Exception in those days it took a lot of time and effort to build software and you couldn't just do it by answering a few multi choice questions on a phone.
Except it can’t happen in that environment. Twitter always was and is inherently unsuitable for any semi-productive discussion due its format.
However that is besides the point any discussion in such “free” environment will be drowned by noise and bigotry (from both sides). Pretending otherwise is silly.
More like the fact that Elon Musk literally bought himself a cabinet position and basically the president himself in almost the most blatant and transparently corrupt way possible.
> it's sad
Even more sad when people lack the concept of nuance and see the world as entirely black and white.
How is Elon Musk any different from the plethora of famous people endorsing democrats? I am guessing you don't think they are corrupt?
This double standards is what people are fed up with and people just don't care what mainstream news have tp say anymore because we can listen to the people we want to listen to directly without journalists as a filter.
There used to be some kind of honor in media but like in everything else that has evaporated so now they have made themselves irrelevant.
> How is Elon Musk any different from the plethora of famous people endorsing democrats?
They don't want cabinet positions, lol. Trump has spoken on choosing pretty awful unqualified people for his cabinet and various agencies.
This isn't some unknown secret, it's his strategy. Of course, he's going to appoint the dude who doesn't believe in climate change to run the EPA. There's no point in denying this flavor of corruption, because it's intentional and obvious GOP strategy and has been for decades.
> This was not why freedom of the press was granted
Not about this specific point but people making these decisions back in the 1700s and 1800s were at least as flawed as us (arguably much more) and made some extremely horrible/stupid choices in hindsight.
Treating them as effectively infallible religious figures is well.. just that.
Especially if we consider that the interpretation of what freedom of speech (and press) meant was extremely narrow by modern standards well into the late 1800s and beyond.
> there is a two-tiered system targeting white people. That's obviously a myth
Except… That’s obviously not what Farage et al are saying.
The claim is that white nationalists (verging on fringe(?) neo-nazi) protestors and rioters were treated more harshly than protestors and rioters belonging to other races or subscribing to other (also violent and radical) political (or religious) ideologies.
It does not seem obvious at all to me that this is clearly a myth.
It seems clear that the current crop of "white nationalists (verging on fringe(?) neo-nazi) protestors and rioters" were treated with kid gloves in comparison to the treatment of "other race" protestors in the Brixton riots.
The current claim that current "other race" UK protestors are (oranges to oranges in same circumstances) better treated than white protestors is subjective, it's not suprise that such a claim is being made by Farage and Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon .. it's very much their schtick.
That was more than 40 years ago. I was wondering whether bringing up 2011 might make sense (since it was over 10 years ago, the riots weren’t as politically motivated etc.) but this is just something else..
Were they? They [Guardian] are now claiming that both groups are being treated the same when they were clearly claiming that that wasn’t the case earlier?
Which exact groups they are talking about doesn’t really matter for this specific argument.
reply