It's just a numbers game, there's more Dems here (probably 4:1 given the industry demographic) and so you lose the popularity contest on a topic like this which stokes tribal sentiments.
Exactly, and no Dem ever gets deplatformed for these incessant lies that lead to violence and death. Shows you it's all an excuse to purge Republicans (liars though they may be)
It's especially reasonable when we're talking about changes in BMI instead of levels regarding a population. That can only be driven by the population getting fatter.
Wouldn't people have said the same thing about Hitler after the failed Beer Hall Putsch?
I think Trump's allure is going to mostly survive this event, he will figure out a way to brand it as not being his fault or intention. I could be wrong about that though.
I believe there's also a neurological basis as well. It's been shown that belief in superstition is predicted by dopamime levels in the brain. Likely same for conspiracy theory belief. Elevated dopamine levels leading people to perceive patterns where they don't exist.
The person you responded to is largely correct, despite your aggressive tone.
While AWS will act on anything that's reported, they are well known to do absolutely nothing in addition to that to stop the rampant usage of their platform to spread child pornography, unlike FB and other platforms which invest heavily in stopping the spread of child abuse material.
Amazon AWS really don't care about what goes on their platform unless it becomes a potential PR issue.
Nobody is arguing that these platforms don't have a legal right to do what they've done. The only debate is about what they ought to do, and whether the laws should be changed as a result of those preferences.
Regarding Parler: it is a large platform with a mixture of conservative speech and outright violent rhetoric. Does that justify its ban? The same is true for Twitter and FB (ie there exists a large amount of unmoderated extremist speech and calls for violence on these platforms). What makes it right to ban only Parler? Is there evidence that the density of such speech is higher there?
Nonsense. A former Democratic staffer employed by Facebook censored the breaking news story about Hunter Biden's laptop on the eve of the election which we now know to be factually accurate. This is a literal and recent example of what the person you accused of being malicious talked about. We all know that if it was a smear against the Trump campaign instead, that this would've never happened. You must be able to see the double standard at work.
> telling you it's not censorship and they are technically correct
No, they are technically incorrect. As other posters have pointed out, it literally is censorship. Whether a private company or government is doing it is irrelevant to the definition of that term.
> choosing not to amplify the voices of people that have proven themselves capable of and prone to violence
Then why not ban Twitter as well? I could show you hundreds of tweets from little known left-wing activists inciting violence during the BLM protests. This double standard tells us that the rationale given for banning Parler is just an excuse. The real reason is that executives in these companies are doing what their most vocal employees and the liberal media are pressuring them to do.
Flying on 9/11/2001 was "mostly safe" because less than 96% of flights were hijacked. Also a true statement, but ridiculous.
The BLM riots resulted in 19 dead, and thousands of properties damaged. It's equivalently true to say "Trump protests/rallies are mostly non-violent", since the majority of them (probably rivalling the 96% in the article you mention) have had few issues with violence until the recent insurrection. But that would just be a vacuous talking point.
I'm going off my experience with doctors that I know personally. There's definitely a personality type or an attitude there that shuts them off to things that a layperson will bring to them even if it's based on good science (only they haven't studied it before).
> After asking five different doctors about it, one finally agreed to prescribe it.
Were the other four too lazy/orthodox to read the papers you're referencing? Or they read the papers and still thought it wasn't a good idea? I'm going to presume that the former is the case, unfortunately.
The upside of your proposal is that it'll create a very strong disincentive for this kind of behavior.
But if we really can't attribute blame to specific individuals, your proposal is effectively collective punishment where individuals that are genuinely innocent are punished because of wrongdoings of other members of the group. From a justice perspective, we're in murky moral waters. An analogy would be to punish everyone in a shared household if we know that one member of that household committed a crime but we can't determine which one specifically (and let's assume that the innocent members of the household don't know and aren't hiding information). This would be a state of affairs that everyone would rightly protest. So we need to think carefully as to whether we want to enact your proposal.
It is absolutely not a fallacy, as Naval Ravikant points out, given the large numbers of slippery slopes that have played out in the historical record. I have no idea why the belief that it is a logical fallacy is so widespread.
TSLA has a P/E ratio of 1500. Even though they're a growth stock it's a generous valuation to say the least. The stock price has been driven up by
(1) a lot of retail investors loading into the stock & call options, primarily because it's a momentum hype/meme ticker with Elon at the helm, and easy access through Robinhood et al combined with stimulus money.
(2) large cap tech stocks have been rallying during COVID; capital has had nowhere else to go with the Fed crushing the USD and non-tech companies suffering,
(3) shorts have been repeatedly obliterated and are now mostly staying away. Short interest is now only 6%.
(4) TSLA was recently included in the S&P 500 at a ~1.5% weight, so index funds and ETFs have been forced to buy it due to a mandate to track the index.