131–137 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"has literally hauled off 1M muslims to internment campus where their organs are being harvested and their culture is being erased, thing" Citation needed on the '1M', 'organs...harvested', 'culture...erased'.
Wikipedia references estimates of 1.5 million & 1-3 million. [0] "Uighurs are allegedly pressured to renounce their culture" [1] More references is the Wikipedia article as well. "China forcefully harvests organs from detainees" [2] Same article discusses the 1.5 million figure. All of these are from basic Google searches. The information is out there if you look. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-educati…
https://qz.com/1599393/how-researchers-estimate-1-million-uy...
https://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/features/where-d...
https://www.nchrd.org/2018/08/china-massive-numbers-of-uyghu...
Note the sources: Radio Free Asia (CIA propaganda group), Adrian Zenz (religious nutjob), etc.
Note the method: Estimates by satellite imagery and interviewing a handful of residents.
All of these reports that are used as evidence of cultural genocide are hearsay. Uyghurs are taught to renounce extremist beliefs not their culture as a whole.
Here is the actual report from the 'tribunal':
https://chinatribunal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ChinaTr...
Note that their 'direct evidence' are also just hearsay. I see no concrete proof of organ harvesting from Uyghurs. Maybe you can find it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"has literally hauled off 1M muslims to internment campus where their organs are being harvested and their culture is being erased, thing" Citation needed on the '1M', 'organs...harvested', 'culture...erased'.
First Page Of Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First Page Of Google.
I don't believe everything I see on the first page of Google, and you shouldn't either.
What are your criteria for something you wouldn’t just dismiss?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple doesn’t have access to the keys used to encrypt FaceTime calls. They are in fact end to end. Zoom is not. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209110
That's just a bald statement by the entity that would have to be deceitful. It doesn't even specify how the key exchange is done.
Apple’s statement is stronger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple doesn’t have access to the keys used to encrypt FaceTime calls. They are in fact end to end. Zoom is not. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209110
Yes, Apple literally doesn't have access to the keys if they do nothing . If they do something , they have very easy access to the keys.
However in practice, making public statements like this and breaking them would have enormous reputational costs.
Apple has put up a bigger stake on the truth of their encryption story than anyone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe everything I see on the first page of Google, and you shouldn't either.
You have been given the citations you asked for, but now you want something specific but you haven’t said what. What are your criteria for something you wouldn’t just dismiss?
I disagree. I see a lot of speculation not actual proof.
>you want something specific but you haven’t said what. What are your criteria for something you wouldn’t just dismiss?
How about proof to back up these claims? It's amazing how some people can be so invested in a story that they'll throw basic logical reasoning out the window.