4 ms·
"EU shadow cabal" funny considering that he then mentions running for help to US politicians.
by npodbielski 10mo ago
"EU shadow cabal" funny considering that he then mentions running for help to US politicians.
- renewiltord 10mo agoIf there were an EU shadow cabal who exactly would you run to help for? When Bonasera’s daughter is assaulted and the perpetrators released, he goes to Don Corleone. That makes sense. It’s not funny or ironic that he turns to criminals to help with criminals. You need power to counter power.
- 9dev 10mo agoWhat an absurd twisting of reality this is. There is no EU shadow cabal, as opposed to the very real not-so-shadowy cabal currently running the USA. Where the EU is concerned with a rule-based order, justice, and fair conditions, the US administration engages in open corruption, cronyism, and outright rule by force. The CEO of an American company complaining about the unfair treatment in Europe is more than ridiculous.
- 0xy 10mo agoProbably because the admin has been vocal and proactive about extraterritorial overreach by European countries hellbent on global censorship programs. The UK has thrown thousands of people in jail for speech on social media, as has Germany. Both of those countries also attempt to censor speech OUTSIDE of their own countries too. https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/12/announcement-of-actions-to-combat-the-global-censorship-industrial-complex https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...
- hermanzegerman 10mo agoThere are no "European Global Censorship Programs". Maybe try to get your information elsewhere than Fox News (based on the Nonsense in all your recent comments)
- rdm_blackhole 10mo ago> There are no "European Global Censorship Programs". Except Chat Control of course.
- hermanzegerman 10mo agoWhere does the EU want to reach beyond their borders here?
- jimnotgym 10mo ago> proactive extraterritorial overreach They are certainly very active in the subject, although judging by the last week, they are not really against it in every case >The UK has thrown thousands of people in jail for speech on social media That is just not true, is it. No matter how many times you say it
- 0xy 10mo agohttps://freedomhouse.org/country/united-kingdom/freedom-net/2025 https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-kingdom/freedom-net/... "Internet freedom declined in the United Kingdom during the coverage period due to a reported increase in criminal charges for online speech" "A separate report from The Telegraph found that 292 people had been charged for spreading false information and “threatening communications” under the Online Safety Act between when it came into effect in 2023 and February 2025. Some civil liberties groups expressed concern that the laws were being applied broadly and in some cases punished speech protected by international human rights standards (C3)."
- jimnotgym 10mo ago292 is not thousands though, is it? Making the statement a barefaced lie. That is before we go into the actual cases of what those people did. I'm concerned about it too, and am able to freely engage with my political representatives over it. They listen and discuss it, because we are a functioning democracy. But hyping it up and lieing about it doesn't help the discussion. Please don't do what everyone else does next and post about one specific case that on a cursory examination seems troubling, I won't be drawn into it.
- klaff 10mo ago>The UK has thrown thousands of people in jail for speech on social media, as has Germany. Source?
- 0xy 10mo agoCertainly. The UK routinely and repeatedly jails people for protected speech, including speech protected by international standards. [1] [2] [3] [1] https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-kingdom/freedom-net/2025 https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-kingdom/freedom-net/... [2] "Internet freedom declined in the United Kingdom during the coverage period due to a reported increase in criminal charges for online speech" [3] "A separate report from The Telegraph found that 292 people had been charged for spreading false information and “threatening communications” under the Online Safety Act between when it came into effect in 2023 and February 2025. Some civil liberties groups expressed concern that the laws were being applied broadly and in some cases punished speech protected by international human rights standards (C3)."
- youngtaff 9mo agoInciting racial hatred etc is not protected speech in the UK
- youngtaff 10mo ago> The UK has thrown thousands of people in jail for speech on social media Not true… and those that were jailed were convicted for inciting racial hatred and most of them admitted the offence
- youngtaff 9mo agoIs who ever disagreed with this capable of providing the evidence that it’s inaccurate?
- UqWBcuFx6NV4r 10mo agoThis is flat-out factually inaccurate. Don’t bring this tripe here, please and thank you.
- carlosjobim 10mo agoVance is hardly operating in the shadows. He is a very public figure.
- jimnotgym 10mo agoI presume that law was passed by public vote of Italian elected politicians? Not a shadow either
- UqWBcuFx6NV4r 10mo agoYep. It sounds like “shadowy cabal” is just an emotive term for “deputised decision-makers doing something that is inconvenient for my organisation”. There’s nothing shadowy about it. It’s just not American.
- ejpir 10mo agowe only see 20% of what happens in the shadow, but yah, I guess its better than 100%
- tick_tock_tick 10mo agoYou can accuse the US politicians of a lot but hiding in the shadows is probably the last thing you can say about the current USA administration.
- Hamuko 10mo agoIsn't this the same government that started a secret war against Venezuela without any authorization?
- asgeesg 10mo ago[dead]
- xdennis 10mo agoWhy do people go out of their way to criticize Trump like this? Attacking other countries without declaring war is a staple of pretty much every US president since WW2, republican or democrat. Carter is the only one who stands out (ironically, despite the fact that he had a good cause to invade Iran).
- Hamuko 10mo agoSorry, which presidents did Obama and Biden kidnap again?
- tick_tock_tick 10mo agoI mean they bombed Libya enough to get Muammar Gaddafi killed is that close enough?
- tick_tock_tick 10mo agoSecret? You can say a lot about the USA in Venezuela but secret isn't it and of course it was authorized congress explicitly granted the president the powers to do it.
- 10mo ago
- Moldoteck 10mo agoit's even funnier considering EU's shadowy chat control adoption