blisseyGo

6 ms·

1.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
Is there a lite version of Google search? How does Lynx work for Google searches?
2.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
Very interesting. How resistant would this be for hosting legal but controversial stuff? And what's to stop the peergos.me from dropping the said controversial subdomain? Can this be used for dynamic content?
3.
Customers want to know why Amazon removed Clarence Thomas documentary(reclaimthenet.org)
43 points by blisseyGo 6y ago|28 comments
4.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
You might find this useful: https://www.linuxbabe.com/mail-server/ip-blacklist-removal Especially the part about "Rule of Thumb for Running Mail Server on a New IP Address When you run a mail server on a new IP ad
5.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
> After that, pricing starts at $25 per month for up to 15,000 requests. This is very expensive for any decent usage. I have used tools like metascraper for this purpose and it worked pretty well. Setup just requires throwing a tiny node
6.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
Unfortunately for me, I tried with 4 videos and all got: > The video is no longer available. If this is an unexpected error, please try again in a bit.
7.
I've been banned again on Facebook, but you won't believe why(odysee.com)
4 points by blisseyGo 6y ago|1 comments
8.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
CTH is one place which never puts out any info without hard evidence to the documents which prove their case. Somehow that's not acceptable now a days. And despite this, there will still be people who will claim there's no censors
9.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
Are there any examples when big tech has "made a mistake" or "banned" someone on the lefty leaning side by mistake? I have countless examples of right leaning views get banned and censored "by mistake". When mi
10.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
It goes much before that. Isikoff met Steele on Sept 22, 2016, and published a story about Carter Page the next day. He didn’t verify a thing. All he did was get an anon government official to say FBI had the dossier. And that kind of journ
11.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
EDIT: dang, I understand my political views don't align with vast majority of HN but me replying to correct false info keeps giving me this error on HN: "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks." I think HN kee
12.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
I know this will get attacked for the source but this summarizes it well. There's numerous other examples too: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/npr-busted-framing-self-... The whole "russian bounty" w
13.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
I know this will get attacked for the source but this summarizes it well. There's numerous other examples too: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/npr-busted-framing-self-... The whole "russian bounty" w
14.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
> possibly faked or hacked emails What gives you the impression that this is the case? Hunter Biden's receipts from the computer repair shop are public for this too. I think bias might be clouding your judgement. EDIT: Because HN is
15.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
Yahoo was the one who published the Steele dossier misinformation 4 years ago. Why are they better?
16.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
It's not random YouTube videos. The videos are from 3 highly credentialed lawyers. Catherine Herridge is also a credentialed journalist for CBS News. Even NPR has reported this. Yet you call everything which doesn't fit your polit
17.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
Her wikipedia literally states her occupation as "Independent journalist". You would rather believe a journalist who I have clearly exposed as lying and biased with proof. Good luck.
18.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
Using a random twitter account's narrative to "debunk" a well established lawyer for a 35 year military general and DOJ's declassified statements is not how things work in the judicial system. That twitter account is bla
19.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
That's a court filing from Flynn's lawyer. Please watch these if you are really interested in learning about the case: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSwm32hsWAtRdktdmBtZC... Here's CBS's Catheri
20.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
So now you are justifying FBI's actions of threatening someone's son to coerce a guilty plea? Coercion into pleading guilty is what we all should be complaining about but seems like people are totally okay with it as long as it&#x
21.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
It's not a random document. It's released directly by the DOJ and USAO Jeff Jensen. Everything which doesn't fit the narrative isn't "propaganda".
22.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
You should watch this to learn the facts about the case: https://youtu.be/Tb2d9x0amuU Also: > "...the new disclosures demonstrate that Mueller’s prosecutors not only pressured Flynn with the possibility of indicting
23.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
That's what was given to him in 2016 by the Senate which holds the power of giving or not giving a vote to the WH nominee according to the constitution: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2719115/Senat
24.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
Because this time, most likely there will be a contested election. And because this time it's different because both the WH and Senate are held by the same party unlike 2016. SC judge needs both Senate and WH and that was not the case
25.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
Fair point. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy.
26.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
It's amazing how if someone shared NYTimes, WaPo, VOX, VICE etc, then everyone's cool. But if someone shares a slightly right leaning source, people start asking for "non-conservative" source.
27.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
Trump's got a 96% approval amongst conservatives.
28.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
Yep. It's pretty much needed as if the election is contested and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, not having a justice will be a disaster. Also presidency ends on January 20th - you can't go without a justice for 4 months
29.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
His point was that the WH and Senate shouldn't contemplate a SCOTUS nominee in an election year if they are controlled by opposite parties. Not hypocritical as that's not the case this time.
30.
by blisseyGo 6y ago
You don't have to agree with it but his point was that the WH and Senate shouldn't contemplate a SCOTUS nominee in an election year if they are controlled by opposite parties. Not hypocritical as that's not the case this time

More ›