Posts by Anony Mous

55

Should Difference of Opinion Be Squelched On Sites Such As FB or Twitter?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i think that for the most part, dissenting views should be allowed to exist because of free speech principles.

one person may strongly feel that something is true while someone else may present “facts” that support the opposing view.

when that is the case, healthy discussion is mostly productive.

Anony Mous

@rules: the rules for monopolies are different purely legally speaking. The government also has rules around Internet forums that gives FaceBook and Twitter protection for what their users do if they do not edit or censor the content.

I’m all for companies being able to decide for themselves but they should not be able to use their power to ban others from society. To give you the comparison with the baker, if one baker does not want certain customers, fine, but what if all bakers colluded on one day to not give bread to black people. That would be an illegal cartel.

It has been very clear that Silicon Valley has internal, politically oriented coordination as Twitter and FaceBook and Instagram and Apple and Google, companies that supposedly compete with each other, coordinated their bans to be within minutes of each other. That is the definition of an illegal cartel.

There is nothing ironic about that, everyone has free speech and enjoy the free exchange of labor, nobody has the right to censor other people or pressure others to stop their freedom of exchange.

If FaceBook wants to censor, then they should get their protections taken away and we should be able to sue them for what anyone posted on their site. To give you the analogy, the baker you mentioned promised to bake for everyone, regardless of their personal conviction, only if the baker could never be sued for the occasionally poisoned cake. The baker in this case now refuses to bake for gays and is still baking poisoned cakes and still expects legal protection.

Whether you’re on the left or the right, swap the parties in your stories and if you defend the actions then, you are a partisan hack. Either the protests this summer and the protest at the capitols across the country are the same, or they are all violent insurrections. There is a difference in nuance you can argue about (public vs private destruction during an insurrection)

17

Suing The Music Industry

by Lost in the fog in

jehovah’s witnesses file copyright lawsuit in response to blundering christmas album - listen, obey, and be blessed.

.

https://www.toptutorials.co.uk/jehovahs-witnesses-file-copyright-lawsuit-in-response-to-blundering-christmas-album-torrentfreak/.

Anony Mous

Interesting, after reading up on the case, it seems Jones’ album writers did get permission to use the song from a German rights holder.

According to the WTBTS that rights holder does not have permission to sublicense it. It will be interesting to see where the WTBTS got the license to use the song from then, they likely purchased some exclusive rights from a ‘wordly’ Christian songwriter but didn’t purchase full exclusivity.

Even in the lawsuit they only claim copyright on the “song book” and not individual songs https://torrentfreak.com/images/1-20-cv-10844-watchtower-v-BMG-complaint-201222.pdf

And if anyone had a bigger purse than the WTBTS to fund endless copyright lawsuits, that is BMG and the music industry.

82

Prediction: What Will Happen To Trump Now That Biden Will Be President?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i think he will have to deal with the attorney general of new york amongst other things.

i do think he will not simply go away quietly ..

Anony Mous

@GrreatTeacher - according to the media and the Democrat far-left (but I repeat myself), burning down a church and people storming and subsequently chaining themselves in the Capitol building was "peaceful protest". There were occasions where our congress critters literally had to step over protesters to get to their offices and meetings. Nobody kicked them out, the National Guard wasn't called, the DC mayor called it a "federal issue" and refused to deploy any form of policing.

If they can redefine a word, they can't be angry when it gets used against them.

82

Prediction: What Will Happen To Trump Now That Biden Will Be President?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i think he will have to deal with the attorney general of new york amongst other things.

i do think he will not simply go away quietly ..

Anony Mous

Not sure if you realized, Civil War just broke out at the Capitol.

A recent study had this to say:

Registered voters

40% believes there was fraud, sufficient to influence the election (I have seen fraud or I believe the first hand reports or I believe the videos of fraud)

35% believes there was fraud, insufficient to influence or with inconclusive proof (I believe it happened, but it can't be done at sufficient scale or I believe because of second hand sources)

17% believes there is no proof of fraud

9% unsure there was sufficient proof of fraud

When 75-84% of a population believes there was fraud, you have a problem, you have less than 25% of people willing to fight against that notion.

Do you personally know ANYONE that voted for Biden? I'm not overtly political in my day-to-day life, I work at an extremely left-wing institution so I know a few people, but it is a minority, and I live in a Deep Blue State in a College Town and most of my family and associates, including myself are or were Democrats. The only people that voted for Biden are the rich elitists (those with MD and/or PhD as a suffix).

19

"Great Reset" and the Borg

by mikeflood in

wow, just watched a video from the 'world economic forum' , a respectable organization by the way, not the usual conspiracy lunatic theorist.

it says that by 2030 meat is gonna be a treat not widely available like today, that the us is not gonna be a global superpower anymore, instead a handful of countries will dominate and that people is not gonna own nothing but will be happy.. well, that would help the borg to keep the craziness going on.. thoughts?

what's this great reset?.

Anony Mous

A lot of the end-of-day crap is bullshit. We’ve all seen such cultists utterances.

2030 is only 9 years out now, sea levels won’t suddenly rise 1-10m, cows will still be grazing so there will be plenty of meat. We will still be eating cows 100 years from now although it may become more of a delicacy due to cheap lab grown meat or it may become super common worldwide (most people to date rely on pigs and chickens rather than beef) due to cheaper and better farming.

Things will always change, but they don’t change that rapidly. Integrated circuits were invented almost 70 years ago, it didn’t change the world in any particular year and its potential is just now being discovered. The steam engine was invented 100 years before the first loom started using it and roughly 200 years before railroads became a thing, those changes didn’t happen suddenly in a span of a few years.

13

Australia Update

by Pants of Righteousness in

jw
friends

article .

Anony Mous

In regard the queen, yes the queen has ultimate authority over England and Australia and Canada and a ton of other areas of the world.

The royals no longer exercise much of that authority other than ceremonially but it is within their rights to do so although they would risk a revolt and declarations of independence or the countries becoming a republic which is what happened in the United States, India and quite a few other former colonies.

They still own all the land technically speaking and could reclaim it, the queen doesn’t need a passport or drivers license, you technically need permission to hunt many sorts of animals and there are a bunch of other bizarre rules which subjects have to follow, they control the army (allegiance for military officers is not to the flag or country but to the queen/king), there are a variety of free speech restrictions against the royals etc.

84

QUITTING QUIETLY here is the Canadian version of the document

by gone for good in

a while back, i suggested that an easy, quick, quiet exit with the signing and dating of a concise and irrefutable document would spur faders and pimos to preempt the elders' interference by quitting quietly first , before a fade or a confrontation.

here is the document .

https://1drv.ms/w/s!avoitfxyvyqghq3gbmkhfyqp_jqp?e=8bttg1.

Anony Mous

Where do you get the notion that freedom OF religion means freedom FROM religions? The document means absolutely nothing to the WTBTS, they will still go through their procedure of disfellowshipping you. And you cannot stop them, because legally that would interfere with their freedom OF religion, and that has been established as a legal matter the US, the EU and Canada.

In the letter you are basically stating that you have Human Rights, but having those rights does not mean Disfellowshipping has been made illegal. It has been made illegal in places like Russia and China though, so if you can make claim to that nationality and jurisdiction, you can actually claim that it would be illegal to DF you based on local laws that affect the family union.

The only way to stop a DF is to get a restraining order, but you need to have actual legal grounds, but that is very technical and dependent on what happened before. You still can’t decide you can stop them from speaking though, but a restraining order will hold them back. I was able to stop them from disfellowshipping me because the elders were family members of my ex, the elders stalked me to catch me in “wrongdoing” and I got a temporary restraining order against the organization doing “anything to affect the relationship with my child”, so they simply gave up.

Eventually though they simply circulated I was an apostate but never went through the process of inviting me to a disfellowshipping meeting, so technically speaking, I was never DF’ed or demoted from my position, since that was never announced, I’m sure my record is in a red folder though (provided they still use red folders for legal issues).

7

Well done, Boris, for getting us a Brexit deal!

by LoveUniHateExams in

boris johnson is often mocked, but he has recently achieved what former pms thought highly unlikely - boris has gotten the uk a brexit deal, and has got brexit done, keeping his manifesto promise.. well done, boris!

.

Anony Mous

@Phizzy: That was exactly what Brexit was all about. Sure there will be continued negotiations, but the control remains solely in British hands.

The Brexit deal as it is currently written allows both the EU and the UK to unilaterally decide whether to follow certain agreements and Brexit was always about sovereignty, any trade deal changes have to go through the regular channels, there is no third party that can cram down a rule like Germany does on EU members.

4

No stimulus Check unless section 230 is repealed.

by pistolpete in

president donald trump’s push for $2,000 covid-19 relief checks all but died wednesday as senate majority leader mitch mcconnell proposed an alternative approach of loading up the bill with other white house priorities that appeared destined to fail.

one priority was for congress to repeal section 230. question: just what is section 230?

answer: if a news site falsely calls you a swindler, you can sue the publisher for libel.

Anony Mous

I think you're misinterpreting Section 230. Before Section 230, we also had Internet forums, we've had those since the late 1970's. The problem was the issue of censorship, people were suing when providers censored posts from the Internet or edited them without their permission. There has always been a subculture of people that believed that freedom is absolute, this caused Democrats to pass Section 230 which established "good faith" censorship. Note that Section 230 is so poorly written, SCOTUS has repeatedly stated it violates the first amendment and other laws and struck down significant provisions of Section 230 already.

Section 230 states that: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

Without Section 230 you still have the free speech clauses of the constitution, what has happened is that, naturally, Democrats and content providers have taken the 'good faith' and 'otherwise objectionable' argument and extended that to everything they don't like while still getting the "not treated as the publisher or speaker". The argument on the right is and has been that if you edit a post, you are an editor and therefor liable for the content. We will just revert to the pre-2000s Internet where you could post whatever you wanted within the rules of a forum and if the service providers don't like it, they'll have to be honest and tailor their rules according to what they want on their forums. But right now Facebook etc have pulled a bait and switch and said to be pro-free speech but whenever someone exercises that right against their own interests, they find a reason to cancel them.

20

Do You Think Trump Will Abandon The Republican Party?

by minimus in

jw
friends

the way he’s talking, i wouldn’t be surprised if he creates a third party .

he’s unhappy with republican leadership.

can you see trump leaving the gop and going rogue?

Anony Mous

I don’t think so. He’s been the strongest unifier of the conservative vote. He doesn’t like the RINOs in congress who vote for a 900B bill with less than $600 for those that actually need it. True conservatives and Trump has gotten rid of a lot of pork over the last 4 years but the instant they think Trump is out, they go back to their old ways.

Pelosi sits on the board of the Kennedy performing arts center that got more millions than the entire restaurant industry and there are Republicans that happily go along with this because pork in their districts.

I do think the Democratic Party is at a rift, there are two groups tugging at the Biden administration; the AOC wing of the party and the Pelosi/Feinstein wing of the party. They will lose the House in 2022 and that will split the party as each blames the other.