I think there's something that gets kind of short circuited when its in the form of:
"is *antidemocratic principle* good when its in the national interest of the *champion of democracy* united states"

I think semantically its something along the lines of framing it as "who should choose" vs "should we act". And that one of those is answered on principles, and the other is answered based on so called "pragmatism" influenced by the normality of US interventionism.

Maybe part of what's happening

No actual replies, just facet abuse that gets picked up the way metrics are counted in the hopes that it pushes visibility on peoples discover feeds

The aspect of this thats causing the "replies" to be invisible is potentially something that @bossett.social has talked about a bunch, facet abuse. From what I understand you can abuse backend stuff to artificially inflate interactions without full posts due to non-character-limited "facets"

They have no need for the patient escalation other administrations have conducted to incite the conflict they desire. They've seen what the world will tolerate. They won't stop until the American order is collapsed. And there's no external force that can or will.

They have no need for the patient escalation other administrations have conducted to incite the conflict they desire. They've seen what the world will tolerate. They won't stop until the American order is collapsed. And there's no external force that can or will.

Fortunately able to resolve the miscommunication haha

these models have *so* little interest in doing *anything* ethically, that even if it's not the cause, they don't give a fuck about what they're training on, that they know they're distributing csam with these datasets, that none of them have any interest in stopping it.