modernangel

"Tankies" are a propagandist bogeyman to con fence-sitters into siding with brownshirts.

Sounds like something a very stable genius leader of the freest country in the world would say

Why do you even want to? Reddit is going the way of Yahoo Answers.

The snake-oil part is solved by prohibiting scientifically unproven claims. Laudanum was sold as a cure-all; obviously as a society we don't want to allow opiates to be marketed for everything from allopecia to zika.

Mexico's pharma industry works like this to some extent. You can walk into a .mx pharmacy and get yourself antibiotics, boner pills, a CPAP machine, hormonal birth control, and much much more without a doctor's note. Purity doesn't seem to be a big problem; you generally don't have to worry that it might be 10% opium or whatever. International travelers can bring up to 3 months' personal supply back to the U.S., which would be tricky if border officials' drug-sniffing dogs routinely flagged contaminant drugs of concern in medication inspections.

Because CEO u/spez Huffman plainly intends Reddit to be another fascist snowflake safe space. Maybe brownshirt-wannabes are a more responsive advertising target audience; maybe the regime has leverage over former r/Jailbait mod spez.

I don't think you can boil it down further, and that's why Western law is an evolving patchwork of codes and penalties that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Too many nuances, situational factors, edge cases and value priorities that vary from persn to person (and culture to culture) to decide every imaginable scenario consistently.

If you're not familiar, you might gain some perspective from a summary read about Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems. Goedel's Proof deals with systems of logic, where logic is something we hope for in systems of law. Goedel's Proof shows that a "sufficiently powerful" system of logic is necessarily incomplete - that is, we can pose problems in mathematical-systemic terms that have no solutions under that system.

In mathematical logic we have "axioms" like "1+1=2" or "a triangle is a plane figure defined by exactly 3 lines". In law, axiom-like propositions are called "maxims", often stated in Latin, and convey foundational legal principles like "contracts must be honored", or "people can own things". In a hypothetical properly Communist society, and by "proper" I mean to exclude failed would-be Communisms like the USSR or PRC, "people can own things" isn't necessarily a maxim; they might instead have a maxim that codifies "things belong to the State" and exclude any notion of individual ownership.

The implication for legal systems is that there are inevitably legal disputes that can't be decided strictly by the letter of the law, so we have to fall back on fiat of judicial opinion.

Most other animals develop rapidly from birth to self sufficiency, while humans are born so very unfinished - totally dependent on others for our most basic needs, for years and years. If any values can be said to resonate with "human nature", it's prosocial and community-building values.

Just about every major religion glorifies some version of The Golden Rule - do unto others as ye would be done by.

Healthy people have a resilient emotional support network and that can mean different numbers for different people - but 15 channels of commercial messaging bots is not that

A youtube video is not journalism

Mediaite is a blog. I'd be interested in some journalism from a more solid source tho.

Always room for refinements