Current events discussion

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Those are not cheap, and a 10-footer is $27-75K. Being seen everywhere. Thirteen out of a group fo 50 following a Coast Guard boat.
But it's all "hobbyists, airplanes, and stars".

I guess it's better than increasing the panic by admitting they have no idea yet.

I don't see how they can have no idea. I think they have no idea how they want to spin it.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

I don't see how they can have no idea. I think they have no idea how they want to spin it.

When it (the situation) closes down an Air Force base airport, and they don't handle it as a direct threat and wipe them from the sky, there is definitely more to the story.

If they are military or government "testing", why TF are they doing it over populated areas instead of the thousands of miles of desert available?
What benefit of testing over people, unless there is a specific tech that HAS to be tested over a population?
Tested at NIGHT.
Or, are they using them to actively search for something?

My questions sound like a search for a conspiracy theory, but they are more about drilling through the logical possibilities to figure out what is really going on.

There are only so many reasons a "swarm" of very large drones would be up like that, and only at night.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

This is a little aggravating. I just did a search on the shooter and seems like X and TheQuartering have the most in depth info on the shooter. With all the money and resources ABC, CNN, FoxNews have, some dude with a home studio is kicking their arses all over the place. Either that or Google is suppressing the results.

Did a duckduckgo search and there is info there about the manifesto. Puck you very much google. Changing default search engine. May even switch to the duckduckgo browser.

Yeah, even on here when I try to debate or argue and have to look up stuff, the way the search engines change it makes it so hard to look up stuff. There's just blatant mind control going on via search engine manipulation. It genuinely shapes society.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

When it (the situation) closes down an Air Force base airport, and they don't handle it as a direct threat and wipe them from the sky, there is definitely more to the story.

If they are military or government "testing", why TF are they doing it over populated areas instead of the thousands of miles of desert available?
What benefit of testing over people, unless there is a specific tech that HAS to be tested over a population?
Tested at NIGHT.
Or, are they using them to actively search for something?

My questions sound like a search for a conspiracy theory, but they are more about drilling through the logical possibilities to figure out what is really going on.

There are only so many reasons a "swarm" of very large drones would be up like that, and only at night.

I don't think there is as much desert to hide in any more. But I think you're right about it needing to occur in populated areas. Searching for something or maybe mapping. Testing some sort of military hardware for use in urban environments???

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Yeah, even on here when I try to debate or argue and have to look up stuff, the way the search engines change it makes it so hard to look up stuff. There's just blatant mind control going on via search engine manipulation. It genuinely shapes society.

It's not bad enough they've monopolize the intrawebz, but now google is trying to control the narrative. F' them!!!

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

Totally Terminator vibes, I wonder about these drones everywhere now and how it would be impossible to hide from a military using this tech in swarms. Holy hell

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

2008 technology

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

I guess you missed the part that he said he hates censorship and then votes to have censorship get even worse.


And yet you voted for Trump, who wants to repeal Section 230 so that EVERYONE gets to be responsible for what other people say.
Did you not understand that when I JUST posted it, or were you too ******* excited to be able to say "Why are you so damn angry"?

Do you know ANYHTING about the idea of censorship and Section 230, or did you just feel the need to troll and post a useless observation here?


Yeah, he may have a change of heart now that Musk owns him and he owns a platform of his own where HE will take the financial hit in a lawsuit for what someone posts.
Certainly a different situation from when he wanted to sue anyone who said anything simply negative about him. Even satirical.
Remember he wanted it to be "tested in courts" whether it was legal for SNL to make fun of him?

Have YOU actually read it?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S REVIEW OF SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF 1996

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Hence why you once again elected a guy who wanted to turn back Section 230

That protects publishers...the second sites like yt, fb, x, etc start using algorithms that suppress posts for political or ideological reasons they're not publishers anymore....

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

elected a guy

And after biden pardoned a ********* and the judge from the kids for cash scandal...I don't have any regrets not voting for a unqualified candidate that was part of that administration...

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

TBH, I don't trust that people can figure it out and that makes censorship that much more dangerous. The vax was a good example; the left did a pretty good job suppressing the anti-vax crowd. I think Rob and I did a decent a job of presenting the facts and the math behind the vax. OTOH, you didn't see that type of messaging out there very much. Fauci would be on multiple outlets daily and all he had to say (most of the time) was wear mask, get jab.

I think most people can (the loudest folks are almost always the minority). Having only one side of an argument easily accessible doesn't help anyone to come to an informed opinion. It also prevents anyone from understanding why someone has a different opinion and because of that it becomes way to easy for polarization of an issue to become the norm. "Your" opinion is formed allowed information so "they" must be evil for believing "false" information.

As much as I find conspiracy theorists just something to chuckle at...because of them we've learned about some really terrible things the government has done. So having the extreme edge of an issue available might occasionally lead to a better understanding of the other "side" or in a few cases the truth...

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

How would the online platforms protect themselves from that liability of being held liable? BY CENSORING CONTENT TO AN EXTREME.

Like the government trying to get the "approved" m3ssage be the only one available on social media?

The 5th Circuit agrees that federal officials unconstitutionally 'coerced' or 'encouraged' online censorship

The appeals court narrowed a preliminary injunction against such meddling but confirmed the threat that it poses to freedom of speech.

reason.com

Government has a shitty track record for stopping anything they can potentially benefit from...

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

It's not bad enough they've monopolize the intrawebz, but now google is trying to control the narrative. F' them!!!

Waste of the Day: $267 Million Spent on Fighting “Misinformation”

Topline: The federal government has recently spent $267 million on grants meant to suppress supposed “misinformation,” according to a new report from OpenTheBooks.com. Of course, fed

realclearwire.com

That guy is probably literally in many pieces:

Russia Says Ukraine Allies Are 'Accomplices' In Moscow Assassination Of A Top General | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5042031-artificial-intelligence-danger-eric-schmidt/

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Have YOU actually read it?

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S REVIEW OF SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF 1996

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

I sure have. Here are some key takeaways. I have underlined and bolded some important words for you.

"As part of its broader review of market-leading online platforms, the U.S. Department of Justice analyzed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances. Congress originally enacted the statute to nurture a nascent industry while also incentivizing online platforms to remove content harmful to children. The combination of significant technological changes since 1996 and the expansive interpretation that courts have given Section 230, however, has left online platforms both immune for a wide array of illicit activity on their services and free to moderate content with little transparency or accountability.

"One key part of that legal landscape is Section 230, which provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content as well as immunity for removal of content in certain circumstances."
"Congress enacted Section 230 in part to resolve this quandary by providing immunity to online platforms both for third-party content on their services or for removal of certain categories of content."



And here is where Trump wanted to repeal 230, which would leave site owners liable for what third-parties put on the site. He did so because he was angry (he literally tweeted it) that Twitter fact-checked something he posted :

So yeah, he wanted to repeal 230, resulting in online platforms facing legal liability for what third-parties were posting on their platforms. Perhaps so he could sue Twitter when his lies got fact-checked and flagged?

Remember when he asked for the tweet from Chrissy Teigen (where she called him a "***** *** *****") to be taken down because it was "defamatory", yet everyone is screaming that tweets of false and dangerous info about COVID were being flagged?
Go figure.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

The purpose of 230 was to protect the platform for dumbshit being posted...once those platforms started censoring to have one over represented political leaning...they were no longer acting as a publisher...