From a national security standpoint of the government, it absolutely does matter who has the data.

“Here come the test results: ‘You are a horrible person’. That’s what it says, ‘a horrible person’. We weren’t even testing for that!”

More like, “I want a sandwich but i can’t afford one. I guess I’ll go become a porn actor or a prostitute to earn money"

trekkies in their 40s for some reason. Pc technical, can use a pc well enough to understand above the basic concepts of the best buy laptop the general public use.

I feel attacked, yet also acknowledged.

If social media companies exist to collect massive troves of personal info from users–and they do–then there is a valid national security concern over social media controlled by an adversary. This is distinct from the individual privacy concerns towards domestically-controlled social media.

How is babby formed?

Ask Robespierre how that works out in the end.

The answer is: because she doesn’t benefit from it.

What does this imply about those who agree with it?

“Here is nothing missing, but a cat urinated on this during a certain night. Cursed be the pesty cat that urinated over this book during the night in Deventer and because of it many others [other cats] too. And beware well not to leave open books at night where cats can come.”

https://medievalfragments.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/paws-pee-and-mice-cats-among-medieval-manuscripts/

Lisa needs braces!

It’s a unilateral contract.

I’m not familiar with the idiom “spitting on the wrong horn.” Here’s the context of the quote:

But weigh this [the evils of liberty] against the oppression of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem [“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”]. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

I feel like you’re arguing a point I haven’t taken a position on. I’m only saying that arrests like this seem insane to an American sensibility.

The conservatives gave it the power to prosecute people for protesting climate change and made it inadmissible evidence for them to explain the reasons for their protest

But I will say that changing the law like that is also insane to an American sensibility.

It’s less about thinking she shouldn’t be punished for her speech, and more about thinking that the state shouldn’t have the power to punish speech. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

I’m not upgrading because I don’t trust Windows 11. Not that 10 has my confidence, of course, but 11 seems worse.

It’s not a question of what speech I think should be allowed, but rather a question of what powers I think the state should have.

I’m not confusing them. But I’m also not a fan of using the power if the state to punish people I disagree with, even if they say vile things. Such power will inevitably be abused, turned against me, etc.

It’s safer in the long run to preserve free speech and expression, even if it means people get away with being asshats.

I don’t think that would do a lot in terms of protecting unpopular speech.

The problem is in who decides what speech should be punished.