All billionaires are thieves but it’s hard to argue that the state or citizens would have accomplished as much as his teams.
He’s the billionaire who did the most, why should he also be the first to be criticised, it doesn’t make sense he should be the last.
Yup, Microsoft has made criticizable choices and i’m pro-Linux, but :
I would need to document myself on this topic ;
Conspiracies about his links with covid(, harder to find on the Internet, i remember that they made a simulation for a global coronavirus pandemic ~6 months prior(, here, but there’s also a 90-pages long pdfalso written at the end of 2019 written in 2017, and unrelated to event 201 and whatever conspiracy there may be(, i didn’t take a look at these theories), but interesting nonetheless, advising the government for censorship among other things,) among other weird coincidences,) may be partially true for all i know, but in any case he’s at worst a co-conspirator and not the instigator(, if he played a role at all, which i still doubt/‘don’t really believe’, contrary to intelligence services who are much more used to biological weapons, perhaps as horrific as atomic ones, and intersideral wars will destroy whole planets if we haven’t solved wars until then(, while keeping our diversity since it’s desirable&possible)), i’ll pass on the dishonesty of “our world in data” since he’s following the standard and isn’t an exception there(, statista is worse[, edit to clarify on my suspicions on this standard : i was thinking of the number of deaths probably overestimated(, e.g., the flu stopped killing) ; but also of very subjective personal choices like how a growing inequality isn’t emphasised here, or relevant indicators to observe neo-colonialism ; or the choice of g.d.p. as an indicator because, e.g., rent inflates it and make it seem as if capitalism produces more g.d.p. ; and mostly overall suspicions towards a certain vision of economy that should perhaps not be considered as the orthodoxy, if only for the numerous negative externalities, the ‘lucrative properties’/‘passive income’, and the lack of democratic control of our workplace, things aren’t perfect and experimentations of theoretical improvements should be allowed outside&inside of our borders/control, technologies changed everything, i deny the superiority of capitalism for bringing innovations(, R&D is a waste of money when you can simply copy and focus on communication, our generations are breed in this atmosphere and despite being more wealthy aren’t really the child of our past nobles, we had it for centuries and then lost it)]) ;
His expense of wealth(, even if he’s wealthier than when he started donating,) are something i can only clap for. Since it is the only thing i vaguely documented myself on, Bill Gates is among the billionaires who spent their stolen wealth in the best manner, yes, i feel that i can only applaud.
I’d have preferred if citizens, religious, or public organisations filled this role, but they’re not powerful enough(, states excluded, and some humanitarian associations, who always lack donations), so i’m glad that some capitalists fight against preventable diseases/deaths in poorexploited countries, it could be worse since our “morals” are celebrating the “virtue” of capitalists’ selfishness, so double yay for B.Gates, W.Buffet, and other philanthropists, unironically(, because even if it’s not ideal it could be worse and their donation/wealth/power is needed).
It seems like an irrefutable point of view to claim that you can rank humans/billionaires according to the virtue of their deeds, and that putting all of them on the same scale is dishonest, just take random examples like the Walton family among others, they’re your typical billionaires, others are even worse since they’re supporting political/media/educational/… views increasing the economic inequalities in their favor, or even the so-called “anarcho”-capitalism, we’re far from our previous ideals of equality(, social reproduction/determinism : private education, inheritance, …). So yeah, i unapologetically rejoice that some of them are using their stolen wealth/power for greater causes.
Twitter was increasing its censorship(, do you need proof for that affirmation ?), would you trust the government to own the “townsquare”/“marketplace of ideas” ? I would only trust a government truly owned by its citizens, in a real/direct democracy with efficient counterpowers.
He had many more ideas in order to use these 40 billions, but thought that twitter/‘freedom of expression’ is worth it(, that’s what he’s repeating, since you won’t believe in his good intentions what’s your opinion on such a huge loss a money ?), now everyone tries to ruin twitter, and you support them, because he’s not censoring enough for you apparently, is that the reason ? Bad nazis that shouldn’t be allowed to spread hate ? Can’t you see that our governments want to keep their control on the narrative, or do you just find “normal” that our newspapers agree between them on our foreign policy(, just as the medias of our unfree enemies brainwash their citizens(, yet we’ve strangely never read them once)) ?
A journalist who’s “anti-system” isn’t deemed acceptable for the owners of the (legacy )medias, hence s.he/we only have alternative medias and some fringe portions of the Internet left(, for now), seems worth fighting for.
One is a government punishing you for saying something. The other is a company saying, “not on my platform.”
If you cannot understand the difference already, you truly are too stupid to discuss this topic.
Keep in mind: This is not an endorsement of Twitter or X’s behavior. I’m just smart enough to understand that someone should have control of their own house in a “free” world. What you want is for Twitter/X to be unable to kick people out of their own house for their own reasons.
If YOU were smart, you’d liken it to businesses refusing service, not government censorship.
One is a government punishing you for saying something. The other is a company saying, “not on my platform.”
Oh, ok, i could eventually agree with this definition.
My own definition is that you can moderate without censoring(, kinda like you can neutralize without killing), even if most social medias aren’t using things like warnings before censoring, or overall participation of the (unpaid )mods in the forums to guide newcomers, straighten flamewars by words, answer questions, register complaints and advices, create special events, bots on discord, and as many collective events than can be thought of, almost to the point of being more like a supervisor than a moderator. If such a distinction makes sense a moderator would be between a censor and a supervisor, a manager would be yet another word but i could mix these four into the same word, censorship is only the last resort of the moderator, it’s usually enough to point out the mistake for the user to amend h.im.er.self by acknowledging h.er.is faults and leaving the community or keeping the rules more in mind, it shouldn’t be a surprise ban but that’s commonplace on reddit, it’s not my philosophy but w/e, i’ve talked about it with 2-3 mods in the past and they don’t agree, it’s taking them a lot of time as well so they’re not thinking twice nor engaging.
That was a long introduction, hope it wasn’t too boring, i’ll take your definition and say that unfortunately the government is using the word moderation in its speeches and is making laws to censor illegal speeches on the internet, like defense of what they’ll choose to call terrorists, or denial of what they’ll call genocide, or the counter-informations that they may falsely deem disinformation(, covid could be an example, some conspiracies as well), E.Musk is annoying because the Community Notes also debunk our disinformation, and i’ll only mention astroturfing.
Do you want a short excerpt of my long list of examples of government censorship ?
Furthermore, what’s the censorship by companies if not the censorship by the wealthy/powerful for written(“legacy”) medias ? Don’t you think they have enough power like that. States should protect us from their censorship by allowing us some rights, like a proper explanation before being banned or the right to keep a copy of their data afterwards, or not i’m against government interference in one way or another(, except if our declared enemies can use this against us, but we’re going beyond that and are clearly aiming to prevent people from speaking uncomfortable/convincing proofs, WikiLeaks is emblematic of a larger movement, and the “cancel culture” has destroyed careers of some people for false reasons, our governments don’t trust the population to make their own conclusions.
There is no way you are a communist and willing to defend ol musky.
All billionaires are thieves but it’s hard to argue that the state or citizens would have accomplished as much as his teams.
He’s the billionaire who did the most, why should he also be the first to be criticised, it doesn’t make sense he should be the last.
Do you gargle Bill Gates balls as well?
Yup, Microsoft has made criticizable choices and i’m pro-Linux, but :
also written at the end of 2019written in 2017, and unrelated to event 201 and whatever conspiracy there may be(, i didn’t take a look at these theories), but interesting nonetheless, advising the government for censorship among other things,) among other weird coincidences,) may be partially true for all i know, but in any case he’s at worst a co-conspirator and not the instigator(, if he played a role at all, which i still doubt/‘don’t really believe’, contrary to intelligence services who are much more used to biological weapons, perhaps as horrific as atomic ones, and intersideral wars will destroy whole planets if we haven’t solved wars until then(, while keeping our diversity since it’s desirable&possible)), i’ll pass on the dishonesty of “our world in data” since he’s following the standard and isn’t an exception there(, statista is worse[, edit to clarify on my suspicions on this standard : i was thinking of the number of deaths probably overestimated(, e.g., the flu stopped killing) ; but also of very subjective personal choices like how a growing inequality isn’t emphasised here, or relevant indicators to observe neo-colonialism ; or the choice of g.d.p. as an indicator because, e.g., rent inflates it and make it seem as if capitalism produces more g.d.p. ; and mostly overall suspicions towards a certain vision of economy that should perhaps not be considered as the orthodoxy, if only for the numerous negative externalities, the ‘lucrative properties’/‘passive income’, and the lack of democratic control of our workplace, things aren’t perfect and experimentations of theoretical improvements should be allowed outside&inside of our borders/control, technologies changed everything, i deny the superiority of capitalism for bringing innovations(, R&D is a waste of money when you can simply copy and focus on communication, our generations are breed in this atmosphere and despite being more wealthy aren’t really the child of our past nobles, we had it for centuries and then lost it)]) ;I’d have preferred if citizens, religious, or public organisations filled this role, but they’re not powerful enough(, states excluded, and some humanitarian associations, who always lack donations), so i’m glad that some capitalists fight against preventable diseases/deaths in
poorexploited countries, it could be worse since our “morals” are celebrating the “virtue” of capitalists’ selfishness, so double yay for B.Gates, W.Buffet, and other philanthropists, unironically(, because even if it’s not ideal it could be worse and their donation/wealth/power is needed).It seems like an irrefutable point of view to claim that you can rank humans/billionaires according to the virtue of their deeds, and that putting all of them on the same scale is dishonest, just take random examples like the Walton family among others, they’re your typical billionaires, others are even worse since they’re supporting political/media/educational/… views increasing the economic inequalities in their favor, or even the so-called “anarcho”-capitalism, we’re far from our previous ideals of equality(, social reproduction/determinism : private education, inheritance, …). So yeah, i unapologetically rejoice that some of them are using their stolen wealth/power for greater causes.
God! You have to use your intelligence for something other than praising rent seeking leaches.
e: I have to ask. How old are you?
Thanks ? Seems like i should repeat what i wrote in regard to your advice/conclusion.
I’m 32.
Throw me a few arguments if you want to continue, otherwise thanks for the chat.
You’re right. The government would’ve paid far more beurocrats in the process of pissing away 40 billion.
Twitter was increasing its censorship(, do you need proof for that affirmation ?), would you trust the government to own the “townsquare”/“marketplace of ideas” ? I would only trust a government truly owned by its citizens, in a real/direct democracy with efficient counterpowers.
He had many more ideas in order to use these 40 billions, but thought that twitter/‘freedom of expression’ is worth it(, that’s what he’s repeating, since you won’t believe in his good intentions what’s your opinion on such a huge loss a money ?), now everyone tries to ruin twitter, and you support them, because he’s not censoring enough for you apparently, is that the reason ? Bad nazis that shouldn’t be allowed to spread hate ? Can’t you see that our governments want to keep their control on the narrative, or do you just find “normal” that our newspapers agree between them on our foreign policy(, just as the medias of our unfree enemies brainwash their citizens(, yet we’ve strangely never read them once)) ?
A journalist who’s “anti-system” isn’t deemed acceptable for the owners of the (legacy )medias, hence s.he/we only have alternative medias and some fringe portions of the Internet left(, for now), seems worth fighting for.
Twitter moderation is not censorship, dumbass.
What’s the difference ?
One is a government punishing you for saying something. The other is a company saying, “not on my platform.”
If you cannot understand the difference already, you truly are too stupid to discuss this topic.
Keep in mind: This is not an endorsement of Twitter or X’s behavior. I’m just smart enough to understand that someone should have control of their own house in a “free” world. What you want is for Twitter/X to be unable to kick people out of their own house for their own reasons.
If YOU were smart, you’d liken it to businesses refusing service, not government censorship.
Oh, ok, i could eventually agree with this definition.
My own definition is that you can moderate without censoring(, kinda like you can neutralize without killing), even if most social medias aren’t using things like warnings before censoring, or overall participation of the (unpaid )mods in the forums to guide newcomers, straighten flamewars by words, answer questions, register complaints and advices, create special events, bots on discord, and as many collective events than can be thought of, almost to the point of being more like a supervisor than a moderator. If such a distinction makes sense a moderator would be between a censor and a supervisor, a manager would be yet another word but i could mix these four into the same word, censorship is only the last resort of the moderator, it’s usually enough to point out the mistake for the user to amend h.im.er.self by acknowledging h.er.is faults and leaving the community or keeping the rules more in mind, it shouldn’t be a surprise ban but that’s commonplace on reddit, it’s not my philosophy but w/e, i’ve talked about it with 2-3 mods in the past and they don’t agree, it’s taking them a lot of time as well so they’re not thinking twice nor engaging.
That was a long introduction, hope it wasn’t too boring, i’ll take your definition and say that unfortunately the government is using the word moderation in its speeches and is making laws to censor illegal speeches on the internet, like defense of what they’ll choose to call terrorists, or denial of what they’ll call genocide, or the counter-informations that they may falsely deem disinformation(, covid could be an example, some conspiracies as well), E.Musk is annoying because the Community Notes also debunk our disinformation, and i’ll only mention astroturfing.
Do you want a short excerpt of my long list of examples of government censorship ?
Furthermore, what’s the censorship by companies if not the censorship by the wealthy/powerful for written(“legacy”) medias ? Don’t you think they have enough power like that. States should protect us from their censorship by allowing us some rights, like a proper explanation before being banned or the right to keep a copy of their data afterwards, or not i’m against government interference in one way or another(, except if our declared enemies can use this against us, but we’re going beyond that and are clearly aiming to prevent people from speaking uncomfortable/convincing proofs, WikiLeaks is emblematic of a larger movement, and the “cancel culture” has destroyed careers of some people for false reasons, our governments don’t trust the population to make their own conclusions.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
repeating
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.