throwawayq3423

21 ms·

481.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
What does "novel vaccine" mean?
482.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
Why are you copy pasting the same question over and over in this thread?
483.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
If you make a claim, you should be able to stand behind it, by citing it. Responding with circular logic about who's responsibility it is to actual research is counter productive, and giving the appearance that you don't actual ha
484.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
> I understand the importance of selling. But selling shouldn't be confused with deceiving consumers Woo boy, someone hasn't taken marketing 101 in uni.
485.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
> It also banned a-lot of normal people who were questioning official narratives They really didn't. "Non official narratives" were usually conspiracy theories or hate speech. If anything, these accounts were given multip
486.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
This is who your authority is, by the way. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/michael-benz-rising-vo...
487.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
When referring to actual Nazis, using the word "Nazi" is acceptable. Incredible that needs to be said, but here we are.
488.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
Advocating throwing human beings into ovens isn't acceptable. If you find yourself on the other end of that opinion, do some deep, deep soul searching. It's not about speech at that point.
489.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
>> the fact that Elon wanted no censorship is. You fell for his narrative, which is false. https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-el...
490.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
It's not my responsibility to verify your claims, it's yours.
491.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
"I know you are but what I am" is something we teach children not to say, because the logic is circular and self defeating. And using different, disposable handles is basic privacy protection. Using the same one for years means so
492.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
> and the censorship he disliked may return. Banning Nazis is not censorship, it's basic hygiene.
493.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
Why doesn't he, or you, cite them ?
494.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
Actually yes with an internet full conspiracy and misinfo, insisting on good sourcing is an excellent way of navigating the noise. This guy has zero credibility. And the point he is making is that some in Europe will gladly see Ukraine dest
495.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
Yes Ukraine was referenced. I get it, writing off a war as a conspiracy means you don't have to acknowledge what is happening, which allows pro-Russian individuals to not have to critically think about why their support the aggressor i
496.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
Blowing up the pipeline did nothing but void the non-delivery penalties Russia would have faced if it cut supply as it was threatening. Contract law doesn't care about military invasions. And Mike Benz is not a source on anything. He w
497.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
Well ok, doesn't the author have the motivation to keep their narrative consistent as well?
498.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
Yes, a country fighting for its life against a genocidal invader is clearly an American conspiracy..somehow.
499.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
I think you are both right. An ultimatum can be a demand for someone to stop destructive behavior, but it's more often a demand to fall in line, with the idea that you are replaceable if you don't. I think the latter is what OP re
500.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
Reading this document, it's in extremely bad faith: > We start with coercion. On multiple occasions, the officials coerced the platforms into direct action via urgent, uncompromising demands to moderate content. Privately, the offic
501.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
> So, the district court reasoned, the Plaintiffs were “likely to succeed” on their claim because when the platforms moderated content, they were acting under the coercion (or significant encouragement) of government officials, in viola
502.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
So, rank and file gov employees will risk their jobs to break the law because powerful people away with it, why wouldn't they? Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me.
503.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
Cold war history really broke people's brains. Yes this took place in the 1970s, no such thing happens today.
504.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
The casual nature of stating a completely impossible conspiracy theory has been common place online for years, HN news used to be immune. It's illegal for FBI or CIA to actively target a US company. Anyone doing so would be fired for c
505.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
> The twitter files showed government agencies were coercing Twitter into suppressing information. They very much did not. Twitter's own lawyers when pressed in court (the place where there are consequences for lying) admitted that
506.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
We live in a world where people believe things with no proof (therefore with no reason), but a little humility and less certainty might benefit the conversation.
507.
by throwawayq3423 3y ago
Test