File a police report. Move somewhere the local government backs their police and they do their job.
What you want is the ability to pay to get expedited help, to which I say is that the fair option to those who can't afford to pay for protection?
84 karma · joined January 26, 2021
What you want is the ability to pay to get expedited help, to which I say is that the fair option to those who can't afford to pay for protection?
We'll see how the F150 pans out, but I'm more hesitant in Ford's ability to deliver than Tesla continuing to deliver.
There's unemployment and welfare for those who need it, not SWEs that don't want to work.
Don't work safety nets into your plans, they are for people in need, you are taking away finite resources from people who need them if you use social programs when you are able to work.
Tesla simply took some of their cash and invested in Bitcoin, they didn't shift production or pivot their business.
The fact that they made money off of the investment and whether or not it was more than their revenue is irrelevant, the move didn't affect their core business, it was just lucrative.
It just interleaves some obvious things with pure conjecture.
The "wiping away their sins" inferred by offering them a pencil or a cleansing wipe was just icing on the cake.
I agree, but a step further, transparent moderation logs.
> I also call for folks banned by Twitter to embrace capitalism and build their own platform.
Ah yes the "build your own" theory. Build your own bank (Gab has gone through 10+ banks), build your own search engine, build your own app store (Parler found out the hard way), build your own economy. Monopolies and network effects be damned!
Soon we'll just balkanize the entire country into two so liberal companies don't have to have icky conservatives on their platforms or in earshot.
Your other points were addressed in my reply to your other 2 adjacent comments.
The argument is the government is mixing in with these social media behemoths, especially Twitter. It's more than some official using your blog. If you are kicked off one or any of these networks you basically lose access to your government officials and companies that choose to do their business there. There are no legit alternatives, these social media behemoths are so big they are becoming a town square for communication. They should be regulated as such.
> I have friends who work at banks.
I said baker. I was alluding to the case that forced the Christian bakers to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
You are not Twitter or Facebook. Stop pretending these giant social behemoths are people, they are not.
> That isn't at all true. Google any opinion you like and you will find many media outlets that are already amplifying it.
Google deplatformed The Federalist, Press California, and Parler just recently, not a great example to use.
That's the articles take, not mine. I don't believe it's compelling speech by preventing candidates from being banished.
> They have never been immune to regulation. Are you advocating for even more regs, so that speech you like will be even more amplified? If not, what specifically are you calling for?
How would more regulation amplify speech I like? Speech I like is not allowed at all if it threatens the narrative, that's the problem.
What are you calling for? Do you like the status quo? I don't want them to be able to ban political dissenters or candidates simply because they disagree with them. I want transparency.
> You misheard. Private entities aren't governments. It is bad Gov behavior that the 1A restrains.
The idea of free speech is not limited to governments, the 1A is. I can want companies to abide by this value. When a social media giant is so large that governments use it as a communication platform, maybe it's a town square now? Maybe it's time we apply those same restrictions to it because it's nearly an extension of the government.
> That is correct. The 1A protects private entities from Govs.
Unless you're a baker.
Noone can go after poor little small business private-entity Twitter who has done nothing wrong at all. Got it.
Just because you agree with the censorship now, doesn't mean it won't turn on you later.
Maybe have some sort of verification and you won't get spam from both sides.
I'd like to see transparent moderation logs first and foremost.
These billion dollar companies are not immune to regulation just because they exist on the internet.
It's funny when you hear the "it's a private company they don't have to respect your 1A" then the same crowd comes by and says, "you can't force them to respect people's 1A, that violates the companies 1A!"
When did we start caring about corporation rights more than people's rights?
They held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
But yes overall I say their first decision of imprisoning people for speaking out against the draft was unconstitutional, socialist or not.
The court case was about the Espionage Act of 1917, and was extremely unconstitutional. It was about speaking about against the draft.
Holmes justified his ruling with the fire statement at the end of the case, but it has nothing to do with constitutional law, it was an emotional statement.
The court case itself was unconstitutional, and that statement everyone repeats has no legal binding whatsoever as it had no bearing on anything. I doubt you agree with the outcome of that case (socialists being imprisoned for speaking out against the draft) so why would you use an emotional statement used to justify it?
Private companies are not free to do whatever they want, there are regulations. When companies get too large they should be regulated. You can argue these companies have possibly outgrown their Section 230 immunities as they are no longer acting as a neutral platform. They are editorializing their content, acting as a publisher. The social media giants are entrenched with government and businesses solely using them for support and communications, you cannot simply move off.
I guess you are very pro corporate and you feel like corporations should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want.
It being legally okay, does not make it morally okay and laws can change to meet the morals. Maybe we should apply the 1A to these platforms.
> We should be spending money creating new, better paying jobs, not new social programs.
When others see that you can just give up and get paid, they will also become burnouts.
Eventually you will run out of other people's money.
Raise the prices if you have to and tell the consumers to shove it. Chipotle just did this, farms can do it.
If you can't survive without slave labor don't survive at all.
There's plenty of jobs available. No jobs are unavailable due to covid restrictions.
Burnouts playing video games is not new to the pandemic, the only difference is their pay raise.
Also, I'm not talking about the people who need support, I'm talking about the people taking advantage and staying on unemployment because they don't want to work.
I worked a shitty job to get through college, it's a stepping stone.
These jobs aren't meant to live on. They should be used as part time jobs for people transitioning in their careers, like students.
When you give handouts to people who don't want to work you are not doing them any favors. They become reliant and trapped in that loop.
That's not to say there shouldn't be a safety net with strict qualifications. You're doing no service to the people who need it by allowing those who don't.
We should be spending money creating new, better paying jobs, not new social programs.
I'm sure those farms unwilling to pay a fair wage will start investing in those expensive machines' R&D. Then do it for all other crops.