Greg Barns claims that the case should be stopped because it represents an unprecedented attempt by the US to prosecute an individual who is not one of its citizens, and who was not in the US when the WikiLeaks material was published. This is called extraterritorial reach and generally the law frowns on it.
The US and the UK have an extradition treaty that permits this. The UK can withdraw from the treaty, but unless they do this line of argument is willfully dishonest.
The US government demanded access to the US based social media companies to pull whatever sensitive information they wanted. They just don’t want China to have the same access.
Social media apps are invasive. Social media apps controlled by adversarial governments are dangerous. This is true regardless of who we're talking about. The pearl-clutching over 'censorship', 'racism', etc. is kind of ridiculous.
When a given demographic is a dominant presence in a given area (not necessarily work, it can be anything), there is a tendency for they demographic to start making assumptions about other demographics.
Isn't she the one making assumptions, though? Specifically, the "prejudice and stupidity of the person indirectly insulting her" part? I mean, is that really the only possible explanation?
