I consider this an anti-intellectualist take. I don’t agree this is the root cause.

There is professionalization of the sciences in the context of capitalism, and other forces driving academic endeavours. Including military funding for example. But being educated means also understand the principles of constitutional democracy. This is the main reason anti-intellectualism is the breeding ground for authoritarianism, the very reason this thread exists.

the traditional working class is gone in developed countries

I understand that, but there is a kind of modern-day proletariat. Super market cashiers are working class in that sense.

At the same time a lot of the left is made up of the massively grown academic middle class.

I was about to reach to that. The contradiction now might be more about being “educated professional class” versus “non-educated workforce, specialized laborers etc” (let alone gender). And not other distinctions that might have been meaningful in the past, since you mentioned already that people don’t work in factories as much as they did before.

These are more meaningful for explaining politics, but the truth is the vast majority of people wants living wages, social welfare and public healthcare. Americans are heavily brainwashed against these ideas, and perhaps some neoliberal Europeans as well.

This is called “watching as the Overton window moves” in real time.

The working class is always a low-hanging fruit for the far-right rhetoric. That is why you need an “aggressive” democracy to keep the fash in their place. If you don’t, the rate of expansion for fascist ideas is faster than for socialist ideas, because the first is regressive and the latter progressive. Any democracy that is not actively fighting fascism is doomed to destroy itself. This is how we got here. AGAIN.

WTF happened for “The Left” to have to “win back” the working class? Are post-post-modern enough already?

Bring back anarchosyndicalism ASAP.

I think that the judge said that the decision does not mean that Meta acted lawfully, but that the authors did not present convincing arguments, and wishes that other plaintiffs will come up with better arguments to set a legal precedent against Meta, who stands to make trillions out of it, and thus can compensate the creators.

Conclusions: Legal torrenting is not in sight because of this. And we watch capitalist accumulation in real time.

Oh thanks, I have been looking for this. Someone referenced this argument but I could not retrieve the exact source.

I expected they would say that “downloading only” is fair use. But they also argued uploading? These girls have gone wild.

I also saw elsewhere that they said “decades-old copyrights law” can’t hinder their innovation. And this is what rival capitalist interests manufacturing legal precedent looks like.