ksk

>It depends on the person and the situation. Wouldn't you agree?

Exactly. However people seem reluctant to grant this to Trump supporters. They seem to be always lumped together as evil racists.

The pfizer vaccine also elicits T Cell response/cell mediated immunity. I'm guessing there are a few more studies in the pipeline..

>When the root causes are massive delusion, indulging in ridiculous conspiracy theories, general resentment that other people want to be treated fairly, cult-of-personality-like worship of a dictator, etc. Then unfortunately the root-cause is ignorance and the problem is unfixable.

And how do you know all this? You're pretty quick at finding root causes.

I will take that link at face value, so Trump is just as bad as Obama? Great, they're both loathsome in my book. Count me in. :)

>He was banned for inciting violence using Twitter's platform.

He supposedly incited people with his rally speech. Besides, I don't think the mob was checking Trumps twitter feed for instructions. The violence seemed premeditated to me.

>I'll prognosticate that the close compatriots of the violent insurrectionists who are currently enjoying three hots and a cot courtesy of the US Government will almost certainly engage in more violent acts. Probably fairly soon.

I hear most people on the left support reforming criminals, and finding underlying root-causes. Do you?

100% agree, these social media companies with their fake empathy and double standards are not fooling anyone.

So Obama, Biden, Bush, et. al. should be banned too for all the completely unnecessary wars/drone strikes that killed civilians?? Or is killing civilians sometimes accepted?

This move is entirely political, Twitter should just man up and accept it, instead of insulting our intelligence.

Of course there was obstruction from Trump - he has the personality of a mob boss. That doesn't shock me. I'm talking about owning up to the fact that he legitimately won a fair election in 2016.

>That Russia helped Trump is generally agreed upon.

It is only agreed upon when you don't talk to people outside of your own echo chamber. In 2016, people were just shocked that so many people could vote for a loathsome person like Trump. Dems were unhappy and looked for someone to blame, except themselves for running such a weak candidate. 2020 was just as fair an election, and Trump got even more votes than 2016.

>Sure, there are subreddits that commonly exaggerated the truth about the Russia thing. Should they should get banned, since r/donaldtrump got banned for supporting violence?

What is the standard? Misinformation is OK? Anyway, I don't think an argument here will change anyone's views. People will eventually realize that the Dems have been conning their supporters for quite a while now.

>wanting to try to tackle a problem where millions of people of this country can’t be trusted to personally vet what they read/watch online?

Yeah, I don't trust them to do anything remotely competent here. They've happily accepted ad spend from Trump, as-if the past four years were any different. Google is the problem, not the solution. They're an advertising and surveillance company - the last company to be trusted on "vetting" anything. They're entire business model is to get people to click on ads and open their wallet based on "marketing" - which itself is a form of manipulation. For me, Google is at a negative trust level.

Which subreddit got banned for promoting the nonsense Steele dossier, and other ridiculous Trump conspiracies like the pee tape?

> I’m sure a lot of these employees are trying to do _something_ to try to remove whatever it is that is causing these people to lose all sense of reality.

I guess they were asleep for the past four years. Gotta impress the new boss and get those sweet government contract dollas!

Its the usual political BS that comes out of there. We don't need this "political insight" from a surveillance/advertising company that makes money by tricking you into clicking on an ad or convincing you to buy some trinket that some other random company made. Maybe one day, instead of forming these unions they would just quit and stop enabling Google.

No, what I'm saying is not up for debate is the fact that control gets shared when you take someone else's money. Its a known framework in which everyone operates.

Your "shareholders are known for" is simply a BS talking point. Every person who has a 401K is probably a shareholder somewhere. All those hundreds of millions of people value long term stability too. Nintendo is not a penny stock.