pipows

I'm truly grateful that I wasn't born in an era in which I'd have to wipe my ass with a sponge on a stick

"Capim Guiné in my ass"

I don't like it. I don't like it at all

"help I've broken it"

Broken what?

I would not put it like that, I'm not that arrogant. Lemmy is, in its majority, left leaning, so of course people will disagree with me, but that's not to say "reality doesn't matter".

I'm really surprised that my post was not down voted to nothingness

I'll look into it further tomorrow. If I find out that I'm wrong, I'll edit my comment saying so.

who effectively want to tear down as much government as possible, [...]. It's the ideology of an extraordinarily unregulated market – a true "free market"

I agree with that.

which is a monopolistic and wildly unethical disaster waiting to happen.

I obviously don't agree with that. Monopolies depend on the government to exist. I will not elaborate further because I'm not feeling like arguing with strangers on the internet today

who view "your freedom ends at my face" as an insult

I really don't know what that means

Libertarian is not right-wing (at least as what right-wing and libertarian means here, maybe it is not the same in the US?)

The right is conservative. It is religion based, against the liberation of drugs, usually not concerned with LGBT or women rights. Libertarianism is none of this, since it most concerned with individual freedom

I tried DDG and Brave Search. Currently I'm using Brave Search, but it really annoys me that more often than not I have to fallback to Google to find what I want

Brazilian here. This a controversial topic, so take what I say as an opinion.

Although Musk is a man child and a scumbag, he is right on this. He is not refusing to comply with local laws, he is refusing to comply with illegal, monocratic decisions from the supreme court.

It is not news that the supreme court had given themselves dictator-like powers. In this case, there is no law that mandates that a social network has to have legal representatives in the country, and there is no law that a social network has to censor specific person, unless they are commiting a crime, which of course require a investigation and the due legal process, all steps that the supreme court had ignored. Moreover, the supreme court is not persecution, so they can't just make this decision without being summoned.

They've been doing that for a while now, in the name of fighting "anti-democratic acts", which is just a faceless ghost. This is, again, based on no law whatsoever, so the supreme court had taken for themselves persecution and legislative powers, gravely hurting the separation of powers.

Disclaimer: I'm not right leaning, but I'm as libertarian as one can be

US politics is shitposting

Not that my country's politics is not

Afaik, Quintessence in medieval alchemy was a very pure alcohol (although they believed that by distilling it many times, they were in fact isolating this pure, heavenly element), so not something that can be put in the periodic table.

I also enjoy spreading libertarian propaganda