58 karma · joined October 24, 2021
Bold claim that really needs some evidence. Is there research which shows that kids who grow up with social media are less likely to succeed as adults because of social media exposure?
It's different though, typically you can fight those warrants after the fact, with EIOs you have to do the fighting in a jurisdiction you don't live in.
This is all deeply problematic because things like "probable cause" have very different meanings in different EU countries, even if on paper it's all supposed to be the same.
>Also, account first created in 2021, coincidentally starts posting right after the other account in this thread is replaced with a green account?
Certainly not a coincidence.
The problem is that anyone reporting honestly on Trump would be excessively negative, there's not that many people who want to suffer through reading that (or through verbatim quotes of the things he says!).
"Trump backs down on Iran threat, Claims of Negotitations Denied by Tehran"
NYT tends to be excessively charitable with what Trump does and says. This is because it's more important for the NYT to use language which sounds neutral, rather than language which reflects reality. Also, for whatever reason, the usual obligation of journalists to decry falsehoods does not apply to things Trump says off the cuff.
It's not necessarily a bad business decision though, a paper which applied the same standards on Donald Trump as it does on everyone else would presumably be even more painful reading.
Trump says insane thing, instead of repeating insane thing NYT rewrites it in a format that sounds like something a sane person says.
Here's an example where NYT totally disregards the gravity of what Trump is saying (blowing up NATO) and instead portrays him as a successful real estate mogul intent on protecting the West. NYT adds a bunch of flourish to make Trump sound more coherent than he did in the actual interview:
NYT article version:
>“Ownership is very important,” Mr. Trump said as he discussed, with a real estate mogul’s eye, the landmass of Greenland — three times the size of Texas but with a population of less than 60,000. He seemed to dismiss the value of having Greenland under the control of a close NATO ally.
>When asked why he needed to possess the territory, he said: “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”
>The conversation made clear that in Mr. Trump’s view, sovereignty and national borders are less important than the singular role the United States plays as the protector of the West.
Interview transcript:
David E. Sanger: Why is ownership important here?
President Trump: Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base.
David E. Sanger: So you’re going to ask them to buy it?
Katie Rogers: Psychologically important to you or to the United States?
President Trump: Psychologically important for me. Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything.
These kinds of claims would really benefit from additional information regarding the nature of such spy stations. What would they do and why? I don't think Cuba is exactly a top tier sigint location.
They could install radar, but that's not spying.
Perhaps a misquote from 1919 wartime supreme court decision involving an anti-draft activist isn't a great example? Even when correctly quoted, this quote is utterly meaningless in 2026.
>Freedom of speech is not absolute
Nobody ever claims it is? That's literally never in dispute, fraud (for example) is illegal everywhere.
Their judiciaries are very different from how you describe civil law systems.
>Judges in Scandinavia have investigative powers and can judge the truth of the matter.
This is, at best, technically correct. While Judges in Nordic countries tend to technically have some limited investigative powers, it is extraordinarily unusual for them to be used in any meaningful capacity.
In reality the investigate powers wielded by judges in Nordic countries tend to be the same as in common law countries, asking a question here and there during the hearing to make sure they're keeping up.
These countries are certainly not at all like France or Spain where you might have examining magistrates, criminal investigations are run by the police and prosecutors.
According to the European Convention on Human Rights, it's sort of the whole point.