complianceowl

I don't know what you are referring to. Homegrown food? It can have parasites bro. If that's not what you're referring to, no need to play guessing games. Be specific.

Unvaccinated people are still allowed to interact and be in public places where 'they' are a threat, and where vaccinated people are too -- to them.

So, no -- I do not have to accept the hypothetical, strawman consequences that you fantasize about.

Fully vaccinated people are both spreading COVID and becoming COVID positive. Following the news can be a good thing, too.

All of us are right and wrong to varying degrees. I don't think Joe Rogan cares much for people that stop listening because he doesn't reinforce their politics. He never has.

He's also spoken about the whole point of him having FU money is that he is able to say whatever he wants and not care about the blowback.

I'm not anti-vax, but ultimately, my body, my choice. People who are risk averse are free to self-quarantine for any duration they please. Us, the unvaccinated, are happy to live freely and face any associated risks - just like people who decide to ride motorcycles, play combat sports, or eat homegrown food.

> And the betrayal began 20 years ago.

That was pretty good, not going to lie. I feel bad for my fellow Americans that are still stuck there. And sure, the withdrawal from Afghanistan was horrible; Biden could've and should've done a much better job with that. But there is a larger issue here: the fact that we should've never been there in the first place. Biden's speech sounded good, but it's a speech that should've been given 20 years ago.

I see what you did there ;)

The Seafarer was a fantastic read. Thank you for sharing!

Excelente lo que estan logrando amigo. Dios los prospere en todo lo que estan emprendiendo. Saludos de Chicago.

Lol, you make a good point.

The "viability of your hypothetical 'unpopular opinion'"?? Are you serious? You're already taking shots and focusing on my beliefs without first addressing the risk that Big Tech and its affiliates pose to merely not being censored or banned? You're the kind of person that should work at Twitter. You'll fit right in, bud.

Use Revue, build a sizeable distribution list, so I can get banned for expressing my thoughts? So I can be treated like a pedophile for saying something unpopular that doesn't align with their radical leftist ideology? No thank you. There's a lot of other subscription services for me to take a risk that big with anyone associated with Twitter.

2

Prefacing your attempted justification of censorship with "I don't like what YouTube is doing." doesn't add an ounce of validity to your statement.

I am absolutely no fan of Fox News, but for you to not mention other propaganda-producing, Fake News outlets like CNN and Bloomberg is a huge hit to your credibility.

I'll openly admit I am on the conservative side of politics, but my identity isn't wrapped up in politics; that's not how I identify myself or other people. I'm surrounded by conservatives; that's my world, and guess what? There's a lot of discontent with the way election fraud claims are being handled, and despite almost every single one of them having enough firearms to supply a small militia, nobody is even remotely close to even thinking about some sort of armed resistance.

You say it's dangerous? You need to stop letting mainstream media form your perception of the world. What's dangerous is constantly race-baiting people of color like myself and white people against each other.

To people who truly love and believe in freedom, your comment is disgusting.

Wrong information must be countered and corrected by right information -- not censorship, buddy!

@disown - There's so much truth in your comment. I see a lot of people calling out big tech trying to root their stance in the Constitution, when the Constitution was a chain designed specifically to restrain government -- not individuals.

As much as I hate what tech companies are doing in the free speech arena, my position is this: Legally, they can censor whomever they like; as perverse as that is, they're in their right. But to them I say, don't, and I repeat, don't, say you stand for freedom of expression when you have appointed yourself the arbiter of truth.

I am a work in progress when it comes to removing my own bias. I've had to confront and remove so much tribalistic, hypocritical bias from my own life; but today, a large segment of our society is pretending to actually have integrity in their analysis of current events.

But what do I know. I'm anti-censorship, so I guess that makes me a Nazi-sympathizing, white supremacist (#immexicanbro), right winger.

Edit: the #immexicanbro refers to the fact that I'm Mexican-American, por si no lo sabias.

This is expected of Google. People have been talking about this for years; they were labeled conspiracy theorists. Same with social media in general. Censorship? Shadow banning? Nah, you're crazy bro! Now it's being done openly - with PR language, of course, that is designed to manipulate the public's perception of censorship.

These are private companies. They're in their legal right to censor whoever they want. However, what throws me off is when these very same companies preach freedom, protecting democracy, and drum roll....freedom of speech.

They don't believe in any of those values. They work every day to subvert them.

One of my friends is the VP of a community bank with probably somewhere around 60 locations locally. It's completely local; the businesses they work with are the barbershops, car washes, and bakeries we have in our communities. He said it's never been this crazy at the bank, working 18-hour days to make sure everything is processed timely. People automatically think of Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Chase, but folks need to remember the amount of resources it takes to roll this program out, and that not every participating bank is a behemoth Wall Street too-big-to-fail bank.

Wrong thread.

Siempre me asombra ver la diversidad de personas en HN. En que parte de Mexico estas? Saludos!

Guys, you freaking rock. Thank you for your informative and insightful responses. This is precisely why I referred to you guys before even receiving any responses as "intelligent".

The HN is a very intelligent community, so I'd like to hear your thoughts out loud here. Do you guys think supply chains will move closer to home because of this pandemic? I'm hearing every narrative under the sun right now: "This will establish globalism even more", "No! This marks the abrupt END of globalism." What are your thoughts?

The thing about prospering under negative interest rates is that Epstein didn't kill himself.

"Taking a lot of time" is not synonymous with "taking forever".

By the way he phrased his comment, even I could tell this was a project with personal, non-commercial ends.

On this basis, his product will ultimately be: accomplished, or not accomplished but having enriched himself a ton by mere virtue of the pursuit.

The entire world is not only communicating via Android and iOS. Those are the predominant OSs; however, we've all heard of Linux, haven't we?

Spot on.

Has anyone here ever refrained from being too honest in your journaling, out of fear someone read it some day?

"I genuinely want to do better if I should." I would have to respectfully call you out on that. You're main interest appears more to show how right you, or at least more right.

Also, your breakdown of the encounter is dishonest. You literally said "Surely" it was about political coercion. And you didn't even attempt to mildly address the allegations brought by the government against Facebook. Next time, you might want to use the world "might" or "potentially".

"Amongst all US companies that offshore profits, including the likes of Halliburton, Facebook has been singled out because the US administration wants the company to do it's bidding regarding policy and algorithms for political advertising"

So because other companies do it, it's okay for Facebook to do it -- that's your rationale? Not good, and all I see is a lazy attempt at utilizing "circumstantial evidence" that can't withstand the test of scrutiny. When cracking down on something, the government will almost always start with the big names in the industry to send a message. Why did you overlook that possibility, or why is that possibility less feasible? These are important questions that should've been asked and addressed.

Furthermore, the President has granted somewhere around 25 pardons; about two of those were actually controversial. The rest barely made headlines, and most haven't. You referenced this as part of your circumstantial evidence. Once again, this absolutely doesn't pass the test of scrutiny.

I didn't write your comment -- you did. Which is why I called you out on throwing claims out there, without even the slightest reference to any reasonable evidence. Throwing out overly-confident words and sloppily referencing acquittals, political reprisals, and talking about what you expect to happen is a good representation of an unfounded comment. Airbus just received the largest-in-history FCPA fine by the DoJ, totaling 3.9 billion. Is the President trying to bring them down as well? Maybe to help out Boeing? If I were to say, "Surely this is about helping Boeing", I would need much more than a couple of references to current events.

Lastly, I'm not a lawyer. Good day.

Just this month, the Department of Justice announced the largest-in-history FCPA case against Airbus, totaling 3.9 billion in fines[1]. The government's agenda is much larger than you're aware of, apparently.

Unfortunately, the media loves to scandalize things, throw out big names, and hype-up news. The problem is when people just take it, run with it, and parrot it back in the public square.

Anytime a company rises to the stature of Facebook, the probability that they will come into the government's cross hairs is much higher.

[1] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/airbus-to-pay-unprecede...

A lot of unfounded speculation in your comment. It seems more politically-motivated than rooted in facts.

Secondly, have you done your research? Surely Facebook is not the only company being targeted by the government right now. I can assure you that, surely there are more.

Thirdly, as much as I might dislike an administration, I won't take the giant, speculative leap as to assume that I know exactly what they're thinking.

Fourthly, if this "quietly disappears", why would you automatically assume the administration's involvement? Again, there are presidents I strongly dislike, but part of remaining objective requires grounding your position in fact. Facebook has world class lawyers. Having worked in the legal field for numerous years, I am more than positive that Facebook has made many things "quietly disappear" on their own.

Wow, I just checked out your page. I’m not a Democrat, but I could see myself voting for you.

Cough Cough .....short-termism.....Cough Cough

Thanks brother. When one slips, it's a great thing for that slip to be met with a gracious, merciful, and caring response. This is definitely a moment that I won't waste, and will use to grow.

I appreciate your humanity, Knight. And I appreciate your realness and transparency in using yourself as an example. You didn't have to do that, but you did because you don't feel better than anyone else.

Again, thank you, and hope to see you around HN.