I am only referring to that one sentence. The rest of the article does not matter.
That's where you're wrong. By deliberately omitting important information (i.e., the rest of the article), you've chosen to dive head-first into a pool of ignorance. Looks like you're also trying to justify it by saying that everyone else except you is crazy. That's a dangerous, self-destructive power fantasy to get sucked into.
Well, you pretty obviously didn't read the entire thing. You just reacted to the first sentence. The second and third paragraphs seem to support your points pretty well, after all, and they didn't make me leery like your swear words have.
I'm not sure any form of advertising allows for a successful business model anymore. It's probably a good time to recirculate posts about alternatives to advertisement funding, plus write some new ones.
I suppose the real takeaway here is that people are well and truly fed up with propaganda and sensationalism polluting news outlets. This has been going on for at least a couple decades now, ever since Fox News started taking advantage of the industry's deregulation, and because functional news and journalism is like a country's nervous system, we've seen the entire nation become paralyzed as a result. Now people just want these poisons expelled and they'll worry about the rest later.
People are lazy. Forcing a criminal to actually put in some effort at carrying out misdeeds is a crime deterrent in and of itself. Make things easier for criminals though, and more people will suddenly decide that they want to be one.
These are some good points. I've always appreciated how consistent this site is when dealing with legal matters.
Still, I think the result of this case is a strike against the paparazzi, not journalism. It SHOULDN'T impact freedom of speech in chilling ways, but... well, we do live in a time where anything and everything is abused, so I understand the concern.
Well, to be fair, Apple vs. the FBI is complex because Apple has deliberately cultivated an image as a wizard that can do anything, and now that's come back to bite them in the rear. The question of encryption is binary though.
We're halfway to the Mega Man Battle Network series becoming reality, what with how we have many things connected to the internet even when they shouldn't be connected to the internet. Now someone just needs to invent NetNavis so we can do some virus busting.
What gets me about these comments is that even if you are right, what's the alternative? Siding with you? You sound like you're stuck in a fantasy drama where you're off to slay some fictitious evil. Who would want you as an ally?
When you label someone as a devil, you force others to play devil's advocate.
It's an anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-establishment collection of horror stories and scare mongering that, like what passes on conservative talk radio, plays very well to it's audience but is laughed at loudly by everyone else.
There's a lot I could respond to here, but... I think that's enough to tell me that you cannot be reasoned with. Your attitude betrays you, as does your history.
I'm sorry. It's always a shame to see a person go to waste, even if that person has given you nothing but headaches. And that's the kind of attitude you would have yourself if you were legit.
The problem here is that you're telling everyone to do what they're already doing and have been doing for a long time. Most fights require a multi-pronged approach wherein you simultaneously blaze new trails while helping to break down the walls you refer to.
Given the pandemic of bribes and lobbying in the government, that sounds like a downright stupid thing to do. It would just be another instance of putting on a show to make the public think they have any influence when they actually don't.
Actually, that's the thing: he shares views that CAN'T be discussed because he makes it extremely clear that he's not interested in discussion. He talks at people, not with people. He's not interested in two-way communication. It's probably better to flag him and find a worthwhile opponent instead.
Meanwhile, people like Whatever tend to have a different problem: they don't try to read or understand the article and then respond with faux intellectualism, which comes off as galling to everyone else who's actually researched the subject. Both types of posters tend to easily get caught up in the mindset that they're the only people heroically crusading against a sea of ignorance, leading to a downward spiral of post quality that quickly gets kind of laughable and sad at the same time. I usually don't use the report button myself though unless insults start flying around.
I understand the frustration involved in this war, how it feels like slamming your head against a brick wall over and over. But the alternative is to just let the other side walk all over us, which isn't a realistic option at all. To bring about change, you must fight on every front that presents even an odium of opportunity.
Steel your resolve as Winston Churchill did when he famously said, "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."