This smacks of the "exclusivity of our times" — a common misconception, that the very peak of history is somehow unprecedented. The ancients had it too... "Things aren't, how they used to be — and they never were."
To your point, even if everything shuts you up online, you'll still have the same options you had 30 years ago. And back then too, buying an ad in a newspaper was subject to the paper's policies and so on.
A private company is (and ought to remain) entitled to doing, what they fooking please — competition among them being a better guardian against abuses, than any kind of government regulator.
But:
The rest of us should be pointing out a company's hypocrisy to its management, PR flacks, and fanboys;
We ought to use this as a cautionary example, of why "hate speech" must never become illegal;
Wait, twitter can control my citizenship status now and right to free speech?
This is not about citizenship. Yes, Twitter can take away your speech on Twitter. Maybe, it is not a big deal — if Twitter bans you, but Reddit still remains a free speech zone.
But people tend to dislike being told, where they can not protest, so I pointed it out to the OP, that he is barking up the wrong tree, as it were. However offensive he is, Trump is not going to come after him — not until he knives a bunch of people or some such.
On contrast, Twitter will shut him up — if he offends a religion more equal than other religions, or an ethnic group more equal than other ethnic groups, and so on — and will not even explain, why exactly.
I want to live in a country great enough that its citizens can freely show disrespect [...]
Ok...
So are Trumpers going to finally bring an end to America's greatness?
Dude, you are confused. It is neither Trump nor "trumpers", who threaten your right to freely show disrespect. It is Twitter!
It is Twitter, who'll shut you up, should you, in their opinion, engage in "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits."
Unless, of course, the "race" is White, "religion" — Christianity (or, better yet, Scientology), and "sexual orientation" — "straight male"...
First of all, thank you for following me closely and paying attention.
As to your question, some points do bear repeating, yes. I don't think, you should be doing a lot of talking — you've been telling us, we are "racists" repeatedly for 8 years...
changes would jeopardize the privacy rights of innocent Americans and risk possible abuse by the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump
Well this explains why you have a problem with the word "racism".
Trump and Obama are of different races. Internet Archive is treating the two men differently, ergo racism.
That has little to do with surveillance.
For the slow children in the audience, allow me to repeat the already-quoted excerpt from the official statement of the Internet Archive. With emphasis this time — to aid the underdeveloped pattern-recognition faculties of certain readers:
"It means serving patrons in a world in which government surveillance is not going away; indeed it looks like it will increase."
They gave Obama a pass, but are exceedingly harsh on Trump. As we know, this can only be explained by racism... So, fook them — they aren't getting a penny from me until they publicly renounce this wasteful effort.
Workplace suicides are on the rise — why is one at Amazon considered particularly newsworthy? Are not Bloomberg and Slashdot encouraging some poor slob to do it, by promising them a bit of post-mortem glory, however fleeting?
He's not a demon at all. Actually enjoyed him as an entertainer.
Glad to see, you are now walking back your earlier accusation of "racism" against him.
The man is just dangerously unstable and mentally unfit to be president.
So, he is no longer a "racist", but "unstable and mentally unfit". I suppose, you have just as much evidence for this diagnosis — which is to say, none.
Of course, now that I called you on it, you are going to try to weasel out claiming, he is both — "unfit" and "racist" — so, no. That's not going to fly...
He-he... I seem to recall your kind being rather outraged, when Trump refused, during the debates, to promise, he'll accept the voting results. Your candidate, of course, did make such a promise. And now, you and she both seek to renege on it... Crybabies indeed.
After eight years of it being racist, mocking the President as well as other dissent is patriotic once again. That alone made voting for Trump worth it...
Instead, they managed to completely pause their development, putting the blastocysts (very early embryos) in suspended animation for a month.
Depending on availability of water and food, mama roo (and mama wallaby) can suspend her regular four-week pregnancy by up to two years (see embyonic diapause — it is not unique to marsupials).
This suggests two things:
the mechanisms used by the animals in nature, may also be applicable to us;
the suspension, however achieved, may not be infinite — there could be a point, after which the embryo, may not, in fact, resume normal development.
Slashdot Mirror
This smacks of the "exclusivity of our times" — a common misconception, that the very peak of history is somehow unprecedented. The ancients had it too... "Things aren't, how they used to be — and they never were."
To your point, even if everything shuts you up online, you'll still have the same options you had 30 years ago. And back then too, buying an ad in a newspaper was subject to the paper's policies and so on.
A private company is (and ought to remain) entitled to doing, what they fooking please — competition among them being a better guardian against abuses, than any kind of government regulator.
But:
This is not about citizenship. Yes, Twitter can take away your speech on Twitter. Maybe, it is not a big deal — if Twitter bans you, but Reddit still remains a free speech zone.
But people tend to dislike being told, where they can not protest, so I pointed it out to the OP, that he is barking up the wrong tree, as it were. However offensive he is, Trump is not going to come after him — not until he knives a bunch of people or some such.
On contrast, Twitter will shut him up — if he offends a religion more equal than other religions, or an ethnic group more equal than other ethnic groups, and so on — and will not even explain, why exactly.
Violent attacks on border patrol agents up 200% from last year.
Ok...
Dude, you are confused. It is neither Trump nor "trumpers", who threaten your right to freely show disrespect. It is Twitter!
It is Twitter, who'll shut you up, should you, in their opinion, engage in "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits."
Unless, of course, the "race" is White, "religion" — Christianity (or, better yet, Scientology), and "sexual orientation" — "straight male"...
Thank you for confirming, the controversy has nothing to do with Trump. Just as I was saying.
First of all, thank you for following me closely and paying attention.
As to your question, some points do bear repeating, yes. I don't think, you should be doing a lot of talking — you've been telling us, we are "racists" repeatedly for 8 years...
You, guys, wanted the President to be a dictator as far back as 2010! So he could "do a lot of things quickly".
The law being discussed will be signed by Obama. Whom you elected.
The law will be signed by President Barack Obama — who vastly expanded government's surveillance over his 8 years. So stop blaming Trump for it, uhm'k?
It sure is nice to see authority mocked again — after eight years of any such mocking being racist.
And we just escaped it becoming sexist for another eight years...
Trump and Obama are of different races. Internet Archive is treating the two men differently, ergo racism.
For the slow children in the audience, allow me to repeat the already-quoted excerpt from the official statement of the Internet Archive. With emphasis this time — to aid the underdeveloped pattern-recognition faculties of certain readers:
Although surveillance expanded dramatically under Obama, these guys didn't object.
They gave Obama a pass, but are exceedingly harsh on Trump. As we know, this can only be explained by racism... So, fook them — they aren't getting a penny from me until they publicly renounce this wasteful effort.
Dude, if you are that sore still, you should've taken advantage of some yuuuge discounts on vaseline yesterday...
He didn't promise to, so he is consistent.
Your candidate did make the promise — and is walking it back now.
And we will have one — in November 2020.
So, Cyber Monday got the popular vote.
Did the Black Friday win by some other metrics — securing the whatever College?
In any case, I demand a recount — please, help me finance it by making a donation.
Workplace suicides are on the rise — why is one at Amazon considered particularly newsworthy? Are not Bloomberg and Slashdot encouraging some poor slob to do it, by promising them a bit of post-mortem glory, however fleeting?
Glad to see, you are now walking back your earlier accusation of "racism" against him.
So, he is no longer a "racist", but "unstable and mentally unfit". I suppose, you have just as much evidence for this diagnosis — which is to say, none.
Of course, now that I called you on it, you are going to try to weasel out claiming, he is both — "unfit" and "racist" — so, no. That's not going to fly...
Sic transit gloria mundi...
That's the woman, you would've been happy to see win Presidential elections less than 3 weeks ago.
More unsubstantiated nonsense. Sigh... Haters gonna hate.
No, it was not. Not unless you share the misconception, that any questioning of a Black President is racist — the notion I ridicule at the top of this sub-thread. And, of course, Trump didn't invent it. Clinton's campaign, apparently, didn't either, but they did carry the torch before Trump picked it up.
That was his father's... If you looked carefully at Hillary's father, you'd find her being drastically different from him.
And whereas you need to go all the way back to when Confederate flag was cool and God hated fags to smear Trump, Hillary's campaign proved themselves racist in 2016.
He-he... I seem to recall your kind being rather outraged, when Trump refused, during the debates, to promise, he'll accept the voting results. Your candidate, of course, did make such a promise. And now, you and she both seek to renege on it... Crybabies indeed.
And now I'll ask for evidence of Donald Trump's racism, and you'll say "David Duke!!!"
Go on, make my day...
Except, he thinks, he would've won even more — which is not, what you believe at all.
Sorry, there are no Constitutional provisions for that.
He did warn you. And you called him a "Pants on Fire" liar for it. Suck it up, cupcakes...
After eight years of it being racist, mocking the President as well as other dissent is patriotic once again. That alone made voting for Trump worth it...
And to think, it almost became sexist instead!..
Depending on availability of water and food, mama roo (and mama wallaby) can suspend her regular four-week pregnancy by up to two years (see embyonic diapause — it is not unique to marsupials).
This suggests two things:
No, this "raises the questions" of competing with the established locals and the proverbial "City Hall".
And, yes, there is not a shadow of doubt in my mind, it involved bribes — expected and/or outright demanded, but not given.
There are some decent countries in Africa — such as, perhaps, Botswana — but their schools are already Ok...