3,199 karma · joined March 25, 2016
Sorry about the inconvenience to this guy, but at the same time, it got 14 million views and I'm sure he made some cash. He can probably not whine so much. It's likely an honest mistake by someone overworked.
YouTube banning antivax content is speech.
You want the government to start mandating that a company can't take a stance on important issues of healthcare? Churches spend all day every day taking stances on abortion. You want to the government to tell them they can't take a side?
But you are making an assumption that the average worker (probably from India) making $1 an hour, can tell the difference between newsworthy war crimes, and a snuff film.
I don't think anyone is going to get that right 100% of the time. So no, I don't really see it as a problem.
There is money to be made from lying to people. That's why it's being banned. It should have been done last year honestly, but social media companies were afraid to anger Trump. They took the barest actions to add warnings, and no surprise, no one reads them.
No we don't. The question we have to ask is whether allowing this content is worse for society than any stifling of moderate voices.
And the answer is obviously yes. Covid-hoaxers represent millions of people who are causing a national health crisis that doesn't need to be happening anymore. Fuck moderate voices who are "just asking questions". They can deal with playing a little less devil's advocate, and getting more in board with the obvious health benefits of vaccination.
Leibingsraum was explicitly part of the reasoning for invading France.
I know it's a natural instinct to defend modern living as more peaceful, and to some extent that may be true. But modern society has also created atrocities that ancient people could never dream of.
The people didn't act kinder because of Buddhism. The experimental setup primed them to act in a certain way.
WW2 killed 75 million people. Tell me again, who has the more violent culture?
I'm waiting for the follow up study after 520 weeks, where a certain percentage of them become radicalized zealots.
Consider the situation: you want to get an abortion. Or you know someone who does.
I don't think I need to spell out the debate. But the secular world view is producing value for people who don't want to be afraid that they will spend literally INFINITY TIME being tortured. (And arguably it produces value for the religious, who do utilize secular services even when their religion forbids it).
The secular world view offers you freedom from judgement, both mortal and immortal. Many people find value in the freedom to not worry about superstition.
Don't forget for a moment that Mark Zuckerberg is a monster. From the start he only cared about one thing: getting your data.
Once they are revealed to be acting like a media company, it's a house of cards. Regulation presumably would follow.
I think we should probably question why this person thinks that revealing how the sausage is made will endear anyone to them.
It's possible your personal journey is effected by your experiences. 2009 was a financial crisis, when I'm sure many people were desperate for money. Others delayed entering the workforce by taking on college debt. It's not a sign of a healthy economy, but the strategic decisions of millions of people...
And in 2009 there was no pandemic. You weren't risking actual life and limb to work a 9-5. In 2009 most people didn't have smartphones. There was no real option to make money online.
And let's be clear: just because people aren't working for a corporation in a 9-5 doesn't imply they aren't working. Today you can make money online easier (Only Fans comes to mind). The people who become internet models can make more money quitting their jobs and devoting their effort to content creation. And honestly, a pornstar has more prestige and better hours than McDonald's, too...
Honestly it's such a leap of logic that likely no one understands what exactly the thrust of your comment is trying to get at.
I'd like to look at the more charitable part of the argument: "back in my day, we worked shitty jobs and we liked it, because we needed money". Ok, sure. But the economy was different in the past.
Many people need to work 2 jobs to maintain the same standard of living. At the same time, the prestige and respect of such jobs have declined. There are less paths to retirement. This is a logical response to a system that is overworking people, without long-term prospects.
So customers suffering from bad internet are more likely to be directed by their ISP to other services rather than speedtest.
Sure, size is a factor, but it's not the only factor, nor is it the main factor. The main problem is monopolies.
Like an article about some current event will undoubtedly begin with "when I was traveling ten years ago...".
The same is true here. You are stepping into society on a state of health that presents risks to everyone around you.
It's one and the same.
I think it's an apt comparison. If you want a happy ending, you probably shouldn't be reading these books.
The need for a happy ending is a traditionally American taste. So much so that they changed the ending of Clockwork Orange, and other imported novels.
Your satellite crashes? Pay us to clean it up.
The question is what about the looks of a chest X-ray are connected to race. I agree with the research here, it's non obvious what is being extracted by the AI.
If I had to guess, maybe something about the quality of the scan itself. Perhaps one race was scanned at one particular hospital, vs a different hospital scanning a different race. Then it's just picking out the different scanner.
The argument that your parents make you not equal is exactly what liberalism is trying to reject. Someone should not be treated differently based on their heritage (monarchies anyone?).
In fact, since you believe you can't be equal due to parentage, you probably agree with some of what progressives have to say. The current system isn't equal.
Having scientific proof of differences does nothing. It's not the starting stats that progressives see as the thing that needs to be equalized, but the opportunities. Maybe the outcomes. It depends.
The problem is that these research studies tend to narrowly focus on trying to prove that white people are superior. Why? What is this the only question that interests such supposedly academic individuals? It's because, yes, they are Nazis. They can't figure out any questions worth asking that don't boil down to the same old race baiting.