least partly due to poor use of them. If you give something to the general public and they cannot use it effectively, it is not an effective tool.
• Another source on the masks matter.

I’m glad we’re clear that you think the ends justify the means.

So it’s okay to force private companies to remove it if the government says it’s false?

I’m not sure why you’re insisting on not actually reading the document but alright:

On March 14, 2021, Mr. Flaherty emailed a Facebook executive (whose name we’ve redacted as a courtesy) with the subject line “You are hiding the ball” and a link to a Washington Post article about Facebook’s own research into “the spread of ideas that contribute to vaccine hesitancy,” as the paper put it. “I think there is a misunderstanding,” the executive wrote back. “I don’t think this is a misunderstanding,” Mr. Flaherty replied. “We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy—period. . . . We want to know that you’re trying, we want to know how we can help, and we want to know that you’re not playing a shell game. . . . This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us.”

Emphasis mine is the government explaining the need for, and the demanding, censorship.

Next paragraph:

On March 21, after failing to placate Mr. Flaherty, the Facebook executive sent an email detailing the company’s planned policy changes. They included “removing vaccine misinformation” and “reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation.” Facebook characterized this material as “often-true content” that “can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.” Facebook pledged to “remove these Groups, Pages, and Accounts when they are disproportionately promoting this sensationalized content.”

This paragraph details how Facebook, under pressure from the government, agreed to remove information. That is, the government censored information. If you’d like to argue that a private individual being coerced into deleting something isn’t censorship, then perhaps you’d say the same about a newspaper being forced to not run a story about a government killing?

And for the sake of getting further context, let’s look at the next few paragraphs:

In that exchange, Mr. Flaherty demanded to know what Facebook was doing to “limit the spread of viral content” on WhatsApp, a private message app, especially “given its reach in immigrant communities and communities of color.” The company responded three weeks later with a lengthy list of promises.

Further explaining government demands for censorship.

On April 9, Mr. Flaherty asked “what actions and changes you’re making to ensure . . . you’re not making our country’s vaccine hesitancy problem worse.” He faulted the company for insufficient zeal in earlier efforts to control political speech: “In the electoral context, you tested and deployed an algorithmic shift that promoted quality news and information about the election. . . . You only did this, however, after an election that you helped increase skepticism in, and an insurrection which was plotted, in large part, by your platform. And then you turned it back off. I want some assurances, based in data, that you are not doing the same thing again here.” The executive’s response: “Understood.”

The government, again, demands censorship.

On April 23, Mr. Flaherty sent the executive an internal memo that he claimed had been circulating in the White House. It asserts that “Facebook plays a major role in the spread of COVID vaccine misinformation” and accuses the company of, among other things, “failure to monitor events hosting anti-vaccine and COVID disinformation” and “directing attention to COVID-skeptics/anti-vaccine ‘trusted’ messengers.

More pressure from the government.

On May 10, the executive sent Mr. Flaherty a list of steps Facebook had taken “to increase vaccine acceptance.” Mr. Flaherty scoffed, “Hard to take any of this seriously when you’re actively promoting anti-vaccine pages in search,” and linked to an NBC reporter’s tweet. The executive wrote back: “Thanks Rob—both of the accounts featured in this tweet have been removed from Instagram entirely for breaking our policies.”

And this is a very clear example of censorship happening.

I think you get the idea. If you’d like to dispute what the article says, why don’t you read it yourself?