xnull2guest

This is my understanding as well. But we're going to need to come back later with some input from case law.

Wasn't that a British film?

I'm talking about American law where American law applies.

Accusing someone of being a shill is against the guidelines of the community, and it distracts from intelligible conversation.

I would appreciate if you deleted your comment and engaged in respectable commenting.

> Full stop, no it isn't.

It was my understanding that 18 U.S. Code § 871 included depictions enticing or encouraging such acts. I will look this up and come back with more information at a later time.

And to be clear here I mean a depiction of an actual US president. Not a fictitious president.

> Full stop, no it doesn't. Where the heck are you getting such misinformation? It is not just wrong, it is bordering on libel.

The mainstream news media is where I am getting this information. I remember it being reported on during the Pearl Harbor film some years ago (Bush Administration). Though I see it all the time: the SONY Leaks disclosed how the State Department and CIA helped to influence "The Interview" so that it would both depict the assassination of their president and to encourage civil unrest.

I take the libel statement seriously. I will pass it by my attorney. Difficult to discuss here, as neither of us are lawyers.

> There is an audience for those films.

Not a point.

I was actually asked to leave. My comments and opinions have been deleted, hidden, shadowbanned and obscured elsewhere.

Indeed, it's hard to find a place on American social media where dissenting opinions can be argued. There's either an administrative agreement to shut the ideas down, or places (such as HN) don't like the idea of having opinions on their site for whatever reason (harmful to the community) so they shut it down.

I'm certainly not getting thrown in jail. But you won't hear any dissenting opinions.

Thank you dang. This will happen.

More and more, social media platforms have been telling me - or using their algorithms to tell me - that my opinions, as educated and well argued as they are, are not welcome on their sites.

I did not expect to see this from Hacker News. Indeed, after the experiment banning political conversation, I had thought that the opposite decision had been made.

And finally, to be clear, I use HN for far more than political chatter. I read the technical content, and use it as a general news feed (one of my many). I comment where I am inspired to. I did not realize how often that ends up being of a political nature. I care deeply about individual freedoms and the technology that enables and disables these.

Can we find a mechanism whereby my nationality is confirmed? I would like to do this for the sake of my own vindication, as well as clarity to those who were/are suspicious.

Please report this to the moderators (I looked but don't know how), as I would like to be vindicated.

There's a downvote brigade on my posts right now and anything I want to contribute gets detailed into accusations of my being some kind of agent.

Great. Let's call a moderator in here.

Is there a term I should be using instead when I'm talking about international media coming from Western countries? I use the term Russian media and Chinese media, though I don't talk about them as much (I don't read them as often, though I try).

Thank you, it's interesting to hear what my account history looks like.

Please also check xnull, xnull3guest, xnull4guest, etc.

I have another account jwtadvice.

These are all on different computers. I was lazy and created different credentials for all of them.

If you have questions, whatever, let me know.

I understand why people are afraid that other commentators may be intelligence agents. I too suffer from this thought. The truth of the matter is that governments around the world participate in social media propaganda (US, Russia, and China included, don't kid yourself).

Regarding "pro-China" accusations. I'm pro-American. I love American values. And that's why I will criticize America when it does not live up to them.

I am one person. I am an advocate for decentralized systems, including in Russia and in China.

I've given advice to people on HN in these various accounts about where I get information. If you feel that I am well educated, I recommend finding one of those comments and looking into those sources. They include all open source information channels - and many of them are US official outlets (such as State Department press briefings).

Anyway...

> with the support of the Libyan government

Libya is a failed state. There is no recognized, coherent government of Libya.

> It's an air campaign against an ISIS stronghold, and it's pretty black and white in that most people agree that it should be done.

I don't think this is the case. But if it were, it would be an argument ad populum - a logical fallacy.

> So yes, America can be horrible. But America can also be the world's largest source of good, especially when other governments can't step up to the plate.

I think this is exactly right. It depends on how America chooses to use its power.

Today, it looks a lot like containment, of aggravating and funding extremist elements, of playing proxy war, of pursuing its interests behind a cloak of public relations.

The American incentive at this point of world history is to prevent, at all costs, other countries from becoming influential enough to challenge American decision making.

That's not just on the battlefield. America has been trying to block countries from lending money, from industrializing, and even from building independent news media industries. It has refused to join international institutions of law, such as the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Criminal Court, it has an overt first strike nuclear policy - the only of its kind in the world.

The United States faces a choice:

A.) allow other nations to grow, in a completely peaceful and benign manner, wealthy and strong enough risking that it will no longer a hegemon capable of making unilateral global decision making.

OR

B.) disrupt the growth of regions of the world, delaying the growth of competitor states, guaranteeing America maintains its 'critical leadership role' in the world.

Judging by actions rather than words, America chooses, and will continue to choose B. America is the country with the incentive to start wars.

The world should be multi-polar, and where it there is need for violence to rectify or prevent violence, it should be under international leadership with international decision making.