We are discussing crime. If crime wasn't commited by firearms, there would be no need to have legal framework regulating firearms. However, once firearms are heavily regulated, the violence commited through use of firearms doesn't magically go away. Violent criminals just switch to other methods.
You can see similar things happening in UK recently, where they had a heavy campaign on banning knifes. This has resulted in increased use of acid attacks in gang/criminal violence.
GP asked about relation of gun laws vs death numbers. You are pretending to answer that, but you weasel in the change from 'general violence' to 'gun violence'. Of course if guns are more easily available, there will be more gun violence, but that's not what GP asked.
I meant that they are 'introducing' security fails so that once there'll be indications they're giving data to Uncle Sam they can claim they were hax'd.
But I'm not really serious with this 'conspiracy theory', it's just some food for thought/shitpostin'.
Between this and the Mac root login, looks like Apple has got 'an offer they can't refuse' from Uncle Sam, and are establishing plausible deniability by intentionally introducing security failures.
These new-style tech companies have become very good at keeping the underdog/one-with-the-masses image while slowly turning into market-cornering behemoths the likes of Bell. Netflix is just following the Google's playbook IMO.
Also: this duality was why I was suspicious of the end result of the Net Neutrality (as opposed to net neutrality) in discussions couple days ago and I got completely shredded. People should be more critical of everything and not fall for feel-good phrases by faceless corps.
Thank you for clarifying that, the general issues quickly get interwoven with intra-US issues and I lose track.
I am not really here to preach. I just wanted to point out something, so that people who feel like me can make their own judgement with this extra data. It is not related to US nor the current anti/pro Trump craze, just a long-time wariness and dislike of the man based on what my father has told me (we emigrated from an asian country to Europe when I was young because of negative effects of Soros's games, and that's as much as I'm willing to share online about my reasons).
It is not, but I'd like to note one thing: while here Netflix is the 'bad guy', in the Net Neutrality issue they are positing themselves as the 'good guy'.
Yes, and that is all I wanted to point out. That Soros is investing heavily in affecting the public and official opinion on some topics, such as net neutrality.
And for this I get called a 'conspiracy theorist'.
Soros is not a 'boogie man', he is a man that sabotages countries for his own personal gain. I do not trust him, and do not trust his 'philantropic' reasons. The end game with him is always the same, getting more money for himself in the end. He uses legit humanitarian/human rights issues simply as tool towards that end goal, and this disgusts me.
As for your attempt at ridicule by association, I am not American so I'm not able to follow; I get that 'red cap circle' would be Trump supporters, but can you clarify the 'paid busloads of people to protest' part?
Thank you for attempting to ridicule me with the ole 'conspiracy theory'.
Go to the site ( battleforthenet.com ), scroll all the way down, it says 'built by Fight for the Future', and even links to it: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/
Open Society Foundations is listed there. They are not even hiding the connection.
George Soros directly providing funds for the #1 pro-NN site being peddled around social media sites, and simultaneously pushed into #1 spot on hundreds of subreddits 2 days ago = 'Soros conspiracy theory'. I somehow doubt you apply the same standards to the 'Russian hackers' 'conspiracy theory'. :)
To the rest of the readers, I am not arguing whether 'Russian hackers' is conspiracy theory or not, I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of how when public's perception and opinion is manipulated by Soros pouring in millions of $, it's completely ignored and we're all expected to pretend it's 100% grassroots, but if Trump&co were doing the same level of manipulation, we would never stop hearing about how it's completely manufactured. I am just tired of being manipulated, regardless of who it's coming from.
Every social media website is dominated by 'people supporting net neutrality' because George Soros poured a lot of money into that. The site that was being peddled everywhere the other day, battleforthenet.com (and I hope noone will try and pretend that, for example, simultaneous pushing of that site to #1 spot on hundreds of subreddits was not orchestrated), is ran by org called 'Fight for the Future'; they are funded by Open Society Initiative, which is George Soros's organization. He also funds that 'resist' sms-bot, where you get to DDoS government officials with faxes by texting 'resist' to a number that does the spamming.
All I saw was an attempt to manipulate the appearance of popularity of pro-NN stance. I'd like to point out that I am not against net neutrality, I am against being brainwashed and manipulated, especially through scaremongering.
If (lacking a better word) 'pro-Trump' arguments were financed and relentlessly pushed like this, we'd have 10x the screeching about 'Russian hackers'. Why are we not hearing anything about people who actually are trying to subvert and hack democratic processes by pouring a lot of money into it?
In my online experience, 90% of people who straight up attack keto like this are vegans who want to keep propping up the dogma that 'animal products = bad for you'. They often also assume that keto = eating only meat.