this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2025
605 points (99.2% liked)

World News

40161 readers
3113 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

Foreign and corporate. Anything over $2000 from an entity.

[–] Powerpoint@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

We need this in Canada

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 17 points 14 hours ago

This should be banned everywhere by default.

Completely fucked the USA, and it'll do the same anywhere else it's not explicitly made illegal.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

They also should block Xitter altogether.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago

Everyone should.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 3 points 14 hours ago

Every country should just make the USA illegal. Nothing specific, just the USA in general.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 14 points 22 hours ago

Good on ya fellas. Don't allow our Orange Idiot fuck with you.

[–] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago

This is the best preventative measure they can do for now. Musk and other actors can dump massive amounts of money into elections to sway them and many of these democracies haven’t been challenged from outside like this before.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 183 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Foreign political funding should be banned everywhere by default. It makes no sense to let foreign interests muck about in your domestic policy.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 75 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Even local political funding should be banned. Elections should be funded by the state with each candidate getting the same amount of exposure.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’m okay with funding from constituents, with strict caps on amounts. That way people who have lots of public support get more funding, but a wealthy person can’t outspend someone else.

No funding from corporations, and no anonymous funding.

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 day ago

We already have too many narcissistic leaders everywhere because they can be superficially charming and build up loads of useful connections. It makes sense to have a cut-off for who gets funding at all, but they should all get the same amount of exposure.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Andrew Yang has a great term for this:

Democracy Dollars

Also his term for UBI:

Freedom Dividend

Great naming lol. Like who could hate something called "Freedom Dividend" and "Democracy Dollars" 😅 (Magats would hate it, they hate democracy)

Other Policies, if you're interested: https://2020.yang2020.com/policies/?tab=all

If ranked choice was a thing, I'd probably rank Yang #1, Bernie #2. (Since Yang would probabky never get elected, so I might as well give him the #1 ranking, his ideas are cool)

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I used to be interested in the things Andrew Yang had to say back in 2020, especially with regard to UBI, but I'm really put off by him now. His whole schtick is a libertarian technocratic utopian fantasy. The expansion of welfare while simultaneously sucking up to oligarchs is just a way to preserve the capitalist status quo. He wants to breathe new life into the machine that's exploiting us and destroying the planet.

His vision for the future is basically just the UN as depicted in The Expanse.

Lol yea, dude is a capitalist, but I mean like... I still like him better than like... Joe Biden 🤮

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That sounds like a system that would be rife for abuse.

[–] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, good thing no one can abuse the current system by having a lot of money.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Depends on which current system you mean. I'm Canadian, and while it's not perfect, it's a pretty good system.

[–] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Fair point, I assumed we were talking about US even though that wasn't strictly specified. I'm not Canadian so you probably know more than I would, but I'm pretty sure Canada has it's own systemic problems.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I assumed we were talking about US

Well, the article's about Greenland, but I guess Ameri-centrism is par for the course.

I’m pretty sure Canada has it’s own systemic problems.

Sure, but I don't think our donation rules are big systematic problems. Our rules don't allow donations from foreign sources or companies, and include pretty reasonable limits for individuals (plus 75% of political donations are refunded next tax year). We have definitely had donation scandals, but they've almost exclusively been because people are breaking the rules.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How? You get a certain amount of funds to be spent on specific regulated activities if you pass a threshold of signatures.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

A non-serious campaign could use those funds to enrich themselves/others even with approved activities. They could pay for staff, buy signs, etc. and all those people & businesses would make money doing legitimate work for a campaign whose only purpose was to employ those people/businesses.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Not if staff and signs were only provided by the government. It no doubt comes with its own set of problems, but given what we've seen with open campaign finance, I think those wouldn't hold a candle to what we have now.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

TBH, that sounds even worse, and I am saying this as a fan of big government.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago

I agree in principle, but in practice it’s tricky. You must have courts that are strong enough to throw out election results if foreign interference can be proven. This has recently happened in Romania, but there are also many examples in which these laws were meaningless. The US is the obvious case where the 2016 election result should have been thrown out, but nothing happened. For the Brexit vote I think some pretty meaningless fines were handed out.

Another question is what should happen with foreign interference that is not financial in nature. For instance, Musk speaking at AFD, or the Meta algorithms pushing political content.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 92 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Both EU and UK should do the same.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago

At least Germany already does it. On the federal level the maximum donation for non-EU citizens/corporations is 1000 Euro, which is why the Bundestag is investigating Musk giving Weidel a platform as if you were to buy that kind of reach you'd pay way more than 1k. It's generally the parties which get fined for accepting. Donations over 10k must be publicised, over I think 35k immediately. State law is generally similar.

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 31 points 1 day ago

It's not a bad plan in general, really. Maybe the US should look into and rectify issues that may already exist around political funding.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's already the law in Canada:

Only individuals who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents can make contributions to registered parties, electoral district associations, candidates, leadership contestants and nomination contestants.

[–] lorty@lemmy.ml -3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Funny that when Georgia does it, it's anti-democratic.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

Pull your tongue out of Putin's arse.

Dogs do that.

[–] rdca@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I don’t think tanks, missiles and boots on the ground cares too much about elections! Trump is a facist and he’ll use the American empire military and economic force to bend other nations to his will!

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If he decides to go to war on multiple fronts with no one backing him up, I don't think it will go well for him.

[–] Breezy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There's always russia and Isreal.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

They're both a little busy at the moment. I don't think they have people to send to Greenland and Panama.

[–] FatCrab@lemmy.one 2 points 20 hours ago

I really do think that a war of bald faced imperial oligarchic aggression would trigger the collapse of the union.