mike10010100

6 ms·

1.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> This is an accusation made by the US government, it's not a fact. Are you claiming the chat logs that show Assange offering assistance cracking passwords are fake?
2.
by mike10010100 7y ago
This. When is Apple getting on board?
3.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> An iPhone is not a hard disk, but a computer with its own operating system, and you need dedicated software to communicate with it, imagine that. Lol so I guess my Android phone isn't a computer with its own OS, since I can just p
4.
by mike10010100 7y ago
Lol "I don't want to use Apple's services for everyhing"...."Just use Apple's services!"
5.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> You can disable iMessage at any point and it works. Maybe now, but there was a time when iMessage would continue to hijack your number and divert messages from your phone, even if you disabled it. Also, have you ever tried extricating
6.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> If the American people knew the truth about these military incursions, they would be utterly outraged The many, many, many times things have leaked with absolutely no major public reaction would show that to be false.
7.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> And this is why the world is perpetually at war. No, that's because we have an entire industrial complex surrounding making war profitable. We had state secrets far before then and there were very long periods of peace.
8.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> you have to prove intent The intent is proven from the in which Assange agrees to provide assistance cracking a password. That is the textbook definition of "conspiracy to commit a hacking crime".
9.
by mike10010100 7y ago
It seems like your only justification here is outright denial. That's an interesting tactic for someone who claims to care about the law and logic. Have you read a lot of indictments around conspiracy to commit crimes that end up with
10.
by mike10010100 7y ago
These people are actively muddying the waters by making outlandish claims about what constitutes public and private property.
11.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> If the govt is using the law to retaliate against journalists Assange is not a journalist. He conspired to hack a computer system. That is a crime. Regardless of what you believe to be right, you must acknowledge that sometimes good pe
12.
by mike10010100 7y ago
It's like these people don't understand how these charges work.
13.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> How would you elect someone to get that done when every issue is tied to a hundred other issues in the same candidate and basically none of them will have any meaningful progress made during their term? Elect an idiot like Trump who le
14.
by mike10010100 7y ago
You know, this was really quite the disproportionate reply that in no way answered the poster's question, but I have to say that this line takes the cake. > You'd rather the country be run by shady Blackwater types protected by
15.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> I said very little was said Really? Because from the citations I've given, it looks like a lot was said. > That clearly isn't the case because it's happened already and journalists didn't salivate over it - they
16.
by mike10010100 7y ago
It really isn't.
17.
by mike10010100 7y ago
Then perhaps if you could be a little clearer about what you are saying, we could have a discussion about that.
18.
by mike10010100 7y ago
Blocking access to information via DNS blocks is an entirely different concept than private entities not wishing to host extremist content on their private platforms.
19.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> PC Mag is mainstream media, now? How many readers do you think it has compared to a national newspaper? You're comparing apples to oranges. What's it's ranking among tech/PC websites? How about the Guardian? https:
20.
by mike10010100 7y ago
This seems like a relatively moderate view, and I like how it breaks down the individual freedom of intentioned users vs. the freedom of users who have no intention of seeing said content. But at the end of the day, aren't the companie
21.
by mike10010100 7y ago
ISPs as a group blocking IP-level access to portions of the web is far and above a different thing than a private company or a group of private companies refusing to host content on their servers that they do not want to host. Your attempt
22.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> His channel is not 'deleted', (as is the case with the majority of right-wing commentators as well btw), but it is very much 'shadowbanned'/blacklisted, (economic ruin). And, as we all know, nobody ever made mo
23.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> you are acting ignorant when you know there are only handful of platforms on internet. Your continued participation in said platforms ensures that they will remain the "only" platforms on the internet. There is absolutely not
24.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> just out of interest... such as? Enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQF2-F-GG_o And here he is with a bunch of others! https://i.imgur.com/SXqc8PX.jpg > You could be really helpful here, sugar.
25.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> The same Voat that just got banned in New Zealand for hosting stuff the government didn't approve of whilst Facebook, which also hosted it, was left alone? Take it up with New Zealand, which has very strong laws about hate speech
26.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> the same kinds of people who control Facebook also control the mainstream media There's that conspiracy language again! And then you go on to link a piece of "mainstream media" that writes extensively about it! Did you m
27.
by mike10010100 7y ago
Why should we trust Alan Dershowitz without proof? Giuliani is a lawyer and he goes on TV all the time to lie about easily verifiable facts.
28.
by mike10010100 7y ago
How about instead of a one-stop-shop social network, we go back to the random topic-specific forums of yesteryear? It decentralizes discussion, allows individuals to freely associate among themselves, and doesn't result in a "one
29.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> Strange how when some foreign state censors FB or Twitter it's an outrage, but when FB or Twitter sensor people directly "there are other places". Because a government has a monopoly on violence, while a private company
30.
by mike10010100 7y ago
> Really? How about plain nationalists? How about communists? How about separatists? How about traditionalists? How about "Occupy Wall Street"? How about "nationalists" in e.g Iceland, a country where nationalists wou

More ›