https://www.nhl.com/news/washington-capitals-smith-pelly-carlson-surprise-youth-team-for-standing-up-to-racism/c-303727162The politics of hokey are acceptable as well, I suppose.
I forgot what it was. I think it was a livestream (hey!) to a Hockey game. Must have been removed because... Well it was an illegal livestream.Yeah I agree. There's too much authoritarian interference in our lives already.
This video is unavailable."
Yep. As far as saving lives go, in this video this guy is broadcasting himself driving to the place for six minutes before the shooting actually takes place. There is a possibility that someone could find themselves watching that livestream, recognize where he is driving, and report to the authorities that something might be about to go down. I know it didn't happen in this case, but it's not impossible to imagine.I'd add that removing the ability to livestream these attacks might make people slightly more unsafe. At least when someone live-stream this, it lets people see how they did it, how they acted, and in rare cases might even help save a few lives while it's happening. It won't help us to wear a blindfold.
I dunno. I'm a free speech absolutist so long as what you're saying isn't actually illegal - and in the US that's a very small set of things. Yeah, I know they are private businesses and have the right to moderate their platform however they please and I don't really have an issue with that, but they are pretty much quasi-monopolies. You can start your own platform, but then you run into problems with payment services banning you so you can't make money from it (see: gab), which I do have a problem with. Until we get a government-provided online transaction service (or cryptocurrency becomes more realistic to use as an actual currency), I do take offense to private payment platforms regulating transactions that aren't illegal.Something else to consider is that freedom also means having the freedom to remove live-streaming if for some reason Facebook wants to. If they're the ones who want to do it, that's their right. I highly doubt they'd remove livestreaming since it's a big moneymaker, but it's not like we have a right to livestream on FB, Youtube, Twitch, etc. I'm only mentioning this because I've previously seen people treat access or usage of those websites as some kind of right they believe they have. As if they were some type of public service they were legally entitled to.
The hilarious part about is that generally they don't care so long as them nips are covered. A woman can display her whole breast with a band aid covering the nipple and nobody cares. That little piece of skin is whats corrupting our children!I can't figure out this nipples thing. If a female wants to show it, and other people want to see, then what's the problem? I mean, men have nipples too, and nobody worries about that.
It seems so sexist that a woman can't show her nipples, but a man can show his.
Cryptocurrency is better than a government-provided service in that regard. It's already impossible for someone to prevent you from paying someone else if you both use it to make transfers. The large broker exchanges could choose not to do business with you, but you don't need them. The point of crypto is specifically to have power over what you do, it gives more freedom than any other service, and would be safer/give more liberty than something handled by the government.Until we get a government-provided online transaction service, I do take offense to private payment platforms regulating transactions that aren't illegal.
Yeah, you're probably right there. But as it stands right now crypto still seems like a foreign concept to many people, myself included. And the rapidly changing values of cryptocurrency doesn't help.Cryptocurrency is better than a government-provided service in that regard. It's already impossible for someone to prevent you from paying someone else if you both use it to make transfers. The large broker exchanges could choose not to do business with you, but you don't need them. The point of crypto is specifically to have power over what you do, it gives more freedom than any other service, and would be safer/give more liberty than something handled by the government.
That brings up an interesting question, at what age is breastfeeding in public no longer considered acceptable? I'd be excited to see the news about some 30 year old dude getting arrested because he was sucking a woman's tits in public fighting a legal case because technically he was breastfeeding, which is legal.But breasts and nipples are okay IF the woman is breastfeeding in public. As long as the person feeding on them is young enough to make it okay.
People criticizing you is "free speech".I hate how free speech is being eroded. If you don't say that muslims are all our good buddies, they want to lock you up or shame you all over the media. It's sickening.