Febra33

While sucky I don't see how any of this is illegal. To me it looks constitutionally correct and I don't want the government legislating this. If the company can refuse to bake a cake, it should be able to refuse any kind of service. Pretty sure this should be covered by the 1st amendment.

Of course! But MY favourite billionaire is definitely not like the other billionaires..

So he's not a big fan of free speech after all, I see. Censoring publicly, required-by-law, freely available data is definitely not something a free speech absolutist like Elon should do. Just my two cents. Make of that what you will.

So this is nothing new but just a confirmation of what has already been known now? Twitter even admitted they f-ed up back then and tried to fix things. This looks like someone is just trying to milk this story dry at this point for some extra clicks.

"Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) – an independent charity which reviews university courses – launched a consultation that urged universities to teach a ‘decolonised view’ of mathematics."

Yet another pointless piece written by some click hungry "journalists". Don't get me wrong, what that charity has done is simply put stupid, but does it deserve an article?

This is just the casual rage-bait article meant to create a discussion around a stupid take by some random charity that is not even taken seriously by anyone.

I see you only listed three options but where's the fourth: D) Musk is the saviour of humanity and everything he does is perfect and in no way, shape or form subject to criticism.

This reads like sarcasm

So you're telling me that companies shouldn't have full control over their operations and products and that the government should limit them in that aspect?

It has a right to exist. CF has the right to choose their clients. I really don't see your problem. If they want to exist, they can host themselves and/or use TOR.

There's no mob rule. A private company decided to stop servicing that filth because it would hurt their profits. There's nothing freer than this.

Kiwi Farms is a cesspool and I'm glad it got booted off. We need stronger protections and laws against such heinous forms of organised harassment that ends up killing people.

How is the government involved in the decision made by a private company? I fail to see the point you're trying to make here. Also, I seriously doubt that Keffals is influencing the entire "government" (what country are we even talking about). Also, "attacking TOR"? Do you know by any chance how TOR works?

Your argument looks like blatant self victimisation. Kiwi Farms is involved in the suicides and endangerement of multiple people. I really don't see the coherence in your arguments here.

I fail to see how you connected all of these points together. How did you get from "a private company chooses who they service" to "the government inserts itself between warring parties"? It really looks like you're pushing an agenda.

Cloudflare or any other privately owned company doesn't have an obligation to service everyone. They are not violating their free speech, no matter how long you turn it on every side. Kiwi Farms can host their website on any other platform and get any other service they want. No one is forced to service them.

Let's not forget that they have been known to publicise private information of people that ended up with them being swatted. They are a big enable of this behaviour. Not only that, but they have been also involved in three suicides at this point. I don't think any private company wants to associate themselves with such a client.

> or the one where everyone started putting their pronouns in their profile

I think that lots of people still do that. At least from what I've been seeing

Noam Chomsky on here. Jesus. This guy is whataboutism reincarnated.

Besides the fact that this is extremely subjective and comes to each person's own ability, I hate when articles try to introduce one of these cute oversimplified and exaggerated stories so that they can prove a point. Literally shifting the perspective so that the author can have the higher ground.

I don't know where you live but I live in western Europe and almost every household owns a car that they park somewhere on the street. There almost no charging stations around. Now I just can't imagine a universe where every street has enough chargers for EVERY single household. That's just utopic.

I just think that it's a shame so many resources go to waste into treating infected unvaccinated people (they have a higher chance of ending up in the hospital) when we could redirect those resources to people that can't avoid hospitalisation with something as easy as getting a vaccine. Many scientists have been saying for months now that the vaccine might not be that effective in protecting against an infection but that it surely helps in not ending up in the hospital. I would have absolutely no problem with people refusing the vaccine if they didn't end up putting the healthcare system at risk. My home country of Romania is plagues by these cases and I have relatives that ended up having to wait for at least 3 to 4 hours for a broken bone that would've been handled in no longer than 20 minutes before. People I know, people with cancer need to postpone their operations since hospitals are working at maximum capacity. With that being said, we are living in extreme situations right now and action is needed. Vaccines might not be THAT effective in preventing infections (since people just go about their lives after getting the jab), but it surely helps with not overflowing the hospitals.

As someone who would enforce vaccination certificates, I would kick such people out of the healthcare system or make them pay more for living obese unhealthy lives.

Thank you. I have just looked at the table and you seem to be right. The infection rate in the age range 30 to 80 is higher for vaccinated than unvaccinated. For the other groups it is higher in the unvaccinated populations (≤30, 80≥). It seems like vaccinated people in the age range 30 to 80 seems to behave more careless due to the fact that they are vaccinated and happen to catch the virus.

At the same time I have been looking at the other columns as well. The first column shows the rate of infection in people that have just tested positive. The other three columns show how much more dangerous the virus is to people who have not been vaccinated and end up in the hospital. Way more unvaccinated people end up in the hospital than vaccinated people. At the same time, way more cases of unvaccinated people that ended up in the hospital end in death than in cases of vaccinated people. The hospitalisation rates in the unvaccinated populations are from 2 to up to 4 times higher than in vaccinated populations. The death rates even more so show this discrepancy between the cases that end up in death coming from unvaccinated vs. vaccinated people.

Besides that, there are some very important pieces of information missing in this entire story. We do not know how many people have had previous infections. Read the following comment on p24: > people who have never been vaccinated are more likely to have caught COVID-19 in the weeks or months before the period of the cases covered in the report. This gives them some natural immunity to the virus for a few months which may have contributed to a lower case rate in the past few weeks

With that being said, I give you that, you are right in the fact that there are more infections in the vaccinated population than in the unvaccinated, but at the same time the former seem to have a better time after contracting the virus than the latter (proof are the death rates).

With that being said, I do not think that the right decision is to dump the vaccination certificates/passports, rather I think the right decision would be to further implement the certificate as a requirement alongside periodic testing. It has been proven in other parts of the world that the vaccination certificate is indeed an incentive for people to get the vaccine, which in turn would help the hospitalisation rates fall. Testing is still detrimental.

> But the vaccinated are being infected at higher rates than the non-vaccinated according to UK govt data

I just checked your source and can't find anything to confirm your claim. Just take the latest vaccine surveillance report https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... and please do tell me where it confirms your claim that vaccinated people are infected at higher rates than the non-vaccinated. I am very intrigued.

> The World Wide Demonstration (also known as the World Wide Rally For Freedom) is an internationally syndicated community demonstration dedicated to emboldening citizens to push back against Coronavirus related Restrictions in their countries.

So, antivaxxers don't want to get vaccinated.

I still can't get over the fact that Orion is the name of a sex store chain where I am from.