Thank you! The English wikipedia article is very different to my own native language's one (German). I didn't know that some people call the blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt an occupation. These nuances don't translate well into my language where the word for occupation implies actually occupying something ("boots on the ground").
The blockade was the consequence of their neighbour being taken over by a terrorist organization. Both Israel and Egypt tried to loosen the blockade multiple times in the last decade. But any relaxation was answered with violence. I don't know how anyone should or could possibly proceed in this setting. All I know is that I do sympathize with the civilians on both sides that are suffering because of it, even if one side elected literal terrorists as their leaders and the other side elected a vengeful right-winger.
hint: It's the Israeli occupation of Palestine. And yes, that includes Gaza, as much as Israel would like you to believe otherwise
The aggressive settlement politics of Israel in Palestine is sad enough, but would you care to elaborate on the second part? That seems to be a pretty bold claim, considering that Gaza has been militarily occupied by Hamas since the civil war of 2007 and is still de facto not in the control of either Palestine or Israel. I don’t understand how that could be the case if your claim was true.
According to Hamas doctrine Israel does „occupy“ them by simply existing where Hamas would like to create their caliphate (i.e. Jerusalem). So that might be where the confusion is coming from.
Internationally only the PLO is recognized as Palestine by many, and is granted observer status at the UN. But they don’t rule in Gaza anymore. The PLO lost Gaza to the Hamas during civil war in 2007. The leadership of Gaza is not recognized by anyone as a state. Russia, Norway and Switzerland are the only three states in Europe that uphold any official relation to them (for different reasons).
Almost all countries that do not recognize the State of Palestine (PLO) still have official formal relations to the entity in all but the name. Many simply cannot legally recognize it as long as it officially claims Israel’s territory as theirs.
On the server-side PHP is used by 76.8% of all websites (a large chunk of that being WordPress). It is not going anywhere, soon. Looking at this statistics, nothing else seems to be even in the same league from a pure usage point of view.
I have yet to see a reason why it should change. Serious question: What is the disadvantage of using the tried and tested PHP8 compared to the alternatives, if you already know PHP?
What you imply is a common misconception. Puritans did not flee to America in the early modern period because they were religiously persecuted. They fled to America because they were not allowed to religiously persecute others anymore. They were scolded because of their religious intolerance not because of their religion per se.
This is Bard. But Google Search also added AI to their searches, too.
Last time I checked it was in A/B testing and it was bad. The result previews sometimes show you what you are searching for, not what is actually there (wrong names, wrong dates, etc.).
Screenshots of the game Arma 3 are not real photos. Some disinformation is simply disinformation.
The EU asks them to detail how they process and distinguish these fake news and to explain how they make their decisions. The EU did not demand that they change anything, yet. Your criticism is premature.
It is a Wolfsangel not a „literal swastika“, as you wrote. That only makes it a little better, though. Both symbols are clearly understood in this context as symbols of nazism today.
Freedom of speech is mostly an American concept. In most European states we „only“ have freedom of expression and opinion (a human right). Deliberately spreading propaganda, agitation and fake news is not covered by freedom of expression and opinion. On the contrary, it can be a criminal offense.
This is not the first time Musk thinks US laws apply to the whole world or that he is above the law of the countries his businesses operate in. A part of me hopes that he gets fined and then ignores the fine. He might just be stupid enough.
See? I called him stupid. That is an expression of my opinion. Using images of violence from 2010 and claiming that they are from 2023 is not an opinion.
That is the goal. The OP article and especially the headline here is misleading.
This is what is in the original letter regarding violent images: „repurposed old images of unrelated armed conflicts or military footage that actually originated from video games“.
The issue is not violent images per se. The issue is misinformation through violent images that are unrelated to the current events.
