why would that be wrong? if most people are searching for the truth wouldn't it be better to give them both sides of the issue and have them decide for themselves? Why is Google deciding why that specific Hillary query is taboo? And who gave them that right?
> if most people are searching for the truth wouldn't it be better to give them both sides of the issue and have them decide for themselves?
i think the wording of this is insufficiently nuanced. consider that many issues involve more than two clear dominant points of view, and that for many issues most people would not consider all points of view to be equally credible.
> Why is Google deciding why that specific Hillary query is taboo?
because, as another poster pointed out in another subthread, any search engine that is usable (at the level of time and technical skill that most people have) will necessarily have to make essentially editorial judgements. after almost a lifetime of being the sort of nerd that likes to make lists, categorize things, geek out over philosophical classifications, etc, and after a few years of working in the library world, i'm convinced that coming up with any system of abstraction or classification necessarily implies making editorial judgements and value judgements. i think objectivity is a great and important thing to strive for (in reporting and in information classification), but i think achieving it perfectly is definitely not possible, especially on divisive issues, and especially where lots of people disagree (or claim to disagree) on the basic facts.
> And who gave them that right?
i don't know about right, but effectively they have the ability because: 1) they built a really good search engine, 2) they built a really successful ad business on top of that to monetize it, 3) through ignorance and laziness we let them hoover up our data and use it to greatly improve their ad business, which let them provide us even more free services that everyone got hooked on, 4) everyone seems too apathetic to make the effort to move away and no one seems interested in competing with them as a search or email provider for most people. and here we are.
Current gov has no interest in paying off debt. All conspiracy theories lead to the elites plundering the existing system and then defaulting. This will lead to the collapse of the USD and a new digital currency will take its place.
WW2 where most of Europe was destroyed. Contrary to what mainstream media will say is that a large part of it was Germany unable to pay war reparations from WW1 and entering stages of hyper inflation during Weimar Republic. This of course led to a certain party that was really against international bankers. After the resulting chaos we have Pax Americana.
Which is why WWII and WWI are closely related: had I been writing that comment, I would have said that the revolution in social order and cancellation in debt happened in the period from WWI through to the end of WWII.
In 1910, Europe was an aristocracy, and even the US social order was defined by some enormous winners at the top. WW1 itself dramatically reoriented the power dynamics internationally, which led to dramatic political change everywhere, which setup the conflicts that resulted in WW2.
Sure, but none of this supports the stated thesis that these revolutions happen every 100-300 years and that they are a result of debt bubbles. WWI was not a debt bubble, it was a war. Not the same thing. It was also much less than 100 years before the alleged onset of the current revolutionary cycle in the 1970s.
If you look at the actual timeline between 1919 and 1933. The hyperinflation occurred 1921 and 1923. Not surprising since that is in the immediate aftermath of WWI. The actual rise to power of those guys in spiffy uniforms was 1929-1933 and was due to austerity in the face of deflation and banking collapse. Same thing happened in the US under Mellon. Only difference is the Germans picked the guy with the Charlie Chaplin Stash and the US picked a kindly man in a wheelchair.
most likely the power line to the cameras were cut or interfered with. They should both be on the same network and it should not be difficult to disable if knowing about the security system before hand.
It seems very on topic and relevant to the discussion. The preceding posts were:
Unfortunately, the effects of consumption aren’t contained to where (and when) one consumes
That’s why we need to enforce borders
So pointing out that the emissions (one side effect of unlimited consumption) aren't stopped by border control or a wall seems to be completely on topic.
...says a guy from a country that basically created the Mexican cartels out of thin air via the War on (some) Drugs.
Which "most lucrative market on earth" do you suppose they service?
You should really do a bit of additional research on:
The Monroe Doctrine. Henry Kissinger, Salvador Allende & Pinochet. United Fruit & Guatemala, and the list goes on...
We are ONE singular species and the climate crisis ain't the elephants or squirrels fault my friend.
Then there's this thing called a global market, but I defer to your urge to hide under the covers and suck your thumb instead of engaging with the real world.
Just more of a smear against Yang. The establishment is afraid.
Also the tint of anti Asian American racism - similar to SV when the hiring team or management group tries to talk themselves into finding reasons to not like a qualified candidate that does not fit the mold of the obediant Asian worker drone. Usually done insidiously to cast doubt on a person's character etc.
