America - The Official Thread

[Yard_Sale]

Unnecessarily cynical, and not based in reality. It may seem as though the democrats can't do anything, even with a majority, even with potentially 60 votes in the senate for 4 months under obama. But it is simply nearly impossible for democrats to push through legislation past the filibuster. Anything that's not strictly financial is up against whatever the Christians in rural America want. Joe Manchin just demonstrated that nicely only... yesterday? I think it was yesterday.


What bothers me more than that is the atrocious, and completely unsupported, ruling that it contained.

Both political parties LOOOOVE the filibuster when it benefits them. I think the filibuster is a good thing when used properly and sanely. But that rarely happens on both sides anymore, unfortunately

I also think Abortion is a topic that for whatever reason many people on the right fail to understand. If the women wants an abortion because of being impregnated by rape or if the baby raises the risk at killing the mother then that’s where an Abortion comes into play. I hate how this has become such a partisan issue over because some ancient book says it is and if you disagree, you’ll burn in hell.

Most people are in line with this, on both sides of the isle. Rape pregnancies (and incest for that matter), as horrible as they are, are by in part the vast minority of unwanted pregnancies. As far as women dying during birth giving, its just not all that common anymore.

What really turned my screws was this station I used to work at that was up the street from one of those holistic birthing centers. The amount of babies that died, while not exactly a huge number, frustrated me. Had they been in a hospital like a reasonable person, the problem with he baby would be mitigated in 30 seconds. When you're in a birthing center, it'll take minimum 10 minutes to get that baby to a hospital. By then its too late

Working where I have for as long as I have, you see the harsh reality of where abortions have turned into just another version of birth control. Lack of education is a factor. General Culture is as just a big of a factor. Lack of a stable 2 parent household is probably the biggest factor that contributes to a lot of the issues in these communities.

There has to be a middle ground in this somewhere. Free birth control. Free Amniocentesis tests, so expecting mothers/parents can make decisions early in a pregnancy. There's a lot of good ideas out there of what reasonable abortion law could look like. But we'll never get there

 

[Danoff]

Both political parties LOOOOVE the filibuster when it benefits them. I think the filibuster is a good thing when used properly and sanely. But that rarely happens on both sides anymore, unfortunately

Requiring a supermajority for legislation can make a sense. You could even argue that it makes sense in this case (though I note that you haven't). The issue with the supermajority is that it is required for everything non-financial, and it's required in the senate, which is based on a somewhat arbitrary division across land rather than population. That's a recipe for minority control over all issues that aren't budgetary.

You can see why it then does not make sense to claim that democrats won't move their agenda forward simply because they're trying to keep their supporters unsatisfied right?

Edit:

I took the abortion talk to the abortion thread.

 

[R3V]

You mean because of the car video game thing? Yea that's not significant at all. But regardless, I could say that twitter was targeted at the mobile phone texting sub-community (which when it started, was definitely a sub-community). GTP welcomes lots of people, I haven't played the game in ages.

You came for the video game, stayed for the friendly members, right? Or whatever it is you liked that kept you here.

What do you call the opinions forum if not a sub-community? I thought, a second ago GTP was targeted as sub-communities, now it's not?

The lounge area of a book club.

So it's simply size.

Percentage of the population using your product/service and/or marketshare.

Exactly which of those that you put into that grouping do you think is a monopoly?

The easy pick would be youtube or google. It doesn't need 100% marketshare to be a "monopoly", just close to it. Let's not nitpick.

Why does the presence of the others not undercut that argument?

That's not how this sector works. Netflix gained popularity because it was one stop convenient shop for movies and shows (again, not 100% marketshare). The presence of others is diluting everybody's income AFAIK and piracy rise more and more when others such as Disney+ are "present". To quote the grfiter Andrew Yang again, no one wants to use the second best search engine. If anything, the more people use a certain engine/product the better that product will be. It's almost like single payer insurance

GTP is a town square.

Nope. Can't carry pitchforks or guillotines here nor can you rally more than a 100 people at best. You can however, organize regime-change movements on Twitter or Facebook thanks to the reach

The democrats had a maximum of 60 votes in the senate (the requirement to break the filibuster, which was not broken a moment ago about roe) for all of 4 months. That does not mean that the had 60 votes on codifying roe - something which would not have been at the top of the priority list during that 4 months because the supreme court had ruled that the constitution requires it. I highly doubt that the democrats could have codified roe during that 4 months, but the fact that they didn't does not make it their fault that religious nuts want to threaten women with homicide charges for taking a plan-b pill.

The democrats with their "control" over the senate just voted to codify roe, and it did not even get a majority (despite the democrats having theoretically 51 votes). They got 49. If you need to understand what's wrong in this country, look no further than 2/3 of Americans supporting roe, and the senate voting 51 to 49 not to codify it. For clarity, it would have taken 60, not 51, for it to pass.

I forgot Obama's slogan was "No, we can't". By the way:

something which would not have been at the top of the priority list during that 4 months

Your thesis here is that the democrats wanted abortion rights to be tenuous so that they could scare voters. It lacks evidence, it lacks reason, it lacks understanding, and it's totally unnecessarily cynical and demonizing. It's almost like it came straight from right wing media.

I know this is heresay and "trust me bro", but trust me bro, I've talked to people who make "campaign contributions" to the leadership of both parties. It's even more cyicial than what you're saying I'm portraying.

It also does not lack reason. Those tactics have been employed by "people in charge" for centuries.

You might, but what's the relevance?

You called my comment risible. Just because in your opinion or others' it's a laughable opinion, doesn't mean it'll always be that way (like gay marriage) It's entirely subjective and it would've been better if the response wasn't just a gif. Do you not agree?

As you wish, but it makes for awkward conversations if words are used without meaning.

"Necessity" means "that which is necessary", and "necessary" derives from the Latin "necessare" meaning "indispensible or unavoidable".

If you can survive by dispensing with it or avoiding it, it is not a necessity

Okay. This seems to one of three fundamental disagreements here.

When you say necessary, do you mean literally biologically necessary? Is the test here whether a heart still beats or not? Because my necessity line is much closer than literal death.

Both of those things are really, really odd things to say.

Being a "government employee" is a choice. Working in whatever industry you work in is a choice. A government requiring [a piece of software] is a choice. An industry relying on [a piece of software] is a choice. All are highly fluid choices; I seriously doubt that government required WhatsApp, and I seriously doubt that Instagram was your industry's standard, 15 years ago, because neither existed. I seriously doubt it'll be the same in 15 years' time too.

However, they are examples of terms of use. If you work for your government, you agree - as a condition of employment - to use WhatsApp... What happens when the government decides WhatsApp isn't secure enough and switches to Signal as a condition of employment? Employees can either agree and continue working for government, or disagree and stop...

To clarify, the government here does not require you to use whatsapp. It's just that if you want to opt out of using WhatsApp, you're opting out of finishing government paperwork such as renewing your license etc. It's an invisible gun to your head. So yes even by your biology standard, opting out of WhatsApp will indirectly lead to being left in the desert to die.

What about them? I don't have, nor do I use, any of them. An Oculus Rift isn't a necessity either.

That's quite an achievement. Are you sure, though? Do you not use a smart phone? Even if you uninstall WhatsApp after getting an android phone, Google still steals your data. So does Apple.

You would honestly be the first person I met below 70 years of age who never used a Facebook, Google or Apple service. I mean, I'm sure Google is integrated to this very site lol and you may be using chrome.

They can, and indeed should. This is why it's important to separate rights from laws. I don't see the relevance here though, as the point is that Facebook (and pretty much everyone else) operates to the finest, furthest extent of the law possible and that it is entirely legal for them to set out an agreement in which you may use their services and they may harvest your data. It is not illegal.

It could not set out an agreement in which you may use their services and they may harvest your organs. That would be illegal.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. I'm not discussing what is currently legal and what isn't. I'm stating what I think should be illegal and my own interpretation of laws and rights.

If I were a supreme court justice (and I'm more qualified than Amy Coney Barret), it would be my opinion that a digital platform may not harvest your data without complete transparency and consent. Not abiding by this would/should be a violation of the 4th amendment. It's no different than having someone sign away their organs or right to medical record privacy.

Fundamental disagreement 2/3

Firstly, you'd need to be governed by US law for that to be applicable. More importantly though, it still wouldn't. The US Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on Government.

Fundamental disagreement 3/3

Although I am not as versed in US history as I have time to be, it seems logical to me that if the bill of rights includes the right not to get killed by the FBI, that right should also mean you cannot be killed by Google. I just do not believe that restrictions on the government only apply to the government. Corporations should not have more power.


BTW when I quote it becomes hard to read. See:

I don't use Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp, Twitter, Tiktok etc and I don't feel like I'm missing out particularly. I certainly would not describe any of those as essential.

They are in this country and I'm sure others. No WhasApp or Instagram to here = no government interaction or business or job = no food or shelter = death.

You want to go into further discussion about the specific ins and outs of harvesting data? That's a separate argument. The bottom line is that they shouldn't do it, most people would probably agree, but they do. I don't see why that's gotten so bent out of proportion.

Thank you. I hope one day enough people agree and changes the laws to keep up with the 21st century.

Even if it were required that you needed a phone, you still have a choice in what carrier you use and if you look into them, they're all going to be different. AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile all differ and I'm guessing if you read their TOS you'd see they're all different as well. The communication industry is highly competitive and I can assure you that if one carrier can find a niche that will net them more customers, they're going to do it.

Different shades of theft. It's pointless to have false choices. If/when it's established by law they cannot censor you or harvest your data, then the more options the merrier and everyone's happy.

You've mentioned how they benefit from tax payer money. The least they can do is agree to the above in exchange of letting them operate.

If people suddenly start caring about how their data is harvested, I can almost guarantee some companies will jump on that in order to attract customers.

People already care but are hopeless.

edit

steals your data* lmao.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

They are in this country and I'm sure others. No WhasApp or Instagram to here = no government interaction or business or job = no food or shelter = death.

You're gonna have to explain this a little more.

 

[R3V]

You're gonna have to explain this a little more.

I'll give a simpler example away from social media. You don't exist here without having a phone number and access to internet. You literally cannot renew your ID card (which you need for everything) without a phone number and access to the internet. Sure, you can "opt out", but you will end up without ID, without a job/business, without food, without access to healthcare, and without shelter from 52 degree celsius heat in the summer (that's 125 degrees in American). Every transaction you need to make to survive here is rooted in an online communication platform and medium. I haven't even gotten to the social aspect or speech.

 

[Danoff]

You came for the video game, stayed for the friendly members, right? Or whatever it is you liked that kept you here.

The lounge area of a book club.

Not remotely. First of all, it's not physical. Second of all, it's not private. Third of all, it takes place on social media. Unless you're talking about an online book club forum in which case I'm right there with you.

Percentage of the population using your product/service and/or marketshare.

At what point does having enough marketshare suddenly mean you lose your rights to your website?

The easy pick would be youtube or google. It doesn't need 100% marketshare to be a "monopoly", just close to it. Let's not nitpick.

I'm not nitpicking, there's no way any of those are a monopoly, or close to it. And the existence of the others proves the point.

That's not how this sector works. Netflix gained popularity because it was one stop convenient shop for movies and shows (again, not 100% marketshare). The presence of others is diluting everybody's income AFAIK and piracy rise more and more when others such as Disney+ are "present". To quote the grfiter Andrew Yang again, no one wants to use the second best search engine. If anything, the more people use a certain engine/product the better that product will be. It's almost like single payer insurance

Yes, the presence of Disney+ makes Netflix not a monopoly (as does redbox btw). You might need to look up what a monopoly is.

Nope. Can't carry pitchforks or guillotines here nor can you rally more than a 100 people at best. You can however, organize regime-change movements on Twitter or Facebook thanks to the reach

You're not even keeping your own analogies consistent. You can't carry pitchforks or guillotines on twitter or facebook, and you can do just as much organizing of regime-change here on GTP as Facebook.

I forgot Obama's slogan was "No, we can't". By the way:

I was talking about the Senate's priority. And you skipped over the whole bit about them needing 60 votes. Democrats currently have a "majority" in the senate and can't even get that many votes. Did you actually read a word that was said?

I know this is heresay and "trust me bro", but trust me bro, I've talked to people who make "campaign contributions" to the leadership of both parties. It's even more cyicial than what you're saying I'm portraying.

ok. I'm sure my dad has made plenty of "campaign contributions" so... me too.

It also does not lack reason. Those tactics have been employed by "people in charge" for centuries.

In charge to do what? There's your lack of reason.

 

[TexRex]

They could've asked for a clarification or chosen to attempt a reasonable discussion.

They opted not to. They saw little opportunity for reasonable discussion absent reasonable input from all engaged parties (i.e. you). And while this wasn't a thought at the time, they derive enjoyment from you having lost your **** over harmless gifs.

Twitter is a town square.

GTP is a town square.

The actual real town square, which totally still exists:

The "town square fallacy" is born out of the desire to have social networks constrained as state actors by tying them to services traditionally availed by the state, thereby denying them private property rights.

A lot of this stems from the not-particularly-analogous 5-3 (1 concurrence) holding in Marsh v. Alabama (1946) that an Alabama town owned and operated by the Gulf Shipping Corporation (back when "company towns" were still a thing) was constrained as state actors and freedom of speech (pamphleteering) couldn't be infringed upon by it.

Somewhat more analogous (but still narrowly applied) and more recent (given that the majority opinion was authored by Justice Kavanaugh) is the 5-4 holding in Halleck that a public access channel was not constrained as a state actor and that private actors may not be so constrained unless they exercise powers traditionally exclusive to the state.

It's weird that Republicans favor the earlier and less analogous holding, and when I say that it's weird, of course I mean that it's not...because, despite the conservative majority in Halleck, the holding isn't one that suits them. Really, Republicans are just whiny little bitches and grievance overrides reason.

Nuriousment

Are you, uh...are you okay, bud?

I'll give a simpler example away from social media. You don't exist here without having a phone number and access to internet. You literally cannot renew your ID card (which you need for everything) without a phone number and access to the internet. Sure, you can "opt out", but you will end up without ID, without a job/business, without food, without access to healthcare, and without shelter from 52 degree celsius heat in the summer (that's 125 degrees in American). Every transaction you need to make to survive here is rooted in an online communication platform and medium. I haven't even gotten to the social aspect or speech.

See, you keep presenting analogies that aren't actually analogous, and you do so because you're pissy that you can't get your way. It's all one continuous bitchfit.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'll give a simpler example away from social media. You don't exist here without having a phone number and access to internet. You literally cannot renew your ID card (which you need for everything) without a phone number and access to the internet. Sure, you can "opt out", but you will end up without ID, without a job/business, without food, without access to healthcare, and without shelter from 52 degree celsius heat in the summer (that's 125 degrees in American). Every transaction you need to make to survive here is rooted in an online communication platform and medium. I haven't even gotten to the social aspect or speech.

This seems like a problem with how your own government works, rather than a problem with Instagram/Whatsapp who are notably not your government.

 

[TexRex]

This seems like a problem with how your own government works, rather than a problem with Instagram/Whatsapp who are notably not your government.

And that's only if you take the claim at face value, which is probably a mistake.

 

[Silver Arrows]

This thread sure went places.

 

[R3V]

Not remotely. First of all, it's not physical. Second of all, it's not private. Third of all, it takes place on social media. Unless you're talking about an online book club forum in which case I'm right there with you.

At what point does having enough marketshare suddenly mean you lose your rights to your website?

I'm not nitpicking, there's no way any of those are a monopoly, or close to it. And the existence of the others proves the point.

Yes, the presence of Disney+ makes Netflix not a monopoly (as does redbox btw). You might need to look up what a monopoly is.

You're not even keeping your own analogies consistent. You can't carry pitchforks or guillotines on twitter or facebook, and you can do just as much organizing of regime-change here on GTP as Facebook.


I was talking about the Senate's priority. And you skipped over the whole bit about them needing 60 votes. Democrats currently have a "majority" in the senate and can't even get that many votes. Did you actually read a word that was said?

ok. I'm sure my dad has made plenty of "campaign contributions" so... me too.

In charge to do what? There's your lack of reason.

Massive political donations that are preceded by lengthy disussions? Okay.

I did read what you said. I'm not talking about today. A lot could've been done in those 4 months, and absolutely nothing useful done despite an explicit promise.

Can we start by regime-changing Sony btw? Think of all the nice tings we can have in GT7.

See, you keep presenting analogies that aren't actually analogous, and you do so because you're pissy that you can't get your way. It's all one continuous bitchfit.

What? Based on my real life example, would you consider phones/internet a utility or not? In case you didn't dodge this on purpose last time.

edit

This seems like a problem with how your own government works, rather than a problem with Instagram/Whatsapp who are notably not your government.

No. If you opt out and live in the woods then break your leg, you'd wish cell service was a utility.

edit

@Eunos_Cosmo you specifically asked me to clarify my statement btw which was about where I live.

 

[Joey D]

Are you, uh...are you okay, bud?

Nope...

Really though, spelling has never been my strength and I rely way too much on autocorrect and/or Grammarly to bail me out. It did not bail me out here.

 

[Pupik]

This thread sure went places.

It's a big country.

 

[Silver Arrows]

View attachment 1149370

It's a big country.

I should really explore more of it some day.

 

[TexRex]

What? Based on my real life example, would you consider phones/internet a utility or not? In case you didn't dodge this on purpose last time.

Based on your experience? Why is it based on yours and not my own?

Is it a utility? Sure. However, it's not the necessity that you make it out to be by forcing a comparison between it and other things which you assert are necessities but are not.

You're just all over the ****ing place.

 

[Danoff]

I did read what you said. I'm not talking about today.

Neither was I.

A lot could've been done in those 4 months, and absolutely nothing useful done despite an explicit promise.

Did abortion legislation have 60 votes during those 4 months? It doesn't have all of the democrat votes today, and it's a taller order to have 60/60 democrats then than 50/50 today. If your answer is "no" or "I don't know", your argument is entirely disingenuous and hypercritical. If it's "yes", then citation needed.

No. If you opt out and live in the woods then break your leg, you'd wish cell service was a utility.

Let's keep in mind that the entire purpose of your argument is to force twitter or facebook to carry speech against their will on their property. Your whole point is to take someone else's property and seize it for purposes they don't agree with. The arguments you're making about whether or not a cell service is a utility is not going to help you make that point. It's more like telling me that I have to keep a graffiti swastika on the side of my house than a broken leg phone call.

 

[TexRex]

Let's keep in mind that the entire purpose of your argument is to force twitter or facebook to carry speech against their will on their property. Your whole point is to take someone else's property and seize it for purposes they don't agree with. The arguments you're making about whether or not a cell service is a utility is not going to help you make that point.

This communism.

 

[R3V]

Neither was I.


Did abortion legislation have 60 votes during those 4 months? It doesn't have all of the democrat votes today, and it's a taller order to have 60/60 democrats then than 50/50 today. If your answer is "no" or "I don't know", your argument is entirely disingenuous and hypercritical. If it's "yes", then citation needed.

Let's keep in mind that the entire purpose of your argument is to force twitter or facebook to carry speech against their will on their property. Your whole point is to take someone else's property and seize it for purposes they don't agree with. The arguments you're making about whether or not a cell service is a utility is not going to help you make that point. It's more like telling me that I have to keep a graffiti swastika on the side of my house than a broken leg phone call.

Are you conceding that the senate is eternally useless and things will only get worse? How many democrats do you think you need in the senate to do anything and what realistic path towards that do you see? From what I'm seeing, there will always be a Manchin or two.

Cell service argument is identical. You couldn't convince me that a landline or celullar service aren't public utilities like power and water. If you don't agree to that we can't move forward on that topic.

 

[TexRex]

You couldn't convince me...

This isn't the argument that you think it is.

 

[NotThePrez]

Most communities end up being echo chambers over time. This isn't hard to accept.

Most? Sure, though I'd say that that would very much depend on what other online communities you're frequenting.

GTP? Not really, or at least not as much as other social media sites such as Reddit, in large part due to the ruleset and moderation style of the site.

If you or anyone is on a forum to validate one's opinion or anything like that, I'm sorry.

So basically, agreeing with someone on a topic = echo chamber?

I mean, 50% of this sub forum's members voted "no way" god exists. It's safe to assume that most users are American (as is the case on most English speaking websites). That number is not at all a control group for America.

And this is relevant because...?

Also on this very topic, my opinion is actually pretty widely accepted (at least more so than it is here). I'd hate to quote a grifter like Andrew Yang, but even he and many of his supporters are for your data being your private property.

Then if you/they believe that, then they should abstain from using it. That would be the best way to avoid those issues, especially since (in the grand scheme of things), you're not required to use them to stay alive.

And yes, I did see how everything in your country requires an ID card with internet connection, but that's moreso a flaw of your government than anything with Facebook, Twitter, etc. It's also incredibly creepy, and I would not at all be ok with my government requiring that level of connectivity.

Do you personally think that my opinion is dangerous by any chance?

No, and I don't appreciate you attempting to put words into my mouth like that.

Me calling for social media companies with a significant percentage of a population and/or market share to be regulated as utilities/phone companies.

I'd say that's moreso you not understanding what a ToS is or how it works. I'd also say, if the least few pages are anything to go by, it's also you not completely understanding the definition of "essential."

Anecdotally, I don't have a Twitter account (well, I technically do, but it was made for a school assignment), I pretty much never use my Facebook account, and any other social media I have, is typically for a specific means to an end. The only social media I use often is GTP and Reddit, and neither of them are essential to maintaining my quality of life.

 

[Danoff]

Are you conceding that the senate is eternally useless and things will only get worse? How many democrats do you think you need in the senate to do anything and what realistic path towards that do you see? From what I'm seeing, there will always be a Manchin or two.

The filibuster is problematic from the perspective of passing anything but a budget. Especially for items that are popular with people that live in population centers but not with people that live in rural areas.

Cell service argument is identical. You couldn't convince me that a landline or celullar service aren't public utilities like power and water. If you don't agree to that we can't move forward on that topic.

Let me know the next time you're in the woods with a broken leg and need facebook for help.

Edit: Don't take this to mean that I think you couldn't possibly get help through facebook. You could get help through all kinds of tools, people, services, etc. You could end up getting help from an ice cream truck, that doesn't make them a public utility. What I'm saying is that the notion that it is identical is absurd.

 

[Pupik]

Come now, the only reasons someone like Trump hadn't started their own social media company is that he won't get everyone else to create the existing user infrastructure and technical know-how to transport his message.

Instead, all he has to do is plump a few bucks for the blue check mark icon, or likely get someone else to foot the bill. I guess the part about promising to violently overthrow the government that he let slip through his fingers was finally just a little too against the rules.

 

[Imari]

As far as women dying during birth giving, its just not all that common anymore.

I dunno man, it seems like something worth keeping an eye on when the rate of deaths in your country has nearly doubled in the last thirty years. It also puts it a fair bit higher than road death mortality in the US, which seems to sit at around 11 per 100,000.

Road accidents aren't all that common either compared to the bad old days, but I don't see many people suggesting that we shouldn't give a **** about road safety.

Because my necessity line is much closer than literal death.

Your necessity line seems to be anything that is mildly inconvenient.

Can we start by regime-changing Sony btw? Think of all the nice tings we can have in GT7.

There was this weird thing that happened with Metacritic, but nobody knows how to explain it.

 

[Yard_Sale]

I dunno man, it seems like something worth keeping an eye on when the rate of deaths in your country has nearly doubled in the last thirty years. It also puts it a fair bit higher than road death mortality in the US, which seems to sit at around 11 per 100,000.

View attachment 1149516
Road accidents aren't all that common either compared to the bad old days, but I don't see many people suggesting that we shouldn't give a **** about road safety.

Your necessity line seems to be anything that is mildly inconvenient.

There was this weird thing that happened with Metacritic, but nobody knows how to explain it.

Those numbers are still extremely low. I honestly thought they might be a tad higher than that. I’d be curious to the definition of death from child birth is. Or if it’s one of those “complications due to” definitions which can be open to interpretation. Personally, I’ve unfortunately been on 100’s of traffic related fatalities, but never a death from child birth, Thank god. Must be a primarily “in hospital thing”…. Or else I would have seen it.

Out of all the traffic related fatalities I’ve been on, I do agree with your statistic when I start doing the math.

Interesting stuff

 

[R3V]

So basically, agreeing with someone on a topic = echo chamber?

Did you read what I responded to? Someone was trying to argue that since "everyone" else on the sites disagrees with me, then my view is extreme/rare/laughable. If indeed I am the only one here advocating for more regulation on social media, then clearly this site is more of an echo chamber on some level. Anyway a couple of other members somewhat agree with me. 3/9 or whatever is reasonable.

And this is relevant because...?

I said in the same sentence that it's an example of this community not being representative of what Americans think.

Then if you/they believe that, then they should abstain from using it. That would be the best way to avoid those issues, especially since (in the grand scheme of things), you're not required to use them to stay alive.

This line of thinking is just wrong. "If you don't like this low paying 80 hour a week job, find another". Guess we don't need a minimum wage and maximum working hours by law.

And yes, I did see how everything in your country requires an ID card with internet connection, but that's moreso a flaw of your government than anything with Facebook, Twitter, etc. It's also incredibly creepy, and I would not at all be ok with my government requiring that level of connectivity.

It is a little extreme here but it's not far from what other countries are doing and will do in the future. The other extreme is the US not requiring a Federal ID card.

Here's another example by the way. I travelled to Saudi Arabia last September for the first time since COVID. Prior to COVID, all you needed was your ID. To my shock, they asked for my passport. The customs officer literally said "are you not on Instagram? We announced this change and it trended a long time ago". Yeah, government makes announcements on social media. Could not even find that information on the websites.

No, and I don't appreciate you attempting to put words into my mouth like that.

Was a question not an accusation but ok. Glad to know I'm not some sort of Alex Jones to you.

Anecdotally, I don't have a Twitter account (well, I technically do, but it was made for a school assignment), I pretty much never use my Facebook account, and any other social media I have, is typically for a specific means to an end. The only social media I use often is GTP and Reddit, and neither of them are essential to maintaining my quality of life.

FYI you don't necessarily need to use them. Just having a browser and logging into certain website will put you on their database.

The filibuster is problematic from the perspective of passing anything but a budget. Especially for items that are popular with people that live in population centers but not with people that live in rural areas.

So ending it is your magic solution? It's not going to help with 48 votes, and Republicans will abuse it next year to ram throgh everything they ever wanted including restrictions on voting.

Let me know the next time you're in the woods with a broken leg and need facebook for help.

Edit: Don't take this to mean that I think you couldn't possibly get help through facebook. You could get help through all kinds of tools, people, services, etc. You could end up getting help from an ice cream truck, that doesn't make them a public utility. What I'm saying is that the notion that it is identical is absurd.

This was about having a phone and you know it. A 911 call literally saves lives.

Your necessity line seems to be anything that is mildly inconvenient.

There was this weird thing that happened with Metacritic, but nobody knows how to explain it.

And yours is anything we didn't have pre-agriculture is not a necessity 🤷‍♂️

edit

@Famine I noticed there's no thread about guns. Is it a forbidden topic?

 

[Blitz24]

@Famine I noticed there's no thread about guns. Is it a forbidden topic?

There isn't? Huh, I guess this thread doesn't exist:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/real-guns.73415/

 

[R3V]

There isn't? Huh, I guess this thread doesn't exist:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/real-guns.73415/

Thanks. I was looking under "opinions and current events". Didn't think to look there.

edit

Well that thread wasn't a discussion about gun rights so I suppose I can make one here some day.

 

[Roo]

Thanks. I was looking under "opinions and current events". Didn't think to look there.

edit

Well that thread wasn't a discussion about gun rights so I suppose I can make one here some day.

No need. But that thread's 19 years old so if you read something you don't like on the first pages, don't jump the... well, you know.

 

[UKMikey]

No need. But that thread's 19 years old so if you read something you don't like on the first pages, don't jump the... well, you know.

Just so long as he doesn't get triggered, or go off half-cocked.

 

[McLaren]

Just so long as he doesn't get triggered, or go off half-cocked.

Really? We gonna just start shooting off like this again in another thread?