371–380 of 834 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Apparently the 150 year old Social Security recipients were due to a COBOL quirk where the zero datetime is 1875. Interesting, but not fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > Even free speech has its limits > It doesnt though, thats the point. In theory. But in practive even the most staunch pro-free speech jurisdictions have limits on them. A lot for good reasons that most people would agree with (threats and fraud, stuff like that), but also some that would be absurd in other jurisdictions (obscenities for example, which is usually very locality specific). There's a Wikipedia page w…
Your logic here is circular. You're arguing definitions, it doesn't make sense to point to examples of places that claim to have free speech and decide that free speech must have limits because those places said they have it and they have limits. You could just as easily look at those places and say they must not actually have free speech because they have legal limits on what you say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom of speech, at least in the US, is a concern specifically with the government censoring citizens' speech. The Twitter files are a recent example of the government partnering with private corps to censor, so that's a fair argument, but in general a private company can't violate free speech by deciding what kind of content they want allowed. Is it shitty that they censor? Absolutely. But is it a constitutional v…
> Freedom of speech, at least in the US, is a concern specifically with the government censoring citizens' speech. Well, no -- you're conflating "freedom of speech" as a general concept with the first amendment as a legal principle. The first amendment is specifically the mechanism of law we use to ensure that freedom of speech is respected in our interactions with the political state. The first amendment doesn't app…
Progressives: Elon doesn't care about freedom of speech because he doesn't allow (edge case)
Also progressives: Freedom of speech has its limits
Pick a lane.
* https://signal.miraheze.org/wiki/Signal.me_URLs
* https://signal.miraheze.org/wiki/Usernames#Username_links
Signal.me links are just a way to easily send either a phone number or user name to someone else. No cryptographic identity. No protection of the phone number or user name. So to get around the ban a Signal user could simply send their phone number or user name over Twitter/X.
It seems that the encrypted username form does provide some identity protection in that it can be cancelled, but for as long as it is active it appears that someone can just ask the Signal server what the associated user name is.
The people involved probably should not be using Twitter/X for this sort of thing in the first place. Mastodon comes to mind as an alternative, but really, anything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So do you feel that people who disagree with what you think is right should be silenced and not allowed to express themselves?
I hate how the word "disagree" is used to strip all nuance out of political conversation. If I said it was my political opinion that the gestapo should show up to your door, and drag you, your wife, and children to a death camp - we don't just have a "disagreement." Would you tolerate a discussion around somebody who said they personally wanted to do something like that to you? There's a line somewhere around politic…
Yes we do, we disagree on that statement.
> Would you tolerate a discussion around somebody who said they personally wanted to do something like that to you?
Yes of course, why wouldnt I? Trying to understand that opinion and maybe bring us closer to agreeing on the underlying issues would be my first aim, not just to cry foul on free speech and expect them to be locked up just for saying something I dont like. That is barbaric.
You can say anything you want, acting on it is what turns that into illegal activity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Everything political gets downvoted, from either side, but you're going to need better evidence than Musk and rumors for this fraud. (There probably is some fraud! There is in any large money handling system! Japan had a problem with elderly people claiming pensions after they'd died, for example. It's just that you need a better standard of evidence before cutting off money that people are legally entitled to, becau…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that isn't quite right. The original idiom came out of an earlier supreme court ruling that was partially overturned by later rulings on the matter: > Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout "fire" in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting "fire" when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is…
Even with the partial overturn, it is perfectly clear there are limits to freedom of expression. The poster before you clearly mistakes "a high bar" to "no bar at all".
There are obviously some restrictions on speech in every nation. However in the US the restrictions on speech by the state are far fewer than pretty much anywhere else and are enshrined by law. This is in stark contrast to other other Western nations such as the UK where there are far, far more restrictions on speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even free speech has its limits It doesnt though, thats the point. Its the same as competition in a capitalist marketplace. A company can sell terrible products and what should happen is people see they are terrible products and vote with their wallet to stop buying. Then the company goes out of business. With free speech if somebody is saying something that other people think is terrible, they should stop listenin…
> > Even free speech has its limits > It doesnt though, thats the point. In theory. But in practive even the most staunch pro-free speech jurisdictions have limits on them. A lot for good reasons that most people would agree with (threats and fraud, stuff like that), but also some that would be absurd in other jurisdictions (obscenities for example, which is usually very locality specific). There's a Wikipedia page w…
So one can still be a free speech absolutist with respect to speech in itself, while still holding people responsible for unlawful activity that the speech is helping to facilitate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... In what way is he not? He is de facto if not de jure more or less in charge of the US government.
If that was the case, that would definitely mean he is not a state actor, which is defined as «An entity that is a part of, or which operates licitly or semi-licitly on behalf or in service of, a government agency.». The only way you can claim he is a state actor if you think he acts, in his management of X, on behalf of the US state, a claim which would be entirely laughable even to partisans.
Hard to see how he doesn't fit this criteria? That DOGE thing is clearly a US government agency of some sort.
> The only way you can claim he is a state actor if you think he acts, in his management of X, on behalf of the US state, a claim which would be entirely laughable even to partisans.
If you take the Louis XIV "I am the state" approach, then, well, he has, right? He promoted Trump on the platform during the election, then walked into a job with the state.