I’m not ranting about anything, I’m just responding to your posts. It’s not my fault you choose to speak in euphemisms rather than directly say what you mean.
Anyway, this is not about me. So unless you want to try and defend your indefensible positions… have a nice day.
What I wrote is completely germane, you just can’t admit it or argue against what I’m saying because then it would be harder for you to gaslight people into voting for socialism.
So in your fantasy world we would be at 8.5 billion people along with low poverty, hunger, and deaths from war… but replacing capitalism with socialism.
Likely you fantasize no income and instead it would be the whole “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” thing, right?
Unfortunately for your fantasy… the result of socialism has always been the deaths of millions of people through starvation and murder (followed by collapse and/or acceptance of capitalism)
At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution there were an estimated 200 million people and virtually 100% poverty.
Now there are over 8.5 billion people and yet we’ve managed to reduce both poverty and hunger to the lowest levels in history. Along with the lowest rates of people dying due to war.
socialism didn’t do that.
Pretty much they’re giving money to people who are most likely to be transitionally homeless and then claiming success even though most if not all of the participants wouldn’t be homeless after a year anyway.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Programming in the Microsoft world is like working at McDonalds.
Everything is fine as long as all you want is a McDonald’s hamburger. Try coloring outside the lines and you’re basically screwed.
It’s true, the market has spoken so to speak. However, Android is open source and many providers have “tweaked” their what they deliver (often to the consternation of customers).
I think you should separate the OS (Android) from the ecosystem (Google). You can, in fact, load up any number of Google alternatives on Android phones. With Apple, it’s up to Apple to decide what “choices” you have (or don’t).
If you want that, use the Fediverse (which, of course, you’re already doing). There is no need to legislate people’s personal preferences.
“innocent until proven guilty” is a Government thing.
A corporation is treated like a group of people, they’re not a Government. Governments are infinitely more powerful than any corporation.
If you don’t like Apple… don’t do business with them. As we’ve seen with countless internet companies (including Twitter)… it can be done
I’m surprised your point on freedom of speech in other countries is hypothetical as you expressed the US version is so flawed as to be a “grave danger”
There is regulation.
𝐈𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐓𝐎𝐒 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐬’ 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐓𝐎𝐒 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. 𝐈𝐧 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐎𝐒 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞. 𝐈𝐟 𝐬𝐨, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐰.
So you think that because Apple isn’t forced by the Government to give a platform to an accused rapist America is “in grave danger”. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Can you be more specific? Which countries do you expect will force Apple to restore the app of an accused rapist? We can test your hypothesis.
I’m in the US, and I don’t have an iPhone.
See, it’s that easy.
And you do have rights as a customer, you have a right to receive the service as agreed, and you also have the responsibility to abide by the terms of service (again, see point 1).
If you don’t like how Apple manages their business, your remedy is to not do business with Apple.
If Apple determines some app has broken their terms of service, they remove it.
If you don’t like Apple’s terms of service, see point 1.
See, it’s that easy.
You seem to have no idea what you’re talking about.
The 1st amendment of the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech (among other things).
Nonsense, no one died to allow anyone to run their apps on Apple systems.
The “right to say it” is protection against Government persecution.
No one has a right to a platform.
hashtags are not @ tags.
@ tags are to reference other people.
𝐍𝐨, 𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐈 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐈 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐲 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐞𝐮𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬.
And there it is, the extremist trademark. Attack and demonize anyone not in your “tribe”. They’re just an “other” right?
Thanks for confirming everything I thought about you.