My wife is an active Facebook user and she was watching the live
coverage of Trump's final rally on her phone, and she tried to "Like"
the coverage, and she got a pop-up message that said this:
"You can't use this feature right now
We limit how often you can post, comment or do other things in a given amount of time in order to help protect the community from spam. You
can try again later. Learn more."
Mark Zuckerberg is a lying piece of trash. So we can talk about
vaccines and viruses, but we still can't "Like" a livestream?
Mark Zuckerberg is a lying piece of trash. So we can talk about vaccines and viruses, but we still can't "Like" a livestream?
Tell me you don't understand how social media works without saying "I don't understand how social media works"
Aaron Thomas wrote to All <=-
Mark Zuckerberg is a lying piece of trash. So we can talk about
vaccines and viruses, but we still can't "Like" a livestream?
Mark Zuckerberg is a lying piece of trash. So we can talk about vaccines and viruses, but we still can't "Like" a livestream?
Mark Zuckerberg is a lying piece of trash. So we can talk about vaccines and viruses, but we still can't "Like" a livestream?
No surprise.
I've likened Zuck to Saurman. He allied with the bad guys against the good guys. Then he double-crossed the bad guys. So now he's in a position where the bad guys want to get him, but the good guys don't
trust him.
Mark Zuckerberg is a lying piece of trash. So we can talk about vaccines viruses, but we still can't "Like" a livestream?
Had she already liked it? Some of those streams will let you like it multiple times but may eventually cut you off.
Mark Zuckerberg is a lying piece of trash. So we can talkabout
vaccines and viruses, but we still can't "Like" alivestream?
Tell me you don't understand how social media works without
saying "I don't understand how social media works"
Well, she was able to "like" it after it was over. But still,
Facebook's founder, their fact-checkers, and their content moderators
are up to no good for the most part.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Did he really double cross the bad guys though? I get the impression
that he's sucking up to Trump to act as an insider for the rest of the world elite.
Yeah, that tracks. *political* extremists, always playing the "woe is me" victim card. Everything is all about them.
Well, she was able to "like" it after it was over. But still, Facebook's founder, their fact-checkers, and their content moderators are up to no good for the most part.
So, everything is designed specifically to target & punish you, and
it's by no means a glitch or an unintended side effect of something
else??
Yeah, that tracks. conservatives, always playing the "woe is me"
victim card. Everything is all about them.
Did he really double cross the bad guys though? I get the impression that he's sucking up to Trump to act as an insider for the rest of th world elite.
He's publically admitting that the Biden Regime strongarmed him into censoring things. That a double cross to me.
Ron L. wrote to Aaron Thomas <=-
But most of these social media companies were Left-leaning for a long
time as well. So there was "censorship" by the moderators.
I see your point, but Facebook's ridiculous censorship began long bef Biden took office.
Had Zuckerberg said "The world elite pressured me.." then that would different. When he said "The Biden administration made me do it" that doesn't add up.
But most of these social media companies were Left-leaning for a long
time as well. So there was "censorship" by the moderators.
I see your point, but Facebook's ridiculous censorship began long before Biden took office.
Had Zuckerberg said "The world elite pressured me.." then that would be different. When he said "The Biden administration made me do it" that doesn't add up.
But most of these social media companies were Left-leaning for a long time as well. So there was "censorship" by the moderators.
And I forgot to add that the censorship was about the wierd Left crap,
not the scamdemic and the "science" that was pushed on us.
Doesn't it all stem from the same source? Biden's owner was a propone of all the above.
Sort of. The Elitists did a good job of programming their minions to do things without any direct communications.
What I'm trying to do is distinquish between 2 kinds of censorship on Facebook.
1. The moderator of a group, who has pink hair and pronouns, decides
that he doesn't like a topic and squashes any message that he doesn't like. 2. The Fed (effectively) ordering Facebook to squash all
Type 2 is censorship by definition and highly illegal for the gov't to
do.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
It wouldn't surprise me if some pink-haired-mosquito-penis complained about Trump, and then Zuck used that as justification to ban him. Trump offends people who fit into that category, and Zuck is the type of
elitist who will bend over frontwards for them.
It's illegal for the government to do it on their own, but it's
probably legal for them to collude with other elitists to get it donw.
For many companies, the DEI started in the HR dept and slowly grew. The big-wigs in the top floors don't usually interfere with the lower operations of the company - that's what they pay others to do. And
great pains are done to keep the upper management from knowing what's going on - unless they get a Woke CEO.
It's illegal for the government to do it on their own, but it's probably legal for them to collude with other elitists to get it donw
No. If someone in the gov't told Facebook to censor, Facebook is
somewhat "off the hook" but that someone in the gov't is in big trouble.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
That makes sense. The CEOs and/or owners want what's best for the
company, but lower management can care less. Once in a while it's smart for the CEO to crack some skulls.
Congress should hold them accountable, but you know how that goes.
This was a concept that the Ignorant Elitists can't seem to wrap their tiny brains around. They keep screaming "Why does the owner of the company get such a big salary while the janitor gets such a small one?"
The owner of the company has the most skin in the game. If the company goes under, he's the one who still has to pay off the loans, etc. The Janitor simply goes off and gets another job.
This is also why many companies give higher ups stock, and encourage employee stock ownership: The more employees who have an incentive to make the company more successful (because it will make their stock worth more), the better.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
This explains why some companies are now (supposedly) ditching DEI;
they don't need ignorant elitists (i.e. members of state assembly, etc) telling them "you have to start hiring people who suck and you have to start making your customers hate your company." But unfortunately for
NY businesses, they are legally obligated to DEI.
This is also why many companies give higher ups stock, and encourage employee stock ownership: The more employees who have an incentive to make the company more successful (because it will make their stock worth more), the better.
That's smart. I never knew that. But this explains why perfectly. Of course, it will only work out this way if you have intelligent
employees. (They should explain that to them when they hire them - I
never saw it this way but it's true.)
A company that does not employ mostly intelligent employees doesn't stay in business in capitalistic systems. And despite the Elitists best attempts, we still (mostly) have a capitalistic system.
So if you have mostly employees who are intelligent, and own stock, the problems caused by the DIE employees will be limited.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
That may be true, but DEI in the workplace causes other consequences
that can drag the company down. So if they overcome the obstacle of
having unqualified workers, then they get to contend with things like being forced to donate a percentage of their profits to colleges that participate in racial segregation, being forced to use suppliers owned
by minorities, and paying for a DEI officer to crack a whip.
That may be true, but DEI in the workplace causes other consequences that can drag the company down. So if they overcome the obstacle of having unqualified workers, then they get to contend with things like being forced to donate a percentage of their profits to colleges that participate in racial segregation, being forced to use suppliers owne by minorities, and paying for a DEI officer to crack a whip.
Intelligent employees and stock ownership is only a way to block the
rot. But once the company has reached the levels you describe, it's too late. It's time for the intelligent employees to leave, sell their
stock in the sinking company and get a better job before they have no
job.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
It sounds like a Democrat problem, but in reality, it's a NY GOP
problem. They did this to us. And that's part of why I changed my party affiliation a few days ago. I'm a registered Democrat now.
It sounds like a Democrat problem, but in reality, it's a NY GOP problem. They did this to us. And that's part of why I changed my par affiliation a few days ago. I'm a registered Democrat now.
Shall I send you a "get well" card for your lobotomy. :)
It sounds like a Democrat problem, but in reality, it's a NY GOP
problem. They did this to us. And that's part of why I changed my party affiliation a few days ago. I'm a registered Democrat now.
It sounds like a Democrat problem, but in reality, it's a NY GOP problem. They did this to us. And that's part of why I changed my par affiliation a few days ago. I'm a registered Democrat now.
Although no longer true, back when I registered (R), the thought process was you should really register D because the D's ran everything in this state and you'd actually have a voice that way... at least in the primaries.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Shall I send you a "get well" card for your lobotomy. :)
Ha! No, send one to the sheeple who think that "The NY GOP is doing everything they can to find candidates."
(I hope they get well soon!)
Although no longer true, back when I registered (R), the thought process was you should really register D because the D's ran everything in this state and you'd actually have a voice that way... at least in the primaries.
Is KY one of the states where registered Democrat voters can vote in Republica
primaries?
My state is not one of them. And I don't plan on voting in any Democrat primaries either, but this is how I protest against the NY GOP for them being so corrupt.
My state is not one of them. And I don't plan on voting in any Democrat primaries either, but this is how I protest against the NY GOP for them so corrupt.
If I were changing my registration, I would be doing so in order to vote in the primaries. The GOP is not going to really notice your protest,
but voting in a D primary might allow you to support a more moderate-leaning candidate and would be more likely to elicit change.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Mike Powell <=-
We'll see. It depends on what kind of crap the DNC has to offer. But as you know, they are like robots, and they're programmed to do what
they're told, and they all have the same agenda.
We'll see. It depends on what kind of crap the DNC has to offer. But you know, they are like robots, and they're programmed to do what they're told, and they all have the same agenda.
But remember that any Democrat with brains became a Republican a while ago.
So the Democrat party only has a bunch of useless bots to put forward as candidates.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Yea, they are all on the same payroll. The only way to fix a state like mine is to bulldoze it. Or maybe some tough love from a kick ass
president like Trump could set these reptilians straight.
How did it feel when you found out that Trump won your state? I bet you were proud! It's a clear F U to Gretchie from the voters!
Yea, they are all on the same payroll. The only way to fix a state li mine is to bulldoze it. Or maybe some tough love from a kick ass president like Trump could set these reptilians straight.
"Tough love" is certainly the correct term. It's going to be politically incorrect to tell union workers that they have to actually work if they want to get paid. And all those welfare paracites to get off their rear ends and work. And all the local politicans who will have to stop the graft.
How did it feel when you found out that Trump won your state? I bet y were proud! It's a clear F U to Gretchie from the voters!
It was a hollow victory. Trump won, but an Elitist was elected as senator.
It does show that we don't actually elect anyone in our state. It's all decided by someone else and the votes are created to support that. Just like California.
Those are good ideas, but we need more extreme measures. Something li no more funding whatsoever, for anything. They can't live with their heat lamps turned off.
They should do something similar to the stock options. A basic salary while in office, then a bonus based on GDP? increase at the end of each term.
But I think a big change would be overall term limits. i.e. No more
than 10 years total in any office combined.
The people who actually realize the harm that Biden did, and voted fo Trump, would they actually still vote for Democrats in other races?
That's the question. I'm thinking "no". So why did Michigan elect
Trump, but also elect a useless Democrat as senator?
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Trump signed an executive order that calls for no more funding for
schools that teach CRT, and I appreciate that, but some of the schools
are doing things even worse than teaching CRT, and they ought to be punished.
That sounds good to me. If they can't accomplish their goals in 10
years time, then they simply can't accomplish anything anyway. But 10 years is too long for house members. They should be cut down to 4 years
(2 terms max.)
Trump is their key to not having to share their foodstamp allotment
with illegal immigrants. The senator would have been their key to
stopping Trump from doing much of anything else.
Trump signed an executive order that calls for no more funding for schools that teach CRT, and I appreciate that, but some of the school are doing things even worse than teaching CRT, and they ought to be punished.
But they'll do what they did when parents found out: Call it something else, teach the same thing, but tell the kids not to tell their parents
- or the gov't in this case..
Serving as a congress critter was intended to be more of a "public service" job that people do for a short period of time to "give back" to the country. It was not intended to be a career and certainly not assisted living.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
There are parents who pay attention to their kids, and there are
parents who don't. My kids know that all their teachers are Democrats.
But I've taught them "Just because your teachers are brainwashed by the reptilians, it doesn't mean that they are wrong about algebra or vocabulary."
My kids caught on to Martin Luther King, his dream, and equality, long before all this ridiculous "equity" and "infinite genders" crap came along. They know that only dumb kids get brainwashed.
That makes sense, but now days it also makes sense to keep a majority.
That probably wasn't important in the old days, but the Democrats have
a strong alliance with incredibly loyal puppets. We need to have the equivalent or they will crush us.
But I've taught them "Just because your teachers are brainwashed by t reptilians, it doesn't mean that they are wrong about algebra or vocabulary."
I thought the same thing until I learned about "New Math". At this
point, if the teacher has pronouns, colored hair, etc. then that teacher is completely incompetent to teach the subject - unless the subject is learning how to handle a delusional person.
That makes sense, but now days it also makes sense to keep a majority
Why? We didn't need to keep a majority for a long time. Career politicians have always been a problem.
My guess is that any reason to keep a majority is related to the gov't being too big (i.e. we don't need that dept) and/or the gov't sticking
its nose into an area where it shouldn't be.
That probably wasn't important in the old days, but the Democrats hav a strong alliance with incredibly loyal puppets. We need to have the equivalent or they will crush us.
Oh, yes. This won't change overnight, that's for sure. But we create disinsentives to being a puppet.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Lefty logic never adds up.
My kids have a smart survival instinct where
they can adapt to their environment. They are quiet about their
knowledge of leftism while at school, but then they come home and tell
me everything.
My elementary schooler said: "I don't eat the snacks that my teacher
gives us because SHE'S A DEMOCRAT." (LOL I wouldn't eat that stuff either!)
You're right that the govt is too big. It's like a very disorderly rat colony. And we can't count on them for much of anything, but less Democrats means less opposition to the chosen one's agenda.
I don't understand that. To me it seems like we need constitutional puppets. People who will let the constitution do the thinking for them.
You're right that the govt is too big. It's like a very disorderly ra colony. And we can't count on them for much of anything, but less Democrats means less opposition to the chosen one's agenda.
It's not just the Democrats.
I've said it before: The problem isn't Democrats, Leftists, etc. The problem is an Elite class that seeks to dominate the rest of us. And it does that by infiltrating a trusted institution and turning it into a
mask for them.
Today, it's the Democrat party that was destroyed by them. The churches aren't far behind. The colleges/universities are done for. The medical industry has taken a huge credibility hit. And the Republican party has its RINOs.
We need to be guarded with any group, at any time. We need to recognize the signs of infiltration. We need to create rules that prohibit that.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
When Democrats have a majority in congress, they use it to hurt us. At least when Republicans have the majority they just sit there and do nothing (for the most part.)
The Roman Catholic Church comes to mind. The current pope is a
globalist tyrant, and Catholic Charities is teaching illegal migrants
how to evade law enforcement (they call it "helping immigrants.")
Legal rules? The only way to fight all this infiltration is to start building our own infrastructure (our own churches, information systems, schools, labor unions, radio stations, etc.) We need to build a
coalition of like minded "experts" in all those fields. It's the only
way. And the government ain't gonna help us, not even Trump.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
They still serve 1 good purpose: they teach kids about Jesus.
I just
need to get out of the Roman Catholic church and probably into the Orthodox Catholic church instead (they are not affiliated with Catholic Charities.)
It's true. And being vigilant is what I do all day every day. But I'm a slave to the left due to their association with all these institutions.
All churches are suspect. I recently went to a service at a very large church near by and, I swear, I thought I was at some sort of variety
show. It was the biggest joke of a "service" that I ever saw.
It's true. And being vigilant is what I do all day every day. But I'm slave to the left due to their association with all these institution
I think you missed my point: Yes, we need to build new institutions.
But we also need to build in vigilance to prevent the Elitists from infiltrating them and wrecking them just like they did to the old institutions.
We "scored" a federal court win when
a judge ruled against Google in an antitrust case last year, but it's been 7 months since the ruling and Google is still the default search engine on phones, Chrome is still the default browser, and Android is still the default OS.
But most of those decisions are made by the phone company, who makes the Android build for the phone. So not much of a win. Google simply
doesn't bundle Chrome into Android anymore, but then the phone companies put it back in their builds.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
I understand. It sounds like Google can pass the blame to the phone companies, but the phone companies can pass the blame to the manufacturers, and the manufacturers can can pass the blame on "the
phones need an OS in order to function."
My assumption is that there's
no blaming anybody but ourselves until we start manufacturing our own phones.
companies, but the phone companies can pass the blame to the manufacturers, and the manufacturers can can pass the blame on "the phones need an OS in order to function."
It's not so much of a blame game here. Companies are going to do what their customers ask. Until we start telling companies like Verizon that their products are unacceptable and stop buying them, they will keep installing spyware.
I just had to delete AndroidSystemSafetyCore that Google dropped on my phone without my knowledge or consent. It's a client-side "scanner"
(i.e. it's spying on what you are doing). I've already sent a note to Verizon that this is unacceptable and their Android build should not
have allowed that to be installed "behind the scenes." But I've already decided that I won't be going back to them when I'm ready to get a new phone.
That's already been happening. There's GrapheneOS - which is Android compatible without the spying. The problem is getting a phone carrier
to offer a phone with it.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
I doubt that will ever happen. There might be a complaint here and
there but the sheeple love Verizon and they trust them more than they'd trust you or me if we tried to tell them about the evil that's inside their beloved smartphones.
It's hard to tell which programs or processes are necessary and which
ones aren't. I try not to remove too much stuff because I've learned
that later on the device will want that crap back.
We need someone we trust to literally manufacture a phone, but show me
a guy who knows how to do that who isn't an attendee at the WEF.
I doubt that will ever happen. There might be a complaint here and there but the sheeple love Verizon and they trust them more than they trust you or me if we tried to tell them about the evil that's inside their beloved smartphones.
Yup. And what happens over time is that they start having interesting things happen to them. When they talk about it, we just say "That's interesting. I use XXXX and I don't seem to have those issues." It
takes time.
We need someone we trust to literally manufacture a phone, but show m a guy who knows how to do that who isn't an attendee at the WEF.
Like I said, there are vendors out there who can do that. That's not the problem. The problem is getting those phones on the cell networks.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Most smartphone users don't think about the fact that apps communicate with databases around the world. Websites can do it too, but with apps
it becomes even more difficult to control (China probably loves apps.)
For me it's not worth the trouble to obtain a custom device. I rarely
use mine, and I hardly take it with me anywhere.
For me it's not worth the trouble to obtain a custom device. I rarely use mine, and I hardly take it with me anywhere.
Which is why people tolerate this right now. They want the benefits, so they put up with the drawbacks.
Now, if a company were to provide a device with the benefits but no (or
at least fewer) drawbacks, that would drive the market toward more a
more secure device.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
That sounds like it could catch on. Even people who don't understand or care about privacy concerns would potentially want to switch to "the device that's more private."
Anything that takes power away from Google/Apple would be a good cause.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 109:57:20 |
| Calls: | 295 |
| Files: | 5,636 |
| Messages: | 226,319 |