charonn0

16 ms·

181.
by charonn0 6y ago
Does it really matter?
182.
by charonn0 6y ago
> Or did Facebook think that all of these 70+ million people would just sit back quietly and accept that their politician was blocked (or perceived of being censored)? Evidently, they think a lot of those people are violent extremists. A
183.
by charonn0 6y ago
You're right about that, but this isn't an example of usurpation since no one would be asserting the power to launch nuclear weapons. The attempt by the President's supporters to overthrow Congress is a far better example.
184.
by charonn0 6y ago
Yes. I live in the universe where it was actually Pence who approve sending in the Guard. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/national-guar...
185.
by charonn0 6y ago
Another example (same speech): > And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down-- > We're going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going
186.
by charonn0 6y ago
Another example (same speech): > And I would love to have if those tens of thousands of people would be allowed the military, the Secret Service and we want to thank you and the police and law enforcement great you're doing a great
187.
by charonn0 6y ago
That is a reference to a nuclear first strike.
188.
by charonn0 6y ago
For example: > We will never give up; we will never concede. We will stop the steal. We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol…We’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones…the kind of prid
189.
by charonn0 6y ago
Really? Advocating the violent overthrow of Congress and the rule of law by a sitting president is less worrisome than trying to prevent that same sitting president from murdering tens of millions of innocent people in your name?
190.
by charonn0 6y ago
It would not be a coup because it doesn't aim to oust the president. At worst the generals in question would be guilty of disobeying orders, and that's assuming the order was legal in the first place.
191.
by charonn0 6y ago
> They should be, they attempted a coup against the democracy. However, as I said, what do I care if they destroy each other? Political violence, once normalized, will inevitably be turned against its practitioners and supporters. Indiff
192.
by charonn0 6y ago
Even if such e-mails existed, by stealing the laptop they've tainted it as evidence except against themselves. i.e., You and the thief are similarly short sighted.
193.
by charonn0 6y ago
Because other countries exist.
194.
by charonn0 6y ago
They'd be wrong. "Censored from using their bandwidth" is a nonsensical phrase.
195.
by charonn0 6y ago
[0] isn't mine. I've only commented on the phone company analogy.
196.
by charonn0 6y ago
> Surely you agree those laws (against eavesdropping) were passed for a reason and are not arbitrary? I'm puzzled by the question. My position on wiretapping laws is beside the point. > People are not basing their criticisms on t
197.
by charonn0 6y ago
I'm saying it's not censorship at all. Being denied by your preferred publisher is not the same as being prevented from publishing.
198.
by charonn0 6y ago
There are laws against eavesdropping on private electronic communications. > What does being paid have to do with their enforcement of their own property rights? Because paying for a service establishes certain rights and expectations th
199.
by charonn0 6y ago
The fact that we see ads says we're the product.
200.
by charonn0 6y ago
Net neutrality isn't about censoring ISPs, though.
201.
by charonn0 6y ago
Allowing people to make up their own minds doesn't mean you have to provide a platform for views you don't share.
202.
by charonn0 6y ago
That's not a reasonable analogy. a) Youtube's decision (wise or not) is not arbitrary. b) Neither video creators nor viewers are "customers" of Youtube.
203.
by charonn0 6y ago
That would involve eavesdropping on a private conversation, and as such the analogy falls flat (also since you pay them directly for a service.)
204.
by charonn0 6y ago
Free speech isn't implicated here.
205.
by charonn0 6y ago
Yes, but I won't be an early adopter.
206.
by charonn0 6y ago
> Modern medical care gives us robotic, heartless nonsense like "routine" circumcision. That's more of a religious thing.
207.
by charonn0 6y ago
> I guess libcurl is designed to be that way, so that to an curl-master, he can tune all the knobs to do what he want The --libcurl command line argument can help translate curl to libcurl. 0: https://ec.haxx.se/libcurl&#
208.
by charonn0 6y ago
> They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents recruited other participants—for an online survey Which is about as scientific as my personal anecdote of being run over by a cyclist.
209.
by charonn0 6y ago
> 19. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this case. Defendants’ actions will cause an imminent, concrete, and irreparable risk to Plaintiffs’ ability to achieve their educational missions unless halted by this Court. > 20.Plaintiffs al
210.
by charonn0 6y ago
I'm pretty sure the lawsuits had more to do with it than anything else.

More ›