"Did we do a good job, or should we have left that stone unturned?"
Regarding the quality of the average Website - no , but also no to the second. The time of the internet was just there with no precedent and now it is hyped imperfect AIs we have to deal with. I think the main problem in both cases is, that most people don't have a clue at all, how it works. (And too many of them are in positions of power).
"So they will finally give the people what they ask for? "
How is that possible, when the people themself are divided?
For example with weapon support for Ukraine:
"Some 44% believe sending Leopard 2 battle tanks to Kyiv is the wrong decision, according to the results of a survey by pollster YouGov published on Sunday.
At least 41% support the German government as it plans to send the first of 18 tanks to Ukraine "
And with immigration it is similar. Quite some literally want to protect germany as a white nation that speaks only german - but many don't. Many are sceptical of arab troublemakers, but otherwise like a diverse society.
So where is the solution fitting everyone? What can the politicians do, to make everyone happy?
So let's say they would vote to keep it the today's way - as current majorities still tend to show. Will that appease AfD and the neonazis? No it wouldn't. As a Swiss I would say the Swiss way doesn't mean necessarily more educated voters, or more involved. But a better trust in the elected representatives, which the traditional German parties seem to lose.
Exercising real democracy ? Are you nuts ? That would require educated citizens in the first place. No no no... elected representatives with carte blanche will do.
Oh yes, I am very much a fan of the swiss system (and consider moving there) and direct democracy wherever possible. But my point was, that a plebiscite does not change the fact, that the people are very divided themself. Also not everyone would accept those results, because they would argue, too many non white germans could vote who should not have the right etc. Some worldviews are just not compatible.
My solution? I would not mind if germany breaks up into smaller states. (The Swiss system works, because it is small.) Some white, some diverse, some whatever. If possible, all still members of the EU. But many nationalists would rather have civil war instead.
"The AfD has gotten louder and stronger last year, and it's reaching further and further into other parties' voter bases"
They reached into actual daily politics of the government - because Chancellor Scholz now also say things like "we have to start massivly kicking immigrants out"
This is when I started paying attention. The anti-immigration sentiment has flared up and it became advantageous to fan those flames, even as a boring centrist party.
The overton window has shifted right even in left-leaning, immigrant-packed forums. I am stunned by the sort of stuff I see on reddit these days. They think that they'll only come for the other immigrants. I'm not going to wait and see.
Yes, and the notorious meeting where the AfD supposedly planned to evict everyone:
1. Wasn't an AfD meeting
2. Had CDU politicians there too
Reality is, the AfD's positions are popular and Scholz tries to respond to that, whilst also claiming his opponents are a threat to democracy. But that is a risky strategy. After all, if one party can make a policy that another party cannot then campaign to reverse, then who is really dismantling democracy?
Yes and they likely will win in some eastern states.
"The party leads in several states in eastern Germany, the region where its support is strongest — including three, Brandenburg, Saxony and Thuringia, that are slated to hold elections this fall."
Which sucks, because I happen to live there. And my partner with latin american origins often experience racism here. So we are thinking of going away, but the mass rallies are giving me some hope.
Mass rallies in Berlin and Munich aren't going to do much about blatant racism in Saxony. That's a bit like an American thinking that activism in NYC is going to have a real effect on the mentality of people in rural Mississippi. The values of people in those different areas are extremely different, and the people in the economically "left behind" regions are actually going to feel even more attacked by these rallies, most likely, since they already feel like their views are being ignored.
There were also some rallies in saxony and more are scheduled for next weekend. Way lower in numbers of course, but it is something. And it is a wake up call for people to come together, before it is too late.
"the people in the economically "left behind" regions are actually going to feel even more attacked by these rallies, most likely, since they already feel like their views are being ignored."
And most of those people radicalized during Covid (there is a big intersection of anti vaxx people with the AfD). They already live in their own universe - disconnected from any source that might challenge their worldview and they made up their mind already about everything. They are comfortable with a de facto Nazi Leader (Höcke) - and yes, they complain that they are getting ignored. But sorry, I would continue to ignore their views of a racist white germany. Apart from that, sure the big politics made many misstakes and did not care about those "left behind" regions at all.
And yes, imposing top down, that a quite village suddenly has to host many war traumatized immigrants - was not the way to do it. But the big politics did - and just branded every concerns as racist.
That rightfully pissed people off. But being pissed off about the government is still no justification for becoming a Nazi in my opinion.
I don't live in Germany, but your points seem similar to what I see happen on this side of the Rhine. But what are those people to do?
Their only weapon is the ballot. I don't know how elections work over there, but over here, blank votes aren't counted. You can't vote "against" someone while at the same time not voting for someone else. Don't like Macron nor Le Pen (the runner-up in the last elections)? Tough. Your opinion doesn't count.
So maybe they don't actually want the AfD in power, but hope that the incumbents get the message that they will get their asses voted out if they don't at least feign to listen. And you know that being in power is a politician's topmost priority.
Calling them racists and whatnot will very probably not help "non-nazis'" case.
"Calling them racists and whatnot will very probably not help "non-nazis'" case."
Well, but they overwhelmingly are racists. I should know, I grew up and live here. And I debate with them. And I try to shield my half german kids from their racism as much as possible.
Of course, officially allmost no one is a racist. So there is a meme by now: "I am no racist, but .... " (followed by something clearly racists, germany needs to remain white, but of course white is also not said, but biological germans. Autochtone germans, etc. )
"Their only weapon is the ballot. I don't know how elections work over there, but over here, blank votes aren't counted."
Over here neither. And I also have a hard time finding a party I could really support. And I am also pissed of at the government. I still don't vote for people, who want a new german empire, as I see no improvement here, but rather the opposite. Oh and quite many there (but not all) also dream of joining forces with Putin as he also hates multiculture and diversity. I understand the frustration that made people go into that direction - that does not mean I have to open myself up, to embrace them.
The above point is, for the moment those people don't get many alternative solutions to their problems. Okay not "solutions" as what AfD proposes is not a solution, but alternative views. And it will be an uphill battle because as you noticed the neonazis ride the conspiracies wave, and that's something very difficult to fight...
Well that sort of language won't help. The AfD are not Nazis. This claim makes everything worse and needs to be discarded.
The National Socialists campaigned very openly on Hitler's belief that democracy was a bad system that should be abolished. Nobody was surprised when he went ahead and did that, because that's exactly what he always said he would do. They also campaigned on a very left wing agenda, with lots of talk in their speeches about comrades and ending class divisions, and they ran regular shows of strength in the streets with mass rallies of their supporters.
The AfD in contrast:
- Disdain socialism
- Do not organize massive street rallies
- Campaign on pro-democratic positions, like wanting lots of Swiss-style referendums. They say they dislike the EU because it's got a democratic deficit and they talk sometimes about a UK style referendum on leaving it, for that reason
Their opponents:
- Are left wing
- Organize massive rallies of supporters on the streets
- Take anti-democratic positions, like wanting to ban their opponents
So it's very dangerous strategy to attack the AfD as Nazis because they can just turn this around. They will say to those who listen: who is the bigger threat to the constitution? The people who spend years engaging in peaceful political campaigning (AfD), or the ones who have already had a key policy invalidated as unconstitutional and now talk about making it illegal to vote against their other policies (Ampel)?
Well, there was an official court case about it, with the result that Höcke indeed may be called a faschist, due to many things he said, that were often literal Nazi quotes. And he was a history teacher, so he knows what he was referencing. (and yes, I oversimplify a bit by conflating nazis with faschists, but a) I see no fundamental difference b) it is pretty much common nowdays
And the AfD in its whole is not a Nazi Party, but some sections like thuringia, the base of Hoecke, are verified far right extremists, according to the Verfassungsschutz.
And Hoecke becomes increasingly powerful within the party, many sources say he is already the de facto leader.
And I frequently read their news sites and forums. But I never read of criticism of Hoecke there - so this means to me, the rest of the AfD may not be propper faschists (yet) - but they accept that one of their main leaders is one. That tells me enough.
"The AfD in contrast:
- Disdain socialism
- Do not organize massive street rallies"
The original Nazis also did not do socialism, but rather elimenated their socialist wing soon after taking power. And the AfD surely would love to organize bigger rallies, than they already do. They just cannot, as in reality they do not have the majority behind them, unlike they like to think.
"or the ones who have already had a key policy invalidated as unconstitutional"
And are you talking about the covid money transfers? There was a court case and it was ruled not allright. But nothing of the sort that the Ampel is opposed to the constitution. There was also a constitutional ruling that the government is not doing enough for climate change. Constitutional rulings against the government happen all the time and it is simply the job of the Verfafssungsgericht to make sure that the government stays in line. A system that is somewhat working.
Hoecke on the other hand marched together with the NPD .. and the quotes he uses, well, I assume you understand german, so maybe read for yourself?
It is verified by now that he admires the Nazis and dreams of a new German Empire. That is very much unconstitutional, opposed to a wrong accounting trick.
Was there a court case? I can only find reference to an accusation that he might have said in a speech "Everything for our homeland, everything for Saxony-Anhalt, everything for Germany", which apparently everyone should know shares the last three words with an SS slogan and that therefore saying it is indisputable signs of wanting to conquer Poland. Also Höcke claimed he didn't know this but, according to his critics, being a history teacher, he must have known really.
This supposedly famous SS slogan is a "motto applied to the blades of uniform daggers worn by the SA and National Socialist Motor Corps (NSKK)."
For sure everyone in Germany memorizes literally everything ever printed on any physical object made by the Nazis. A totally reasonable expectation that is not at all driven by a desire to ban their political opponents. According to the Glossary, the Nazis were also fond of criticizing Das System, which is what they called the Weimar Republic. I'm sure nobody on the German left has ever railed against The System because that would be Nazi language, and certainly the Verfassungsschutz would investigate such things promptly and without bias.
This kind of thing makes Germany look ridiculous and sinister.
> The original Nazis also did not do socialism, but rather elimenated their socialist wing soon after taking power.
Hitler killed fellow Nazis for the same reasons Lenin and Stalin killed fellow Soviets. It's wrong to assume a socialist dictator would not kill fellow socialists. They always do. It's one of the things that makes them scary, even their allies aren't safe. As for the "original" Nazis, here's a quote for you:
"Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism"
> the quotes he uses, well, I assume you understand german, so maybe read for yourself?
I spot checked a few of them but none of the sources check out. Some are 404s or paywalled. Other quotes come from writing by Landolf Ladig. From Googling it appears the German left think this was once a pseudonym for Höcke, but he denies it. The journalist who makes this claim based it on the fact that Höcke once used the term organic market economy, and that term also appears in this article. That's such a weak standard of evidence it's insufficient to make such incendiary claims.
Quote 14 says Germany isn't a real democracy because of speech controls. That he complains about being censored is then used as evidence he's a Nazi who should be censored.
In another place Höcke is quoted as saying "this Merkel system is all cartel parties that do not mean well for this country" which the page paraphrases as "Höcke wants to abolish all other parties", which is not what he said.
Another: "I am taking this party down a long and difficult path. But it is the only path that leads to a complete victory" which is paraphrased as him wanting a "Final victory" which is then presented as evidence of being a fascist.
Quote 24 says the AfD should only consider a coalition with other parties if they change their positions. This is scandalous because refusing to consider coalitions is something only his opponents are allowed to do, apparently.
This compilation comes across as untrustworthy. They have to rephrase everything he said and attribute things not written under his name, because if they didn't their thesis wouldn't hold.
"Die Staatsanwaltschaft Frankfurt hat ein Verfahren gegen einen Demonstranten eingestellt, der bei Anti-AfD-Protesten Björn Höcke als "Nazi" bezeichnete. Es handle sich hier nicht um eine strafbare Beleidigung, sondern um ein "an Tatsachen anknüpfendes Werturteil", so die Ermittler."
So to be clear, the court did not declare him a Nazi. But close enough, that people may call him that.
And if you read a bit in his biographie in wikipedia, you should find more than enough:
"In einem Leserbrief von 2006 behauptete Höcke im Anschluss an den Geschichtsfälscher David Irving, anders als die deutschen Luftangriffe auf Coventry 1940 seien die britischen Luftangriffe auf Dresden 1945 eine völkerrechtswidrige, geplante Massentötung an ostdeutschen Flüchtlingen in einer unverteidigten überfüllten Stadt gewesen."
"Beim Gedenken an den 13. Februar 1945 in Dresden im Jahr 2010 demonstrierte er zusammen mit Neonazis."
"Höcke ist seit etwa 2008 mit dem NPD-Vertreter Thorsten Heise bekannt oder befreundet, der sechs Kilometer von Bornhagen entfernt wohnt."
"lobte die Ideen der NPD, verherrlichte das NS-Regime, behauptete, auf den „Fleiß“ und die „Formbestimmtheit“ der Deutschen neidische fremde Mächte hätten Deutschland in beiden Weltkriegen überfallen"
"In seinem Gutachten zur AfD vom 15. Januar 2019 urteilte das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) mit Bezug auf Kempers Belege, Höckes Identität mit „Landolf Ladig“ sei „nahezu unbestreitbar“ und „angesichts der plausibilisierten Faktendichte nahezu mit Gewissheit anzunehmen"
So to me this is 100% Neonazi ideology and this is where he came from. Now of course he hides it wherever he can, but at least to me it is obvious, that he still believes all of it. Would you really be comfortable with such a guy as chancellor?
> So to be clear, the court did not declare him a Nazi. But close enough, that people may call him that.
That wasn't a court case, it didn't even go to court. If there are so many, why pick one that wasn't a case? Prosecutors dropped a potential case against a protestor and said it's not a criminal insult because it's (roughly translated) subjective but evidence based?
Germany has laws against being a Nazi. Either there's strong evidence he is one, in which case there should be a criminal finding of fact, or there isn't, in which case calling him that is surely slander. There's no First Amendment in Germany to protect such people. The prosecutor's press release goes off on a political attack on Höcke. They seem to have decided that he's not actually a Nazi but it should be OK to call him one anyway, because they don't like his politics. Very bad levels of political independence from such an office.
The claim about Dresden being a war crime is one I've seen many times. Even in Britain there are people who have argued that. It's like arguing the US shouldn't have nuked Nagasaki. How is that evidence of being a Nazi?
I'm not gonna spend the time to translate more of this. None of this stuff seems legit. The left always call everyone who isn't on their side a Nazi, this whole thing with this guy looks like more of the same. The Nazis openly called for the end of democracy and praised dictatorship. Where is the AfD doing that? This guy doesn't even run the AfD.
Ok, I assumed you speak german but apparently not.
"Germany has laws against being a Nazi."
No we don't. There are laws against certain symbols etc. but you can be a Nazi as your political point of view. No one can prosecute you for it, but if you deny the holocaust, or wear a swastika - then yes (I actually do not agree to those restrictions btw.) But you also can openly try to convince other people of your Nazi ideology. (they came to my school to preach). The limit is in actually trying to overtake the state and abolish the constitution. But I think most states have that law.
"That wasn't a court case, it didn't even go to court."
It was a court case - but the court decided to drop the case on the grounds that it is obvious. That still makes it a court case I think.
"The claim about Dresden being a war crime is one I've seen many times. Even in Britain there are people who have argued that. It's like arguing the US shouldn't have nuked Nagasaki. How is that evidence of being a Nazi?"
I also think bombing Dresden was a War Crime. But I don't think - like Höcke - that the germans bombing Coventry (way before) wasn't one. That is Nazi Rhetoric. The war was forced upon germany and germany didn't actually do anything bad. So he wants a 180 degree turn on the memory of the 3.Reich. Which means praising it, instead of despising. The only people who argue this way, are Nazis. Simple as that. Or do you have another explanation why he wants to turn 180 degree in the view of the 3.Reich?
"This guy doesn't even run the AfD."
Not yet. The AfD started as a liberal party by a professor - all of the founders are gone now as they don't want to have anything to do with what the AfD became. And they get more extreme every year and the remaining moderates pushed away.
"None of this stuff seems legit. "
And if this is what you choose to believe, then this is your decision.
Probably not worth spending energy on people that are on the revisionism level of "The Nazis were socialists" anyway, they've clearly decided to shut the door on reality.
> No we don't. There are laws against certain symbols etc ... the limit is in actually trying to overtake the state and abolish the constitution
Yes you do. A core part of Nazi ideology was the Führerprinzip. They openly did not agree with the concept of democracy. If you don't talk publicly about your desire to overthrow democracy then you aren't a Nazi, it's as simple as that. The AfD do not want to overthrow democracy, therefore, they are not Nazis.
> It was a court case - but the court decided to drop the case
Do you understand the difference between prosecutors and the court? Because it feels like this understanding is missing here. None of the sources I can find mention the courts at all. There was going to be a prosecution of someone who insulted Höcke and the prosecutors - who are not the courts - decided not to, citing their own politically biased opinions.
But if the prosecutors don't prosecute, it never goes to court and never becomes a case. Right? The opinion of prosecutors has no legal weight whatsoever, that's the whole point of having courts in the first place.
> Or do you have another explanation why he wants to turn 180 degree in the view of the 3.Reich?
You've assumed he does, but that isn't obvious at all.
I would assume that if he objects to both allied and Nazi bombing being a war crime, he just doesn't accept that the concept of a war crime exists at all. This is a very common perspective outside of the left, because the notion of a war crime assumes there is such a thing as international law that makes it a crime, which in turn assumes the existence of an international government that can make and enforce such law. But there isn't any such government, therefore international law does not exist, therefore there is no such thing as a crime that countries can be found guilty of.
The left doesn't like this idea, they're big fans of the idea of world government and thus tend to enthusiastically support courts who pass "judgements", even when they aren't enforceable by anything.
I find both perspectives understandable. People on the left often don't, which is why you extrapolated from his position into assuming he must be a Nazi.
"When I turned on my own instrument, it didn't work," Wang said. "You can imagine my panic. I had spent five years preparing for this one experiment. Not only that, I was the first person of Chinese descent to fly on the Shuttle, and the Chinese community had taken a great deal of interest. You have to understand the Asian culture. You don't just represent yourself; you represent your family. The first thing you learn as a kid is to bring no shame to the family. So when I realized that my experiment had failed, I could imagine my father telling me, 'What's the matter with you? Can't you even do an experiment right?' I was really in a very desperate situation"
Which made him think out loud of opening the intentional easy to open hatch. (because of Apllo 1 with 3 burned and trapped astronauts who could not open their door)
So what happened was a lot of distress while on this flight and from now on there was a lock installed. Which means that in a real emergency, astronauts maybe could then not open the door in time. All because social pressure brought someone close to the point of violently breaking.
(and because NASA did not do proper testing for the specialists, like they did for the professional Astronauts)
There's very few emergencies that the lock would kill them in if used properly. Since it would only be locked once the shuttle got to space and once it would open to hard vacuum. It would be unlocked before reentry. The only other failure modes that I could think of would be if the lock was unable to be opened or the key was lost. Neither would be the end of the world, as they would have had tools available to cut or remove the lock.
Given that, I'd push for the lock to be part of standard procedure. It can't be a point of distress if it's standard procedure instead of a judgement call by the captain.
I'm actually a little surprised that there wasn't some kind of lock on the hatch already. Not necessarily to deter the rare suicidal/homicidal astronaut, but more because it seems like there would eventually be a non-zero chance of an accidental opening. Imagine the air quality goes to shit and one of the astronauts losing their state of mind and heading for the door while thinking, "man, I really need to step outside to get some air." Or a strap getting caught in the handle in just the right highly-improbable way.
NASA never forgot their lesson about spacecraft doors from the Apollo 1 fire, and I don't blame them one bit. But as an armchair observer, the fact that the hatch didn't have _some_ kind of rudimentary protection system to keep it from being opened to the vacuum of space until that point, is highly interesting.
I mean, if the account of Wang is true, I have to imagine that he was only asking about the door with the same kind of idle fascination that I most definitely would. I could be wrong but as far as I know, I don't believe Chinese culture promotes the idea of killing your crewmates in front of the whole world as a less shameful act than a physics experiment that didn't work out as intended.
"I don't believe Chinese culture promotes the idea of killing your crewmates in front of the whole world as a less shameful act than a physics experiment that didn't work out as intended."
Rational chinese people for sure not. But he was not rational anymore, but out of his mind. Thinking how his family and the whole chinese people would despise him now because he failed as the first chinese in space. Nothing is sure here, but the way he asked, deeply disturbed the others. When you are desperate and cannot handle the pressure anymore - any way to end it, becomes a possibility you consider. A way out. Quite literally in this situation.
Do you think important information was withhold here? Which information was not important?
It was a investigative article, about an incident that happened long ago, with most participants already dead by today. If something is worth a long article - then this is.
The personal biography of Wang, for starters. I do not give a shit when he was born or where he went to school. I'm only mildly interested in what he worked on.
The issue is the headline. It posits a question, then jerks you around until you've spent long enough on the page to satisfy some engagement metric.
It's writing for television, where any yes/no question always happens to take exactly 30 minutes (and multiple commercial breaks) to answer, starting with the history of philosophy and reason itself.
It's scummy behavior, like timeshare sales or giving people free samples of spicy beef jerky and making them wait in line for water.
The title "The First Man to Refuse to Return from Space" would be more appropriate for an investigative article. Then you'd know what to expect. But they went the clickbait route, hence the irritation.
> The personal biography of Wang, for starters. I do not give a shit when he was born or where he went to school. I'm only mildly interested in what he worked on.
It is highly relevant to the story. I was asking myself "So why was he even on this space mission?" You may not have had this question, but the main reason Wang gives for his state of mind around the incident is directly linked to his biography. He immigrated from China to the US at age 22, went into US academic science, and became a US citizen.
So he was in a position to be the first Chinese person in space, and he feels like a representative of all Chinese people. I see a lot of my father in him, who immigrated to the US around the same time and holds a lot of those conflicted feelings. The reason he threatened to not come back, in his own words, was not because he really cared about doing the science or because the result was really important even to him personally. It was because he would be failing in the eyes of the world. The words of his father (speaking in his head) to not bring shame to his family were more influential than the words of NASA mission command telling him to follow orders (speaking in his ear).
If you don't think where someone was born (China) and then went to school (USA) matters given this, then you have missed a big point of this article because you tried to speedrun long-form journalism.
None of that is relevant to what I want to get out of an article titled "What happens when an astronaut in orbit says he’s not coming back?" If I wanted a bunch of random facts or life stories I'd use the random option on Wikipedia.
Random people are not flying with the Space Shuttle. And when people who do fly go nuts - then everything about this person is helpful to understand the "why" and how to prevent such a situation in the future. Of course NASA did that professionally already long ago - but now it is debated in the open. So some people deeply interested with the field, will want to play hobby psychoanalyst with the given facts. The more the better. You clearly don't want to and that is also OK, but maybe accept that some people like it like this. And just as a suggestion, you can nowdays get a AI to give you a short summary ...
"The issue is the headline. It posits a question, then jerks you around until you've spent long enough on the page to satisfy some engagement metric."
But there was and is just no definite answer, except for drama. I found every bit interesting and relevant to be able to picture the situation.
"The title "The First Man to Refuse to Return from Space" would be more appropriate for an investigative article. "
And no, because it was way more severe than this: he said he won't come home and he said figurativly "oh, I can just open this airlock and then we all would die?" (where "unless you give in to my demands" was maybe intentionally implied - maybe not, he was not mentally stable)
So an actual clickbaity sounding headline, that would have actually be quite close to the truth, would be:
"First man in space, who threatened to kill everyone on board"
But Ars did not do this. Partly because they are not (so much) into the clickbait game, but partly because the facts are (intentionally by NASA) not that clear here. And the Author tried to gather as much facts as he could. So giving us, where he was born and went to school was no real answer to the title question - but it helped me getting a picture of the person in question, which is still alive, but who refused to comment. Because people have reasons for why they act like they do:
"When I turned on my own instrument, it didn't work," Wang said. "You can imagine my panic. I had spent five years preparing for this one experiment. Not only that, I was the first person of Chinese descent to fly on the Shuttle, and the Chinese community had taken a great deal of interest. You have to understand the Asian culture. You don't just represent yourself; you represent your family. The first thing you learn as a kid is to bring no shame to the family. So when I realized that my experiment had failed, I could imagine my father telling me, 'What's the matter with you? Can't you even do an experiment right?' I was really in a very desperate situation"
"Most people don't setup their own environment for their first language...."
Since most people probably try out js as their first language (often without knowing what js is) - setting upt the environment and IDE is as simple as open dev tools ..
So then of course, you also cannot sell your work, as those might put it online. And you cannot show your art to big crowds, as some will make pictures and put it online. So ... you can become a literal underground artists, where only some may see your work. I think only some will like that.
But I actually disagree, there are plenty of ways to be an artist now - but most should probably think about including AI as a tool, if they still want to make money. But with the exception of some superstars, most artists are famously low on money - and AI did not introduce this. (all the professional artists I know, those who went to art school - do not make their income with their art)
"I don't think those are the kinds of jobs that have workers that expect to work from home."
I think especially for forklift drivers and alike - this is about to change. With teleoperating semi autonomous machinery, most of these jobs could be then remote as well. But it will take some time as currently humans and simple forklifts are way cheaper.
Regarding the quality of the average Website - no , but also no to the second. The time of the internet was just there with no precedent and now it is hyped imperfect AIs we have to deal with. I think the main problem in both cases is, that most people don't have a clue at all, how it works. (And too many of them are in positions of power).