IrateAnteater

The first "W" in "WWII" stands for "World". It was used to describe the wars because there were multiple countries on both sides that were roughly at parity with each other when it comes to military power. In a NATO vs Russia scenario, there aren't military peers on both sides. NATO has multiple members that could likely win a war against Russia on their own, and Russia has no one.

It wouldn't be a "World War". It would be Russia lashing out one final time before it ceased to exist.

Inherently? No. But part of that is due to the fact that there are other organizations with other motives and funding sources to compare with.

People used to pay for physical newspapers, and TV journalists were paid for by ads. Ads were unskippable, and companies would pay more for them because of it.

We could but that brings its own moral issues. Can you trust a journalist to be truthful and critical of a government that signs their paycheque?

Occupy fizzled due to it's own structure. It was a truly grassroots movement, not centered around any single leader or leadership structure. This ended up being the biggest issue that caused the movement to end. With no central structure, there was no central message. The media had no one specific to talk to, so they were free to talk to whomever they wanted, regardless of how well that person was able to articulate the message. With no well articulated message, people who weren't already playing close attention had no idea what the occupy movement was about, and they ignored it in droves.

A Russia - NATO war is extremely unlikely to become the type of global war that WWII was. There's not anywhere near enough strength among Russia's close allies, and China is extremely unlikely to go full out war with NATO. Their economy is too centered around being the manufacturing base for the rest of the developed world. They're more likely to grab a chunk of eastern Russia while Russia is unable to do anything about it.

I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure how to make it work. Journalists need to make a living, but if it's distributed free, where's that money going to come from?

It's important to note that for most of its existence, "fighting against Israeli oppression" explicitly meant Israel no longer existing. This is the first time I can remember them even implying that they would accept a two state solution.

Depends on how fast it's going.

Hover was awesome. I'm going to have to figure out a way to play it when I get home.

The joke really doesn't work as well when neither the spelling nor the pronunciation match.

The thing is, it can and will be abused either way

So you are in favour of banning cars, guns, alcohol, knives, hammers, axes, all the strong painkillers, rope, and all the other things I can think of that have been abused causing death?