Rick1

Never, because it's impossible to have a platform if keeping something content up gets them fined AND taking content down gets them fined.

They don't have perfect knowledge of how a court would rule in each case, so they err on the side of caution. Remove the side of caution and you can't have a platform.

Legally it could be done, but not practically since English is the language we actually use to communicate.

Nope, not at all. The EU has essentially nothing to do with English being spoken Europe. Brexit is a legal matter.

1) It's not that much money. 2) The skills are useful, unlike those in your flawed analogy. 3) Companies actually look at such things when recruiting contractors, etc. 4) You're an *.

> Nice try.

You did. Right here: "e.g. ethnicity". That's a quote from you. I mentioned in-group, you added ethnicity.

> There you go. And yet history proves you wrong, starting with the roman empire and the middle ages.

At this point I wonder if you are trolling. The roman empire waged war on pretty much every single other ethnic group around them and enslaved them. Which the other ethnic groups around them were also trying to do at the time. Then we have the middle ages with the crusades and such... etc etc etc

> What is "aesthetically pleasing" to random strangers according to some survey is of little importance.

It's extremely important to most people. We go out of our way to look good. Just look at any shopping street. Clothes, makeup, gyms, etc.

Slow loading times aside, looks well made.

Indeed. The loading time far exceeds the time I spend actually making choices.

Actually that's not what I said it all. The concept on in/out-group can be completely arbitrary, e.g. assigned by flipping a coin. The principle still holds.

That said, since you bring it up, the history of humanity is largely the history of war between different ethnic groups. So yes, hating people based on ethnicity has been the norm for most of human history. It's still largely the case in varying degrees in different parts of the world.

Both sides.

Everybody likes the "in-group" and hates the rest. Although the word hate tends to mainly be used about other people.

> most of the hate mobs are in Parler

Unless you provide proof, there is no reason to discuss this.

From what I've heard (I don't use Parler) one of their selling points it actually that they're quicker than Twitter as censoring.

Twitter allows (and promotes?) hate mobs while Parler supposedly doesn't.

Well some have tried. There was a civil war about it.

Well the history of humanity is the inspiration for Game of Thrones. People conspire to grab power all the time. That has been the norm and not the exception. The means change but that's about it.

That's because "the mainstream" is constantly toxic to non believers.

---

How effective are face masks really? There don't seem to be any standards and I'm wondering...

CORONA DENIER! CONSPIRACY THEORIST! YOU WANT PEOPLE TO DIE!

I wonder if they're saying something similar though.

And all female teams made up 1%.

"make an effort"

Well, it's useless if the purpose is to inform. If on the other hand the purpose is to create outrage...

I call bs. I keep being bombarded with left wing ideology despite constantly clicking to remove it. It's the right wing stuff that's being removed. This kind of article tries to hide the truth by falsely claiming that the content that's being promoted is being removed. This is a distraction.

Can't have "controversial authors" here... that I suppose is her point about the media.

Let's say they're gathering facts. I don't know the numbers but let's assume this is correct.

Are they perhaps also exaggerating and wording stories to get something that sells? And perhaps adding an ideological filter? Maybe choosing what to report and what not. E.g., all negative stories about some people will be reported and all positive stories about others will be reported.

Just because they're gathering facts does not mean they accurately describe reality.

I think this is great. If people are going to discuss anything they'll make mistakes. Otherwise we'll only get scripted speeches.

...and it's the others who believe in conspiracy theories? The "deep staters" you call them?

This is a well phrased variant of: "since they're critical, they must be wrong".

> I can't imagine any company that could afford three full-time weeks of onboarding.

Oh yes. Months even. Routinely.