Why do you think it is wrong? If people use public forums to do illegal activities then it makes the job for law enforcement much easier.
Using the same logic of enforcing marketplace, there needs to be an observer for every private conversation on messenger so that no illegal pictures are sent.
Credit companies should have no access to my digital presence. I expect no company to have access to my digital footprint whatsoever. Law enforcement for public safety? Sure. Financial services? Definitely no.
Will it yield better credit assessments? sure. But it doesn’t benefit the general population. It is a one way proposal which only benefits the financial corporations.
It is just like saying keeping slaves increases the productivity of an enterprise.
I think that politics and extreme content should live on their own sites and should not be discussed on sites like twitter. Just like how porn is not readily available on the platforms, politics should be the same, be it left or right.
They should have taken out twitter as Trump used Twitter to organize the protest. Taking out a platform not even directly involved in the incident is hilarious to me.
Just because a thinking falls in to a pattern of fallacy doesn’t mean that what I claim is wrong. You can check the video and read what I claim, think logically and ask yourself what are the cases where someone could check box for option A then fill another box. And honestly that’s just minute nothing of the many irregularities if you do go though the links.
Also, I’m not citing random links all of these show that there are many irregularities and there is suppression of information and free exchange. I choose only four out of thousand cause I don’t have the time and I don’t get paid.
Again, I dont live in America so Trump winning or losing directly doesn’t matter to me.
Verified by independent fact checkers, based on the same tweet from an official government account. Which claims that those were spoiled ballots. My comment and assertion still stands.
Just because you see “don’t look, trust me” doesn’t mean you should stop thinking there.
Present few evidence - not widespread enough, "okay there were a few irregularities"
Present a large number of evidence - Gish Gallop
unsourced claims - Links and sources speak for themselves, it is not as if I have manufacured them out of thin air.
> burden of proof is on the accuser and you aren't even close to that standard
If me presenting over a thousand links with lets say 90% weak evidence doesnt come close to a standard I dont know what will.
> It's also worth noting that Trump and his associates brought a lot of the so called "evidence" to court and were nearly laughed out of court almost every single time.
You are right about this one. Though as far as I know, were not dismissed on the matter of the evidence itslef but on precedent, issues regarding the timing and other matters.
There are over a thousand links and not all of it is strong evidence but they surely suggest that there were irregularities in more than one location.
There are sworn affidavits under penalty of prejury [1], video showing dead people voting [2], votes in the trash [3], video evience [4] just to give you some examples.
Lets consider this possibility: if there was systemic voter fraud [1] then this is again another action done to supress the information and prevent from more people learning about the possible voter fraud. Not only are social media platforms supressing voices, there is also the media which has the option to decide what to cover and what not to. These are the primary ways people stay informed.
I want to make a smart glass like device with a tiny display or a projector, Raspberry Pi Zero as the main board and powered by a battery pack. Does any one have any input regarding optics?
Just thinking about the possibility of having a linux machine always on you seems really exciing.
And that’s why he’s going to the courts instead of using all the other means and powers at his disposal. To ensure that the Democratic process is followed.
Since when is youtube the gatekeeper of truth? Why is it upon Youtube to intentionally choose to do this? Moral obligation? Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Using the same logic of enforcing marketplace, there needs to be an observer for every private conversation on messenger so that no illegal pictures are sent.