I'm talking about the intent behind cutting off communication was the same in both instances. The intent is to eliminate the ability for people to organize. You do that literally removing every post that includes a mention of election fraud. Notice how no articles in the U.S. mentioned the reason behind the U.S. capitol? They specifically wanted to hide the message of the 'protest' or 'riot.' Russia is using an axe to perform surgery since they don't have association or control of most of the U.S. companies which also are accessed in Russia. But the U.S. was able to use a scalpel and focus just on the part they wanted to cut.
According to Russia these guys are rioters and mobs and so cutting off internet is justified. It is reported in English news as 'protesters' getting their communication cut off. However, about two weeks ago the US president himself and any site or program where 'protesters' also known as 'rioters' or 'mobs' were able to communicate had their communication cut off, even with access to the internet. Besides websites, social media, video hosting sites, web hosting providers, ISPs, domain holders, payment processors, all of the above used censorship in the U.S. The effect of cutting off communication was the same and even these protests are essentially the same reason people in the U.S. were 'protesting.' So really it is how you define or even how a protest is depicted that determines whether people are for censorship resistant communication.
Parler was killed for one reason. They said they wouldn't ban Trump. It's probably tamer than Facebook, Twitter or even Reddit where one search and you can find threats and calls for violence.
You still cannot threaten physical violence. This imaginary prospect that 'free speech' includes threats is stupid. And of course any individual still can block you. It is literally the same as Twitter.
It still doesn't work. It's sad but even payment processors are able to make editorial decisions on who can accept payments. You can control all your content and still be at the mercy of payment processors, ISP, domain hosts, and even getting delisted or hidden from Google basically kills your website. It's even worse when you see all of these working in concert together. I believe all in the same weekend Alex Jones was banned from Facebook, Google, Twitter, and even Paypal after he made a video harassing a journalist. It's not like Alex Jones was doing anything that bad, basically just shouting at some dude for like 10 minutes, but they basically said that's enough and somehow all together decided in one fell swoop to implement the Ban. Apple joined shortly after banning him from iTunes. Pornhub recently just had Mastercard and Visa cooperate together to stop providing payments to them. Now whether all those were deserved is a debate, but it just shows that even without government intervention, no company, business, or person is safe from basically being forcibly removed entirely from where all traffic on the internet occurs, at the whim of a consortium of massive companies working together.
Exactly. Here's another comparison. Why should cities build affordable housing? People can just go move into the forests and mountains and build houses themselves. The point is that these entities have become a necessity for doing business.
This is dead on correct. The problem is online most people don't have to hear what you say, they can just not subscribe or not follow you and never hear a word of what you said. This is why over-moderation on the big tech sites like Reddit, Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook is so frustrating. It goes beyond kicking someone out of the bar to not allowing someone to open a bar. And they get their moderation wrong, and I mean a lot. Unless the person they got it wrong with has a following that noticed it, they have zero chance at appealing or arguing their side.
People get more conservative as they get older because they realize things cost money, how hard they have to work to earn it, and how bad the government is at spending it for them. I'd say modern day conservativism is more akin to individualism - don't let others spend money for you because you spend your money more wisely, and if you don't it's your fault. I think you'll find most young people don't even make the correlation that everything governments spend costs money and that money comes from their own pockets. They usually consider the government to have infinite money and have barely stopped being taken care of by their parents or still are. You even see cities like Detroit going bankrupt because, no, governments don't have infinite money. You do have to pick and choose what to spend it on and you can't get everything that just sounds nice.
From a doctor I've heard you only need to go in the sun for about 10 minutes a day and you'll get all the vitamin D you need, but food also gives you it.
Precisely. Black is no more important than a descriptor than say eye color or hair color in relation to covid. The reality is black population in the US are more obese than the white population, which is a major comorbidity, hence the higher death rate from covid. Meanwhile in Africa there is a much lower death rate than blacks in the US, as well as a lower death rate than Americans as a whole.
The problem is people see anything against democrats as 'Trump propaganda.' It may be hard to believe but everyone on either side isn't all gumdrops and kisses. There is so much evidence that the laptop is real, nude photos, nude videos, no assertion that it is fake, apparently even Hunter's lawyer requested the laptop back. Metadata is spoofable anyways and hardly prooves it is real, what proves it is real is the FBI, who can and will request text records from cell phone companies/tech giants, or corroborating e-mails from the recipient, or say someone who worked with Biden also testifying to it's authenticity (this which happened.) Something with so much overwhelming evidence at least the majority of information is true is crazy it still doesn't get any play on so many news stations and websites. Apparently they even know the source of the laptop and have a receipt. That's just what's off the top of my head, go read his e-mails and article for more reasons. Even presented with these reasons they only stop responding and say HE is the one unwilling to cooperate, I mean the audacity.
They refuse to engage with him. "Our intention in sending the memo was for you to revise the story for publication. However, it's clear from your response this morning that you are unwilling to engage in a productive editorial process on this article" That kind of full stop to the conversation is exactly what gets people to understand they don't have a say and don't have someone who will even listen. I'd say quitting over this kind of journalistic integrity is extremely noble. How could they even request he not post his article elsewhere when he is allowed to do so. We're talking about the guy who released Edward Snowden leaks basically building the Intercept in the process and now with the overwhelming evidence that the 'laptop' stuff is true as he detailed, they all of a sudden are opposed to information leaks and claiming it's "Russia" when the photos and videos from the laptop are obviously proof that the laptop was in fact Hunter Biden's. If i was dismissed so easily about something that is integral to my profession I'd be pissed too.
I think it's a great idea to have a camera that is also a phone, rather than the other way around. I wouldn't care if it was an inch thick instead of a quarter inch if it had the actual best camera built in.
That photo is insta-delete in my book at any resolution. I think it's just a bad scene all together but also nothing is sharp at any distance from the camera and colors look washed.
I don't think you are understanding or respecting their argument. Population is not a relevant factor. Violent crime is the relevant factor. The amount of violent crime committed by members of a group is what correlates to higher shootings of that group. Population based analysis has many faults. For example: Say one group consisting of white people has 100 of 1 million people drowning. One group of black people has only 1 out of 1 million people drowning. You might say wow white people have a drowning problem, they can't swim. But, in this case race is irrelevant. If you looked closer you might find one group consisting of white people are more likely to live by a lake and go swimming. It is impossible to have a drowning problem when you aren't swimming. This is why population based analysis is useless and refuted by articles such as the linked.
I don't see consistency in logic. If the hairstyles were not accepted then 'wealthy white women' wouldn't be celebrated/complimented for adopting them. If anything having them become more celebrated by all would have those hairstyles more accepted than ever.
I think this is regulatory. I have seen multiple articles like the attached which have caused Tesla to basically handicap it's own autopilot. As another said I have no idea how a company with a car is not ahead of a company without one.
I'd like to see some actual data. This link has not a single number to back up it's claims. It feels like a politician saying "the data and science is on our side" yet never providing any data, studies or science, something every politician does. Round 2 is a good discussion but not using this article.
There is still no treatment. THe people I know who were positive literally received absolutely no medication and were told to just stay home for 14 days despite having a fever and cough. They don't even consider it worthy of any medication or treatment in the U.S. unless you already are obese, diabetic, or have asthma. I think the actual reason we see cases and not deaths is just more testing is happening. At the start they wouldn't even test you if you had a fever and cough unless you knew someone who also had tested positive. Which meant basically it was impossible to get a test because other sick people had the same problem. I have also heard that there is a significant amount of false positives because they rushed most of these testing processes in order to meet demand. I believe it was news that like people had swabbed pieces of fruit like a papaya or something and sent it in and received a positive test still. It is right that most sick or susceptible people are better protecting themselves as well, as they should.
Don't know what QAnon was, apparently it's not just one person but 7K accounts so a group? I took one visit to the website not long ago and wrote it off as garbage. Obviously there is true stuff mixed in but I'd say the fake news level at least slightly higher then CNN so I can see why twitter would flag it as such. Should they be banned though? Honestly, I'm more for leaving the nonsense like flat earth stuff up so you know who is crazy, but twitter will do twitter things.
I think it is a false dilemma to assume that either person would become rich by means of owning the land at that time. The second the land was stolen it's future was changed forever but that does not change the original value of the stolen land. I assume the land was bought and sold between many parties before the person who finally found oil and became rich owned it, and assuming a tribe recognized ownership at the time the person who had the oil rich land stolen may not even have been of that tribe under an alternate timeline. I do understand the point though that the greater the size of the theft, the more reason to give back but I wouldn't go as far as to say there is an obligation by society in general towards that murdered man's grandchildren. I think the analogy still stands, in that the victim is long dead, the thief is long dead, and there was no crime knowingly committed by the living. I also think if we referred to the country of Spain as the "Spanish Tribe" and the country of England the "English Tribe" and the Colonists the "Colonist Tribe" and said they were warring with each other, then we probably would not even have this conversation.
I understand the point, because one was born with more, one owes it to those born with less. Correct? I think that is an economical system argument than a moral argument. I don't find being born into ANY situation a reason to feel guilt or apologize.