The fact that U.S. authorities are actively covering up the crimes of what appear to be numerous and influential co-conspirators—by unlawfully redacting documents and withholding material they are required to release—is likely a factor. The fact that U.S. law enforcement agencies refuse to investigate this case for the same reason is another factor.

Consequently, there have been no new developments, since it is clear that the investigation has effectively been suspended, even though the case is obviously far from closed.

This in itself is, of course, a scandal that in any reasonably functioning country would inevitably lead to the government’s downfall.

But as many have already said, the media isn’t reporting on this because there is essentially no free press left in the U.S.

However, I simply cannot comprehend the fact that U.S. citizens have apparently resigned themselves to the fact that their system is so obviously corrupt that it not only fails to prevent the most serious crimes but actually enables them in the first place. To me, it is absolutely inexplicable that the current regime remains in office despite its obvious criminality and is not forced to resign through mass civil disobedience.

This regime and its network of oligarchs behind it are the reason why the most serious crimes, including those committed by Epstein’s accomplices, go unpunished.

In short: There is no longer any reporting on Epstein and his network because high-ranking members of the U.S. government are quite obviously involved themselves and are therefore doing everything in their power to suppress coverage. This, however, is only possible because U.S. citizens are not holding them accountable.

That’s frightening, but unfortunately it’s the reality.

I’d say it’s the consequence of a lack of consequences.

I’ve had many positive interactions with other users on Lemmy and piefed—across various communities.

I really appreciate the Fediverse, but unfortunately I’m also familiar with the phenomenon where people go along with the majority and downvote comments or posts just because the opinion expressed doesn’t match their own.

I think the developers of reddit clones like Lemmy should change the system so that downvotes are only available to users who have already contributed helpful posts or comments.

The requirements for this should be left to the community.

In my opinion, this would significantly reduce the burdensome negativity of apps of this kind, and the discussions would be better. This is all the more true in the Fediverse, since it is much easier here to create multiple accounts to influence the discourse.

It would likely also prevent the inevitable misunderstanding that downvotes on reddit clones like Lemmy are not intended to express disapproval, but rather to flag a post or comment that are unhelpful, nonsensical, offensive, deceptive, or malicious—in short, not conducive to the discussion.

If you feel that way, social media is no different at all from what legacy media used to be. The only difference is that you don’t want to pay for that content and take all of that for granted.

That in no way contradicts what I’m saying: People don’t want to be confronted with reality.

The problem with that, however, is that burying their heads in the sand instead of joining forces to change the situation doesn’t help anyone—it actually hurts anyone.

An excellent example of what happens when people don’t band together to put a stop to those who harm everyone out of ruthless self-interest is the U.S.

It is simply wrong to resign oneself to injustice. People can change things together—there are more than enough examples of this in history.

To say, “That’s just the way it is,” is the worst thing you can do, because that is exactly what the powerful of this world want—and they want it because they are so vastly outnumbered.

I say this myself above, and unfortunately, it’s because I’ve pretty much given up hope— because even on the most niche platforms, you’re still confronted with people’s hedonism.

Well, unfortunately, that’s just the way it is. If people would sacrifice their own entertainment just a few times for the greater good, organizations like FIFA wouldn’t exist. Unfortunately, though, they don’t—not even when it comes to things as utterly dispensable as sporting events. The result is the world we live in today.

Edit: On a smaller scale, you can actually observe this effect even on Lemmy as well: just look at how many large communities have imposed the absurd “no politics” rule on themselves. Obviously, this rule is so broadly defined that it opens the door to arbitrary censorship and can only lead to arbitrariness, since there is nothing that isn’t political in one way or another. Yet people insist they don’t want to be confronted with reality—not on showerthoughts, not on asklemmy, and not on many other communities. They then say, “Post in a political community,” meaning somewhere where no one will see it. That’s just how the world is, that’s how the majority of people are, and that’s why we have to live the way we do.

Sorry for the rant.

The only soccer team I’m a real fan of is the Fuck Fifa Team.

Thank you very muc! I’m not really into jazz, but even I know these songs. It just goes to show how timeless they are—and how well-known they are, even among people who don’t know the first thing about jazz.

Aww, that’s such a classic. It seems to me that there aren’t many new, heart-felt love songs like this one anymore - not the over the top flashy ones, but rather those with a down-to-earth, relatable charm. But maybe I’m just out of the loop :)

Oh yeah, that’s great, but I’ve always thought the Ventures’ version is the most badass.

Yes, Yusuf Islam is truly timeless, even though he probably wouldn’t be very successful in the U.S. today under his new name

As relevant today as ever

No, no, I mean songs that stand the test of time because they’re so catchy. “Son of a Preacher Man” is definitely one of those songs. I actually hadn’t heard “Just a Day” by Feeder before. Probably because alternative rock was never really my thing - but I can see, or rather hear, the timelessness in this one too :)

I’ll definitely do that—just like Blur’s “Song 2”

I’d say this is the best version, and a very useful one at that

I don’t think I ever knew the name of this song, even though everyone knows it, of course. Thank you so much!

Aww, thank you very much for this comment, which not only has “time” in the title but is actually pretty timeless, beyond any meme value. Jim Croce even has several songs that have outlived his generation, such as “I Got a Name.” Those are exactly the songs I was referring to - the ones that, decades later, continue to reach new audiences through movie soundtracks and such.

Yes, I may be younger, but I also feel that some things were lost because of the internet. It now seems to me that the oversupply of content has, unfortunately, led to a decline in the appreciation of content—or rather, in the value attributed to it.

It’s a bit like Christmas for kids: you look forward to it for a long time, and finally the day comes when you get presents. Today, however, every day is Christmas, and the presents aren’t as special anymore because there are so many that you don’t even have time to really appreciate them—you can binge-watch one series after another and somehow lose your sense of proportion and the feeling of when enough is enough, or so it seems to me.

This is certainly a nostalgic impression, yet it seems to me that “more” is only positive to a certain extent, since this “more” can easily turn into “too much,” which is more of a burden than a joy.

Perhaps it’s just nostalgic romanticization, but I seem to recall that product quality used to be far more important: Manufacturers vied for customers’ favor and therefore focused on offering the best value for money or innovative products to outdo the competition.

This seems to me to have been lost to a large extent due to the fact that unbridled capitalism—likely exacerbated by the Internet’s tendency toward centralization—has led to increased monopolization, so that providers have now shifted to exploit their customers to the maximum, since they no longer have the option of switching to any provider other than perhaps two or three gigantic corporations that dominate their respective business sectors unchallenged.

This seems to me to be a development that was certainly already in the making in the 1990s and early 2000s, but which has intensified—largely due to the internet’s trend toward globally centralized platforms—to such an extent that now even fewer, even more unscrupulous billionaires can abuse their unrestricted market power not just nationally or at least to some extent locally, but internationally.

It seems to me that this development has to do with the fact that the internet represents a global market, but there are simply no global authorities that could counteract the formation of monopolies on an international level.

It seems to me to be the logical consequence of the predominantly U.S.-led cutthroat capitalism that has essentially lost its social function of distributing goods in favor of becoming an instrument of power for the multi-billionaires who have become far too powerful. The result, it seems to me, is a kind of new monarchy of billionaires who have become so powerful that they have been able to place themselves above the community and the law—with fatal consequences for the general public.

Of course, these immensely influential private individuals with their boundless greed already existed in the 1990s, but in my opinion, their influence wasn’t quite as far-reaching back then.

deleted by creator