98%

In the source’s url

Luckily Europe is one step ahead:

Access to clean energy and rare earths is critical for the EU as it seeks to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 and boost its autonomy in strategic sectors.

But sizeable shares of the global mining, processing and recycling of some of the critical raw materials, like lithium, that are indispensable to the development of renewable energy, everyday items as well as defence systems, are controlled by China, from which the EU wants to ‘decouple’ due to its aggressive and protectionist trade and foreign policy practices.

Central Asia holds large deposits, including 38.6% of the world’s manganese ore, 30.07% of chromium, 20% of lead, 12.6% of zinc, and 8.7% of titanium.

“These raw materials are the lifeblood of the future global economy. Yet they are also a honeypot for global players. Some are only interested in exploiting and extracting,” von der Leyen told Central Asian leaders.

“Europe’s offer is different. We also want to be your partners in developing your local industries. The added value has to be local. Our track record speaks for itself,” she added.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/04/04/eu-seals-new-central-asia-partnership-deal-as-debut-samarkand-summit-ends

I don’t think you understand the quote you use. What is in the article and in your quote of the article is thataccording to the opposition (and others) the current government is banning TikTok to silence critics and manipulate the upcoming elections.

Then you mention how TikTok is being used to manipulatie elections … on a global scale. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but in this case the banning of a social media platform is similar to how governments suppress newspapers and tv-channels because they are a threat to the ruling party.

This is not about foreign agents influencing elections, this is about a local power suppressing their people.

Banning all Russian social networks and internet services in Ukraine seems like a smart decision, definitely. When it comes to TikTok it is less clear to me what a good decision would be, but the fact a foreign and potentially hostile state can influence the people is a serious threat.

In that case you could argue that it is the perfect time, but that is not happening in this case. The current government sees this particular medium as a threat because of the users on it, not because of the owners.

But preferably not 2 months before the election

Artist is the second the robot killed

Replace sailor with user and you’re spot on. Instead of selling intimacy we sell our attention in exchange for content.

If a product wouldn’t sell if it isn’t heavily marketed I’d agree it doesn’t need to exist. But if a product is paid for by advertising other products, that is a different story. Newspapers have had advertising for ages because of the high cost of running a newspaper, many tv-channels wouldn’t be able to exist on a subscription basis. Same goes for a lot of websites online. Also no more free porn (not legally at least). Advertising pays for a lot of things in our society. I’m not saying this is a good thing, but this system cannot be changed overnight.

Another part of the problem I haven’t read in the comments is all the companies that rely on advertising to exist, especially media companies. Many newspapers, magazines, websites, TV channels etc would go bankrupt if they couldn’t earn money with advertising. There is a simple solution because we can ‘just pay them’ but I’m afraid we won’t. People hate advertising (someone commented “advertising is violence”, that really says it all), but still many of us choose to not get the subscription but use the ‘free’ option instead.

I’m not against banning all advertising, but I think working towards more peaceful advertising might be fruitful. Banning advertising of tabacco products and having disclaimers when financial and medical products show this can be done.

“advertising is violence” says so much about how we (the world) allow companies to behave.

I agree, as in many more cases it is better to regulate than it is to forbid. Companies and consumers will find a way.

You can and should make the distinction between being paid to advertise something and sharing information based on your believes. There is such a thing as free marketing and I agree you cannot ban that, but you can ban paid advertising in a similar way as paid sex is banned in many places across the world.

The article is about paid advertising. Paying someone to spread your opinion is in my eyes very different than telling someone about your opinion and trying to persuade that person to agree with you.

So kind, I’ll think of you on my early deathbed

You mean 32 bumblebee’s, right?

Wrong symbol, but makes more sense than the smiley face on chromium built browsers: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/opening-100-tabs-in-google-chrome-mobile-gets-you-a-smiley-face/

100%