Tretiak

I sometimes wonder if that's the intent. If the ISP is simply paying lip service to content providers, but will do little to actually stop piracy from happening.

Considering how far the left-wing went off the deep end, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me.

And here I thought Canada was dead set on imitating the worst aspects the US has to offer.

I've not heard of him, no. Incidentally I'll just say, YouTube can be a great catalyst for further exploration or piquing your interest. It is most definitely 'not' a substitute for learning about the topic. Here's a 'much' more reputable source that's worth listening to (though still imperfect IMO):

https://mega.nz/folder/MYlFwYpC#ZHmrbskzPgKHq9BGuWjvFg

Keen's probably the world's leading Post-Keynesian, heterodox economist. His podcast only became free recently and has since moved the newer episodes here:

https://debunkingeconomics.com/

But to the point about a wealth tax. A wealth tax would be incredibly destructive to the US economy.

I'm glossing over a 'lot' of the structuring aspects, but here are some basic mechanics describing what would happen. Incidentally, several estimates of the wealth tax experiences in Sweden, Spain and a few other countries have been done. What's notable about all of these wealth taxes were that they were very small and very 'leaky' in that the wealth they taxed was very narrow (Switzerland is a great example, they barely have a wealth tax because its so leaky, but people love to hold it up as an example, despite it not working for the longest time).

As far as some of the structuring aspects go, private companies are frequently fully/partially exempted from wealth taxes. Well guess what you see a lot of public companies go private post wealth taxes. Is this classified as avoidance? This biggest point here is that none of the economies that have had wealth taxes have as deeply developed finance markets as the US (and yes, that includes Switzerland). Here's an example that some people might understand, and this is hugely simplified.

I have a $100M building outright that I rent to tenants (say an office building). It's illiquid with a thin market and I can't just move a building. Let's say I do this: I enter into a terminally settled, non-transferable, future-callable, sale-leaseback with a partial-repo feature, with an overseas bank. The mechanics are this: I 'sell' the building to, say, Nomura in Japan. This is the 'sale', but I don't take the cash. Instead, Nomura agrees to a 99-year lease where I can operate the and the rent payments are settled via the sale proceeds I never received (this is the terminally settled part). I rent to tenants and keep the net operating profit. Now depending on the corporate profit rate versus the income tax rate, I'm going to either 1) pay myself a 'salary' that zeros the corporate profit or 2) dividend myself, which ever is cheaper. 'Future-callable' means I can undo this in the future; 'repoed' means that if I need some of the money that Nomura is holding from the proceeds, I can get it back in part.

You say, "but the operating lease has value!," but does it really? Its non-transferable, so it has no market value, and I can zero the economics of it so it has no model value; you can't value that using any generally accepted measure. There are some detailed complicating factors in this example, but they can be sorted out; importantly, transactions like this are fairly common for (completely legal) reasons. The main thing I have done is taken the building out of my calculation of 'wealth'. I would have owed 6% times $100M, but now I don't 'have' a $100M building to tax. Nomura has the building. I will owe either income tax or corp tax, but I would have owed that anyway. At any rate, the wealth tax was brought to zero.

You might say "well just make X illegal!" Fine. But tax cases like that can take 10-20 years to sort out, and the goal here is to $0 the taxes long enough that you get the wealth tax repealed. And it will get repealed. Not because of something like "the evil republicans", but because it causes 'massive' wealth distortions that you will pay for. In the extreme it will cause capital flight that will be similar to the stagflation in the 1970s. This was the exact reason that France and Sweden repealed their wealth taxes. it wasn't because rich people left the countries (although some of them did), it was because rich people sent their capital overseas, which seriously jacked up interest rates and capital formation.

I'm sure pedophiles would love that defense.

Social media overall has been a net negative for humanity, IMO.

I remember a while ago, I caught a video on YouTube of Joe Rogan and someone else discussing all the 'great' and 'wonderful' opportunities of social media and the Internet that 'haven't even begun' to be explored yet. It was all the usual highfalutin bullshit about modern technology. None of these technologies when they're first pitched, are ever sold as something that's going to negatively impact anyone. But in practice after they've been rolled out, all the high minded uses of these things, only ever end up being an afterthought and a footnote to their real uses. Mindless consumerism. Social isolation. Destruction of privacy. Degrading communities. That's the 'real' end product of this stuff.

When Reddit doesn’t want you to do something, you don’t stop doing it; you do it in a smarter way.

Lol, r/PoliticalCompassMemes was Exhibit A when it came to innovating ways to get around this.

That's why it's all the more worthwhile to just cut the cord already and jump ship. If you aren't allowed to state your personal endorsement of something or offer up alternative platforms for discussion, that's something 'else', masquerading as the removal of a spammer. Spamming is in the delivery of the content. Not in proposing something for other people to investigate. I don't have a problem leaning on the side of censorship on this. Especially if your style of post is similar to what you've displayed here on this thread. If not though, then your bad was probably justified.

If you really believe that you were banned for promoting Lemmy then you should mention this in your appeal but as others have mentioned it seems like the issue was spam.

And that's precisely why the issue is going to be 'spam', even when it isn't. Because if you can't get away with stating the real reason the ban went into effect, you're going to do it under the auspice of something that has a degree of plausible deniability. I'm far less willing to give Reddit the charitable benefit of the doubt on this, seeing the shear amount of ridiculous bans that have been given out to people. But who knows, it's entirely possible it could've been spam.

Icon for this community should be an image of a toilet getting flushed.

Cats are the mascot of the Internet. I love dogs too, but they require a lot of maintenance and attention compared to cats. Cats are the most arrogant creatures on Earth, and maybe the only ones that 'truly' live out their philosophy of life; of, "I'm better than you, and I know it."