>Anarchy doesn't mean no rules

That is exactly what it means...

Not really but I understand that the word is used like that by people who haven't spent 30sec looking what it actually is

It really means no government or central authority dictating arbitrary rules enforced by violence.

Very interesting tool!

I asked: "Does trickle down economics work?" A1: "No, trickle down economics does not work. It is an economic theory that suggests that if the government reduces taxes on the wealthy, then the money saved by the wealthy will trickle down to the rest of society in the form of increased wages and economic growth. However, this theory has been largely disproven. Research has shown that reducing taxes on the wealthy does not lead to increased economic growth or increased wages for the rest of society. Instead, it leads to increased inequality, as the wealthy are able to keep more of their money and the rest of society remains relatively poor."

A2: Trickle down economics refers to the idea that if the government cuts taxes on the wealthy, the wealth will eventually trickle down to the lower and middle classes. While this idea is popular among some economists, there is no clear consensus on whether it works. Some economists argue that it can be beneficial to the economy by encouraging investment and growth, while others argue that it can lead to increased inequality and slower economic growth. Ultimately, the effectiveness of trickle down economics depends on the specific situation and the policies that are put in place.

Improvement idea: Show the prompt that the bot is responding to on the page.

cool little interaction -- thank you for your feedback.

One more point is that the QLD Labour wing is much further to the right and much less progressive when it comes to coal and global warming. The vested interest in coal mining has limited a lot of the green energy push even as places like Brisbane and The Reef face some of the biggest challeges due to climate change.

No, nothing I did was crime. If you reached that conclusion you need to re-read the entire thread.

If you take their percentage of 'active' fake/spam accounts as 20% and then apply a poster to lurker ratio of 25% you end up with roughly the twitter spam percentage where active does not just mean regularly posting. I would guess that this analysis is correctly identifying most spam accounts but that the majority of users don't post every 9 weeks but are still regularly checking their feed.

>You are not forced to look at subreddits that offend you.

I think this is the greatest misconception about the push for de-platforming. The goal is to remove the platform from becoming an echo chamber for racism/hate/violence not to stop people from being offended by content they dislike. By removing mainstream sites as options to promote hatered/racism/violence it's likely that it will make a measurable reduction in people joining these groups as there will be less traffic.