like_any_other

> but as I never see the anti immigration folk push for regulating or attacking the companies hiring said immigrants

They did this already back when Reagan granted amnesty in exchange for stronger border protections [1], it just hardly ever got enforced because employers are good at lobbying. This is slowly starting to change [2].

Despite this, yes, it is xenophobia. As much as they hate to admit it, opposition to immigration usually stems from wanting to maintain some semblance of a country, not an economic zone. Though the economic case for immigration has also been debunked [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control...

[2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/11/28/employ...

[3] https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2024/02/fiscal-impact-of-immigr...

There will still be social media. Most of the public conversation will still take place there. You just won't be able to use it anonymously (possibly not even read it).

And as usual, no pro-privacy or pro-freedom groups were asked to give a comment for the article. I guess nobody objects on those grounds!

Can you explain how, to take just one example from my post, 80% of job postings for Arizona’s public universities requiring applicants to submit a statement detailing their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion [1], is "mostly bullshit"?

Or is it just that you support banning your ideological enemies, so you don't see it as objectionable?

[1] https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-new-loy...

You invest billions of dollars in hosting and benefit from hundreds of millions of man hours of human output, just so everyone trains on "your" data?

European countries have traded with each other long before EU free movement. In fact, most countries today, EU or not, manage to trade just fine despite strict borders.

A rhetorical question is supposed to make you think, not state the obvious. Especially since the obvious has already been stated - it is the premise of the referendum!

> take away the EU

Is not accepting infinity immigration "taking away the EU"? And the population density is even more part of the conditions it has grown in. But much much harder to fix if it increases too much - shouldn't they take a precautionary approach?

Regardless, that's not the question I asked. I asked why the poster was pretending they don't know population number affects the quality of a place.

Sounds like a lovely place. Why wouldn't you want to pass a law to keep it that way?

> Did they think, as they worked to transfer final say from users to corporations, by technical means, that politicians couldn't transfer that control to themselves by political means?

Corporations are already hostile enough that it doesn't really matter:

The report says that between 30 and 40 Rockstar employees working in multiple offices in the UK and Canada were fired on October 30, all of them part of a private trade union chat group on Discord. - https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/rockstar-accused-of-...

Leaked Amazon Whole Foods Docs: Workforce Diversity Helps Prevent Unions - https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61403 (summarizing https://www.businessinsider.com/whole-foods-tracks-unionizat...)

Microsoft Are Fixated on “Hate Speech” With Lopsided XBOX Live Enforcement Strike System - https://www.techopse.com/microsoft-are-fixated-on-hate-speec...

With how many entry-level positions go to H-1Bs, and with how the average H-1B salary is below market-level (you'd think it would be significantly above, given that they allegedly could not find anyone able to do the job in the entire US) [1], calling them "visas for highly skilled foreign workers" without any qualification is effectively misinformation.

Where is one of those disinformation watchdogs to mark the article as "missing context", and give Reuters reduced social media reach because of it?

[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/h-1b-visas-and-prevailing-wa...

A good first step, but the harm is already done when the data is gathered. Stalking should be illegal even if you don't sell the information you gathered, I don't want Toyota or GM or Google knowing where I've been either, not just their "partners", and it's long past the time the EULA loophole was closed. Contracts exist to serve society, not the other way around.

Dig up the names and addresses of the public officials responsible for that decision and watch the phrase disintegrate.

> should be noted in its extreme bias

Do you have any evidence to suggest the author cherry-picked the responses? Because there is evidence to the contrary - the responses reflect the attitudes revealed in the US army surveys.

Or is this some novel use of "bias" to mean "truthfully presents data that I dislike"?

You can't expect anyone to take seriously warnings against not just nationalism, but ultranationalism, when it is the policy of most western governments to dismantle their national identities:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10055613...

These studies of what is suppressed on social media somehow always overlook that Facebook bans all white nationalist content, or the purges of right-wingers from reddit. Censorship the authors agree with does not "create risks for democracy".

The comment is not excusing censorship, but illustrating that censors don't like to call what they do "censorship". Even a justification for it is not enough - they don't want to call it "justified censorship", they want to call it something else entirely, and even then they want as little attention paid to it as possible, to trick people into thinking their discussions are free.

It's possible the Japanese/Korean/Chinese terms are also misused, to make the oppression more palatable. So the misuse is faithfully translated. That doesn't mean we should go along with it. Things should be named correctly.

That's a big reason why they're "allies" - if Israel can identify which US politicians are pro/against Israel, they can promote or impede their rise to power accordingly.

> after having fufilled it's one true purpose of telling someone at samsung my favourite show is HDMI2.

It is able to identify content directly from the pixels, they will know what you've watched even if it was from a pirated .mp4 served from your PC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_content_recognition

> You are thinking in Western terms.

Because that is what the English word means. The correct term to use would have been 'order'.

> It's going to sound cliché but it leans on harmony and the group where the Western one leans on the individual.

I associate "harmony" with voluntary cooperation and joy, not machines preemptively gagging people. A good exercise is to imagine what this would look like transplanted into non-tech terms: it is illegal to operate a bar, restaurant, book shop, art studio, or even to gather in medium-to-large groups of people, without a government assigned censor empowered to listen in and silence people.

Does that still look "harmonious"?

No, it constitutes the taking of the country by the autocrats at home (or in Brussels). It is ridiculous to call them "democratic representatives" when they are trying to keep secret how they are censoring the people they rule, sorry, "represent".

It's also ridiculous to claim that censoring the very desire to reclaim one's country, is reclaiming one's country, by virtue of who is doing the secret censoring.

> Who do House Republicans think they are that they can tell our democracy what is and isn't harmful? Abide by our rules or get out.

As a European I am very grateful to the Republicans for exposing how my own supranational rulers are controlling me, something which, again, they tried to keep secret, while preaching about "democracy".

Edit as reply:

> So your definition of "taking back our country" is... Americans telling us what we can and can't do in the best interest of their owners?

They're not telling us what we can and can't do. They're telling us what our rulers are keeping secret from us.

> Should the EU actually overstep, tech companies can take it to the open, public courts

I repeated how they kept the nature of censorship secret three times. You don't get to talk about "open, public courts".

> If you don't like the DSA, vote for MEPs that are opposed.

I will. But many won't, because they are being deceived by the EU regarding how the legislation works. How democratic is it when governments lie, and people vote based on those lies? And for some strange reason, none of the many misinformation watchdogs picked up on this misinformation.

Nice motte-and-bailey. Removing CSAM is good, therefore so is removing “we need to take back our country”:

@JudiciaryGOP has been investigating European censorship since the EU tried to silence President Trump last August. In February, we subpoenaed tech companies for their communications with foreign censors in Europe and around the world. Today, we’re releasing a report with preliminary findings about the EU’s censorship regime. The EU’s censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), requires platforms to censor so-called “misinformation” and “hate speech,” even when the content “is not illegal.” New documents obtained by the Committee show that European regulators distort these terms to require censorship of legitimate political discourse that is neither harmful nor illegal. In May, the EU hosted a DSA-focused “workshop” where platforms were asked to consider hypothetical “scenarios” involving hate speech online. Unlike other EU “workshops” with tech, the public was NOT allowed to watch this one. And the EU told the platforms to NOT share the “scenarios” with the public. What were they trying to hide? Turns out, the EU wanted to hide what it defines as “illegal hate speech” that must be censored: tweeting ordinary political rhetoric like “we need to take back our country.”

https://x.com/jim_jordan/status/1948730617803296910

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j...

When I am spied on without my consent (and burying something about it deep in the ToS is not consent), the harm is not that I could have otherwise sold out, the same way that the harm in rape is not in the woman being deprived of earnings through prostitution.

> Conflating “Jewish” with “loves and supports Netanyahu” is a bald-faced antisemitic trope.

I guess "Jewish has nothing to do with support for the Jewish state" would have sounded too silly, so you used Netanyahu instead. Luckily we have opinion polls to prove the "trope" true: https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/646214/suppo...

The group with the most sympathy for Israel, and least for Palestine, is, unsurprisingly, Jewish.

Oh I'm not saying Israel's decision to attack Iran forced the US to join in on strategic or self-defense grounds. I'm saying it forced them because the US does whatever Israel tells them. That is why both US lead negotiators with Iran are Jewish [1], why US congressmen have Israeli flags outside their offices [2], why Nancy Pelosi said the #1 priority in the Capitol is Israel [3], why Netanyahu gets 3 straight minutes of applause when he starts his speech in Congress (and lots of applause interruptions later) [4].

Because when 50% of donations to the Democratic party, and 25% of donations to the Republican party, are from Jewish sources [5], it can't be any other way.

[1] In practice, critical negotiations, with Iran and elsewhere, have been put in the hands of two people, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, with close personal relationships with the president and obvious economic stakes in the relevant conflicts. - https://snyder.substack.com/p/on-superpower-suicide

[2] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2qjLaSyAWj8

[3] if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain would be our commitment to our aid, I don’t even call it our aid, our cooperation with Israel. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1LmnQRnw8I

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6XZKE7a_F4

[5] https://www.jpost.com/us-elections/us-jews-contribute-half-o...

Trump attacked Iran because Israel was going to attack Iran: Rubio says US struck Iran fearing it would retaliate for Israeli attack - https://abcnews.com/Politics/rubio-us-struck-iran-fearing-re...

Part of a long trend: Israeli Operatives Who Aided Harvey Weinstein Collected Information on Former Obama Administration Officials to undermine the Iran Nuclear Deal - https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/israeli-operatives-...

To help make the case on Iran, Graham traveled several times to Israel in recent weeks, meeting with members of the country’s intelligence agency. “They’ll tell me things our own government won’t tell me,” he said. He spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, coaching him on how to lobby the president for action. - https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/lindsey-graham-trump-ira... (https://archive.is/G1Dt0)

Netanyahu started this war by attacking Iran. He assassinated Ali Shamkhani, Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator, deliberately sabotaging US-Iran nuclear negotiations. - https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/1934659864610918435 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Shamkhani#Assassination_at...)

Clearly the law does not sufficiently disincentivize such spying. CEOs should not be thinking "how much can we get away with", they should be thinking "how do I stay out of jail", like any black-hat hacker would be. Until they're punished as severely as weev was for accessing public URLs [1], it will only get worse.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse_Security#AT&T/iPad_emai...

Financial incentives can easily ruin something, but it is very hard for them to fix it. I think the best we can hope for is decent financing that doesn't interfere too much, and the rest must be solved culturally. Because the US school system used to work better, and lots of others work well, without any weird financial shenanigans. We should not be so capitalism-brained to forget that financial compensation is not the only lever.