It was too late to do much at that point if they hadn't already made plans and had people in place.
Compare the non-armed-mob a few months prior for the BLM protest, and the storm trooper response thereto, and let me know if you have a good explanation for the different responses.
It seems like there must have been something different, but it's so hard to place it.
That would almost work in Borderlands. There are weapons that do annoying things, like scream every time you fire, or chide you for killing people. In scope ads could be another one. Almost work, not quite.
Now picture the FBI on a national level, with both political parties calling for funding reductions.
Just so I'm clear, you're suggesting the FBI may have done nothing about the insurrection ahead of time in retaliation against Congress for cutting its budget?
I would be surprised if the clickwrap didn't mention that there's a service involved and Ubisoft may or may not continue offering the service at their sole discretion, blah blah blah. I don't care to go try to find the EULA but it seems likely their lawyers thought of this.
The point is that just because we got by just fine without it, is not a reason not to use it. There are many things that humanity got by without, and can continue to get by without, but we use them anyway because they have real and/or perceived benefits. If you want to argue that everyone should stop using Facebook, there are good arguments to be made, but that isn't one of them.
To claim that it was just a "kerfuffle" and "100% based on politics." is to be a f*ing a**** that doesn't deserve the freedoms that we have in this country.
Don't stoop to their level. Exercising one's constitutionally protected rights - which saying stupid and dishonest things absolutely is - should never be grounds for having them removed.
Because your asking them to pay more for roads and and fire and police.
You do understand there's a difference between publicly funded services and privately purchased goods and services, right? You keep conflating them as though they're the same thing, and they are not.
On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler
Re: Paging Koby
It's so strange, this content moderation story should be right up his alley, and yet he has nothing to say about it...
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: Re:
Guns, abortion, environment.
On the post: Utah Deputy Arrests Person For Destroying 'Back The Blue' Sign, Adds Hate Crime Enhancement For 'Smirking'
Re: Re: Re:
I liked it.
On the post: FBI Cites Guidelines That Don't Actually Forbid Social Media Monitoring As The Reason It Was Blindsided By The January 6 Attack
Re: Re: [lots of small plans]
It was too late to do much at that point if they hadn't already made plans and had people in place.
It seems like there must have been something different, but it's so hard to place it.
On the post: Cord-Cutting Leads To Gaming Studios Exploring In-Game Ads To Unlock Gaming Perks
Re: Or, a better way?
What you are describing is called "product placement" in the west, and has been done by Hollywood for decades, dating back to E.T. at least.
On the post: Section 230 Continues To Not Mean Whatever You Want It To
Re: Same circus, different monkey
Section 230 is being enforced just fine. It's gotten misguided lawsuits dismissed left and right.
On the post: Montana Senator Thinks The Third Time Is The Charm For His Anti-Flag Burning Amendment
Re:
You don't.
On the post: Cord-Cutting Leads To Gaming Studios Exploring In-Game Ads To Unlock Gaming Perks
Re: Re:
That would almost work in Borderlands. There are weapons that do annoying things, like scream every time you fire, or chide you for killing people. In scope ads could be another one. Almost work, not quite.
On the post: Even Elon Musk Makes It Clear Starlink Could Have Limited Impact, May Not Be Financially Viable
Re: Re:
Such as?
On the post: FBI Cites Guidelines That Don't Actually Forbid Social Media Monitoring As The Reason It Was Blindsided By The January 6 Attack
But it's fine as long as they didn't plan it ahead of time?
Rioters, both in DC and around the country, have been and are being charged with various crimes.
That is true, there were a bunch of small plans by lots of people.
On the post: Hong Kong Kowtows To China Again, Turns Virtual Police State Into An Actual Police State
Re:
And what do you suggest the UK should do, sail into the harbor and demand the PRC shape up or else?
On the post: Hong Kong Kowtows To China Again, Turns Virtual Police State Into An Actual Police State
Re: Re: Re: Re:
China is also 9.6 million square kilometers, so one camera per square meter would be almost seven cameras per person. Seems a bit excessive.
On the post: FBI Cites Guidelines That Don't Actually Forbid Social Media Monitoring As The Reason It Was Blindsided By The January 6 Attack
Re: Re: Re:
Since the FBI's 2021 budget is about the same as 2019, no I don't find it worth considering.
On the post: FBI Cites Guidelines That Don't Actually Forbid Social Media Monitoring As The Reason It Was Blindsided By The January 6 Attack
Re:
There's a difference between "liberals should be shot" and "let's go storm the capitol on January 6."
On the post: FBI Cites Guidelines That Don't Actually Forbid Social Media Monitoring As The Reason It Was Blindsided By The January 6 Attack
Re:
Just so I'm clear, you're suggesting the FBI may have done nothing about the insurrection ahead of time in retaliation against Congress for cutting its budget?
On the post: DRM Strikes Again: Ubisoft Makes Its Own Game Unplayable By Shutting Down DRM Server
Re:
I would be surprised if the clickwrap didn't mention that there's a service involved and Ubisoft may or may not continue offering the service at their sole discretion, blah blah blah. I don't care to go try to find the EULA but it seems likely their lawyers thought of this.
On the post: Facebook Is Banning Anyone Charged With Participating In Capitol Hill Insurrection
Re: Re: Re: Social media and the Trumptards
The point is that just because we got by just fine without it, is not a reason not to use it. There are many things that humanity got by without, and can continue to get by without, but we use them anyway because they have real and/or perceived benefits. If you want to argue that everyone should stop using Facebook, there are good arguments to be made, but that isn't one of them.
On the post: Facebook Is Banning Anyone Charged With Participating In Capitol Hill Insurrection
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you're just not looking.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/27/americas-protest-crackdown-five-months-afte r-george-floyd-hundreds-face-trials-and-prison
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/02/capitol-riot -black-lives-matter-465156
https://revealnews.org/article/go-after-the-troublemakers/
https://www.bu sinessinsider.com/number-of-arrests-capitol-riot-compared-blm-protests-chart-2021-1
https://theprose cutionproject.org/2020/12/22/tracking-federal-cases-related-to-summer-protests-riots-uprisings/
I could go on. And on, and on. There's plenty of reporting on the topic.
On the post: Facebook Is Banning Anyone Charged With Participating In Capitol Hill Insurrection
Re: Re: Re: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
Don't stoop to their level. Exercising one's constitutionally protected rights - which saying stupid and dishonest things absolutely is - should never be grounds for having them removed.
On the post: Changing Section 230 Won't Make The Internet A Kinder, Gentler Place
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do understand there's a difference between publicly funded services and privately purchased goods and services, right? You keep conflating them as though they're the same thing, and they are not.
Next >>