621–630 of 645 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People don't base this opinion on a single article but on the coverage of the situation holistically as it evolves. Most of the 'bombshell' revelations in this trial have been available on the internet since the week of the shooting. The number of videos and images that show that it wasn't until Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse and advanced on him aiming at his head that he was shot is overwhelming and yet…
One thing that was the primary influence of whether this was actually self defense or not was what happened between the interview where he explained how and why he was there, to the start of the video in front of the store where he first fires. I'm not sure (I haven't been following the trial) - but have seen a few people mention that someone else "shot into the sky" while a fire was being put out, and words were exc…
Rosenbaum is the one that threatened Kyle previously. It's not clear how they're related, but Rosenbaum and Ziminski were together in photos where a lot of the stuff was going down, this was referenced by the defense a lot in their closing arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this the same failure in automation that is keeping Rittenhouse from being searched on Facebook?
yes just like the automation failure that removed his GoFundMe legal defense campaigns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not advocating for outlawing the tech. I'm doing my part to hopefully make at least one person have a second critical look. "Web3" is nothing like email. Email creates value as a communication medium. NFTs transfer wealth from one gullible gambler to another presumably more informed one. A simple analysis could be something like looking at how the trade velocity of some NFTs dropped to 0. All the people holding t…
You’re making the same mistake again with NFTs. You’re conflating the technology with a use-case of the technology. An NFT is just a unique piece of data attached to an ethereum account. An NFT doesn’t even have a value. You can create as many as you want and for whatever purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The testimony underscores the prosecutors’ challenge in disproving a self-defense claim. In medium font just below the headline.
This is weird to me, 'challenge to disprove self defense' - since the accused was retreating towards law enforcement, and in general you have a duty to retreat if possible, I don't quite get the leap necessary that the pistol wielder was scared for their life. I can, however, believe that post-incident introspection would color the encounter this way, to the person with the pistol. If there's an active shooter the ge…
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/16/rittenhous...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is in a perfect market, but Google holds the monopoly and the game is set against competition.
A monopoly for information retrieval? Surely not. For online ads? Sure you can make that case. Their business in the end is based on delivering relevant content. If there is a market for the traffic Google refuses to host, then there are probably market opportunities there.
1. When you buy an Android phone there's a good chance that YouTube app is preinstalled.
2. If you search the net for "how to do XYZ" or for any song you'll get 99% video results from YouTube.
3. Almost every company/celebrity/influencer/... has a YouTube account and until recently (TikTok, Odysee, BitChute,...) alternative platforms (Vimeo, Dailymotion,...) were mostly a niche market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Misinformation is not impersonation. That is very different, understand? Anyways misinformation is rarely intentional, it is purely bias. Those people usually believe something is true and they are just wrong and there is hardly any harm in that. The thing is companies make themselves arbiters of truth and are wrong often as well, and by silencing debate they cause much more damage when they are wrong than random idi…
Pathetic response. Misdirection, bending half the points made, ignoring the rest. Go away, stop trying to argue antivax stance is as valid as Galileo’s literal science, the data is clear
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we get over the notion that foreign state interference is not a thing in our media? There, you have your culprit; outside of other national interests whom social unrest and division benefits. They play both sides, same as the admen. Suddenly, what is happening and why is crystal clear.
Foreign state interference is the story the media has decided to go with. It shields corporate powers and provides a scapegoat. Having an external entity seen as causing this threat plays into our fears. The truth is corporate interests have over taken and reshaped the news and media properties they vertically own. Does it worry you that your news promotes a culture filtered through corporate interests? Do you rememb…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we get over the notion that foreign state interference is not a thing in our media? There, you have your culprit; outside of other national interests whom social unrest and division benefits. They play both sides, same as the admen. Suddenly, what is happening and why is crystal clear.
Always resorting to blaming a foreign boogeyman is dangerous thinking. Sometimes you need to accept that there are bad actors within your own country. For a lot of news programs, the credits are publicly visible and verifiably citizens. The people talking are citizens of your own country. They could care about their country instead of money. They just don’t.