There are now "loyalty tests" for those who apply to positions at the FBI, to be hired you have to state that the "patriots" on Jan. 6 2021 were the rioters attempting a coup, not the Capitol Police defending the constitutional transfer of government power.
I think the parent post is defending what somewhat older people know to be true. Nixon was far worse than Trump, also betrayed US allies for example. And where it hurts: he effectively stole gold from them.
And I'm sure in another 20 years even democrat voters will remember, probably correctly, that Trump was so much better than $us_president_at_that_time.
Nixon was never credibly accused of sexual assault, never organized a mob of rioters to sack the US capitol, never published tertiary syphilis-coded rants for the world to see in the middle of the night, nearly every night.
Nixon had a competent cabinet, some of them even had principles. Nixon's Attorney General was willing to resign on principle for his refusal to fire the special prosecutor. Nixon didn't put his own attorney at the head of the DOJ.
I could go on. To be clear: Nixon was a corrupt thug. At the same time he was nowhere near as symptomatic of a national malignant political cancer as Trump has been. Plus there was a congress to keep Nixon in check, we don't have a functioning Congress now, just a department of a political party.
Ms Wynn-Williams has also filed a whistleblower complaint with the US markets regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), alleging Meta misled investors - which Meta also denies. The BBC has reviewed the complaint.
I want to know who was responsible for the "it's ok to call gay people etc mentally ill" policy. Kaplan? Zuck?
Not that it matters. FB's moderation and policies are so inconsistent it's unlikely they banned it before or would ban something now that supposedly goes against their TOS
> Facebook at the time was uncertain how to handle posts from the Trump campaign, The Wall Street Journal reported. Sources told the paper that Facebook employees were sharply divided over the candidate’s rhetoric about Muslim immigrants and his stated desire for a Muslim travel ban, which several felt were in violation of the service’s hate speech standards. Eventually, the sources said, CEO Mark Zuckerberg weighed in directly and said it would be inappropriate to intervene. Months later, Facebook finally issued its policy.
This is exactly what I'm talking about - Facebook in the late 2010s had a huge number of employees who thought it was morally important to censor speech that they thought harmed groups they considered marginalized (here, Muslims in general), using anti-hate-speech standards as a tool; and eventually higher-ups at the company felt they needed to come up with some reasonably politically-neutral public rhetoric, which amounted to "we won't censor things polticians say directly in the news". This stated policy still made a lot of pro-censorship people mad, hence this 2019 Ars Technica article attacking Facebook for it. Obviously Facebook (and various other social media companies) changed their stated and de-facto policies several times over the next several years in response to the changing political landscape in the US, which is a process still going on now.
Any attempt at all to define community standards for moderation that have some definition of what hate speech even is, is tantamount to making an object level poltical statement. I am opposed to the existence of any private social media platform that even attempts to do content-based moderation at anything approaching society-wide scale.
If you look at Apple / Google mobile platforms, these are the requirements for modern desktop apps:
1. providing a build environment for app developers to build something that can run on any distro
Both Flatpak and Snap solve this by providing a SDK; for Snap there is one SDK built out of Ubuntu packages, for Flatpak there is a choice of various options, most built on the Freedesktop.org SDK (Gnome/KDE), plus some independent ones. AppImage provides nothing to solve this problem.
2. providing a runtime environment that conveniently integrates the app on users' desktops
Flatpak and Snap solve this via integration into Gnome Software, KDE Discover and similar UIs; AppImage also solves it in a way by being just a single file that the user clicks on.
3. sandboxing to keep users safe
Flatpak provides sandboxing via Bubblewrap, which works on any Linux distro. Snap provides sandboxing mostly via AppArmor, which requires (last I checked) out-of-tree Linux patches, and only works fully on Ubuntu. AppImage does not provide sandboxing, but the expert user can manually run an AppImage with firejail to sandbox it.
4. a convenient way for users to find applications to install
Flatpak has Flathub as a vendor-independent central app store with volunteer reviewers, and also provides the option to self-host apps conveniently. Snap has Snap Store as a central app store that is run and monetized by Canonical, and it's not possible to set up an independent alternative. AppImages are typically hosted directly by the upstream project, but now there is also an AppImageHub.
5. automated updates
Flatpak and Snap provide this automatically from Flathub/Snap Store; AppImages may be auto-updatable in several different ways but it requires the application author to implement support for it.
A more likely explanation is that butterfly mines were dropped by Russian armed forces; see Human Rights Watch:
Russian forces have used at least seven types of antipersonnel mines in at least four regions of Ukraine: Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Sumy.
There is no credible information that Ukrainian government forces have used antipersonnel mines in violation of the Mine Ban Treaty since 2014 and into 2022.
Of course this is all tradition to bring rebellious minorities back into Russkiy Mir, just look at how Grozny looked in 2000. That was Putin's first war, started when he was prime minister.
Are you sure that these people were "gloating" about private companies moderating arbitrarily? In the US, this is simply an obvious consequence of the first amendment, as many people have indeed pointed out.
The same people may personally hold wildly different beliefs as to whether this legal situation is desirable or not.
And in European countries, where there is no first amendment preventing the government from interfering with social media moderation policies, the situation is often different, and courts have required social media companies to publish speech which they had intended to moderate; see for example:
No it wasn't that they were moderating arbitrarily, it's that they were censoring opinions and discussions that were deemed verboten and the gloatees agreed with shutting it down. They of course changed their tune about it when something did not go their way.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/02/08/...
But technically you are correct, of course. Trump never demanded that VP Mike Pence be hanged, the rioters he sent to Congress did.
reply