LINK!!!!!
This people, which for too long has endured the abuses of a hateful and tyrannical power, is rediscovering that it has a soul; it is understanding that it is not willing to exchange its freedom for the homogenization and cancellation of its identity; it is beginning to understand the value of familial and social ties, of the bonds of faith and culture that unite honest people.
This is indeed the upside of this whole mess.
people and values that do not act like automatons, who do not obey like machines, because they are endowed with a soul and a heart
Well said!
while the fundamental rights of citizens and believers are denied in the name of a health emergency that is revealing itself more and more fully as instrumental to the establishment of an inhuman faceless tyranny
Well, global warming wasn't cutting it so there was a need for a shinny new boogeyxir.
Literally this ^
Congress shall make no law
Doesn't count, this was the Governor not the Congress
- Some progressive, probably
The cuckery in Europe (some based countries excluded) is in near Cali levels.
The First Amendment doesn't confer the right to spread deadly diseases
What a low energy strawman. POTUS said "restricts the freedom of assembly of political opponents". But since it's too obvious too attack that, oh well, let's switch it to "freedom of speech" and "muh GrAnDma".
Based Russian :D
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha :D :D
... to create a clusterfuck.
Offended? That's a very progressive way of thinking.
Is a teacher offended when a student can't do addition? Or maybe the right word is something like disgusted?
In other words, there's nothing for me to "get over". We're here because I'm making fun of you and I'm having a good time at it, it's as simple as that.
No, you misunderstand. Insulting is great and awesome, but only when done in proper style instead of mundane profanities. I love hurling insults whenever it's merited.
On no, some nobody on the internet called me a bad name! And he things my jokes are lame. Did you just leave secondary school, perhaps?
I don't know. I'll just quote you the relevant part from Trump's exec order:
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
Laws > Agreements. You sue because you claim that they are lawfully liable for X and the court decides if you're right or not. That's the whole idea behind the justice system.
We should name it America, just a random name I just thought.
Because the government does not enforce 230 properly, they can't be sued currently for editing (unlike newspapers). If the government ever decides to actually enforce stuff, they will become open to sues.
It depends if your sponsor starts with a D or not.
In politics, it's an amazing name soup. Still, I can't even begin to imaging the mental gymnastics to get to a concept of libertarian socialist. Maybe it's something like how socialists call themselves liberal, meaning that they are for "free" speech while at the same time rooting for a tyrannical monster-state in all other aspects of life.
Each one of these 4 will want to make money. If there's a financial incentive to respecting conservatives, one of them will want to do it.
So, once you break twitter into 4 companies, those 4 companies will be somehow controlled by conservatives because magic. That's ... a nice hallucination.
But let's assume that it happens so. By your admission, owners want profit and so China simply buys them out. Like it's done so many times already. Does it perhaps lack money or manpower, in your worldview?
More importantly, it's about barrier of entry to the market, rather than the number of companies. China might be corrupting those 5 (which obviously the government should try to prevent), but then new start ups can enter the scene. They cannot stop them all.
This is more of that nice hallucination we were talking about. In the online world, the loglog rule shines brighter than the sun. Network effects make it so people flock where others are. People visit /r/nosleep in Reddit and not Xeddit because it's a barren land in Xeddit. What exactly are you going to do? Mandate that people from Oregon can only join twitter A and a banned from twitter B,C & D?
You remind me
That's your problem.
But no, in a true free market economy you cannot stop innovation.
Yeah, no shit. But that's an ideal, just like "true" communism. So unless you think a doctor needs to prescribe based on your imaginary body instead of your actual one, it makes no sense to do policy based on fantasy.
But for as much as I would love black shirts going to silicon valley offices, within the current framework it's still a fact that 5 independent companies are harder to control than just one.
China is the second greatest Imperialist force in the world. It controls millions upon millions of people. But adding 4 small companies in the mix is what's going to break its back. Does this make any sense to you?
Yes, technically 4 is more than one but if one does not see the context, one can only reach absurd conclusions when using an out-of-context fact to deduce outcomes within the context.
Both are shitty qualities to have, so does the meaning really change much?
I prefer the word arrogant, but sure. Why not?
It's certainly a pathetic sight when the subject at hand is an armchair strategist sitting at his wooden chair in a village north of Thebes to be arrogant, but what is the arrogance of Alexander if not the natural outcome of his past activities?
Of course, decorum is important because we're not living in Crusoe islands. But that's a different thing and they're well fit together. There would be no need for decorum otherwise.
Salt mining!