Rick1

6 ms·

1.
by Rick1 6y ago
Never, because it's impossible to have a platform if keeping something content up gets them fined AND taking content down gets them fined. They don't have perfect knowledge of how a court would rule in each case, so they err on th
2.
by Rick1 6y ago
Legally it could be done, but not practically since English is the language we actually use to communicate.
3.
by Rick1 6y ago
Nope, not at all. The EU has essentially nothing to do with English being spoken Europe. Brexit is a legal matter.
4.
by Rick1 6y ago
1) It's not that much money. 2) The skills are useful, unlike those in your flawed analogy. 3) Companies actually look at such things when recruiting contractors, etc. 4) You're an *.
5.
by Rick1 6y ago
> Nice try. You did. Right here: "e.g. ethnicity". That's a quote from you. I mentioned in-group, you added ethnicity. > There you go. And yet history proves you wrong, starting with the roman empire and the middle ages
6.
by Rick1 6y ago
> What is "aesthetically pleasing" to random strangers according to some survey is of little importance. It's extremely important to most people. We go out of our way to look good. Just look at any shopping street. Clothes
7.
by Rick1 6y ago
Slow loading times aside, looks well made.
8.
by Rick1 6y ago
Indeed. The loading time far exceeds the time I spend actually making choices.
9.
by Rick1 6y ago
Actually that's not what I said it all. The concept on in/out-group can be completely arbitrary, e.g. assigned by flipping a coin. The principle still holds. That said, since you bring it up, the history of humanity is largely the
10.
by Rick1 6y ago
Both sides.
11.
by Rick1 6y ago
Everybody likes the "in-group" and hates the rest. Although the word hate tends to mainly be used about other people.
12.
by Rick1 6y ago
> most of the hate mobs are in Parler Unless you provide proof, there is no reason to discuss this.
13.
by Rick1 6y ago
From what I've heard (I don't use Parler) one of their selling points it actually that they're quicker than Twitter as censoring. Twitter allows (and promotes?) hate mobs while Parler supposedly doesn't.
14.
by Rick1 6y ago
Well some have tried. There was a civil war about it.
15.
by Rick1 6y ago
Well the history of humanity is the inspiration for Game of Thrones. People conspire to grab power all the time. That has been the norm and not the exception. The means change but that's about it.
16.
by Rick1 6y ago
That's because "the mainstream" is constantly toxic to non believers. --- How effective are face masks really? There don't seem to be any standards and I'm wondering... CORONA DENIER! CONSPIRACY THEORIST! YOU WANT P
17.
by Rick1 6y ago
I wonder if they're saying something similar though.
18.
by Rick1 6y ago
And all female teams made up 1%. "make an effort"
19.
by Rick1 6y ago
Well, it's useless if the purpose is to inform. If on the other hand the purpose is to create outrage...
20.
by Rick1 6y ago
I call bs. I keep being bombarded with left wing ideology despite constantly clicking to remove it. It's the right wing stuff that's being removed. This kind of article tries to hide the truth by falsely claiming that the content
21.
by Rick1 6y ago
Can't have "controversial authors" here... that I suppose is her point about the media.
22.
by Rick1 6y ago
Let's say they're gathering facts. I don't know the numbers but let's assume this is correct. Are they perhaps also exaggerating and wording stories to get something that sells? And perhaps adding an ideological filter?
23.
by Rick1 6y ago
I think this is great. If people are going to discuss anything they'll make mistakes. Otherwise we'll only get scripted speeches.
24.
by Rick1 6y ago
...and it's the others who believe in conspiracy theories? The "deep staters" you call them?
25.
by Rick1 6y ago
This is a well phrased variant of: "since they're critical, they must be wrong".
26.
by Rick1 6y ago
> I can't imagine any company that could afford three full-time weeks of onboarding. Oh yes. Months even. Routinely.