I know it's getting into conspiracy realms, but there seems to be a large right-wing buyout of social media. Reddit and Twitter two of the best Independent News sources in North America I've already been hit and even though people will argue they are not true new sources, they allow smaller groups to be heard globally. Young people don't realize how limited news broadcast were before the 2000s. Almost all media was owned by about 50 people worldwide and good luck getting something published that wasn't in their agenda. You could see it throughout the 50s and 60s as people being labeled radical when their views didn't coincide with the media magnets. I try not to be an alarmist but I think we're heading for another dark ages.
There is definitely coordinated shit going on, but Elon is a tool and not a mastermind. The people coordinating this shit think Elon is an idiot. So Elon isn’t part of some vast conspiracy but he is a tool of the vast conspiracy. He just thinks he’s special.
I don’t think it’s planned at that level, it’s just people like Elon think they deserve and earned everything they have; and the alt-right preachers tell them that they have it because god deems you worthy. It becomes a big circlejerk and then hen you have the Elon’s drinking that flavor-aid.
But, and I mean this, before 2000 you could still get the information; you just had to put more effort into obtaining it. That was obviously a barrier too high for many, but it was not unfindable or inaccessible.
I think you're exaggerating. There have never been so much media in human history. Anyone can make their own blog and publish anything they want. Yeah, the big social media platforms have the issues you mentioned but there are tons of options out there for people to be heard and voices to get representation.
Yes, but with the volume of information, including self publishing and blogs, the power is in dissemination, which was always the real power. Reddit and Twitter still control that in a large way.
As does, Facebook, google and legacy media. There are more players, but the biggest players still wield more power with little accountability for it.
I think you’re bing a bit alarmist. We’re posting here aren’t we? Getting started here wasn’t much more complicated than getting started on reddit and it will hopefully get easier going forward.
It seems to me that what is being attempted is enclosure of social media; like many enclosures before it. I don’t think this is a coordinated plot but rather wealthy right-wingers making the rational decisions to secure their own interests. Driven in part by rising interests rates. But ultimately the difference today is we have the ability to create alternatives to assert our own interests.
A long time ago, I created a website; invited friends and family to check it out, leave comments, and whatever. I had to send them the Web address. That's it.
During those days, we were all on the deep web. No one could find you unless you gave them your address.
That was in the old HTML days, before concerning ourselves with how to code so the web crawlers could find us and let the world know about our site. It's been all downhill since then.
And it's worse than you think. While this is a "bug", it is based on a feature that Elon is actively rolling out that will be rate limiting how many tweets you're allowed to view in a day.
That seems to be where the current issue stems from, likely something where it's looking at the amount you've read in the previous 24 hours.
From my understanding, the posts/day also includes any comments you load up. So, if you're not careful with the more popular Tweets, you could be rate limited in a very quick manner.
I support Elon’s decision on this and hope it becomes permanent. That way, the exodus from Twitter can continue and reputable organizations will stop considering Twitter a valid platform.
So to combat system manipulation... he's giving more power to users that can better manipulate the system.
People think this genius is going to give us colonies on Mars when all he's successfully done is take credit for other people's work, buy a platform for hate with investor's money, and give Twitter investors a deeply painful colonoscopy.
This is so stupid it's barely believable. Like, he's made some (many) bad moves, but this is literal platform suicide if it isn't reversed immidiately.
this. I simply can't use twitter right now. and some people were saying you can hit 600 tweets in just 15 mins of scrolling. which would basically kill my twitter use entirely. if it continues good chance I stop using twitter.
lmao, this is fucking hilarious
I can't believe I'm saying this but... based elon?
The feddiverse as a whole might be soon flooded with people tho, prepare yourselves, they comin'
why care about helpfulness and community interaction and value when you can simply monetize every single aspect and run the community into the ground for the 💰💰💰
If I thought there was a genius behind his actions and a plan, and given his past warnings and fears about AGI, I would almost think that he figured out Twitter was being mined for training for AI and decided he would do everything in his power to obtain the company and sabotage it so it couldn't be used anymore. If I thought there was a genius mind there.
Reality is that this is what happens when software designed to work a certain way is suddenly switched over to doing things never planned , such as what happened with Reddit and all the subs that went private.
Radioactive roads could power the cars using them without the greenhouse gas emissions of fossil-fuel cars; combined with the self-driving car technology on the horizon, it's a far-sighted vision of the future that Ron Desantis should be applauded for - the one catch is every person who uses the roads is dead from cancer, but it's still a wonderful vision...just hope he doesn't use the roads while visualizing because he will lose his vision because of the radioactivity.
Maybe Skynet watched War Games and learned from Joshua’s mistake - no one wins thermonuclear war. Instead Skynet’s new plan is to make power-generating, radioactive roads that’ll kill all the humans with cancer. It’s a win-win!
Every Ohioan needs to contact their representative and explain that we voted on what we wanted including where the taxes go
I already contacted mine. And yes, it’s passed the senate, contact them anyway, make sure they understand you don’t want the cops getting money, you don’t want this to go to building new fucking jails (like seriously wtf), we specified 12 plants per household, and we voted to treat it like alcohol so it’s really fucked up that they’re trying to ban sharing a bowl between adults or picking up some bud for your buds.
We did that with the voting maps and the Ohio Supreme Court ruled the maps illegal, they ignored the Ohio Supreme Court and did as they please anyway.
Lawsuits have no power with the current administration here.
Shouldn’t people who need medical cannabis be able to get their prescription reliably? It kinda seems like there’s a real risk of recreational users gobbling up their supply, leaving them without treatment for whatever they’re going through.
The biggest issue in most states with legal recreational weed is excess supply tanking the market. I understand the concern, but it’s unlikely to pose a significant challenge in the short term, and it’s possible to legislate that some quantity be set aside for medicinal purposes if need be in the long term.
There have been issues briefly in other states of a shortage of supply after starting a rec program, caused by regulatory restrictions of course in the face of booming demand. After that, though, the issue has I overwhelmingly been an excess on the market… California, Oregon, Colorado, Oklahoma.
Yeah exactly I love it and want that to stay and that’s something we left for them to decide.
I am however wondering if we need a constitutional amendment granting a grace period for ballot initiatives to prevent them from being altered or repealed by the legislature for X amount of time. If after the effects of legalization have settled something needs changed sure let the legislature change it, but they seriously think they have the right to preemptively change it. My wife suggests 5 years so they have to be re-elected first.
I’ve emailed my representative, Darrell Kick, twice now, once before Wednesday’s vote and again yesterday while the house was discussing further changes to issue 2.
The onslaught of emails they received the first time is the whole reason why they started panicking and couldn’t get anything past Wednesday.
It worked, and I also highly suggest everyone do the same.
But please write your own email, hundreds of identical emails won’t send the same message as hundreds of unique voices all saying similar things.
This story is fucked. He was wrongfully convicted and then set free, gets $800k compensation in August, then pulled over (looks like they’re still coming up with a reason for pulling him over), threatened I’m sure with more jail (essentially provoked), tased then shot.
I think some fucking cops were after him and pissed that the dude got paid.
Video link from a comment below. Not a good look for the guy. Hard video to watch.
And the alleged ‘good cops’ are out here confused why no one respects them.
Until I start running across evidence that some police are angrier about the bad cops than they are about everyone else being angry about the bad cops, I refuse to believe they exist.
As someone who knew an actual good cop (grew up with him): They quit. That’s what he did. That’s all they can do. Because speaking up just ruins your career path. So they choose to go along or they change careers entirely.
We had a “good cop” DA in my city. The cops went on strike (though they didn’t call it a strike, they just stopped doing their jobs), and started a propaganda campaign. When crime went up, people are stupid and blamed the DA. He got recalled and a police bootlicker got put in instead.
paying their union dues, which keep going up because the defense of their fellow cop’s actions are expensive… if they get caught and lose qualified immunity.
Oh, I see the problem. You’ve written black and brown people.
You should know by now that they don’t count as people unless they go through a very rigorous “personhood” check, with markers such as “will they stay quiet about racism,” “will they strive to emulate rich white people in dress, speech and manner, to the detriment of their own culture,” “will they lead fully sanitized lives as wage slaves without complaint and never dabble in white collar or petty crimes that would be ignored if their skin was lighter,” and “will they silently and happily vote for rich white capitalists in politics, against their best interest”. Because clearly if they can’t follow these very generous and simple guidelines, they don’t want to be considered people, duh.
The police will do a full investigation of themselves and find no wrong doing. After that, the murderer will return from his paid vacation, which will allow his wife for some much needed time to recover.
I always joke with my black girlfriend when she driving. I’ll say “Be careful you don’t want to get pulled over for a DWB”. She laughs, I laugh, we both die a little inside.
When I was younger, I worked under a Black man driving trucks through Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. Anywhere rural, it was unofficial company policy that I (a white man) was supposed to drive and pretend to be in charge. Anywhere urban, my actual boss could be himself.
My local department of family services very openly teaches about the risk of police violence towards black people and those who adopt them, to make up for the education they would receive from black parents on how to avoid being beaten or murdered by cops.
It’s so real part of our government formally acknowledges it. While the other part wins “most racist” awards.
Ok so this whole story is fucked up beyond belief but I just want to take a minute to say holy shit, because that dollar figure is pretty messed up in and of itself. They gave him $817k. That’s $5.82/hr.
It doesn’t any good to “punish” the police by awarding large sums of money to the wrongly convicted, because the taxpayers pay for it. To really add some justice, the awards should Come from the police pension funds. Then they are Incentivized to do it right. Now they don’t care, because there is little downside for them
Eh. We always like to think that this stuff bothers them. It doesn’t. He didn’t think twice about it. I’m sorry to paint with a broad brush, but conservatives just do not think on the same level as normal people do. They aren’t bothered by this stuff because they don’t think about any subject long enough to have deep thoughts on them. Frankly, they wouldn’t even be such an angry frothing-at-the-mouth group of people if they didn’t have all variations of media avenues telling them what to be mad about every second of every day. If not for conservative media, they’d be relatively pleasant little dipshits doing manual labor and whatever other grunt work, but instead we have this failed experiment of a nation.
Minimum wage plus overtime for his time in prison placed monthly into a mutual fund with 7% return for 16 years would be a little over 2.5 million dollars.
Isn’t this basically what happened with the Making a Murderer guy? He was due a huge settlement from being wrongfully convicted, so they planted a bunch of evidence to put him back in jail instead.
That was my takeaway. The more fucked up part is that they dragged his nephew into it and at each man’s trial, told wildly differing stories about how the murder supposedly occurred.
The police were definitely corrupt, but that documentary is intentionally misleading.
While some evidence may be in question, it’s important to know that Teresa Halbach’s vehicle was found on the property, along with charred pieces of her human bones in a burn pit.
It was the last place she went, the last place she was seen, and Avery lured here there under false pretenses (Teresa was not even supposed to be meeting with Avery).
None of this excuses any bad behaviors by the police, and that department certainly appears to be corrupt, but probably not a good example for this instance.
it’s important to know that Teresa Halbach’s vehicle was found on the property, along with charred pieces of her bones in a burn pit.
Police corruption is the problem. Her vehicle being on the edge of his fairly large property is a lot less damning if it weren’t for Steven’s blood being reported in the vehicle. There were witnesses who claim to have seen it moved there, even if Zellner cannot seem to decide who moved it.
And you say “her bones”, but there’s two problems with that. The bones have been confirmed to be human female, but they couldn’t confirm or deny they were Halbach’s. And there’s a compelling reason to believe they were not burned in the burn barrel they were found.
There seem to be two real possibilities in his case. EITHER it’s a fairly ridiculous frame-up job or he’s guilty. That should be easy because of the question “why would anyone go to THOSE lengths to frame Steven Avery?” It’s not easy because the open animosity and bad-faith of thep olice in this case is compelling.
I think he likely did it, but I genuinely think the case is so tainted, he should not have been convicted.
Huh, I could’ve sworn I had read that the DNA was confirmed to be hers. After looking more thoroughly you’re absolutely correct. I did see a few articles that said it was matched via a partial tooth, but looking deeper into that it looks like the findings may have just been “consistent” with Halbach. Still compelling evidence, but not a direct DNA match.
I also think it’s more than likely he did it, but that’s an important clarification.
It’s a really complex case. And just like the Depp v Heard documentary, Netflix didn’t do it justice. Sometimes exaggerations make the validity of a claim harder to see. Judges don’t like to offer mistrials or retrials to people they are convinced are guilty, whether the appeal was valid or not.
From my own (very ameteur) independent reading, there’s a few big things that should’ve been slam-dunk for vacated verdict, and his attorney colluding with the prosecutor to have him interrogated unassisted is the top of the list, though Avery lost appeal on that already. Brendan Dassey had perhaps the strongest case to vacate verdict I’ve ever seen short of exoneration, and his eventually failed (after a very reasonable appeal verdict in his favor).
EDIT: I’d also like to note that Netflix’s exaggeration has led to anti-Avery people who also exaggerate the case against him. People like Kathleen Zellner don’t get involved in cases that are strong or clean. At the very least, a good lawyer would have a cakewalk winning the Reasonable Doubt standard and arguably would have with only the limited evidence that was available during his first trial. It’s that exoneration cases are so hard, understandably so.
The hardest ethical question regarding law I think ask is this. If a person is guilty of a crime but can only be convicted by illegal and unethical behavior, should they be incarcerated? I’ve always thought we’ve allowed the “be certain they’re guilty” standard to erode too much in the US between jurors who will convict on “I’m pretty sure” and the Federal Habeas Corpus changes.
I mean, if you boil it down, Steven Avery is arguably in prison today not because he might have committed murder but because he filed his Habeas Corpus appeal without the assistance of a lawyer and is forbidden to file another. And Brendon Dassey is definitely in prison because the current standard for that federal Habeas Corpus appeal is “no reasonable judge would ever rule this way” despite 2 reasonable federal judges agreeing he reached that standard. Hearing the appeal audio is chilling, with one of the judges constantly saying “you know we MUST reject this” without actually listening to the argument.
It’s certainly very complex. I definitely agree he didn’t get a fair treatment or trial and for that reason alone shouldn’t be incarcerated
I also think that the Netflix documentary really skewed the view and understanding of the evidence, though. And, as you note, there can be confusion over what level of certainty a jury needs to reach. Beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt.
All this being said, it bothers me to some degree that people will go to great lengths to fight for Avery’s innocence, largely due to that documentary, when there are others whose cases are much more questionable and deserve attention too, such as Temujin Kensu.
I just hope that people, upon seeing documentaries (or really any information that drives them to a certain decision or thought, particularly based on an emotional response), would do further research.
And, as you note, there can be confusion over what level of certainty a jury needs to reach. Beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt
Here’s the Ninth Circuit opinion on reasonable doubt: “A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation”. A single “I don’t know”, a single seemingly-minor inconsistency, a singular whiff of incompetence by the defense council. More complicatedly, a single defense line of questioning that gets suppressed (which, maybe a juror is supposed to disregard, but being told to disregard something favorable to the defense at all is something that gets my “common sense” aware)
There’s a gap between reasonable doubt and doubt, but it’s a lot narrower than the gap between reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence. If the phrase “probably did it” shows up in deliberation, that should be the moment everyone stops and agrees to a “not guilty” verdict because of the “probably”.
All this being said, it bothers me to some degree that people will go to great lengths to fight for Avery’s innocence
He’s an Innocence Project exoneree who, as you just agreed, was railroaded again. I’d like to point out that Netflix didn’t lead the publicity about him, they just profited from it. And the truth is, there’s enough inconsistency with the prosecution’s case that “probably did it” is honestly a bit strong and I vacillate between thinking he did it and that he’s innocent because as bad as it looked for him, there were a couple stronger suspects that didn’t have alibis. The only reason I’m not “team innocence” is the physical evidence, but even I have to admit it’s evidence that prosecution couldn’t form a cohesive narrative for but defense could.
Coincidentally, I watched a “Police Accountability” video just yesterday that matches the Defense story of this trial almost perfectly. Small car (let’s say house), they keep searching for something and fail to find it… Then you hear them panicking that this is going to blow back if they don’t find something. And then the cop plants a little marijuana thinking the angle on his body-cam won’t catch it, and it only barely does. There are inconsistencies with how they discovered the only physical evidence that directly ties Steven Avery to the homicide (the bones weren’t a smoking gun), evidence that is so weird it doesn’t create a sensible story.
Both Lenk and Colborn are described like they had nothing against Avery, but both were caught in the exoneration crossfire, and their behavior could have prevented Avery from being convicted of the original rape.
See, there I go again. Just talking to you and remembering my own independent research about the whole key-and-blood situation, I’m leaning towards actually innocent again. I’ll probably flop back the other way shortly. But that’s why it’s a complicated case. Netflix never shows both sides of everything. And FWIW, all the evidence we’ve been discussing is divulged in the Netflix documentary.
Dash and body cam footage of the incident. They didn’t need to retroactively come up with a reason for pulling him over, it’s right there in the footage - he apparently was speeding at 100 mph.
Edited my comment, thanks. Very difficult to watch. I don’t love the way the interaction was handled by either of the men, though. I understand speeding is dangerous and against the law, but he began the interaction at 11. This could have gone another way, despite the apparent mental health issues the dude was clearly dealing with.
I don’t love the way the interaction was handled by either of the men, though. I understand speeding is dangerous and against the law, but he began the interaction at 11.
Agreed. The cop started out at 11, and the guy started out openly hostile.
It could have gone another way, but the moment the dude attacked the officer it wasn’t going to.
So the Supreme Court just ruled that businesses can discriminate against a protected class. Now they are trying to force/scare businesses that don’t, into doing it.
Susan Lorincz has been charged with manslaughter with a firearm and assault in the June 2 shooting death of Ajike Owens.
So she was charged. Just not with murder. Which still sucks, but it is much better to go to court and find her guilty of manslaughter with a firearm and assault than it is to charge her with murder and have her be acquitted due to lack of evidence.
Even if the research had come out that masks did absolutely nothing to protect against Covid, I would have absolutely no regrets for masking up. We did what we thought was the right thing based on the evidence available and it harmed no one. The worst that would’ve happened if we were wrong (outside of a false sense of security) is that we looked silly for awhile. The people that were vehemently against wearing masks were tool-sheds who were manipulated into their position by an Administration who assumed it would affect Democratic-leaning cities/states more and who are so blinded by their anti-science views that they didn’t even understand the threat posed by Covid. Mask wearers did the right thing and the evidence backs us up. Anti-mask idiots hopefully learned an evolutionary lesson, but I doubt it has really ever sunk in.
I remember reading a while back that MAGA counties had significantly higher death and serious disease rates. Probably still do. I’m not sure about the apartment Republican strategy of actually working to kill their core voters, but I guess we’ll see how it works out for them.
I’ve read that TrumpCo wasn’t as concerned with it out of the belief that more populous Democratic counties/states would be more heavily impacted by Covid. If anything, they tried to take advantage of Covid to use it as a natural bio-weapon and this is probably their worst, yet least talked about crime that they’ll likely never face charges over. The strategy apparently blew up in their faces though, but by the time anyone realized, it was already too late to do anything about it. The damage had already been done.
Yup. I wiped my groceries down in the early pandemic. Turned out that probably wasn’t needed, but it’s a minor act that if the virus was in a different form could have helped.
Conservative traits include racism, misogyny, bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, antisemitism and other heinous ideologies. Conservatives oppose science, medicine and education. Their beliefs do not constitute a legitimate or respectful political orientation and should be destroyed and erased.
Absolutely nothing good in human history has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.
Way to make blanket stereotypical judgements based on a minor aspect of a person's life. Isn't that what the liberals say you shouldn't do? Or is it OK when it's someone you don't agree with?
People have been reproducing in both conservative and non-conservative ideologies since they have existed. Your going to have to do better than your family as an example.
Hahaha, so do many people who aren’t conservative. So instead of being able to come up with an example of something positive that came as a result of conservatism, you resort to name calling and insults. I think you proved the other commenter’s point dramatically.
Even the word "conservative" is a massive misnomer. They don't want to conserve anything. They want to go back to the 1950's, and they'll burn down everything they need to achieve it.
The attorneys general also said they believed Target’s Pride campaign threatened their financial interests, writing that Target leadership has a “fiduciary duty to our States as shareholders in the company” and suggesting that company officials “may be negligent” in promoting the campaign since it has negatively affected Target’s stock prices and led to some backlash among customers.
I didn’t realize the government needed to step in if a business makes decisions that hurt their profit. That doesn’t sound like a free market at all.
It’s more insidious than you think. They’re using the “we’ve got a financial interest in how the company performs” argument in the same way they did in the recent Supreme Court case allowing businesses to discriminate against gay people.
As stakeholders, if Target continues to offer LGBTQ+ merchandise for sale, these Attorneys General will argue that the financial losses Target might suffer is enough to sue them, to force them to stop selling that merchandise.
Being a shareholder means having partial ownership of the company, so company owners telling the company what they can't do sees pretty free-markety to me. Just weird seeing a republican government using their shares as leverage to control companies, but given republicans really never cared about free markets, its not that surprising.
Yeah I should have worded it a little differently. The government being able to buy shares and use them as leverage for political reasons is still not great though.
cbsnews.com
Hot