Definitely! Always vote, even if you have low confidence in the election’s integrity or your influence on the overall outcome. You have nothing to lose by voting anyway.

I second this, and add that if you have an area of expertise, you will have more impact if you utilize that expertise. Some examples:

• If you have access to a commercial kitchen during off hours, you could cook food for the poor.
• If you are good at socializing, try meeting with local political groups, influencing election candidates, or running for office.
• If you are a software engineer, volunteer on an open-source project related to a cause that you care about.

And if you don’t want to spend effort, you can always donate to a cause.

Now I’m even more confused lol. What’s the motive for media companies to promote candidates who pass laws that require age verification on websites such as porn sites? Are porn websites causing media companies to lose revenue or something?

Source?

We all know “proof of age” or “age verification” is synonymous with mass surveilance

Is it? I was under the impression that websites would use private identity verification companies like iDenfy to perform age verification. The identity verification company would need to use a government API to verify the person’s existence and age, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that the identity verification company is reporting to the government which people have initiated age verification, or for which websites.

There’s no conspiracy of collusion between parties. Any party is free to put forward candidates who favor popular policies. And if that candidates wins, but doesn’t fulfill their promises, then the voters will remember that.

Do you have evidence to support the claim that European elections are being rigged?

It is in the best interests of the parties to put forward candidates and policies who will have voter appeal, in order to prevail over competing parties.

The USA is not a healthy democracy.

Sometimes policy issues arise after an election cycle, in which case the voters didn’t have an opportunity to vote for or against the candidates based on their position on the policy issue. Was that the case with age verification in the UK?

In a healthy democracy, future elections decide the fate of these policies, which can be reverted. Even the USA’s complete prohibition on recreational alcohol, which was popular with voters at the time, and codified into the constitution itself, later became unpopular with voters, and was repealed. So as long as the democracy remains healthy, there is always an opportunity for bad policies to be repealed.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

This is a great start, but this one is showing its age, and could use an update.

At the risk of sounding like an out of touch janny, what’s a janny?

It never occurred to me that a government would pay a funeral home, but now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense for a government to collectively pay for the disposal of human remains, since everyone needs it, and it can’t be abused.

What does SLT mean?

Republicans would be upset about Wikipedia being censored if they knew how to read.

It’s possible to hate a country and also be forced to capitulate to it (or die trying to resist, if you don’t have a family that you care about).

The countries under discussion are democratic republics, aren’t they? If so, then age verification is what the people voted for, not an insidious plot by “they”.

“Nevertheless, she persisted.”

- Mitch McConnell, about Elizabeth Warren