Yeah I just hold shift and ctrl and start mashing function keys until I figure it out LOL.

Yeah so Israel is a democracy. You’re saying a democratic country is a Nazi country.

I think a common thing among Nazis is to try to de-legitimize democracies. Trump does it, Putin does it, and you’re doing it while claiming they’re the Nazis. What does that make you?

Also Hamas came into power by winning a plurality of the votes and refused to hold elections after that. Their goal is to at best ethnically cleanse and at worst commit genocide to remove people of a certain ethnicity from a region. They use extreme violence and a narrative about past injustices to maintain power. They keep people in a perpetual state of angry fervor to control them. That all doesn’t seem just a little fashy to you?

How do you know when you’re not the one being a Nazi accusing your enemies of being a Nazi? Is it just that you’re always not the Nazi and everyone that disagrees with you is a Nazi? How are you different from Trump, Musk, Putin, etc?

What you see and don’t see on social media is already decided by nation states. It’s just countries like Russia, China, and Iran do it covertly.

They can push the things they want to the top of the algorithms with a relatively small (for a nation state) amount of resources. Sure they usually don’t outright ban content (but that can happen too by spamming abuse reports) but they can effectively shadow ban people by simply promoting everything except for the things they don’t like and use bot spam to do the social media equivalent of signal jamming.

And of course (as we’ve seen with Musk) the leadership of social media companies can be influenced (by a combo of same the misinformation they use on everyone else + money) and made into assets for nation states. This allows them to have some influence over who gets officially blocked on social media.

Yes it’s not ideal to have nation states influencing speech, the current is to have foreign adversary nation states influencing speech. The choice is between having democracies having a de jure influence on social media or have authoritarian countries have a de facto influence on social media.

We now need a “verify you are a captcha” mechanism to counter this.

Yeah, right? Captchas have trained users to do whatever weird thing a webpage tells them to do, so now people will do this without thinking about it.

Yeah it is. Most computers come with windows pre-installed so most people never do this kind of thing.

And there’s also things people need to be careful of. Like wiping all out all of their cherished photos by formatting the entire drive. Considering that casual users probably shouldn’t attempt to do this. Not trying to gatekeep or anything, but there is potential for data loss for a user that doesn’t back up their data properly, which is common for casual users.

Apparently it nags you if you don’t have a 365 account. So it’s just more enshittification.

So you’re encouraging people to commit violence based solely on some shit they’ve seen on the internet?

What makes you any different than any other nutjob that does some crazy shit because “they did their own research” on the internet?

You aren’t going to have an impact on the violence that’s happening on the other side of the world by doing violence in your own country. Get some perspective. You’re saying that people should bring an end to violence by using violence. How does that make any damn sense?

Pollsters are compensating for that undercount of unlikely voters. 2016 they were low, 2020 still low but pretty close. They will have scaled it up to be more accurate this go around.

Except there’s a few snags there. In between the 2020 election and now, there was an insurrection, Roe v. Wade was overturned, Trump was convicted of crimes and indicted for many more. These are things that a statistical process can’t really account for when putting weight on how likely a respondant is to actually vote.

Trump lost in 2020. Do all of these events incentivize more people will turn out for him this time than in the last election? Or will less people turn out for him?

Every time something unprecedented happens it negatively impacts the ability for a scientific statistical process to predict the outcome. Science can’t predict things there’s no model for, and how do you can’t have a model for something you haven’t seen before. And a hell of a lot of unprecedented shit has happened. Maybe next time a convicted felon that tried to overthrow democracy runs in an election there can be accurate polling, but it’s not going to be the case in this election.

There really is no way to know what will happen on election day. So there’s else to do other than maximum effort until election day.

It’s forecasting, not a prediction. If the weather forecast said there was a 28% chance of rain tomorrow and then tomorrow it rained would you say the forecast was wrong? You could say that if you want, but the point isn’t to give a definitive prediction of the outcome (because that’s not possible) it’s to give you an idea of what to expect.

If there’s a 28% chance of rain, it doesn’t mean it’s not going to rain, it actually means you might want to consider taking an umbrella with you because there’s a significant probability it will rain. If a batter with a .280 batting average comes to the plate with 2 outs at the bottom of the ninth, that doesn’t mean the game is over. If a politician has a 28% probability of winning an election, it’s not a statement that the politician will definitely lose the election.

You don’t have one in your Democracy Scrapbook?

IMO it should even be hashed on the client side before being sent so that it doesn’t show up as plaintext in any http requests or logs. Then salted and hashed again server side before being stored (or checked for login).

But if someone got that hashed version they could hack the client to have client side hashing code just send that hashed value to the server. You’d want to have the server to send a rotating token of some sort to use for encrypting the password on the client and then validate it on the server side that it was encrypted with the same token the server sent.

Seems complicated to me… https is probably has good enough encryption, so eh, whatever.

You know Canada is always lobbying Congress for trade deals, right? Every country does these kinds of things with every country they have relations with. The term we usually use for it is “diplomacy”.

But yeah if you think that we were blameless on 9/11 disregards the history of US foreign politicy.

This is where “But yeah if you think those countries weren’t entirely blameless disregards these country’s support of terrorism”

I won’t though, because unlike you I don’t think there’s any valid rationalization for deliberately targeting civilians. That would just be me lowering myself to the level you lowered yourself to by rationalizing the targeting of civilians.

But you don’t really have any kind of argument against killing civilians because you’ve already suggested that it’s acceptable to do so.

Many many times more. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.

Why don’t you apply this to 9/11 and October 7? What al Qaeda and Hamas did are an “eye for an eye” mentality aren’t they? Why not just do the sensible thing and denounce these “eye for an eye” actions as inexcusable?

And what’s the point of bringing up that some of them may have done compulsory service at some point in their life under a story about Hamas killing six hostages?

There is a context to this, and there is a narrative being promoted that justifies Hamas taking hostages (which is a war crime) and justifies the killing of these unarmed hastages (which is also war crime) because they were at one time IDF (aeven if that were the case, it would also be a war crime to summary execution prisoners of war).

It’s all about building a permission structure to make the war crimes of Hamas acceptable by attempting to classify the hostages as IDF.

Twitter did have an office in Brazil (with legal representation) but after refusing to implement court ordered bans, the court fined them. Elon Musk threw a temper tantrum and shut down the Brazil office and eliminated his legal representation in Brazil.

Note that Musk will implement bans when requested by authoritarians, just for some reason he draws the line when it’s a court order in a democratic country.

Anyway the situation where Twitter doesn’t have legal representation is a situation Elon Musk created. Basically “I fired my lawyers so there’s nothing you can do against me now! Checkmate!” So Brazil says “fine, I guess we’re banning Twitter then…”

So Space Karen thinks the the law doesn’t apply to him and it’s going to cost him a lot of money. Again.

To be more fair, Brazil is a sovereign country, Starlink is not.

I see you there making an effort to dehumanize the hostages. Shame on you.

Good on you.

I think people are trying to reduce the most complicated problems in global politics into a simple good guy vs. bad guy narrative and that leads people down to all kinds of crazy thoughts.

To me the real enemy is hatred. Hatred of Palestinians have resulted in Israel having the corrupt and incompetent leadership of Netanyahu. Hatred of Israelis has led Palestinian to corrupt and incompetent leadership of Fatah on the West Bank and the corrupt and genocidal leadership of Hamas in Gaza. Those promoting hatred of either side are just pushing for the conflict to continue and like all conflicts in densely populated areas, there will be a lot of civilian casualties. The claim to be very upset by the loss of life but their actions indicate they want it to continue until “their side” kills the other.

Also how do you get flags on your username? I think I’ll put both an Israeli and Palestinian flag on mine. If people that hate the people of either place want to hate, then I’m fine with them hating me too.

Whatever the US may have done does not justify the killing of thousands of civilians. If that was the way the world worked than any civilian deaths the US inflicted after 9/11 are also justified by the same logic.

Rationalizations of terrorist acts is really insane. There’s no moral high ground you can gain from this, the best you can accomplish is to say “both sides are bad” which accomplishes nothing.

Far better to denounce terrorism and work to make a distinction between the terrorists and people that have harmed who are not terrorists.