• Can you get through a working day without a burning unneeded desire to regulate yet another thing that shouldn’t be regulated?

    The amount of stuff governments are already regulating is, like, 5000% of what actually should be regulated. The remaining stuff can get by with the 20% of the existing regulation. And don’t even begin to play the game of regulating private education into shape when what you need is a working public one.

    • You won’t win this one here. Lemmy is disappointingly facebook-like in terms of their seemingly endless desire to be told what to do every step of their lives.

      I realise the numbers are sort of made up, but in general I fully agree. I do sometimes think that politicians regulate for the sake of it, as if justifying their existence.

      • Lemmy is disappointingly facebook-like in terms of their seemingly endless desire to be told what to do every step of their lives.

        I would be surprised if that was actually the case. most of the visitors are here because they got fed up with reddit’s decisions.

        What makes you think that way?

    •  Cethin   ( @Cethin@lemmy.zip ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      910 hours ago

      I would call myself an Anarchist. You’re the stupid person people think of when they hear the word, and it’s sad. Government regulation is absolutely required to protect people from losing power. Power structures are generally bad, which is why we need government to prevent them from forming in the background. When this doesn’t happen then people lose power because their options are removed so others can profit off of them easier.

  •  memfree   ( @memfree@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2718 hours ago

    It sounds like the donor had requirements. From The Tribune:

    The University of Chicago has received a $100 million gift from an anonymous donor to support free expression, marking what may be the largest-ever single donation to support such values in higher education, the university announced Thursday.

    And:

    Discussions surrounding the donation have been ongoing for over a year, according to a university spokesperson.

    From https://chicago.suntimes.com/education/2024/09/26/university-chicago-donation-free-speech-expression-forum :

    The gift was ridiculed by advocates involved in the encampment that highlighted abuses against Palestinians in the Israel-Hamas War and torn down by the university in the spring.

    “It’s truly a slap in the face,” said Yousseff Hasweh, a U of C grad who’s diploma was withheld by the university for two months, allegedly for his involvement in the protest.

  •  Hannes   ( @hannesh93@feddit.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Should it? I get that political parties should report donors - but for nonprofits and other institutions I feel it’s not that necessary since they are directly investing that money in projects (that the donor may choose - but if that’s not the case then that investment isn’t happening) - for political parties and politicians it can be seen as a bribe as the things they invest in usually don’t have a direct return of investment.

    And there should be rules and regulations making sure that that donation is not ending up in some kind of contract for the company of the donor but that whatever that investment is funding has a transparent process

    Where do we draw the line? Should donors to libraries be made public even if that person wants to remain anonymous but fund an expansion? Should donors to non-profits be made public?

  •  GBU_28   ( @GBU_28@lemm.ee ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    217 hours ago

    Agree in general. Ez fix: strings attached that it’s anonymous and unattached. A third party manages the exchange, and everyone is under oath. A step in the right direction at least