Since when is Rossman controversial? He simply stands on the side of consumer right-to-repair and ownership. Is anyone here against this?
Since when is Rossman controversial? He simply stands on the side of consumer right-to-repair and ownership. Is anyone here against this?
His main point is that he's not the one killing Twitter, it's advertisers (being ultimately under the control of the governments of the world). They're killing it because there's a vested interest in being able to control the narrative, and he's not folding.
What does a "COVID conspiracy nut" believe? I'm just curious.
I was very careful doing mine, but the real things to watch out for (more than the LCD screen) are the touchpads. Those things can't be recalibrated, and there are no replacements. You can adjust the sensitivity everywhere but in desktop mode, but it makes the keyboard damn near impossible to use. Again, I barely touched them and had no issues reconnecting them, but when I got everything back together they were way too sensitive.
This is what I do with Tixati. It also works with Plex. You can watch it while it downloads.
There has been little to no research allowed that might prove otherwise, but some countries (that were denied access to the vaccine for profit reasons) seemed to have great success using it. That being said, calling it a horse dewormer within context is literally just lying. I'm actually giving them a chance when I leave out said context.
Thank you for this. The only way to combat ignorance isn't too silence, but to educate. When you silence someone, you isolate them to places where their opinions are only reaffirmed and never challenged, thus exacerbating the ignorance.
Pretty convenient for you to leave out the stories lol.
Wanting to censor an aggregate AI news site is so telling of your actual agenda. You're not fooling anyone in this forum with your weak little brigade bots. Your pro-establishment, elitist agenda will fail. Corporate and government elites are losing power as a result of people finally waking up, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. You'll kick and scream the whole way down, but your loss is inevitable as a result of the will of the people.
You accusing them of being a Nazi was inevitable it seems. You don't even realize the irony.
If you're on a VPN, why would it matter, genuinely curious?
My question is, why do you need to be part of a private tracker? What's the benefit beyond privacy, privacy which Mullvad will give you. Just go to the common public trackers; who cares if they're tracking your fake info?
I wonder if governments or insurance companies have hackers....
I just want to be able to calibrate the touchpads outside of desktop mode, or at least the keyboard.
How am I wasting anyone's time? They're free to look up my claims at any time. Here's a tidbit if you're so inconvenienced:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner
They had data showing otherwise. They were silenced. I'll keep bringing this up, but the director of the CDC at the time said there was significant evidence to investigate the lab leak theory, but was forcibly sidelined. They seem to have gotten your model backwards. This wasn't the only time it happened, but people will keep crying "sources" since they know it's now difficult to find information that was removed from journal sites, etc.
He's the source directly from Matt Taibbi:
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1606701405443874816
From government news site:
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/house-gop-wants-fbis-twitter-censorship-reimbursement-records
I literally copied and pasted my own comment; I don't understand where the confusion is coming from. "They" are the "Whitehouse" (via the FBI) that literally are what the trial of the post on which we're having this discussion were accused of; so yes, that's exactly what I said. They (the FBI/"Whitehouse") are on trial for influencing what should be sensored on social media as well as what information could be released during document requests to journalists. This included (based on the Twitter files) comments criticizing measures mandated by the government, including masking and social distancing requirements along with quarantine mandates.
My first article simply gave an example of one part of the mandates that weren't based on science with more stories to come once I can use an actual PC. It wasn't supposed to be my be-all-end-all source for everything I posited.
Yet the then director of the CDC was forcibly sidelined simply for asking that they investigate. Interesting take.
This is bullshit. They were calling certain things misinformation before they themselves knew. What gives them authority to do this and who actually decides what is true? At the time many scientists, including the CDC director (who was forcibly sidelined after sharing his position), were saying we should investigate the lab leak theory, and they were all silenced as a result. Scientists were saying that they wouldn't have suggested quarantine (including the UKs top health advisor) as the understaffed medical/health facilities would cause more death than quarantines would save, they were saying that masks had little to no impact on CORONA viruses in the past and peer-reviewed articles suggesting this were literally removed from websites; the list goes on. Meanwhile the MSM was literally spreading misinformation like the Ivermectin story or the vaccine stopping spread story. You really have to trust someone quite a bit to just go along with this while all your freedoms are diminishing.
If you're making no claim, then how are we disagreeing?
Edit: This suggests some sort of claim you are making:
"Someone has to be, since we have conflicting claims."
They were literally just making up arbitrary rules that had nothing to do with science, and saying it WAS based on science. Meanwhile the then director of the CDC said we should investigate if the virus came from a lab as well as if it had a natural origin, and was forcibly sidelined as a result. Don't even try to say they were following the science.
Edit: Also, if you're not even sure what the truth is, what gives you the right to silence people that have a different opinion? It makes no sense. Where is the authority to silence coming from?
I wholeheartedly disagree, and that's okay. What I think we CAN agree on is that leading experts (like the director of the CDC) shouldn't be silenced for suggesting we investigate the possibility of a lab leak, which is actually what happened.
Edit: Here's the example you asked for:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner/
The CDC director wasn't forcibly sidelined because he suggested that COVID-19 could have come from a lab?
I didn't say that article claimed that. This information is already known, and it's why there is a case in the first place. The Twitter files came out and corroborated that it had been going on for quite a while.
But somehow the government and corporations doing so is okay?
My main point was that the Whitehouse shouldn't be allowed to censor people (via the FBI) by calling certain information "misinformation" (especially when they had little to no evidence to support their own narrative) by forcing social media platforms to carry out said cencorship (or really in any way in all honesty).
The current administration came up with a narrative, and stifled any and all debate, including that of the then CDC director who they subsequently sidelined simply for saying we should investigate both possibilities on the origins of the virus.
There was no evidence to rule out it either, but they did it anyway.
You've got to do your homework. This has already been proven to be a false narrative set up by MSNBC and CNN (and their subsidiaries). You're behind. Ivermectin has been prescribed to humans for decades.
Oh, that's the easiest one.
Agreed. I misinterpreted it, but my main points still stand.
You've got to be kidding:
"Dr Redfield, who led the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when the outbreak began in 2020, was an early proponent of the lab leak theory.
He told the House select subcommittee, formed by the new Republican majority in the US House of Representatives, it was "not scientifically plausible" to him that the virus had natural origins.
He claimed he was "sidelined" at the beginning of the pandemic and excluded from meetings as his views were not in line with other major scientists like Dr Fauci, the de-facto face of the US pandemic response."
Please repeat your claim, just so we're clear.
He said it himself. There was a whole panel about it which you can watch for yourself where evidence was presented. Are you suggesting he was lying?
In a land where "lies" are suppressed, he who claims to know the truth is king. The sentiment of suppressing lies is perhaps rightous, but who determines the truth? It damn well wasn't scientists during the pandemic.
Edit: hell, even Zuck himself said he was told to censor true information.
Right? The amount of resentment is real. I really hope that person can try to adopt some compassion for people that disagree with them.
Which ones specifically? These are all fairly well known at this point. Let me ask, if I provide them, do you think it would influence you in any way?
I'll do that once I get to a computer. I forsee my effort being for nothing though.
This comment was unnecessary. There's no need to be disrespectful, I'll be home in about 10 hours.
I'm genuinely impressed by this being upvoted here. Big tech and powerful corporate/government interests are destroying our societies. This information needs to be checked and tracked.