gonmf

9 ms·

61.
by gonmf 10y ago
It does serve someone because it forces publishers to be inclusive to people with disabilities.
62.
by gonmf 10y ago
Who is served are people with disabilities that get quality educational content instead of half-baked educational content.
63.
by gonmf 10y ago
An example of fake, or misleading use of a photo, in a story that appears credible: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BB...
64.
by gonmf 10y ago
Yes you can convey information much more objective than today. For example, on the more recent migration ban story: "The White House has announced today at 7h30, through speaker ..., a piece of legislation that, quote: ~first paragraph
65.
by gonmf 10y ago
That is false, or maybe just semantics. Imagine an enslaved man. I believe he has the right to attempt to free himself from slavery. By your definition he doesn't because those around him haven't granted him that right. In my defi
66.
by gonmf 10y ago
Where is the false equivalence? You talk about common sense and majority knows best. What am I missing, are there some specific things upon which the majority cannot decide upon?
67.
by gonmf 10y ago
Kudos for Imzy but unfortunately (imo) these kind of initiatives are accompanied by attacks to websites that don't further restrict their users speech in a manner that is more savory for the media or politicians in question. These disc
68.
by gonmf 10y ago
I am not advocating. It's just what we have. Decreeing we have the right to health doesn't make diseases disappear. I am advocating not calling this a discussion about human rights but about human wants.
69.
by gonmf 10y ago
I know I won't, it is too far away I would probably not be alive even it came to pass. My point was that at least some people recognize that these rights are made up and want to be in a place where they may be offended, they may be ril
70.
by gonmf 10y ago
I take it you agree with kicking out the minority on websites that prefer racist, hate spewing bullies then? I take it you wouldn't suggest they be forcefully closed down or anything? As long as the majority is happy, you wouldn't
71.
by gonmf 10y ago
I'll let you on on a secret that you aren't thought in elementary school. Real human rights are intrinsic and inalienable. Things like the right for your pursuit of happiness and freedom of thought and speech. All supposed rights
72.
by gonmf 10y ago
There should be a special place in hell for people who abuse the most vulnerable of people.
73.
by gonmf 10y ago
Open source != free software.
74.
by gonmf 10y ago
Gawker are scum. They disobeyed a court order. They deserved the lawsuit. If you want freedom of speech to out people and attack everyone, expect people with money to use said money to fight back legally. It's their freedom too.