stctw

5 ms·

1.
by stctw 2y ago
There is, in principle, no difference between controlling what people are allowed to say and controlling what people are allowed to hear, including controlling any middlemen who are involved in propagating speech. In the USSR, you could say
2.
by stctw 2y ago
Seriously! And this is the comment that gets downvoted? Who is to say what is misinformation, the KGB? What has gone wrong in the past 30 years that we are pining to be like Soviet Russia was? Are we so historically ignorant of world hi
3.
by stctw 2y ago
There already was a civil war in the US, and that's not how it happened. What's strange is that anyone thinks that a second one would be a matter of the US Army vs. the People, irrelevant to the States. It's a non-sequitur.
4.
by stctw 2y ago
You seem to envision a world in which one would have to physically travel outside the borders of your nation in order to hear what people outside the nation think. Do you also propose that foreign printed media be banned in your nation? W
5.
by stctw 2y ago
> Banning books I don't see how comments saying that are accepted here. Everyone knows that no books are being banned anywhere in the country. You can go to a bookstore or web site and buy whatever books you want. They can be bou
6.
by stctw 2y ago
I have a better question: where's the balance in it? All I see are links to biased, left-wing sources. Not a source from the right or center, and not a mention of the defendant's counterclaims. So the only conclusion one can rea
7.
by stctw 2y ago
I am with you 100%. Imagine, if you would, that you lived in an apartment, and that you spent $2,000 on a stereo system, and that you turned up the volume so high that people in vehicles, driving by on the nearby street, could feel the s
8.
by stctw 2y ago
How dare you use "dehumanizing" rhetoric against me, you far-right neo-fascist! That's rude! The thing about hypocrisy is that it reveals that you think you are superior to others and therefore entitled to rule over them u
9.
by stctw 2y ago
It's easy to say that now. Have you lived through unrestricted, total warfare, where one side intends to conquer a continent or the world, invades without provocation, and won't stop until brought to submission through extreme f
10.
by stctw 2y ago
The device in question had no locking enabled of any kind. The associated Apple ID account was locked by Apple without warning, and so the phone itself was locked for any use other than emergency calls.
11.
by stctw 2y ago
AFAICT, this feature requires the recovery contact to also use an Apple device, which does not help us. It seems like another way to try to lock users into using Apple.
12.
by stctw 2y ago
His account is 14 years old. He knows the guidelines. Why did you spend your time itemizing supposed violations of them? Meanwhile, I see in these comments many such violations while advocating the other side of the issue, and none of the
13.
by stctw 2y ago
Anecdotes work both ways. Apple recently locked and forced a reset of Apple ID accounts for no reason.[0] This happened to my elderly mother at an incredibly inconvenient time, making her phone completely unusable, and the phone was set u
14.
by stctw 2y ago
What is weird about this? If a business fails to perform well, its customers can choose another provider, and the business will have to improve, or else it will fail. If a government fails, what recourse do its "customers" have?
15.
by stctw 7y ago
That's an interesting thought. It's almost like Chrome and Firefox have been in a "browser cold war" for years now, trying to outdo each other's version numbers, trying to entice users with greener grass rather tha
16.
by stctw 7y ago
Rephrase, simplify, eliminate. For example, your comment could be written as: > Frequent readers here know I write verbosely. I communicate clearly, but few people finish reading my messages. Any advice? William Zinsser's book,