trs8080
Joined 5 years ago
Karma
426
Submissions
207
Member since
Mar 6
Recent submissions
Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
I'm siding with not banning journalists on an absolute free speech platform.
> Orwellian
Ok bud.
Comment · 3 years ago
Ah yes, another attempt to pretend that the single Supreme Court justice nominated by the former (D) president was blocked for anything other than partisan political reasons and that Trump didn't add the most number of SC justices since Reagan, all of whom were put forward by the totally-not-partisan Federalist Society and one of whom actually cried about how much he loves beer while testifying during a job interview, which is definitely normal and the type of behavior we expect from a judge in the highest court.
Totally not court packing. Just business as usual.
Comment · 3 years ago
Just because you can't be bothered to do even the most basic Google search doesn't make you right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pulitzer_Prizes_awarde...
Comment · 3 years ago
Except you're attempting to legitimize the decision by calling journalists "clowns," as if you're the gatekeeper of "real" journalism.
People making these sorts of excuses are usually the ones who are most vocal about the importance of free speech. Ironic, isn't it?
Comment · 3 years ago
"It doesn't matter that Elon Musk is silencing his critics on his absolute-free-speech platform, these aren't /real/ journalists."
Please. I didn't realize all of Musk's fans had gone to j-school and are the arbiters of "journalism's higher standard."
Comment · 3 years ago
You realize that those of us who aren't Musk fans also dislike other billionaires, right? This is a class issue, not a personal one.
Comment · 3 years ago
Yes, because pocketing money directly from fundraising activities for a 501c3 is illegal, regardless of if you pay capital gains on it.
Comment · 3 years ago
Turns out the FAA has been stalking people for decades. Can we also add "getting arrested is kidnapping actually" to this list of arbitrary interpretations?
Comment · 3 years ago
> They are the ones that don't want free speech
Content moderation and free speech are not mutually exclusive. Absolute free speech is not the only kind of free speech, nor is the definition of "free speech" the same globally.
> So here is a policy that everyone agrees with and increases safety on the platform. And they are not happy. It's such a funny situation.
Not upset, just confused that a free speech absolutist is banning people for exercising the version of free speech that he claims to be protecting.
Comment · 3 years ago
If "we" is you, go ahead! You're free to judge whomever you want.
This is a fairly simple issue - a community of people who are pro-privacy and anti-surveillance have concerns about a former surveillance officer working for an organization which creates small, portable, popular computing devices.
If you haven't heard about law enforcement abuses of surveillance, here are some helpful links:
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/fbi-nsa-mass-surveillanc...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/07/police-are-still-abusi...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-12-27/when-poli...
From the article:
"People often use "court packing" to describe changes to the size of the Supreme Court, but it's better understood as any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. A political party that's engaged in court packing will usually violate norms that govern who is appointed (e.g., only appoint jurists who respect precedent) and how the appointment process works (e.g., no appointments during a presidential election).
"Seen from this perspective, the Barrett appointment is classic court packing. The president nominated a hardline conservative who appears to question major parts of U.S. constitutional law. And the Senate majority changed its procedural rules – invented to deny Merrick Garland a hearing – to ram through the nomination as people were voting."
You siding with the partisan politics of members of a supposedly-neutral court who were put there to make the court partisan, doesn't make it normal.