kuzimoto

Does it matter? Isn't a mob a mob?

Yes, incredibly frustrating. Lots of the media played along with it as well.

Antifa's not an organized thing

While there may be no central leadership, there are definitely organized chapters. That's exactly what they would like people to believe. And yet, they seem to act in an incredibly organized fashion...

Shouldn't people be held accountable for their own actions at some point? Everyone should know that murder is illegal, even if <insert popular figure> says to kills someone, you should know not to.

So the ends justify the means? Only certain ideas are allowed for mobs to be okay?

That’s a very subjective chart

Can you explain? On the site:

The AllSides Media Bias Chart is more comprehensive in its methodology than any other media bias chart on the Web. While other media bias charts show you the subjective opinion of the one person who made it, our ratings are based based on multipartisan, scientific analysis.

and by their own admission doesn’t even try to compare for honesty or credibility

I don't think this matters in the context of the point I was making.

Most of the two R columns routinely run fake or highly selective coverage

Hmm, so this further reduces the number of quality right-leaning sources. Seems to further prove my point. Remember, the chart shows sites with the most traffic.

There is an enormous difference between an outlet like the New Yorker, which is definitely liberal but also fiercely committed to fact checking, and outlets like Newsmax or The American Conservative which are proudly movement conservatives first and journalists second, if at all.

Maybe, but it doesn't matter in the context of my point. Also, if they are clear about their biases it shouldn't matter, unless presenting outright lies. Many left-leaning sources try to come off like they are objective. Also:

A leading New Yorker writer omits crucial facts to run interference for Joe Biden against serious allegations of corruption in Ukraine, writes Joe Lauria. [0]

Many left-leaning sources were also guilty of this (twitter going so far as take down the tweet from the NY Post as "hacked information" even though there was zero evidence this was the case, and Facebook de-prioritizing shared link of the same).

This is my opinion and based around some examples I've seen, but I believe that conservative sources have a tougher time making money, because people will attack their ad-partners for supporting those companies. I'd like to see where this happens to left-leaning sources.

[0] https://consortiumnews.com/2019/10/08/the-new-yorkers-partis...

There are people out there that are crazy, and will use anything to justify their actions. Unless he called for a specific action, I don't see how he is to blame. It would be setting a bad precedent to blame or punish anyone that said something provacative that is not explicitly a call for inciting harm/violence. People need to be held responsible for their own actions.

I believe Obama used carefully picked statistics to say there is widespread racism in the police. There are likely racist people/cops, but I don't believe there is evidence to suggest widespread racism.

Just looking at the "AllSides Media Bias Chart" there are more "major" sources that are left-leaning than right [0]. The chart includes top sources by traffic. I mean this doesn't calculate all traffic and determine if in general left sources are more viewed but it's a start.

[0] https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

Can you be upset and disavow what someone says but still support them? The instant someone says something "bad" they should be just thrown out?

I don't agree with a lot of what Trump says, but I don't hold him accountable for others' actions unless he specifically called for violence which I don't think he did in this case. He does say some questionable things, but has always disavowed violence on both sides.

Obama has promulgated lots of anti-police rhetoric, and there are some who would blame him for certain attacks on police. I disagree with things he said, but would not blame him for any of that.

Do you have proof that concervatives are?

I don't believe most conservatives agree with his rhetoric, they just like his policies for the most part. They probably don't even like him much, they just dislike the direction the democratic side is going enough to vote for him.

Conservatives make up roughly 50% of the United States. Are you saying all conservatives are ‘fascists’, ‘racists’, ‘nazis’?

Because Fox is the primary "mainstream" news source for conservative viewers. There are many more left-leaning news networks so their viewers are more divided. The majority of remaining news channels/networks/etc. have liberal bias.

I don't mind if a site doesn't work as intended, but is it too much to ask to get something more than "You need to enable JavaScript to run this app."

I didn't realize viewing text or images without client side JS was an unreasonable ask.

Guess I didn't read the article thoroughly enough! Darn all the sensationalist headlines...

Well thanks for pointing out my errors in a nice way.

I think this is an interesting idea, and would like to follow the progress.

My only complaint is that the site is entirely unusable without JavaScript. Perhaps consider including some content with in addition to the notice of enabling JavaScript. I get most sites aren't designed with NoScript users in mjnd, but being able to see a little information before whitelisting the domain would be nice.

"Universal Healthcare" is generally pretty terrible. I'm not saying the US system is perfect, it has plenty of flaws but at least you can't be banned from getting services you want [0]. Plus government is already subsidizing the cost of the vaccine, and creating a program for elderly and low income people to get the vaccine for fairly cheap [1].

[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/nhs-provokes-fur...

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiejennings/2020/11/17/how-mu...

Are court cases enough? https://torrentfreak.com/private-internet-access-no-logging-...

While I don't think it should be possible to spend so much on a mobile game, I believe some responsibility lands on the parents.

I'm sure my kids would have done this already, just by the sheer number of pop-ups and garbage in some games. But purchases require a password each time, so nothing happens.

I think that only impacts the website hosting.

All in all a decent effort at providing some Google alternatives. However, if the focus is on privacy I would not even recommend any services that are not specifically privacy-focused (IMO), even with a disclaimer. I would encourage anyone to self-review any services listed.

Godaddy is offered as a domain and website host, when they have been known to inject JavaScript tracking code unbeknownst to the user [0].

[0] https://www.igorkromin.net/index.php/2019/01/13/godaddy-is-s...

The latency is fairly negligible, to me at least. Plus if you're already searching in DDG it's faster to input !g than to go to Google. Also I think it's nice to give them that info where they could be done better.

They own the economy, lock stock and barrel. The rest of us can only hope for a small stream to cover our expenses and little else.

How do you explain all of the successful people that started from nothing, and got to where they are now?

So what solution do you propose? Do they not deserve the money they made? The majority of businesses fail, don't the ones that succeed deserve a reward?

As long as they didn't cheat or steal to get there, why does it matter? I'm fairly sure wealthy people don't have tons of cash on hand, most of money is in the companies they built or invested in.

According to this article [0] Jeff Bezos net worth is $188.7 billion. His shares of Amazon represent $172.8 billion. While unlikely, if Amazon stock plummeted he would have "only" $15.9 billion. While still a lot on its own, the vast majority of his money is not even usable (immediately).

[0] https://marketrealist.com/p/how-many-shares-of-amazon-does-j...

> "American capitalism" is also responsible for the greatest reduction of poverty globally in all of human history.

Is that true? I’ve heard this recently from republican leaning sources but it doesn’t appear to be true.

I can't find sources to determine the exact contribution of the US to this, but free market capitalism in general is definitely responsible [0].

> it seems like a majority of climate change talk always revolves around how the US can be doing more

An American citizen emits 16 tonnes of co2 per year. Who else even comes close?

Canada is higher, Australia is close behind. I mentioned this before, but US co2 emissions have been in decline, while many other countries are increasing. It will not take India long before it eclipses the US.

America represents 15% of total co2 emissions [1]. If we wanted to reduce globally everyone needs to participate.

[0] https://catalyst.independent.org/2019/06/14/capitalism-remai...

[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...

American capitalism has led the world to the brink of destruction by climate change

This sort of alarmist language makes it really difficult to take anything you said seriously. I'm fairly confident most people think climate change is concerning, but not "on the brink of destruction"

"American capitalism" is also responsible for the greatest reduction of poverty globally in all of human history.

Nothing else pales in comparison to the destruction that's coming as a direct result of USA turning a blind eye to climate change.

Interesting, because the United States has actually been lowering carbon dioxide emissions, and total output absolutely pales in comparison to China which has seen nearly exponential growth [0].

This may be completely wrong, but it seems like a majority of climate change talk always revolves around how the US can be doing more, and rarely about what other countries can do.

Interesting how America is always to blame for the world's problems. I'm not saying America has been perfect, but it certainly does more good than bad.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...

Seems a little dangerous to completely rely on work for socialization. In my opinion most work relationship are pretty shallow and not meaningful long-term. When you leave a company, your entire social circle is going to be up-ended.

Why should where I spend the majority of my waking hours, the majority of my life in practical terms, not also be my primary source of socialization?

I think because the primary goal is to work. Socialization is a plus, but it will never be your main focus, as mentioned above you will not build meaningful relationships (I mean, not entire impossible, just not as likely).

Relying on your few off hours to satisfy your innate human need for socialization places an unhealthy demand on your off hours, not to mention an unfair demand on your friends and family.

I don't think it's an unfair demand to want to spend time with friends and family (that is the point of them). Anyone that is thinking that is probably not someone you want to be spending time with...

Humans were never intended to spend so much time alone, we’re social animals.

I think this is what wife/kids are for. I can't speak for others, but it works for me! 99.9% of my time out of work is with them, and have never felt lonely. Not everyone is in that position I suppose, but then friends would have to fill that gap.

I was thinking about this, and I could see it working if they downgrade to a smaller office without permanent seating. Try to figure out roughly what percent of total employees would come in on average.

I've been bringing my own keyboard and mouse for years. My current employer would buy at least an ergonomic keyboard for those that want it, but they aren't going to drop $200 on my mechanical keyboard for everyone, and I think that's pretty fair.

I think what they meant was that having an interest in literacy doesn't mean someone is also interested in record keeping.