While there may be no central leadership, there are definitely organized chapters. That's exactly what they would like people to believe. And yet, they seem to act in an incredibly organized fashion...
Shouldn't people be held accountable for their own actions at some point? Everyone should know that murder is illegal, even if <insert popular figure> says to kills someone, you should know not to.
There are people out there that are crazy, and will use anything to justify their actions. Unless he called for a specific action, I don't see how he is to blame. It would be setting a bad precedent to blame or punish anyone that said something provacative that is not explicitly a call for inciting harm/violence. People need to be held responsible for their own actions.
I believe Obama used carefully picked statistics to say there is widespread racism in the police. There are likely racist people/cops, but I don't believe there is evidence to suggest widespread racism.
Just looking at the "AllSides Media Bias Chart" there are more "major" sources that are left-leaning than right [0]. The chart includes top sources by traffic. I mean this doesn't calculate all traffic and determine if in general left sources are more viewed but it's a start.
Can you be upset and disavow what someone says but still support them? The instant someone says something "bad" they should be just thrown out?
I don't agree with a lot of what Trump says, but I don't hold him accountable for others' actions unless he specifically called for violence which I don't think he did in this case. He does say some questionable things, but has always disavowed violence on both sides.
Obama has promulgated lots of anti-police rhetoric, and there are some who would blame him for certain attacks on police. I disagree with things he said, but would not blame him for any of that.
Because Fox is the primary "mainstream" news source for conservative viewers. There are many more left-leaning news networks so their viewers are more divided. The majority of remaining news channels/networks/etc. have liberal bias.
I think this is an interesting idea, and would like to follow the progress.
My only complaint is that the site is entirely unusable without JavaScript. Perhaps consider including some content with in addition to the notice of enabling JavaScript. I get most sites aren't designed with NoScript users in mjnd, but being able to see a little information before whitelisting the domain would be nice.
While I don't think it should be possible to spend so much on a mobile game, I believe some responsibility lands on the parents.
I'm sure my kids would have done this already, just by the sheer number of pop-ups and garbage in some games. But purchases require a password each time, so nothing happens.
All in all a decent effort at providing some Google alternatives. However, if the focus is on privacy I would not even recommend any services that are not specifically privacy-focused (IMO), even with a disclaimer. I would encourage anyone to self-review any services listed.
Godaddy is offered as a domain and website host, when they have been known to inject JavaScript tracking code unbeknownst to the user [0].
The latency is fairly negligible, to me at least. Plus if you're already searching in DDG it's faster to input !g than to go to Google. Also I think it's nice to give them that info where they could be done better.
> They own the economy, lock stock and barrel. The rest of us can only hope for a small stream to cover our expenses and little else.
How do you explain all of the successful people that started from nothing, and got to where they are now?
So what solution do you propose? Do they not deserve the money they made? The majority of businesses fail, don't the ones that succeed deserve a reward?
As long as they didn't cheat or steal to get there, why does it matter? I'm fairly sure wealthy people don't have tons of cash on hand, most of money is in the companies they built or invested in.
According to this article [0] Jeff Bezos net worth is $188.7 billion. His shares of Amazon represent $172.8 billion. While unlikely, if Amazon stock plummeted he would have "only" $15.9 billion. While still a lot on its own, the vast majority of his money is not even usable (immediately).