Preventing corporate entities from presenting falsehoods as facts is not a meaningful infringement on free speech.
If it is, then it's clear that truly free, totally unrestricted in any way speech isn't a good idea.
null
joined 2 years ago
Sounds more like we need to more heavily regulate sources of misinformation, rather than deeming some people too stupid to participate in the system.
I feel like it's a very Fox News-y suggestion to ban select groups of people from voting.
Because, frankly, I don't think you're being honest.
Do you really not know how Google's business model works, or are you playing dumb?
There's also a much stronger possibility that Trump simply didn't want to piss off Putin.
Why are you trying to find a more complicated answer?
Or, much more simply, Trump didn't want to make Putin mad.
Is money is the only thing about yourself that you ascribe value to?
Let them deal in baseless conspiracy
so it's probably too complicated for ChatGPT
FFS people, sanctioned countries were not included
Iran and Syria were included.
Yeah, sanctioned countries didn't make the list.
Iran and Syria made the list.
I'll say this.
When I weigh the choice of handing over my personal videos to a company that is explicitly and actively going to use them to:
Or
Putting a NAS at a friends house, or paying a couple bucks a month for some block storage.
I end up preferring the second set of options. It's fine if you don't, but don't pretend you have no idea that your personal videos and information are valuable to Google.