chicken

As long as you don’t somehow bumble into the rare role of being the person who they decide to parade around as the example with an absurd punishment

I could be wrong, but I researched it some years ago and I'm pretty sure even this has not happened since the early 2010s when industry groups were still using that strategy (though I'd welcome an example if you can cite one). They switched to the ISP letters thing, but those are not legal proceedings, even if you could get your internet shut off, and so I don't count it as getting in trouble with the law. Of course it's still undesirable and a good reason to bind your torrent client to a VPN.

I see the main issue as, some people who might be considering taking psychedelics end up thinking the visual hallucinations are the main thing that will happen, when the internal stuff is way more intense even if you only took enough for very mild visuals. Since these drugs have a profound and potentially lasting effect on your mind and perspective, even though it's generally positive, people should have a better idea than that what they're getting into, in the interest of informed consent.

People have mentioned these separately but I just want to say,

alcohol + microfiber cloth

Is packaging material actually cheaper by weight than candy?

Shadowremoval or shadowdeletion would make sense

Kind of but no one really uses those words and you'd have to explain what you mean by them. Also, the distinction isn't very important; the main thing is that this particular style of web moderation abuse was inflicted on someone, and using different terms for minor variations in the practice gives the people using it too much credit, especially when they aren't above using all of them anyway.

You're right that the part of the word that says 'ban' is potentially misleading if it's used this way, but it still seems like the best option. To me the ideal term here would be something that clearly conveys a more expansive definition, but that also still conveys that it is something being inflicted on a person, as opposed to a more conciliatory verb that describes an action towards a piece of content.

It’s still visible to you, it shows up as [Removed] to others

I still call this shadowbanning if it's just the comment and not the whole account, because intentionally hiding from someone that nobody is seeing what they write is what shadowbanning is all about.

So would this have been something like, someone's sewing machine was reposessed to cover debts? Who is Everett mad on behalf of here?

That they are trying to disarm their political adversaries seems like evidence. Afaik the situation so far is, the people they are detaining can mostly expect to survive. If it progresses beyond that, that's when vulnerable groups still having guns gets more relevant, because the likelihood of a shootout is going to affect the scalability of mass arrests, or of the viability of extrajudicial killings by groups the government refuses to police.

Seems like a stretch to call it an RTS

This is good logic but I think what you are missing is that the factor behind investment demand driving up price is volume of capital rather than number of landlords. One company can buy any number of living spaces if it has a way to profit on them, cancelling out the effects of any number of principled refusals by individuals to buy property in pursuit of that profit.

That said, one thing that is weighted to individuals is lobbying local government to protect their investments, so more people becoming landlords isn't necessarily good, because your finances being tied to something is a powerful source of bias, for instance towards opposing new housing developments that could increase housing supply and reduce price of your properties, or opposing higher property taxes for non-primary-residences. But if someone supports effective policies towards affordable housing, even knowing it will harm their investments, I think they get credit for that.

Well like I said that's kind of the sentiment I expect because people like to make this about individual morality, but care to elaborate at all? Do you disagree with any particular part of what I'm saying?

They just evicted a homeless guy who was living under a bridge near me, kind of sad, he'd been there a couple years, kept the sidewalk clear and didn't cause anyone problems as far as I could tell.