People will switch when they begin to have problems, tech literate excluded. People don't want nor will they know about features like this, they want just to use their browser without difficulty and without consideration of restrictive features.
It is difficult to say what it means. I'd go with the winning side. I am not familiar with the ACORN situation nor the outcome but if I could make my point and the public saw to shutting them down as a result I'd consider it a win even if I had to pay up.
This is obviously a clear contradiction to what Twitter employees said and said spontaneously.
This has some serious ramifications. This could easily be misused by Twitter and/or Twitter employees to create a portfolio that could be used to blackmail so many, many that had no idea and trusted their personal communications to Twitter. Obviously we have all been told to not put on the internet what we don't want in the public, however that is just us geeks talking to each other. As far as other people go they don't understand the consequences of failing to adhere to that.
This isn't the first series of videos that have shown Twitter's legally questionable behavior, such as the "shadow banning" videos that recently made it to the public forums. Obviously when we see a multitude of Twitter employees making these types of statements we have to lend them more credence than some official denial that obviously is a clear contradiction to what so many have said.
Microsoft has a history of cooperation with the feds. They implemented a centralized server away from p2p in order to at least give the feds access to monitor the Skype network. Signal is true end to end encryption. Efforts to merge the two will simply give the government access to the encrypted communication. Skype is a proprietary piece of software and thus cannot be audited. I've no idea whether Signal has been compromised but I'm leaning in that direction otherwise why else would they be working with a company known to violate their user's privacy and security.
He used nuclear deterrence. He pointed out the futility of attacking the US.
You sir are an extremist spreading emotional judgements of things you know nothing about. Listen to your own words. Really listen to them. That is suffering borderline insanity. You are actually claiming a sitting president will chose the option of preemptive nuclear war and you are trying to spread that view around.
You are listening to the media which is just a bunch of people like you speculating about matters they know little about and pushing that narrative to fulfill their agenda. It isn't news any more, fyi.
And please be reminded that those same media hacks claiming he made threats of nuclear war spun on a dime 2 days later turning to some salacious book written by someone that has a history of exaggerations, misquotes, out of context quotes, and deception, who admits that some of what's in his book is wrong. The Washington Post said it is mostly salacious lacking in substance.
We have used preemptive nuclear attacks in the past as a deterrence to future nuclear war and as a way of saving American (and their allies) lives. We know what a devastating impact it has. To state our capabilities to an insane dictator is not the same as threatening nuclear war. Stop watching The View. Joy Behar is not your friend.
You need to read the book by Sharyl Attkisson called "The Smear". After reading just the first chapter you'll understand who the real propagandist Goebberls is.
We need a president that does what he says and says what he does instead of a politician that says nothing we can believe and it turns out she's lied about everything she said with it all happening behind our backs -- as Obama did.
If this were true the mainstream media wouldn't express such sophomoric surprise at what he says or does. Instead they screech with surprise and make claims that would have resulted in them being condemned to an insane asylum only half a century ago.
Thats the freaking purpose of nuclear deterrence. Damn.
Are you someone that melts over this simple type of rhetoric? We don't live in a Sesame Street political world. Wars happen, and men go and fight giving up their lives while the elderly, children, and women generally suffer only the fallout if we fail.
If pointing out through rhetoric that the consequences of NK attacking the US or allies with nukes is bad, yet that's the worst of it, then you should be praising that rhetoric instead of furthering the left's nuclear option (ala Mr. Strzok and Mr. Wray).
And he's not the only president that has used the media as a venue for foreign policy. Every freaking president has, and many a Secretary of State including your beloved Hillary. And yes nuclear options have been expressed in that very same venue.
Please, no more Sesame Street level of political banter.
Such sophistry. We know this is sophistry when people fail to state the claim in full. We'd like to see the full facts regarding your accusation. You can't make claims and then when called out tell others to go look up your claims for the proof of them. In other words, explain yourself.
Otherwise it sounds like you are just trying to silence a man who is trying to point out censorship by Twitter. Facts and context are all that matter, not some entity's emotional tirade about what someone else said.
What person was convicted of hate crimes and what did they do to justify the conviction? What was the context of the retweet? I doubt you can answer those thoroughly and concisely given the sophistry vagueness of your claim and the sophistry in your words.
Aside from Trump having done nothing wrong, any attempt at censoring President Trump would be suicide. No one person drives enough revenue to keep Twitter alive but once it is seen by everyone else that uses Twitter that they too could be banned over the vagaries of other's opinions about what you said that's their end, in finality.
Twitter isn't currently profitable. They are afloat due to investment dollars. They would loose those investments in a heartbeat. There are also other competing platforms out there that would easily step up and take over.
With Twitter announcing censorship the library of Congress has announced they will no longer be archiving all tweets, not because it is a volatile platform, but because attempts at siding with one group over another creates an atmosphere that is no longer historically significant -- they want all twitts and not just the twitts on one side of the fence.
Bush yes, he's a war criminal. Obama yes, he killed innocent noncombatants when he could have avoided it. He killed Americans without due process without judicial oversight and did so more than once. He chose to kill over capture in countries that we are not even at war with.
But Trump? That's about as an extreme stretch as anyone could ever make.
You get a book written by someone, Wolff, who has a long history of publishing lies and has admitted that his book contains inaccuracies a book the Washington Post said is mostly fluff and accusation with little to no substance, with that book quoting Bannon talking about things mostly already heard in the public forums about Bannon commenting on Trump Jr's meeting (that Bannon heard about from the news media) with some Russian lawyer who was let into the US by the Obama administration (Loretta Lynch -- who called for armed insurrection against Trump) where this lawyer was also known to meet with Hillary's hired henchmen both before and after the meeting with Trump Jr., and you consider Bannons comments anything other than superfluous?
When observed at the most fundamental level one has to agree with him. Forget the sophistry within his comment. Constant tantrums a year after Trump won the presidency is a huge indicator of ones mental state.
Twitter is happy participating in a discussion meant to harass the president?
Trying to justify why you are not censoring the president is just evil. The only responsible thing Twitter should do is completely ignore any and all discussion.
Actually it is lying. When you know the facts and leave out on purpose that which doesn't fit your agenda it is lying, and the worst kind. It is flat out a lie.
It people can't figure out for the most part what is true or not without government mandated education in schools then it should be back to your momma's teet, regardless of age.
Seriously government funded schools with courses teaching students what is truth is such an oxymoron.
Maybe it is just the idea that the mainstream media isn't honest enough nor has enough integrity to push out a provable truth. Their bias and lack of journalistic integrity is the cause shown clearly by their headlines being so specious, meant to draw clicks for ad dollars -- that takes precedence over well thought-out and researched stories. People just can't figure out who to believe. It is so pathetic. Glenn Greenwald has been trying to report this for the past week and that's sad that so few are taking note. When the news media are unchecked, unlike the branches of government, and they are so wealthy or funded by the elite super rich that even the people don't matter and they continually day in and out feed propaganda that meets their oft hidden agenda then noone will get the truth, ever. Even so, courses teaching truth is insanity. Go back and ask your parents. That's what wisdom is for, it's what age brings.
Slashdot Mirror
People will switch when they begin to have problems, tech literate excluded. People don't want nor will they know about features like this, they want just to use their browser without difficulty and without consideration of restrictive features.
It is difficult to say what it means. I'd go with the winning side. I am not familiar with the ACORN situation nor the outcome but if I could make my point and the public saw to shutting them down as a result I'd consider it a win even if I had to pay up.
Provide us proof. I'd like to see it.
This is obviously a clear contradiction to what Twitter employees said and said spontaneously.
This has some serious ramifications. This could easily be misused by Twitter and/or Twitter employees to create a portfolio that could be used to blackmail so many, many that had no idea and trusted their personal communications to Twitter. Obviously we have all been told to not put on the internet what we don't want in the public, however that is just us geeks talking to each other. As far as other people go they don't understand the consequences of failing to adhere to that.
This isn't the first series of videos that have shown Twitter's legally questionable behavior, such as the "shadow banning" videos that recently made it to the public forums. Obviously when we see a multitude of Twitter employees making these types of statements we have to lend them more credence than some official denial that obviously is a clear contradiction to what so many have said.
Microsoft has a history of cooperation with the feds. They implemented a centralized server away from p2p in order to at least give the feds access to monitor the Skype network. Signal is true end to end encryption. Efforts to merge the two will simply give the government access to the encrypted communication. Skype is a proprietary piece of software and thus cannot be audited. I've no idea whether Signal has been compromised but I'm leaning in that direction otherwise why else would they be working with a company known to violate their user's privacy and security.
Why does error 0x800f0845 mean rollback is impossible?
That most of us were not benefiting from the technological blunder that puts us at such risk.
He used nuclear deterrence. He pointed out the futility of attacking the US.
You sir are an extremist spreading emotional judgements of things you know nothing about. Listen to your own words. Really listen to them. That is suffering borderline insanity. You are actually claiming a sitting president will chose the option of preemptive nuclear war and you are trying to spread that view around.
You are listening to the media which is just a bunch of people like you speculating about matters they know little about and pushing that narrative to fulfill their agenda. It isn't news any more, fyi.
And please be reminded that those same media hacks claiming he made threats of nuclear war spun on a dime 2 days later turning to some salacious book written by someone that has a history of exaggerations, misquotes, out of context quotes, and deception, who admits that some of what's in his book is wrong. The Washington Post said it is mostly salacious lacking in substance.
We have used preemptive nuclear attacks in the past as a deterrence to future nuclear war and as a way of saving American (and their allies) lives. We know what a devastating impact it has. To state our capabilities to an insane dictator is not the same as threatening nuclear war. Stop watching The View. Joy Behar is not your friend.
I believe that I am part of that "we all" statement. I can say you are expressing extremeism, as in being an extremist. Nothing more.
You need to read the book by Sharyl Attkisson called "The Smear". After reading just the first chapter you'll understand who the real propagandist Goebberls is.
We need a president that does what he says and says what he does instead of a politician that says nothing we can believe and it turns out she's lied about everything she said with it all happening behind our backs -- as Obama did.
If this were true the mainstream media wouldn't express such sophomoric surprise at what he says or does. Instead they screech with surprise and make claims that would have resulted in them being condemned to an insane asylum only half a century ago.
How little you appear to have actually learned.
Thats the freaking purpose of nuclear deterrence. Damn.
Are you someone that melts over this simple type of rhetoric? We don't live in a Sesame Street political world. Wars happen, and men go and fight giving up their lives while the elderly, children, and women generally suffer only the fallout if we fail.
If pointing out through rhetoric that the consequences of NK attacking the US or allies with nukes is bad, yet that's the worst of it, then you should be praising that rhetoric instead of furthering the left's nuclear option (ala Mr. Strzok and Mr. Wray).
And he's not the only president that has used the media as a venue for foreign policy. Every freaking president has, and many a Secretary of State including your beloved Hillary. And yes nuclear options have been expressed in that very same venue.
Please, no more Sesame Street level of political banter.
Such sophistry. We know this is sophistry when people fail to state the claim in full. We'd like to see the full facts regarding your accusation. You can't make claims and then when called out tell others to go look up your claims for the proof of them. In other words, explain yourself.
Otherwise it sounds like you are just trying to silence a man who is trying to point out censorship by Twitter. Facts and context are all that matter, not some entity's emotional tirade about what someone else said.
What person was convicted of hate crimes and what did they do to justify the conviction? What was the context of the retweet? I doubt you can answer those thoroughly and concisely given the sophistry vagueness of your claim and the sophistry in your words.
Aside from Trump having done nothing wrong, any attempt at censoring President Trump would be suicide. No one person drives enough revenue to keep Twitter alive but once it is seen by everyone else that uses Twitter that they too could be banned over the vagaries of other's opinions about what you said that's their end, in finality.
Twitter isn't currently profitable. They are afloat due to investment dollars. They would loose those investments in a heartbeat. There are also other competing platforms out there that would easily step up and take over.
With Twitter announcing censorship the library of Congress has announced they will no longer be archiving all tweets, not because it is a volatile platform, but because attempts at siding with one group over another creates an atmosphere that is no longer historically significant -- they want all twitts and not just the twitts on one side of the fence.
Bush yes, he's a war criminal. Obama yes, he killed innocent noncombatants when he could have avoided it. He killed Americans without due process without judicial oversight and did so more than once. He chose to kill over capture in countries that we are not even at war with.
But Trump? That's about as an extreme stretch as anyone could ever make.
You get a book written by someone, Wolff, who has a long history of publishing lies and has admitted that his book contains inaccuracies a book the Washington Post said is mostly fluff and accusation with little to no substance, with that book quoting Bannon talking about things mostly already heard in the public forums about Bannon commenting on Trump Jr's meeting (that Bannon heard about from the news media) with some Russian lawyer who was let into the US by the Obama administration (Loretta Lynch -- who called for armed insurrection against Trump) where this lawyer was also known to meet with Hillary's hired henchmen both before and after the meeting with Trump Jr., and you consider Bannons comments anything other than superfluous?
When observed at the most fundamental level one has to agree with him. Forget the sophistry within his comment. Constant tantrums a year after Trump won the presidency is a huge indicator of ones mental state.
Twitter is happy participating in a discussion meant to harass the president?
Trying to justify why you are not censoring the president is just evil. The only responsible thing Twitter should do is completely ignore any and all discussion.
Their policy of censorship is ludicrous.
No, nothing can go wrong. Targeting hate and far right? We see more hatred and violence from the left, now and historically.
Actually it is lying. When you know the facts and leave out on purpose that which doesn't fit your agenda it is lying, and the worst kind. It is flat out a lie.
It people can't figure out for the most part what is true or not without government mandated education in schools then it should be back to your momma's teet, regardless of age.
Seriously government funded schools with courses teaching students what is truth is such an oxymoron.
Maybe it is just the idea that the mainstream media isn't honest enough nor has enough integrity to push out a provable truth. Their bias and lack of journalistic integrity is the cause shown clearly by their headlines being so specious, meant to draw clicks for ad dollars -- that takes precedence over well thought-out and researched stories. People just can't figure out who to believe. It is so pathetic. Glenn Greenwald has been trying to report this for the past week and that's sad that so few are taking note. When the news media are unchecked, unlike the branches of government, and they are so wealthy or funded by the elite super rich that even the people don't matter and they continually day in and out feed propaganda that meets their oft hidden agenda then noone will get the truth, ever. Even so, courses teaching truth is insanity. Go back and ask your parents. That's what wisdom is for, it's what age brings.
Nearly identical to Vogon poetry.