Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump's Truth Social feed? The Vice President spreading racist lies about Hatians eating neighbor's pets on national television?
[flagged]
[deleted]
US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere
781–790 of 1001 posts
Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere
#782Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere
#783Earlier quoted context omitted.
(1) Calling a politician a dick is vandalism? That's nonsense. (2) The corresponding prosecutor made clear that his house was raided for calling the politician stupid and NOT for anything else. You would have known that if you would have read the document I linked to. To quote it: Wegen des Tatverdachts einer gegen Personen des politischen Lebens gerichteten Beleidigung gem. §§ 185, 188, 194 StGB erfolgte am vergange…
First article, second paragraph states that the search was ruled illegal. The one who got in trouble was ultimately the dick, not the one who called him that....
Getting your house raided is trouble/punishment... So no the one that called him a dick also got into trouble.. and obviously such events discourage people from expressing their opinions.
Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere
#784Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > And lies. > And truth. In short, propaganda. Propaganda (noun) : Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented…
This definition is so broad it basically encompasses all communication.
All communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, yes.
There's also debate and ego-less teaching for the sake of truth-seeking.
Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere
#785Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a clear way to project soft power: make sure your message and culture can get through.
Yet the US president unilaterally shut down Voice of America because he didn't like its message Freedom of speech for me, not for thee
> US president unilaterally
The whole truth here would be that technically he did not do it unilaterally but as a representative of his voters, so basically almost as far from unilaterally as possible.
Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere
#786Earlier quoted context omitted.
You want concrete proof? Vasquez Perdomo v Noem is your proof. The Supreme Court effectively legitimised racial profiling.
> You want concrete proof? Yes. > Vasquez Perdomo v Noem is your proof. This court case has nothing to do with the claim made that US government explicitly stated that they want to promote racists and fringe-right ideology among our allies.
I don’t know about the rest of Europe but your administration has repeatedly been promoting the AFD in Germany - most prominently your vice president.
The AFD is recognised as a far right party by the German state and is being investigated for anti-democratic activities and goals.
Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere
#787Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> And no, saying things like “read his tweets/NYT/whatever yourself” is not evidence. Given he's the president, if Trump's own tweets don't count, what possibly could?
Just keep moving the goalposts on what evidence actually would be and you can never lose an argument, it’s genius
Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere
#788Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump's Truth Social feed? The Vice President spreading racist lies about Hatians eating neighbor's pets on national television?
[flagged]
> And no, saying things like “read his tweets/NYT/whatever yourself” is not evidence
It actually is evidence. Just not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect you're not going to get the better responses that might actually convince you. 1) because you're clearly being argumentative (nothing wrong with that) but primarily 2) because the people smart enough to read through the bullshit and construct an argument with real evidence and citations, are already smart enough to know you're not actually interested in the reasonably convincing argument they might produce.
You're demanding, repeatedly, for concrete evidence. You're not going to get whatever impossible standard you're asking for. Which does seem to be your intent. You don't appear to want to understand because you refuse to engage with anything other than perfect undeniable proof. That's actually an absurd way to behave.
Imagine you're talking to your friend, they think their spouse is cheating on them. Their spouse used to joke about that kinda thing, they're constantly leaving for business trips that they seem to be searching for, they never used to lock their phone but now it's constantly locked, or hidden away when they walk into the room. Oh and you then find out that they've cheated on their previous spouse before their first divorce.
Are they cheating again?
Here I'm sure you'd demand video proof of them having sex with someone other than their spouse, ideally with a newspaper in the frame so you know it's not from before, right?
That's not what a reasonable person would demand. You've right to demand a higher standard when you're going to convict someone in a legal proceeding. It's inane to place that standard on every single observation or conclusion. If one idea is a better predictor of future actions and outcomes. It's reasonable to use that until you get better evidence. Burying your head in the sand and pretending [thing you don't like] isn't true because no one has concrete evidence of them admitting guilt... is the dumbest thing I've read today. It's still early but I'm hoping you still win, because holy shit dude!
Re: US plans online portal to bypass content bans in Europe and elsewhere
#789I just chaired a session at the FOCI conference earlier today, where people were talking about Internet censorship circumvention technologies and how to prevent governments from blocking them. I'd like to remind everyone that the U.S. government has been one the largest funders of that research for decades. Some of it is under USAGM (formerly BBG, the parent of RFE/RL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agen…
It’s a clear way to project soft power: make sure your message and culture can get through.
So far the current admin has been very successful in obliterating all the soft power the US built up through the decades.