781–790 of 834 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it wise to credulousy believe everything your government tells you without source data?
The breakdown is readily available and even the Guardian read about the issue 10 years ago
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There obviously are problems with freedom of speech in Europe. Everyone knows it.
Tell me more. I live here and have never encountered a situation where I was not allowed to express my opinions in a systematic way. So I don't know but would be delighted to
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might simply mean your opinions fall in the narrow band of views that are permitted to be expressed. It proves nothing about freedom of speech in general. Even in North Korea, people are allowed to freely express their love for their Dear Leader. Those who express a different view are swiftly disposed of. If you love Dear Leader you could live your entire life believing that you and everyone else has free speech,…
AfD is a Nazi party, and nobody's silencing them, despite overwhelming opposition in all EU countries. If you listen to EU parliament speeches, there's all kinds of radical political views being shared during debates. Vance came to Europe to peddle US culture wars and got laughed out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This aspect of America has always struck me as the most bizarre: the most vicious enemies of the American state are Americans.
This is hardly bizzare but how governments everywhere work. People in power are not benevolent out of the goodness of their hearts but because the people from whom they derive their power - the population in a democratic state - continuously fight against overreach of their powers. And it's not like this is a one-sided conflicts. Governments are actively working to suppress their citizens from standing up to them - b…
"Defund the Federal government" is right-coded; "defund the police" is left-coded. No analysis connects the two.
> retain the state's monopoly on violence
Places like Italy know that when the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence, it gets messy ("years of lead").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile thousands of users are receiving links to malware and phishing attacks while human raters are twiddling their thumbs. The parent is correct, these systems should be automated. Automated systems can respond faster and more accurately than humans. Humans should only be involved to improve the system and correct any mistakes it makes after the fact.
Social media platforms shouldn't play internet police in the first place. We need to preserve our ability to communicate via impartial carries. I don't want the mailman to decide what letters I can send. I do not want the telephone company to decide what calls I can make. I don't want online replacements of them to make any such decisions either. The problem isn't links to scam sites posted on X/whatever, the problem…
In XY problems the problem solver has the ability to solve the root problem instead of the presented one.
However, X has zero ability to go into the jungles of Myanmar and fight off the armed militias which are paid to protect the compounds of literally thousands of scammers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Inspectors General and their OIG employees are the federal employees with the mandate to identify waste, fraud, and abuse in every federal program regardless of size. There are more than 1 million 150-159 year old Americans that receive social security and America is funding trans comic books for children in Peru. Do you think the OIG was doing a good job?
I'm gonna break this down into pieces that are easier for you to swallow. >There are more than 1 million 150-159 year old Americans that receive social security... Your powers of reasoning are taking a siesta if you believe this. It begs the question of how many people not only in America, but globally, are in the age group 150-159 years old? You claim that there are more than one million in the US alone. I have work…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There obviously was a misconception as evidenced in the link I provided. But believe what you wish.
What is it that you think (a) your link explains, that (b) people do not already understand as part of the saying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is required to help me spread my speech. The only protection is against governments censoring what their citizens say. Don't sell me paper. Cut off my internet. That doesn't stop me from saying whatever I want, whether in public or private.
How you don't understand that the point of free speech is the ability to be heard by others, and if you're shadow-banned you're effectively just writing a private diary? I mean, ok you have this right. What do you think was the INTENTION of this right? Do you think they intended for people to freely mumble to themselves or to tell their ideas to others?
Freedom of Speech goes hand in hand with Freedom of Association. You are free to speak and spread your ideas, you are not free to compel others to help you to do so and you are not entitled to an audience.
I don’t have to let you stand on my porch to speak anymore than Instagram has to allow you to post things or Costco has to allow you to hold lectures in the food court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AfD is a Nazi party, and nobody's silencing them, despite overwhelming opposition in all EU countries. If you listen to EU parliament speeches, there's all kinds of radical political views being shared during debates. Vance came to Europe to peddle US culture wars and got laughed out.
The established political parties in Germany are in fact trying to silence the AfD - precisely because they are gaining support amongs the population that is no longer represented by the established parties.