If yes to both, then the centralization of money is bad.
You have no argument against this. The best you can do is to attempt to refute the notion that money is tantamount to power, which will be laughable. But please do try.
>There were a large body of studies showing that Ivermectin helped with COVID.
No, there wasn't. I haven't kept up with the science, so there may be such studies now, but there certainly wasn't back in late 2020, when the ivermectin craze spread like wildfire among right wingers.
It's difficult to parse subsubzero's post after his edit, but he's saying Zuck believes Trump will win in 2024, so Zuck's spinning a narrative that he was forced to remove COVID misinformation, because COVID misinformation was largely a right-wing phenomenon.
My response to him was to point out that Harris is strong and trending stronger, while Trump is weak, so the tea leaves are saying the opposite of what he thinks they're saying.
I interned at Goddard a few years back and Greenbelt was my favorite place. In the middle of a giant, hellish urban/suburban wasteland full of cars and roads with almost no walkability was a quaint little walkable village that was designed around a small central shopping/community center. I loved it. That's how we should build everything, imo.
Everyone here nitpicking the trees are missing the forest: EVs are necessary to reduce CO2 output, but consumers don't want them if charging is a pain in the ass. Resolving chicken vs egg problems for the good of the nation is exactly the proper role of a well functioning government.