cf141q5325

The far right had to suffer the most, but there are also plenty of left wing politicians who had to suffer from his "manipulation". There was a great article about it at nachdenkseiten but they deleted it. No wonder since he sued anyone mentioning him.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180908111231/https://www.nachd...

edit: To give an example, he deleted any mention on human rights violations in Facility 1391 with the argument, that Israel investigated the reports and found no evidence of any wrongdoing. Thats still where the page is today, different to the english version. For other individuals, like Nirit Sommerfeld he altered their Wikipedia page to push them into antisemetic corners.

German spy agencies were aiding and abetting the NSA in the surveillance of the German population and looked the other way when it came to politicians and industry. That a NSA lapdog is critical of Huwai is no surprise.

A big problem is also that Wikipedia doesnt get rid of contributors pushing a bias and sabotaging wikipedia pages. Jörg Matthias Claudius Grünewald "Feliks" is just a rather prominent example in the German Wikipedia.

Pretending that reality is something else is rarely helpful. Sure we could, but thats not the situation we are in. Hypothesizing doesnt change the current situation.

The parent made an appropriate comment in my opinion. Twitter as it exists today is in the public sphere, it is not your living room. You are shouting something throughout the net and invite everyone to share their opinion on what you said.

We should all be old enough to understand that the world is full of morons whether we like it or not. And if they are part of your community it becomes your problem too. Dont want to be confronted with the unpleasant parts of of the twitter userbase? Dont be on twitter.

If you however want the reach of twitter without any of the downsides, to bad. Make up your own platform with your own user guidelines. Twitter offers such a huge reach because everyone gets to comment whether you like it or not. You might like that or dislike that, but your opinion on it doesnt change the current atmosphere on twitter.

If you use twitter as it exists today, you better have a thick skin. There are no two ways around it. To exaggerate, you would also need a thick skin if you wanted discuss the topic of migrant rights in some neonazi club. Sure it would be awesome if they behaved, but not something you should expect as a reasonable person. And if you wanted to have a positive reasonable discussion, why would you ask them in the first place about their opinion?

You might want to look up the definition of hate.

And I think its wrong and dangerous to lump together the side effects of opiod miss use and the side effects from proper prescribed regiments. By all means, Opiod miss use is dangerous. Nothing new here, we as humanity have known that for centuries by now. But I think its only reasonable to point out, that withdrawal being an expectable side effect of a SSRI regime is extremely scary. That there is a insane panic about even medical use of Opiods while no one blushes an eye about that kind of severe expectable side effects is worrying.

Sure they are not comparable in risk, but the hurdle for a SSRI prescription is also quite a bit lower then the one for Opiod prescription.

If you take properly prescribed opioids it is unlikely you get addicted, withdrawal symptoms or die. Those are issues stemming from miss use. Personally induced or by a careless physician. The exception is in palliative care and chronic pain where it still beats the alternative.

Apparently you get SSRI withdrawal from normal prescribed use. And its not surprising if you consider how long people have to take antidepressants.

I am a bit shocked, that something as commonly prescribed as SSRI have such severe withdrawal symptoms from normal use. Of the top of my head, i dont know of many kinds of prescription drugs that cause a withdrawal once you finish your regiment.

Opiates can kill if used wrong. And yes they are used recreational, the big problem occur when they are not used as prescribed.

SSRI apparently has a withdrawal problem even with proper usage

Thats comparing the effects on friends an family with the effects on the user. Which in turn, is a bit unfair. It wouldnt be much usefull to talk about people who got suicidal because of SSRI side effects either. It is a rare side effect that might happen and not something that apparently happens regularly like withdrawal.

edit: I am not looking for a moral equivalence here but didnt have another example where addiction and physical withdrawal is accepted beforehand for a treatment.

Reading about the withdrawal symptoms I have to wonder why people arent up in arms about it as with the so called opioid crisis. Different to opiods, SSRI are meant to be taken for long periods. The SSRI withdrawal seems to just be accepted as a part of the treatment.

You dont even have to worry only about your own/current government. Take the Netherlands, with detailed census data (conveniently as punchcards) about their population before the German invasion. With the threat of an invasion looming some suggested to at least trike out the information about religious believes. Unfortunately this didnt happen. Amsterdam had one of the highest rates of deported Jews for a reason.

Those horrible people still exist either way, they just dont say out loud what they think. You dont restrict people thinking that way but people talking out loud about it. The no platform approach was rather successful in Germany when it came to pushing the extreme right out of the public discourse and banning their parties. But that only works as long as they dont organize a platform of their own. Then you have a far right party rising into parliament and entering as the second largest party in some states.

People dont change you just filter them from your view of reality. And its no surprise people who bothered to look knew rather well that they existed.

> don't we have decades of evidence from online communities showing that?

In my experience the community changes as a whole, but not the individual actors. Once a community tips the member base changes. People displeased with the behavior leave and people attracted to it join.

You still can set your page to private if i am not mistaken. And you are also not forced to use facebook in the first place. I understand that its unpleasant and annoying in public, but the assumption that someone elses free speech in a public place affects you personally whether you want it or not doesnt seem necessary true to me.

While not so well worded, i do agree with the broad rational, that in order to restrict free speech in public, some sort decision has to be made about what is allowed and what not. Like it is with everything from laws to social norms. The methods for decision making are broad, from authoritarian, to economical, over technical to consensus based decision making. But they are all methods of decision making. Asking who, or better how that decision is made is a sensible concern.

There are two people needed for a conversation in a public place. You have the ability to leave. You are not forced to listen to anyone. In a private context this is another topic altogether. You can kick someone out of your facebook group, unfriend him or block him. If they then show up at your front door we are talking harassment not free speech. Which is why the loophole of anti abortion protestors being allowed in the streets in front of clinics is such a horrible situation.

I know its annoying to be confronted with stuff you dont like, when your private life takes place in alot of public places, but that is your choice. You dont have to have a public facebook profile, you dont have to have a public youtube channel. And facebook and youtube as a whole dont have to be a public place if they decided otherwise.

This assumes, that giving someone free speech forces you to listen to it. Do you have an example of where this happens to you?

My retired uncle lives in Kreuzberg with his family since he was a teen. They quite like it and just never moved out.

It has a lot to do with what you can expect from your neighborhood. A nightclub opening up right next door in a silent neighborhood is a recipe for a disaster, but it is similar with people moving into regions with a famous nightlife expecting a normal place to live. I for example dont have much sympathy for people moving in next to Frankfurt central station and then start to complain about the drunks, punks, junkies and hookers. Its like moving in next to train tracks and complaining about the sound of the trains.

>Perhaps consider that the problem is not as simple as it appears to you.

I dont think its a simple problem. It is one without an optimal solution. I just think the downsides of having the stuff around are preferable to having people ruining their mental health out of financial desperation.

I also believe that the reliability would go up with time, people are able to learn quite a lot.

Close a video if its a shaky video of some guys with machetes. You dont have to figure out how it ends.

You only have to watch it through if you have to make sure its actually gore. Which an individual different to an employee doesnt have to.

Or simply automatically collect reports and if a high enough percentage of views vs reports comes in it put it nsfw.

The alternative is paying people to moderate it all day every day. With the mental damage this causes to people who are desperate for a job.

Just blocking it yourself seems like a better solution. You dont have to be fair in what you block yourself and (surprise surprise) you dont need to watch it in the first place.

It doesnt weed out anyone. You dont have to have your phone with you during a crime.

What is an average medication? Its an extremely broad generalization that doesnt make much sense. It includes everything from chemotherapeutic agents over Fentanyl over Aspirin to coal tablets. There are quite a few medications that are a lot more dangerous than the drugs on your list. And they are more dangerous for a reason, as they still have fewer side effects then the illness they are trying to combat.

Unless you are talking about the purity of the product, i dont see a sensible case for the comparison of street drugs with pharmaceuticals.

The problem is you dont have to assume malice, as it is reasonable for a cop to react that way in his circumstances.

I dont assume the cop in the video linked above wanted to pin something on the guy, he most likely really believed he was guilty. Thats the problem.

Cops are confronted with criminals every day and its their job to look for suspects. Its really easy to look like a nail if someone has a hammer. And once you are seen as a suspect, confirmation bias sets in. And with every word you say the risk of them finding something that looks to them like circumstantial evidence rises. Assume you said you are walking there every night, but once he specifies to yesterday you contradict yourself, because yesterday was an exception. Now add some dumb luck and you know the victim of what ever happened and you dont have an alibi. Now you returned to the crime scene, know the victim and lied to a cop.

Talking to a cop is simply reckless. They question suspects everyday and its likely your first time. You dont have to be guilty to contradict yourself in a stress situation, speech is a rather imperfect way to communicate.

And sure, they can suspect you either way, and there is nothing you can do about it except getting an attorney. Cops suspecting you of something isnt that big of an issue, there is a separation of power between executive and judiciary for a reason. Its the job of a cop to make a case against a suspect. Its the job of a judge and jury to evaluate if that actually happened.

In a perfect world yes, but not everyone can afford a lawyer.

To many people only remember to ask for a lawyer and are then thrown when its not a viable option and resign and start talking instead.

Not having a conversation however is always an option you should stick by no matter what.

You shouldn't need to be asking yourself that as you shouldn't be going around committing crimes?

But even then, talk to an attorney if you want to confess something and he will tell you how to do that. I dont know the situation in the US, but I would assume it would also involve the prosecutor instead of the police.

Good luck on getting out of a hole you dug yourself in before they determined that you make a good culprit. Lawyers do love themselves a client that decided they needed a lawyer after talking for hours.

If you are sure you a only a wittiness and have something worthwhile to contribute prepare a statement, give that and nothing more. If they have more questions repeat the process. Once you start a conversation you are betting on how much CSI the officer saw recently and how shady they think you look.

Its in the article

>China's proposal, meanwhile, appears to suggest converting solar energy into electric energy in space, before beaming back to Earth using a microwave or laser and feeding into the grid via a ground receiving system.

Saw an interesting documentary on the topic lately. They also had an interrogator who got someone to confess to a crime they didnt commit. And not just confess but actually believe it with the brain making up details of something that never happened.

https://youtu.be/FxOy6z0yq5w?t=1462

He was lucky that it turned out he wasnt in the country at the time of the murder and they found the alleged real killer instead.

Cant repeat it often enough, just never talk to cops. No smalltalk no nothing. If it comes to it talk to your attorney and then the judge. The police isnt looking for the truth but for a solid case for a conviction. Finding the truth is the job of a judge or a jury.

>Closer to the risks of taking a medication than a street drug.

Which street drugs? The comparison reminds of making the distinction between "natural" and "chemical" drugs. Sounds nice if you want to convey an image but not a sensible generalization. You will find quite a lot of street drugs that are less dangerous then some types of medication and vice versa.

They changed the content of the Leistungsschutzrecht in the last phase to allow for the citation of short text segments. Its a lex google news not a link tax as it was first proposed.

>It could well be argued that all Internet regulation has to do with enabling a united market.

At the core it is a regulation about how to combat copyright violations. The argument that there needs to be one legalsystem across the EU in order to enable a united market is thin imho. Especially if the united market doesnt even have a united tax system.

>Nationalism is the problem behind that, not the solution for it

I dont think nationalism plays into this. If we didnt have a supra national body with that kind of power we wouldnt have article 13. Quite a few of the regulations where proposed on national levels first, like the link tax in Germany, and rejected there. It was similar with providers being forced to collect your browsing history. The constitutional court ruled it illegal in Germany and it was then proposed via the EU and enacted there.

I see absolutely no reason to enforce any regulation that is not aimed at enabling a united market across the member states. The EU is an economic union not a United States of Europe.