I see reddit spreading just as much dangerous disinformation and failing to moderate posts encouraging illegal acts. Either they are protected under section 230 or not, and if they are then law enforcement is the appropriate organization to take action against users conducting illegal acts. Google will gladly claim section 230 exemptions if the actions take place on their service, yet the feel entitled to complain about another services content moderation?
I guess it is their right to deny access to the Google Play store, but I feel like legislation was needed yesterday that requires phone providers provide options for an alternative store with the same automatic updates feature. Google allows alternative stores, but doesn't provide a way for users that I'm aware to keep apps up-to-date from unknown sources even if they are using a third-party store that does their own verification. Apple on the other hand goes even further, so it is difficult to be over critical at just Google in this regard.
It is selective censorship that I think is used to fuel more divide between political parties in an effort to enact a more authoritarian regime globally.
Each to their own. Global cabals pulling the puppet strings has never really struck me as plausible in it's more intricate form. (I would buy the most banal version - money like money and power likes keeping power - but that's merely stating a truism rather than validating the existence of a conspiracy)
Whether you believe certain actions constitute authoritarianism is partially up to you, but money is power and on a global scale and those with money certainly try to maintain that power in whatever creative and manipulative ways they can.
> Google reviewed Truth Social’s latest submission to the Play Store, it found multiple policy violations, which it informed Truth Social about on August 19
> “Last week, Truth Social wrote back acknowledging our feedback and saying that they are working on addressing these issues,”
I don't think it matters what the topic of the application is, if you're breaking policies, you're not going to be approved. Apples ecosystem is different and seems to have already been approved, maybe they use a different source code for iOS which follows their policies.
Title implies that it was blocked for political / personal reasons and that Apple might follow suit. Which it wasn't.
Edit : Seems they do actually use a content filter on their iOS app which means it should pass the Apple policy.
> Truth Social does use content filtering screens on iOS to hide some posts behind a click-through warning
From the garbage Axios article that this garbage article sites as it's primary source [0]:
>"...in response to a post from former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, an account called "TheVictim24" posted last week, ["]It's be nice if you people weren't just okay with the military and police stage a rebellion and framing civilians. Zero people trust the police and if the military comes in, we'll kill them. Someone admit this nation needs to be nuked because it's satanic.["]..."
Don't like it. Not my style for sure. But honestly, that is not a wild incitement to violence, namely because it's a theoretical response to a theoretical institution of martial law. Is that really the damning content that the public must be shielded from?
>"...federal investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of high-stakes classified information — a situation that’s already inspired real-world violence — raises the stakes on a social app where the former president is able to openly communicate to his followers in real time."
Fairly high profile lawyers have already made statements to the effect that this was unprecedented and illegal (1), but take notice of the framing of the statement. The intent is to provide the impression Trump is somehow culpable for violence resultant from a DOJ investigation of himself. And, that the situation is expedient, "communicate... in real time". Shocking!
Sorry, but this is a hit-piece . It doesn't acknowledge any information is even available but the contrived support for this ideology.
It is disingenuous to read an article like this and then claim it to be journalism or unbiased or fair reporting. If you refuse to see that, you have a "dog in the fight".
Watch this get banned now for inciting violence...
I have literally called for the death of a well known politician on Facebook and Twitter. My posts still stand.
I'm against censorship - fortunately I'm calling for the death of a right wing politician, hence that's ok - as the internet is not so accommodating to those who lean right.
Or possibly, your post was overlooked. No-one is claiming that "100% of posts that fail to meet the rules are removed". How do you know that you weren't just "lucky"?
When I go to www.truthsocial.com, I get "At the moment, Truth Social is available for U.S. users only". How would they know if I am a "U.S. user"? What they seem to do is block everyone who is not in the U.S.
Why that?
Trying some different IPs shows another dynamic behavior:
If the IP is from California, they show a "Let's get started!" button.
When the IP is from Ireland, they show a "Registration closed" button instead.
South Africa too - think the website devs are just lazy or we are not their target audience - it is not like we are going to vote for Trump although there is a lot of Trump supporters here as well :)
That would probably be it. It's a nightmare complying with GDPR if you're a small company and it becomes even more of a problem when people could use it as a weapon by making thousands of requests for their data. If you have a lot of users you really need to have everything automated otherwise just complying with the law becomes prohibitively expensive.
it seems to be only DNS (or perhaps cookie?) oriented. I didn't realize I was connected to VPN and it worked, so I was like hmm. then noticed vpn, so disabled and refreshing in firefox wasn't a problem, but when I then opened it in chrome, it showed the geoblock (and further refreshes in firefox continued to work).
Is that really how "laws of other countries" work?
People from all around the world can visit the US or get a US IP via some other mechanism (by using a cloud browser for example) and then they will see the content anyhow.
With the infamous GDPR for example, it does not matter if you georestrict your content. If you track someone from a European country without their consent, no matter where they are, you are violating the GDPR.
> With the infamous GDPR for example, it does not matter if you georestrict your content. If you track someone from a European country without their consent, no matter where they are, you are violating the GDPR.
In the following, "you" means the entity dealing with personal data, and "them", "their", "they", etc., refer to the person who's personal data you are dealing with.
You have to follow GDPR if:
1. You are in the Union, regardless of where they are.
2. You are not in the Union, and
2a. You are offering goods or services to them and they are in the Union, or
2b. You are monitoring their behavior as far as their behavior takes place in the Union.
For 2a, you have to envisage offering services to them. If they come to your site and it works but you didn't envisage offering services to them it is not enough for 2a.
For 2b, what is important is whether or not you are profiling them, particularly in in order to take decisions concerning them or for analyzing or predicting their personal preferences, behaviors, and attitudes.
Trying to block EU users won't help with 2b, but it can greatly help with 2a in showing that you did not envisage serving EU users. For a lot of sites avoiding 2a is all they need to avoid GDPR completely.
I’m not disputing this is the case ( you fall under GDPR even if you put a geo blocker ) but, I feel like this is something absurd from GDPRs part.
If you say “we don’t want eu clients” and actively try to keep them away, to me it makes sense not to be liable anymore.
I feel like it’s like, let’s say this scenario. I’m pretty sure in Germany it’s illegal to host content promoting nazisim. Let’s say a hacker posts against all measures taken by the company content that is against the law. Should the german website be held accountable for content they unwilling hosted for a time? Shouldn’t the fact this was done against the wishes of the platform matter?
I might be wrong technically with the german example but the point still stands. I don’t think a platform should be liable if it’s in breach of a law against it’s wishes, if it has reasonable prevention and mitigation measures in place.
Of course in the marginal cases. But even simple restrictions greatly reduce liability. And anyways running afoul of gdpr will not affect you much if you don't plan to do business in the EU
No but what is the EU going to do to a US company that will likely never set foot in Europe. Unless of course Mr Trump is keen on getting a golden visa
The European Commission sent me some questions about competing with Google. I couldn't figure out if it was because I was a search engine, or if it was just that I had an app that competed with some part of Google.
Either way, I asked my lawyers if I had to answer, given that we had zero revenue coming in from Europe. They said no, I didn't for this kind of request, but they could easily send me a more vehement request that I did need to answer.
I ignored the EC, and didn't get that second letter.
BTW, my lawyers are smart enough that I had the only search engine threatened by but never sued by Perfect 10.
This isn't even true. Websites do that to "avoid" GDPR but GDPR very clearly says it applies to EU citizen, not people in the EU, so if you geoblock the EU but still store the data of a EU citizen using a VPN / in vacation you're breaking the law.
> [...] GDPR very clearly says it applies to EU citizen, not people in the EU [...]
What it says is that it applies to data subjects who are "in the Union". The word "citizen" does not appear anywhere in GDPR or in the accompanying recitals.
I'd agree with this. I'm mostly left of center but occasionally I'll agree with something conservative. I've had horrible threats after those posts and Twitter did nothing.
After years of intemperate tweets, Twitter decided to ban Trump on January 6th because of a video when he was talking people to stand down and go back home. I saw the video.
Why?
That video could have prevented the mob from trespassing the congress building.
He had been talking about the "stolen election" for months. It's hard to say that is the reason why they deleted that particular post, especially when it could have potentially defused a dangerous situation.
Here is the tweet. Unfortunately this website (1) doesn't store the video:
"""
These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!
"""
As you can see on (1), that particular tweet is deleted, it cannot be further reached. Trump goes on with the "stolen election" line, nothing new there, the only new thing is: "Go home"
Wouldn't you like to that message to be transmitted to the Trump supporters at that exact time? Wasn't that precisely the message everyone needed? Who better than Trump to defuse that situation?
Why delete that tweet that day? When it was precisely the tweet that was needed? Can someone explain this?
Lol what was precisely needed was "I lost the election, I know I lost the election, sorry I lied to all of you, sorry I didn't send this tweet 2 months ago when I lost the election, sorry I didn't send this message 2 weeks ago instead of encouraging you all to come here and "be wild", sorry I didn't say any of this during my speech this morning, sorry I sent that tweet at 2 pm that Mike Pence was a coward, sorry I just sat in the White House as the President of the United Statds of America for 5 hours while this shit went down and did absolutely nothing."
What he sent was garbage and only sent because his coup failed.
It is 'unfair' of journalists to ignore the obvious story and instead write drivel.
There is no question that this was politically motivated. There is absolute garbage in the play store. Google couldn't give a shit about content moderation on any other app.
It is entirely disingenuous (false) to claim otherwise. That's the unfair part, I suppose. It's obvious, but those that want this to happen will gladly make up excuses for why it's legitimate.
When google and apple are effectively operating as part of public forum they should no longer have the capability to censure.
Yes they are private companies , but much like Bell and Westinghouse there comes a time when public interest is the greater concern. And, you not liking other people's opinions isn't a good enough reason to silence them.
> It is 'unfair' of journalists to ignore the obvious story and instead write drivel.
And what is this obvious story that is being ignored? The one I'm seeing here is that Truth Social is in violation of Play Stores TOS. Google even told TS how to address those problems. Interestingly, after that, TS claimed that the ball is in googles court. Seams that the drivel is coming from TS.
> There is no question that this was politically motivated.
Of course there is a question if this was politically motivated or not. After all, apple has allowed it on their store and there are other similar apps on play store. Don't see why not being allowed on a platform for not complying with TOS should automatically be considered politically motivated.
> Google couldn't give a shit about content moderation on any other app.
It's about selective use of TOS. That is a veneer under which the reality is obscured.
They choose to enforce on dubious grounds.
The play store is the source, it is commonly known that apps on the play store violate TOS.
I'm not going to drown in this stream, attempting to provide an endless socratic dialog with background information.
Provide your own contrary evidence that the play store is stringent in adherence to TOS across its app selection. That malware and tracking apps are denied
Is the issue here that all republican/right-wing biased platforms and influencers encourage hate-speech? Or simply that the platforms with the ability to block access to these services have a liberal bias and it suits their agenda better?
I am not right-wing nor am I even American, but at this stage I'm of the opinion that these bans are coordinated attacks. Watching Trump get banned from every social platform within two or three days for inciting an insurrection offline left a bad taste in my mouth. A similar thing has just happened to Andrew Tate. It also happens all the time with right-wing subreddits.
Why are right-wing communities not allowed to flourish online like left-leaning ones?
What happened to Trump always made me feel a bit uneasy. Seeing companies from Stripe, a payments company, to all social media companies block him all at once was staggering to see. The collective power of all these companies is staggering, and I've never seen anything on this scale before.
I feel like on January 6th something happened that could influence this.. I mean let's not pretend this kind of action happens just because the companies decide someone is not woke enough or some bs like that. Trump is dangerous and seriously doesn't deserve to be on these platforms.
I'm not arguing that he should not have been banned. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree that his removal from social media was a good idea. It may have even saved lives. My point is that I have never seen companies join together to de-platform one person so quickly.
P.S. I don't really subscribe to this "woke" nonsense. It feels like a tired cliche at this point. We need to find more meaningful terms to describe a set of morals.
I don't know about this specific service, but I've read up about the general context.
What is happening here to US Conservatives is similar to what happened to Muslims around 2016. Until that time, most online services didn't want to touch anything religion-related with a ten foot pole because they felt that it would be religious censorship and/or feared the backlash. But then, with Daech stepping up its online recruitment effort and hiding much of it among benign Muslim/Muslim-adjacent conversations, services decided to do something.
So a loosely coordinated effort started around 2016 to marginalize Daech. This meant investing time and effort in moderating Muslim and arab-speaking communities. This meant banning extremist users and closing extremist groups – even as they migrated from service to service. This also meant banning communities that refused to moderate extremist speech.
And, to the best of my understanding, it worked. Daech lost most of its capability to recruit online for terrorism, civil war and funding, while, after an initial scare, regular users (including Muslims and arab speakers) continue using the services without any real disruption.
Until 2020, nobody dared to touch US Conservatives for the same kind of reason. US Conservatives are powerful, well funded, well organized, they own a large fraction of US media and they are very much in a position where they can boycott and destroy plenty of services (possibly not Big Tech, but many services are much smaller). This was a problem because the number of terrorist attacks planned by groups hiding in plain sight among regular Conservatives users had reached scary levels, not to mention the amount of dangerous propaganda hiding among regular Conservative discussion. I assume that there were plans to try and do something about that, but they were rejected by business fiat because of the fear of backlash. Then came the assault on the Capitol and the plans were not rejected anymore.
We have entered a stage in which services attempt to get rid of/marginalize extremists from within the ranks of US Conservatives, in the hope that this will help decrease far right terrorism. It is scary for US Conservatives, just as the 2016 operations were scary for Muslims and arab-speaking users. As far as I can see, right wing communities very much continue to exist – they just can't operate in a "we're not going to moderate extremist speech".
Is it specifically targeting US Conservatives? Yes, it is, because US Conservatives communities are being used by extremists to hide in plain sight.
Is this a good strategy? Is it successful? Too early to tell, I guess. But there is a historical precedent that suggests that it should be, in time.
That's exactly my point. How can something like 4chan still exist online? There have been multiple mass-shooters bred there. It also used to be known for extremely questionable adult content. Why do Trumps preferred platforms get taken down but not this?
Well your probably have point but I was not clear in my comment. What I wanted to say is that Republican / right-wing platforms exists without extremists it is just that former president brought them to the spotlight. That is also why you mention 4-chan while we are talking about Republican / right-wing platforms which I thing normally would not be fair for them - as all sides do have extreme parts. But it is how it is now.
Yes to the former: in my impression, the far right discourse and memes, in the broad sense of the word, tend to be more threatening and violent on average when the posts are directory towards the opposing political group or marginalised communities (e.g. racial or sexual). This happens both towards the group broadly or when targeting particular individuals, such as jail Hillary, hang Pelosi, or shoot the gays, or that women are not worth anyone's time (Andrew Tate example).
You can have a less polarised left- or right-wing discussion, and that results in less moderation for both sides. For example in the UK, you may not have liked Jeremy Corbyn or Boris Johnson, but you'd hardly have anyone calling for them to be jailed or murdered.
This is a good observation. It's also probably not coincidence that any "free speech" (i.e. zero content moderation) platforms inevitably end up full of racists/homophobes/xenophobes etc
I agree, but it's also a natural consequence of excluding that speech from other venues. Of course it will all concentrate in what few places still allow it.
However is that desirable?
It might be healthier for society if the speech is in less concentrated quantity, and seen for the bile it is so that it can inoculate those exposed in such low quantities.
We should also look at the motivating factors, not necessarily the stated reasons, but the source of the logical and emotional driving factors that lead to that hateful rhetoric. Society and social contracts have serious systemic issues that are complex, interwoven issues. It's not just one thing, or one problem, but a big picture with a lot of things that all must get solved in the same broad effort.
> I agree, but it's also a natural consequence of excluding that speech from other venues. Of course it will all concentrate in what few places still allow it. However is that desirable?
It's desirable in that your kids, who mostly frequent mainstream social media with their friends, aren't exposed to the scary bad content as easily. Also it's better for the mental health of everyone who isn't bigoted or vitriolic to see less of that stuff on the regular.
You still see polarization, though. People calling Lib Dem supporters "yellow tories", people who like Blair and/or his vision of a center left Labour party "red tories", calling people "gammon", etc.
These things help push people to the extremes and drown out the middle ground. That only helps push people further to extremes, which ultimately leads to conflicts as the two sides disagree with each other.
And while there may not have been calls for Corbyn to be jailed or murdered (I can't remember for sure), there has been a strong anti-semitism push against him (rightly or wrongly) with calls for him to step down as an MP.
The UK is growing more polarised, we just haven't had an inciting incident like George Floyd or Jan 6th yet. It has come close with things like Brexit.
Just go to r/PublicFreakout on reddit which frequently reaches top page and you'll find plenty of posts validating and encouraging people to punch and knock out individuals for merely words or vaccination status. People fail to even recognize that violence such as punching someone in the face can often result in murder. So I don't believe the propaganda machine is exclusive to one side or the other, but I don't see much being done to question whether violence is merely a corporation at this point to meet quotas for the privatized prison labor system and finding ways to spread it on social media directly benefits those that profits from those incarcerates that become radicalized by such media.
> in my impression, the far right discourse and memes, in the broad sense of the word, tend to be more threatening and violent on average when the posts are directory towards the opposing political group or marginalised communities
I'm unfamiliar with right wing communities. I've been involved in a fair number of left wing ones and the level of wishing-death-upon-opponents is scary, and it has grown much worse and bare knuckled over the years.
Which makes me think we are in the early stages of an undeclared civil war.
It wasn’t right wing activists who burnt down whole blocks in Kenosha, or in Portland where they repeatedly attacked a federal court. These people were coordinating and asking for donations and weren’t shut down.
> You see people on the left constantly denigrating white men, and calling for attacks against them
Do you really face daily denigration from non-{white male} folks around you? Have you considered the possibility that you have to look for such occurences to confirm your own biases?
The right wing is exclusive in its call for armed violence.
The right wing encourages the notion that the second amendment means military grade arms for every yahoo, and that this is to be used in the coming civil war to take “back” America.
Lyndsey Graham warned us of riots if Trump is indicted, and we should prevent the FBI from doing their job to reduce the risk of right wing violence.
The right wing is the exclusive purveyor of political violence, seeing as how there’s no actual radical left wing in American politics in any power holding capacity.
Calling Joe Biden “far left” as the baseline means that no one who can see the actual political spectrum takes you seriously, but it’s sufficiently compelling for Fox hosts to repeat ad nauseum
SOME right-wing communities are rather racist and frankly unhinged with the worst aspects of online behaviour - just look at QAnon and Proud Boys and the hatred of LGBTQ people.
It is not like the old days of conservatism - Big govt is bad - lower taxes- unions are bad - abortion is bad - work at will is the way to go.
Most left wing communities even the extreme ones in comparison get upset full of vitrol but that rarely veers into that sort of behaviour - health care for all - single payer - socialism works is hardly offensive to many.
But the actual results of the left are much scarier than those of the right. "Socialism works" in particular was the initial seed of some of the worst suffering humanity has ever called forth.
And I haven't seen a tally of the results but the amount of political violence could be relatively balanced. Eg, attacks on congress people [0] is roughly balanced, with arguably the Republicans have suffered more (I personally call that 1-1 since 2000, although the attack on the republican baseball game was probably trying to achieve mass slaughter - it isn't obvious the attack on Rand Paul was the normal political assassination variety).
You are no doubt from the US watching the the wrong news channel missing out an nuance when it comes to using the word confusing it with the Cuban/Soviet communism.
I'm not from the US & I don't watch corporate news.
And I doubt any of the people who cause that sort of catastrophe go in to it saying "lol we're gonna starve you peasants!". They go in saying "this'll work, you just need to give us power rather than those greedy capitalists". The ideas there turned out to be worse than WWII because they weren't on-the-face scary enough to prompt the violent resistance to them that was needed. I dunno, I suppose just as a point of interest, what part of the communist ideology do you think they got wrong, which needs to be avoided? Particularly from the early days before people realised how bad the famines were going to be?
And I don't think that the US socialists are interested in copying Sweeden. They've got their own plans and they're going to claim "this is what worked in Sweden!" regardless of whether that is true or not. I don't think AOC or Sanders speaks Swedish or has any respect for Swedish legal principle.
But you are the one who said "socialism = worst suffering humanity has ever called forth" - this is the worst of the uninformed FoxNews hyperbole you find on there.
I simply don't see how asking for a social safety net, national healthcare and economic justice for the poor relates to that hence my remarks ????.
If that makes me a Socialist then so be it.
Perhaps cheap easy labelling of ideas is the issue here.
What do you think was worse? USSR + China was pretty bad.
> social safety net, national healthcare and economic justice
The US already has 3/3 of those things. But where is the limit where you agree that the US has them? And why is that the limit where the power centralising stops?
And how does that compare to the early calls from the communists? They thought they were helping too. There are scary outcomes from bad policies with good intentions.
But this is a bit off topic so I'll appreciate your answers but hopefully stop getting distracted. The point I want to make and I think I've made is that by actual outcomes it needs to be demonstrated which wing of politics is likely to be more dangerous. They are both pretty scary when they go wild. The rhetoric is not the scary part of the left, their rhetoric is like honey. Everyone likes it at some level.
I meant national health care like the UK NHS or Canada - the US does not have it.
On the social safety net sure there are programs such as SSI/MedicAid/Food stamps etc but there are more efforts esp from the right to curtail than actually expanding it
It is not like the number of poor people in the US are getting less.
"scary outcomes from bad policies" - it is inherent in any govt system whatever you label it not only left - recall the junta's in South America that made people disappear or Spain/Portugal to protect the countries allegedly from the communists.
The best bet is a free press, democracy and hopefully informed voters that participate (sadly that is becoming more of a wish these days)
> The best bet is a free press, democracy and hopefully informed voters that participate (sadly that is becoming more of a wish these days)
The political news of the week is that the FBI launched a no-knock raid on the former president, we learned from the Rogan-Zuckerberg interview they were also active in suppressing news stories that would have favoured him and were probably active in the years of stupidity that was exposed as a farce in the Muller report.
If you happen to be in the US, tack FBI reform (or ideally, disbandment) to your list of wants. Because if there is a collapse of press freedom or democracy they'll be involved for the worse. Or indeed, are involved. And they're part of the spies-on-everyone conspiracy wasn't-actually-a-theory.
... you got me, despite myself I liked that answer so much I had to respond.
Making fun of and mocking a belief in God/Jesus is harmless compared to some the stuff on the extreme rightwing - now who had a noose for "traitors" at their political rallies.
You don't see lefties burning crosses, displaying Nazi symbols or parading with signs i.r.o Jews now do you ???.
People proudly display the hammer and sickle, because Hitler was an evil man, whereas Mao and Stalin were just extremely unlucky or something.
Antifa and BLM don't assault people or destroy property (If people deserve it, it's not assault or something like that. At any rate it just can't be domestic terrorism.)
You can't be racist against white people, because they are the only racists by definition!
I wish some people had a shred of intellectual honesty.
Two of our neighbouring countries has an AK47 on their national flag (Zimbabwe/Mozambique).
If you knew about their tortured path to emancipation for the black majority and to statehood from colonialism then it makes sense why it is so.
The same for my country - things are nuanced - hammer and sickle is hardly as offensive and can be placed in the same category as the Nazi symbol it does not represent the misguided Mao (killing of sparrows led to locusts = failed harvests) and the nutcases that was Stalin/Beira.
> things are nuanced - hammer and sickle is hardly as offensive and can be placed in the same category as the Nazi symbol
Even if you completely buy into the narrative that it was a giant mistake, what is nuanced about the fact that tens of millions of people died needlessly? That fact alone makes any display of the flag reprehensible.
If 'misguided' is how you describe Mao, then you do not know Chinese history, or you're talking about a completely different person. At the very least, Mao was directly responsible for the millions of landlords that were killed, along with academics and critics. How on earth can you justify that morally?
This earlier article is far more interesting; most importantly it contains the words the professor actually said; the quote in the headline of the article you link is disputed.
(Interestingly, both articles have the same author.)
It's a long story about an ambitious academic losing at university politics, to the point of being fired from a tenured position without, allegedly, due process.
Project Veritas is a supremely biased source, they selectively edit all of their gotcha videos, use entrapment and other techniques that are completely disqualifying in terms of trusting their conclusions, and are currently under investigation for commissioning the theft of Ashley Biden's diary.
No serious person should take them seriously.
It wpuld be great to have a ProPublica from the right.
To be fair, the Ashley Biden diary was a pretext to slam them with the FBI. Veritas didn't publish anything from the diary. Other organizations did publish and they are not being pursued by the DOJ. You are saying that you don't like how they do things and that disqualifies any information that they deliver. However, is it fair to say you equally disqualify sources you agree with for their methods?
Are you saying that despite the evidence they provide, (which really, despite all the editing in the world cannot be misconstrued) you do not believe that the things they claim are occurring?
It's not playing nice because the media organizations are not being honest.
It's unsightly to have the ways one side cheats exposed, but do you really choose to believe they just don't cheat?
3. That is the nature of the social media business.
Take for example the fact the a vast majority of government workers self identify as democrats/liberal. People that don't believe in a large government (conservatives) choose not to work in government positions.
I suppose you could explain that quite easily as I didn't state 100%.
Government employment =/= Reality
That's the weird disconnect, I've explained it in my commemt and it is verifiable information.
Your last question doesn't make sense unless you mean to say it ironically, I can't tell, but whatever. The words you have chosen do not illustrate the point you intended to make.
I'm not right wing. I'm able to see and also think critically of both conservatives and liberals.
I'm capable of self awareness.
I guess it is their right to deny access to the Google Play store, but I feel like legislation was needed yesterday that requires phone providers provide options for an alternative store with the same automatic updates feature. Google allows alternative stores, but doesn't provide a way for users that I'm aware to keep apps up-to-date from unknown sources even if they are using a third-party store that does their own verification. Apple on the other hand goes even further, so it is difficult to be over critical at just Google in this regard.