181–190 of 292 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't there 75 million people that are very upset about it? (I mostly think it's hilarious that he's slowly rounded up from 74 million)
If he was OK with numbers to begin with he'd see the folly in disputing the election result, Covid cases, tax returns, ...
Welcome to the next chapter in our globally connected "society". In other news, Orwell's "1984" is currently Amazons #7 best seller [0]. [0] https://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-books-Amazon/zgbs/books
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and when AWS shuts them down and ISPs block them, they are free to make their own servers and ISPs. And when the financial system shuts down their banking and all of their family members' and public supporters' banking, they are free to create a new banking system as well (assuming they can pay the regulatory fees and have people lobbying for them of course)
You think they'll stop there?! The homeless shelters will start asking who you voted for. They'll start testing fetuses in the womb for Trumpist DNA. St Peter will meet you at the pearly gates with a scroll containing all your tweets, and it still won't be enough! The aliens running the simulation have already started checking each other's privilege!!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and when AWS shuts them down and ISPs block them, they are free to make their own servers and ISPs. And when the financial system shuts down their banking and all of their family members' and public supporters' banking, they are free to create a new banking system as well (assuming they can pay the regulatory fees and have people lobbying for them of course)
I’m not even going to pretend you’re attempting to make an argument in good faith. One could argue tech companies have a monopoly problem but you’re just saying a private company should allow anyone to say anything on their platform and throwing a ridiculous slippery slope out in front of it.
AWS is reportedly considering banning Parler. If this trend continues we'll soon have a completely balkanized internet where everyone lives in their own bubble and is banned from posting their viewpoints in the opposite bubble.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/cloudflares-ceo-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very concerning. This is a coordinated political action with unprecedented scale. You may agree with the action this time, next time you may not.
Do you have any evidence that it's coordinated? Twitter banned some stuff temporarily the other day, now they upgrade those bans and add some more. Google removes parler from the Play Store today, a different action (not banning trump). Apple didn't ban anything, but is considering it. These seem like different actions by different companies, responding to the same news. Also, pedantic as it may be, it's not politica…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and when AWS shuts them down and ISPs block them, they are free to make their own servers and ISPs. And when the financial system shuts down their banking and all of their family members' and public supporters' banking, they are free to create a new banking system as well (assuming they can pay the regulatory fees and have people lobbying for them of course)
I’m not even going to pretend you’re attempting to make an argument in good faith. One could argue tech companies have a monopoly problem but you’re just saying a private company should allow anyone to say anything on their platform and throwing a ridiculous slippery slope out in front of it.
It is not as simple as you make it out to be. The real slipperly slope is unlimited powers that Big Tech currently enjoys. But yeah you and everyone else will realise in days to come as to why this argument of yours was wrong to begin with. You haven't thought it through. You just want a short-term problem resolved immediately: throw Trump out of office asap, shutdown conspiracy theory sites and stifle any expression for the right wing. You haven't thought of the long term consequences a.k.a Second Order Effects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A historic event occurred - how could you take that to mean it was coordinated?
A historic event for whom? The United States right? Social Media operates in 100+ countries. What happened in USA is historic for you maybe. Not for us. USA is not the World. Regimes fall every now and then. Coup attempts happen all the time. I have never seen media or social media ban any Government account over it. I guess Social Media has a different conscience for when regime change/coup-d'etat happens in say Ira…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It wasn't even close to a coup You'd never say that if it wasn't "your people" in there. Never. Don't claim to be a patriot ever again if you think dismissing the first successful attack on a congressional session (hell, the VP was in there too) in the history of the republic is a good argument to make. Hell, five people died. That's more than at the Reichstag fire (I checked with Godwin, by the way, he approves).…
I am interested in the truth. The truth is that the events at the capitol were not a coup. This is deliberate propagandist language. >This was a moment of deep shame. And comments like yours make it worse. The people turning their back on our civil liberties are far more shameful.
You say so only because it failed. If the tunnels didn't exist? If the mob had been faster or better armed? How would it have ended? Would Pence and Pelosi still be hostages?
(Edit: not worth continuing. But I bet anything if I kept going you'd eventually pull out a thesaurus and zing me with BUT it's REALLY an "autogolpe!")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, definitely. I too find it incredibly sad. Give me the 90's Internet back.
Burning all your alt accounts to evade a forums ban is basically the 90s internet.
Question not directly related to this event, but triggered by this: Has any of the countries around the world built a communication mechanism to directly reach its people without using any third-party platforms? Isn't this a must, in case external/foreign malicious actors forcibly take control of the major third-party platforms used in a country someday in future?
Redundancy is key if you're warding against foreign interference, nuclear events and the like. But at the end of the day if you're a free democracy you let people use whatever they want for the day to day stuff and you end up having to use those platforms to reach your citizens as well.
My country tried doing its own thing a couple decades ago. It's called the minitel. Look it up if you haven't heard of it, it's pretty neat :)