mintyfrog @ mintyfrog @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

57

Joined

2 yr. ago

Perhaps you're not familiar with this blocklist and how it doesn't exclusively include QAnon sources, as I indicated.

No list can exclusively contain QAnon sources. It isn't possible. You're relying on someone else or a group of people to make that determination. In doing so, you're blocking non-QAnon sources that you may just happen to disagree with. They also block far-right sites as described in the Github. How far to the right does the site have to be to be blocked? You've now created an echo chamber by blocking the opposition, all because you trusted that a list called "no-qanon" only blocked QAnon.

Even if what you're saying is true, you're now relying on someone else (or a group of people) to censor sites you wouldn't like and also not be susceptible to those things when creating this blocklist. You're ignoring the risks associated with false positives. You can't outsource your own critical thinking.

Labeling the opposition as a deranged cult that must be censored doesn't exactly sound anti-fascist to me. Again, not talking about hate groups here or anyone that advocates for violence.

Name a major media outlet that hasn't been suspected to be influenced by Russia.

Nope. The linked list does. Check the URLs. WikiLeaks is blocked.

Doesn't it sound at least a little bit foolish to trust someone else to intentionally censor the politics of your internet? You're creating your own echo chamber.

How can you understand and disagree with the other side if you can't even read their content? I'm not even talking about hate groups, I'm talking basics like WikiLeaks and the NRA.

Link is broken due to "." (at least on some platforms): https://github.com/1fexd/LinkSheet

They don't seem as transparent as tutanota

https://github.com/raivo-otp/marketing-website/issues/19

This was in July

Google Pixel has the most support for security, which relates to privacy. It does "phone home," but likely only to Google. Removing all the Google software and installing GrapheneOS further hardens the security and vastly improves the privacy by stopping the "phoning home."

https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

It's refutable, and also you can use Google's results through a different search engine, like SearXNG

*Authorized for use, not all approved.

The FDA has issued an Emergency Use Authorization for the updated Moderna and Pfizer formulas for 2023. The approvals are for other vaccines for new age groups.

Disagreeing with general consensus ≠ wrong

An entire country being contrary just because of national pride and arrogance is completely different.

Is it your position that all countries should have the same language regardless of their cultural history?

Also, it isn't rooted in national pride or arrogance. Aluminum came first and was the name given by the first chemist - a British scientist - to isolate the metal. The variant aluminium came from a reviewer who changed the spelling just because he liked the sound better. Aluminum was recognized by ACS 65 years before IUPAC standardized to aluminum. IUPAC has recognized aluminum as an acceptable spelling since 1993. So yeah, the general concensus is the aluminum is okay even based on your logic because IUPAC says so.

Exactly this. Most G20 countries had reduced coal emissions but China and India (plus Indonesia and Turkey) had increased coal emissions per capita. Because those countries account for ~3 billion people, nearly 40% of the world population, and an even greater percentage of G20 population, the total coal emissions of G20 has increased.

"agrees"

You talk about it like all scientists could ever agree to something and that it would be possible to poll every single one and properly weight their individual scientific relevance.

Platinium too?

I'm agreeing that depleted uranium weapons are a bad idea. I'm disagreeing that someone is illiterate for not believing an opinionated source.

I could easily quote Wikipedia just as the prior comment quoted OP's article:

The U.S. Department of Defense claims that no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium.

Surely the DoD has at least some scientific research, no? It would be foolish to take this quote and believe that depleted uranium is safe, and it would be even more foolish to insult someone's intelligence for not doing so.

What are you on about? @rogrodre@hexbear.net was doing exactly the thing that you're describing. Treating statements from an organization called "The Coalition to Ban Something" as fact, without any other review, is only believing information that confirms your beliefs.

That's not the same thing at all.

The comment above mine is more akin to wanting to ban water because the Coalition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide said so. Or wanting to ban abortion because Americans United for Life said they're immoral. Or to increase fossil fuel usage because OPEC said it isn't bad for the environment. You're citing an opinionated secondary source without even considering the other side.

If you want facts, you go to unbiased, peer reviewed primary sources. Or at least hear both sides. If you want opinions, go to a "coalition to ban something."

The comment 2 above mine was saying that depleted uranium's effects are up for debate. The next commenter provided only one side of the argument and claimed that it was fact, even mocking their literacy for not seeing it.