"Capitalism is the problem", "modern employment is wage slavery". These are absurd, blatant lies meant to manipulate. Would you have statements like that removed?
Saying that a specific race is inherently evil is a specific factual claim (one that few people actually make).
Sure, but there's a huge gap between "X has problems" and "X is _the_ problem", i.e. if only we removed X, everything would be fine. It's absurd.
Someone saying "it would be better if the US adopted a government closer to the USSR's" is a pretty out there statement and I'm not going to assume that someone means that unless they're pretty clear about it.
"Capitalism is the problem". Let's take this as untrue (ironic laughter from the peanut gallery).
Could "capitalism is the problem" be an opinion coming from one person and a blatant lie coming from another?
Is it fundamentally different from "ethnicity X is the problem"?
That's often hard for me with a lot of the "out there" medical advice, where it's not immediately obvious to me that they're just scams where the person goes home to laugh at the fools giving them money, but rather themselves believe in whatever theory they're advocating. I don't think it becomes an opinion (it's still a statement claiming to be factual), but it's not a lie, and certainly not blatant, though some of it is absurd (but again not to everyone, obviously).
It's self evident that there should be separate standards for that.
A similar absurd lie that is intended to manipulate: Russia is being attacked by NATO and only defends itself against the fascists in Ukraine.
> It's self evident that there should be separate standards for that.
Sure, but they shouldn't be based on whether something is true or wrong, absurd or plausible, or said with intent to manipulate or inform.
Better criteria are required, or we'll be back to Twitter's stance of "this instance is against TOS, and that same thing isn't, because we feel like the author didn't mean it the same way", which comes down to "there are no rules other than don't do something/be someone I dislike".
But the past tends to be forgotten and on the internet nobody knows that the Soviet Union existed, so why not claim that it didn't. Or that it does, but is being attacked by NATO. Or, my favorite, that Russia doesn't exist, but is just a mirage used by NATO countries to pretend there's an external enemy so their population will follow orders more easily. "It's just an opinion" after all.
No one here is suggesting that the Soviet Union has a good track record on pollution. People are suggesting that capitalism doesn’t. “Capitalism is the problem” does not imply that the Soviet Union is the solution.
When people say “capitalism is the problem,” they’re often looking towards an ideal — which sometimes exists and sometimes doesn’t — of a better world. That’s not a bad thing. Practically no one would suggest that an authoritarian flavor of communism (ala USSR) is that ideal.
We did it because of fracking nat. gas replacing coal due to innovation. Capitalism brings a lot of innovation including advancements in green energy too.
Tesla was able to economically compete and take a huge segment away from the automobile giants through capitalism, forcing them to compete and develop EV cars.
I don't see many socialist countries actually doing much, hell Germany still wanted Russian gas so much someone (wonder who) had to blow up the pipeline!
https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/21-countries-r...
Of course GDP grew for all countries over a decade, if it's not that means your country is doing worse than inflation rates lol.
European countries energy output shrank due to outsourcing their energy to places like Russia (something that recently just bit them in the ass)
Saying that Ukraine is the aggressor in the current war is a much more specific factual claim (that is absolutely a lie).