Will Zuckerberg add another clause to his TOS, taking it from "it's OK to call someone mentally ill but only if they're queer" [1] to "it's OK to call someone mentally ill but only if they're queer AND don't live in Europe"?
More seriously, I don't see how those companies can enforce this while not severing US users from EU users. They'll probably just ignore it anyway.
I'm surprised to see these types of reactionary / rage-bait comments bubble up in HN threads recently.
I personally find that they don't add much value to discussion. Perhaps it's a sign of the community growing with outsiders not being familiar with HN guidelines [0], or that Dang is stretched too thin to constantly moderate everything.
I mean, I really don't know how to react to this type of situation, personally. I do think that the CEO of a firm doing a fascist salute, multiple times, on live television is actually relevant to the business interests of the company, and the political interest of the nations in which it operates.
Do I think it's worth talking about in this context? I honestly don't know. I get your point. I also understand that it was the type of "Lol, nothing matters" flamebait, meant to ruffle feathers intentionally, but it's relevant that this is exactly that ethos pointed to in Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew about the actual brownshirts and blackshirts this salute is meant to directly reference:
No, I would agree with you that the salute isn't directly relevant to the pledge in the article, but it's certainly directly relevant to whether or not the pledge is being made in good-faith. This is why I think it's relevant, even if it's exhausting. We just live in exhausting times.
> These EU Codes of Conduct are voluntary commitments and companies face no penalties if they decide to back out of the agreement, as Elon Musk did with X (then known as Twitter) in 2022 when he withdrew the company from the Code of Practice on Disinformation.
It's pretty obviously a PR stunt done in bad faith to delay actual legal consequences. I don't understand why this kind of "legal" construct even exists tbh.
Contrary to what seems to often be believed, the EU way of doing things is to try to make companies do their own agreement and policing, as to avoid the rigidity of regulation unless we absolutely have to.
Another example is how the EU asked the phone manufacturers to agree on a common charger for years on a good will basis, and only had to regulate when samsung said they were going to back out if no regulation was made because apple was not playing ball.
So the idea here is "guys, we really don't want to come here and make a law about what is or isn't allowed to be said or what has to be fact checked and everything, we want you to behave like adults and agree together about said rules".
I believe in this case, the fact that every company is part of the same country and same bunch of absurdly rich tech companies means it's never going to work at all.
Often here in the UK if there's a problem with a particular, the first step in regulation is for the government to talk to the trade body representing the industry and basically say "Regulate yourselves, or be regulated"
Then, if they're sensible, the industry creates a code of conduct that addresses the problems that drew the attention of legislators, without being too onerous; all the main players in the industry sign up and follow it; and the government doesn't have to pass legislation.
Politicians are happy because the problem goes away, and regulatory burdens on industry don't increase. Industry is happy because they get soft-touch regulation that's under their control.
Putting aside the histrionics that Nazis are everywhere and about to kill everyone, does anyone have a good theory on why Elon would do this? Like is he just regressing to a 13 year old troll now? From the last few weeks you'd think he just went full clown. He's a 50 something year old man with 10 or 12 kids who apparently doesn't do much of anything besides troll people on Twitter, what's going on with this man?
I noted in a comment above that this type of behavior, "Lol, nothing matters" is exactly the kind of behavior described by Sartre in Anti-Semite and Jew about the behavior of actual brownshirts and blackshirts that this salute is meant to directly reference:
It isn't that this type of behavior is designed to get something, it's that the type of mindset, one that has decided not to care anymore, to reject nuance and embrace a kind of good-guy/bad-guy explanation of complex problem in the world, ultimately leading to bad faith engagement... well all that leads to this type of behavior.
The idea is that this type of action isn't trying to achieve anything, it's the result of a worldview.
That's literally unambiguously a nazi salute. I've seen them before, from actual nazis. Because I am descended from one unfortunately.
It's shameful and at no point does any word play and excuse making around it make it ok. This needs to stop now. Right now.
Add to that the literal support for the far right parties definitely and conclusively aligned with nazi ideology, such as the AfD, it's terrible for everyone.
It's going to be really interesting to see how organizations, relying on funding and/or support from the government, will twist themselves to deny what is fairly evident in plain sight hoping to avoid retaliation in general. I'm not sure what Elon was doing/intending to do but the resemblance is uncanny. And he did it twice, just to make sure. The first time, I was like eh, could go either way, he's made unique and enthusiastic gestures in public before before. The second one was more troubling. Certainly the kind of thing that would get you tackled to the floor by German police officers. Even if unintentional, you'd have some time to think about it and some 'splaining to do.
placement of hand before doing the salute is that of the Hitler salute
even his speech before indicates it's a Hitler salute:
"This is a new beginning. Let’s hope for healing and work toward unity in the months and years ahead"
Now this part needs a bit more explanation: The Hitler salute proper name is "Sieg Heil" which yes meas to "Hail!" someone. But it also literally translated means "victory heal".
The meaning here was to "heal" Germany (which include taking over territories in the twisted interpretation of Nazis) but also to "heal" Germany (from Jews, queer people, disabled people etc. by killing them. It also was all about creating a unified fascist Germany under Hitler. It was also about projecting power and that it's a new Germany.
I.e. "new beginning/new Germany", "heal", "unify", "let's make it grate again" (to use modern lingo) where the core aspects of "Sieg Heil" just with very perfidy interpretations of heal and unify. But then taking otherwise well meaning symbolism (e.g. the swastika) and then appropriating it and turning it into something evil was the standard mode of operation of Nazis.
So he makes a Hitler salute after saying things which Hitler (in slightly different words due to language changing over time) would have said (before going full maks off let's kill all yews).
I rally don't know how anyone could interpret it as not being a nazi salute, that would be supper naive/self blinding/foolish.
Now the more interesting interpretation is does it mean he is a Nazi?
Well probably no.
Nazi is a very specific term, and there are many other kinds of fascism which aren't Nazis (which to be clear "different" doesn't contain a judgement. It neither implies "better" nor "worse").
Through what it is is a very clear statement of "I'm a fascist" and/or "I idolizes at least some aspects of Nazi Germany".
Which, let's be honest, shouldn't surprise anyone who followed what he was doing in roughly the last year.
Trump's entire campaign ran on curbing immigration, closing the borders and deportation of illegal immigrants. The one exception to that (the H-1B story) caused a lot of upheaval in his base. Among the many crazy things he said were things like people having to go out and vote for the last time, that he will be a dictator for a day, and calling his political opponents vermin. I'll just mention Project 2025 and his former wife mentioning that he's had a book of Hitler speeches by his bedside in passing.
Among the first acts on his first day as president he shuts down an app that helped people immigrate legally.
The first swath of Biden era executive orders rescinded[1] includes migration related ones to now loosen and reduce oversight and enable more heavy handed treatment of the matter, creating the foundation to conduct the type of raids that started happening the second he was certified[2].
Then at his inauguration this unfortunate little mishap occurs. Twice, mind you. By a man who continually promotes and enables alt-right ideology.
If you squint really, really hard, it's a dog whistle. That's the best case scenario. For everyone else, Elon Musk unambiguously performed a Nazi salute.
The absence of this moment from alt-right safe spaces like r/conservative and the X/Twitter feeds of prominent influencers despite the fact that their user base seems to have loved it is, in itself, a story worth telling.
What I read is that Musk believes Tesla has reached a point where they have enough economies of scale and mature enough processes and infrastructure that they can sell
at a price without subsidies that is competitive with non-EVs and still makes them a nice profit.
His competitors are still taking a loss on their EV sales, and he believes that they cannot afford to lower prices and so the loss of subsidies will greatly harm them.
Even if the loss of subsidies do reduce the number of EVs sold per year, Tesla stands to get a larger percentage of that market.
As far as I can tell Elon seem to have lost interest and doesn't care much anymore about Tesla as a Car company the moment where he realized it likely will be just one of many E-Car companies and he likely won't win the race to full self driving in any in a larger picture dominant way.
But Trump in the past multiple times said more or less "he will stop EV mandates and move the subventions over to battery development and production". I.e. if he doesn't just do the first half it means subventions move from profiting a variety to car companies to mainly profiting Tesla(as a battery company).
do you remember 10 years ago when google promised only to tackle cp with their sensorship? and what happened in 2020-2023? all non-pharmaprofital messages were banned, deleted or flagged. Even 100% facts and even questions. wilder than in nz germany.
There are already dozens of politicans in eu who has been convited of hate speech when all they did was publish public statistics of rpe crimes or vio1ence.
Why the government officials are not working to prevent actual physical crimes that ruin the rest of the lives of so many young children around the europe?
you argument is basically nit picking negative aspects from one side, sometimes taking out of context, too, and then pretending you paint a very clear picture when in fact you do not
Firstly wrt. YouToube censorship a lot is abuse of the copyright system YT doesn't care about because it doesn't make them money. There is still ton's of "non-pharmaprofital" content and similar on YT which wouldn't be there if YT would systematically censor it.
Wrt. politicians while people tend put all kinds of labels onto politicians being "convicted" of hate speech is a very different thing. Not only is it not very common, but in close to all case I had looked into it was done very rightfully so. It's just that after the conviction some (most times) right wing propaganda sources love to ignore a lot of the fundamental aspects/claims/arguments the legal process was based on and then focused on some partial side point which by itself isn't enough to convict anyone for anything and pretends they where convinced for that.
And if you would be you I wouldn't write "even just questions". Because questions aren't necessary any less hate speech then non question. E.g. holocaust denier love to formulate their conspiracy theories in questions (and naturally will ignore or claim fake news if someone answers their questions). But just because you formulate a conspiracy theory as a row of question doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory. And the same for hate speech. You always have to take more then just a sentence into context, something legal proceedings tend to do, and something people hit by such proceedings tend to claim they don't.
In general YT "censorship" as in people abusing the copyright system and similar approaches to "take down" content they don't like is an issue, one which spawns to Google and other places, too.
But giving how much mis-information, propaganda and non-pharmaprofitable information and similar you find on YT _even if you are not looking for it_ claiming that there is a huge problem with systematic censorship _today_ is kinda dump. (Yes in the pandemic there had been and issue, for a short time, before it got replaced by banners. It was a very unusual station no one was quite sure how to handle and people did make mistakes. But taking a short period in history and pretending nothing else change since then when a lot changed isn't very useful).
It’s time we start calling these things what they really are: censorship platforms.
They have declared themselves the arbiters of what is or isn’t true, and censor anything that doesn’t align with their views, right or wrong.
At one point YouTube was censoring videos telling people to wear masks, as it contravened the government’s recommendations (who were lying to preserve mask availability for healthcare workers).
Build and use alternatives. Tell your friends and favorite content creators to stop donating content for free to these censorship platforms.
The alternative is moderation only on content (CP for example) and not on speech (save for crimes like death threats and so on).
The more you censor speech the more radicalized people become against the system setting that censorship. It becomes a self perpetuating feedback loop.
No, in France it specifically refers to "Harmful speech targeted toward individuals or groups on the basis of intrisinc characteristics [to this group], that may threaten social peace." [1]
If your particular political ideology requires this sort of speech, you should probably do some introspection.
This is already a political position - you might consider something is harmful to a particular group, but I might view this as the opposite. I think it's very easy to see a practical example of this..
Will Zuckerberg add another clause to his TOS, taking it from "it's OK to call someone mentally ill but only if they're queer" [1] to "it's OK to call someone mentally ill but only if they're queer AND don't live in Europe"?
More seriously, I don't see how those companies can enforce this while not severing US users from EU users. They'll probably just ignore it anyway.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/meta-immigration-gender-policies...
I'm not sure how well that's going to work when the boss of X is doing gestures that are illegal in Germany.
I'm surprised to see these types of reactionary / rage-bait comments bubble up in HN threads recently.
I personally find that they don't add much value to discussion. Perhaps it's a sign of the community growing with outsiders not being familiar with HN guidelines [0], or that Dang is stretched too thin to constantly moderate everything.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I mean, I really don't know how to react to this type of situation, personally. I do think that the CEO of a firm doing a fascist salute, multiple times, on live television is actually relevant to the business interests of the company, and the political interest of the nations in which it operates.
Do I think it's worth talking about in this context? I honestly don't know. I get your point. I also understand that it was the type of "Lol, nothing matters" flamebait, meant to ruffle feathers intentionally, but it's relevant that this is exactly that ethos pointed to in Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew about the actual brownshirts and blackshirts this salute is meant to directly reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semite_and_Jew
No, I would agree with you that the salute isn't directly relevant to the pledge in the article, but it's certainly directly relevant to whether or not the pledge is being made in good-faith. This is why I think it's relevant, even if it's exhausting. We just live in exhausting times.
> These EU Codes of Conduct are voluntary commitments and companies face no penalties if they decide to back out of the agreement, as Elon Musk did with X (then known as Twitter) in 2022 when he withdrew the company from the Code of Practice on Disinformation.
It's pretty obviously a PR stunt done in bad faith to delay actual legal consequences. I don't understand why this kind of "legal" construct even exists tbh.
Contrary to what seems to often be believed, the EU way of doing things is to try to make companies do their own agreement and policing, as to avoid the rigidity of regulation unless we absolutely have to.
Another example is how the EU asked the phone manufacturers to agree on a common charger for years on a good will basis, and only had to regulate when samsung said they were going to back out if no regulation was made because apple was not playing ball.
So the idea here is "guys, we really don't want to come here and make a law about what is or isn't allowed to be said or what has to be fact checked and everything, we want you to behave like adults and agree together about said rules".
I believe in this case, the fact that every company is part of the same country and same bunch of absurdly rich tech companies means it's never going to work at all.
13 replies →
Often here in the UK if there's a problem with a particular, the first step in regulation is for the government to talk to the trade body representing the industry and basically say "Regulate yourselves, or be regulated"
Then, if they're sensible, the industry creates a code of conduct that addresses the problems that drew the attention of legislators, without being too onerous; all the main players in the industry sign up and follow it; and the government doesn't have to pass legislation.
Politicians are happy because the problem goes away, and regulatory burdens on industry don't increase. Industry is happy because they get soft-touch regulation that's under their control.
It doesn't always work, of course.
Putting aside the histrionics that Nazis are everywhere and about to kill everyone, does anyone have a good theory on why Elon would do this? Like is he just regressing to a 13 year old troll now? From the last few weeks you'd think he just went full clown. He's a 50 something year old man with 10 or 12 kids who apparently doesn't do much of anything besides troll people on Twitter, what's going on with this man?
I noted in a comment above that this type of behavior, "Lol, nothing matters" is exactly the kind of behavior described by Sartre in Anti-Semite and Jew about the behavior of actual brownshirts and blackshirts that this salute is meant to directly reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semite_and_Jew
It isn't that this type of behavior is designed to get something, it's that the type of mindset, one that has decided not to care anymore, to reject nuance and embrace a kind of good-guy/bad-guy explanation of complex problem in the world, ultimately leading to bad faith engagement... well all that leads to this type of behavior.
The idea is that this type of action isn't trying to achieve anything, it's the result of a worldview.
[flagged]
It was a naz! salut. Dont belittle his actions, he is a grown man and should be held accountable for the way he presents himself.
2 replies →
[flagged]
One could argue anything, but one risks being called a fool by everyone.
2 replies →
Prisoner's dilemma: if you steelman people who won't do the same for you, you're going to get ripped off.
> when we try to fight each other in every single regard
Bit hard to be civil when Musk has replicated arguably the most offensive action in human history.
could you explain what you mean - are you saying that the sign that Elon made, twice, was not a Nazi salute?
11 replies →
not sure what is wrong about OPs comment. is there anything false in what he said?
1 reply →
LOL NO: https://nypost.com/2025/01/20/us-news/adl-says-elon-musks-aw...
That's literally unambiguously a nazi salute. I've seen them before, from actual nazis. Because I am descended from one unfortunately.
It's shameful and at no point does any word play and excuse making around it make it ok. This needs to stop now. Right now.
Add to that the literal support for the far right parties definitely and conclusively aligned with nazi ideology, such as the AfD, it's terrible for everyone.
14 replies →
It's going to be really interesting to see how organizations, relying on funding and/or support from the government, will twist themselves to deny what is fairly evident in plain sight hoping to avoid retaliation in general. I'm not sure what Elon was doing/intending to do but the resemblance is uncanny. And he did it twice, just to make sure. The first time, I was like eh, could go either way, he's made unique and enthusiastic gestures in public before before. The second one was more troubling. Certainly the kind of thing that would get you tackled to the floor by German police officers. Even if unintentional, you'd have some time to think about it and some 'splaining to do.
17 replies →
okay lets see
hand placement is that of the Hitler salute
arm placement is that of the Hitler salute
high of the hand is that of the Hitler salute
placement of hand before doing the salute is that of the Hitler salute
even his speech before indicates it's a Hitler salute:
"This is a new beginning. Let’s hope for healing and work toward unity in the months and years ahead"
Now this part needs a bit more explanation: The Hitler salute proper name is "Sieg Heil" which yes meas to "Hail!" someone. But it also literally translated means "victory heal".
The meaning here was to "heal" Germany (which include taking over territories in the twisted interpretation of Nazis) but also to "heal" Germany (from Jews, queer people, disabled people etc. by killing them. It also was all about creating a unified fascist Germany under Hitler. It was also about projecting power and that it's a new Germany.
I.e. "new beginning/new Germany", "heal", "unify", "let's make it grate again" (to use modern lingo) where the core aspects of "Sieg Heil" just with very perfidy interpretations of heal and unify. But then taking otherwise well meaning symbolism (e.g. the swastika) and then appropriating it and turning it into something evil was the standard mode of operation of Nazis.
So he makes a Hitler salute after saying things which Hitler (in slightly different words due to language changing over time) would have said (before going full maks off let's kill all yews).
I rally don't know how anyone could interpret it as not being a nazi salute, that would be supper naive/self blinding/foolish.
Now the more interesting interpretation is does it mean he is a Nazi?
Well probably no.
Nazi is a very specific term, and there are many other kinds of fascism which aren't Nazis (which to be clear "different" doesn't contain a judgement. It neither implies "better" nor "worse").
Through what it is is a very clear statement of "I'm a fascist" and/or "I idolizes at least some aspects of Nazi Germany".
Which, let's be honest, shouldn't surprise anyone who followed what he was doing in roughly the last year.
Trump's entire campaign ran on curbing immigration, closing the borders and deportation of illegal immigrants. The one exception to that (the H-1B story) caused a lot of upheaval in his base. Among the many crazy things he said were things like people having to go out and vote for the last time, that he will be a dictator for a day, and calling his political opponents vermin. I'll just mention Project 2025 and his former wife mentioning that he's had a book of Hitler speeches by his bedside in passing.
Among the first acts on his first day as president he shuts down an app that helped people immigrate legally.
The first swath of Biden era executive orders rescinded[1] includes migration related ones to now loosen and reduce oversight and enable more heavy handed treatment of the matter, creating the foundation to conduct the type of raids that started happening the second he was certified[2].
Then at his inauguration this unfortunate little mishap occurs. Twice, mind you. By a man who continually promotes and enables alt-right ideology.
If you squint really, really hard, it's a dog whistle. That's the best case scenario. For everyone else, Elon Musk unambiguously performed a Nazi salute.
The absence of this moment from alt-right safe spaces like r/conservative and the X/Twitter feeds of prominent influencers despite the fact that their user base seems to have loved it is, in itself, a story worth telling.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/init...
[2] https://calmatters.org/economy/2025/01/kern-county-immigrati...
10 replies →
Twitter's already got something to tackle:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/20/trump-elo...
I don't think Musk is helping Tesla sales in Europe.
I see no problem with his "salute". I'm glad more and more people are rejecting this kind of brainwashing by the media.
These people also don't see a problem with it: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-mus...
And this person similarly doesn't see a problem with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tlenyBWs4w&t=88s
1 reply →
Trump rescinding the EV mandate is hardly likely to help Tesla sales _in the US_, and yet they're standing on the same platform.
What I read is that Musk believes Tesla has reached a point where they have enough economies of scale and mature enough processes and infrastructure that they can sell at a price without subsidies that is competitive with non-EVs and still makes them a nice profit.
His competitors are still taking a loss on their EV sales, and he believes that they cannot afford to lower prices and so the loss of subsidies will greatly harm them.
Even if the loss of subsidies do reduce the number of EVs sold per year, Tesla stands to get a larger percentage of that market.
As far as I can tell Elon seem to have lost interest and doesn't care much anymore about Tesla as a Car company the moment where he realized it likely will be just one of many E-Car companies and he likely won't win the race to full self driving in any in a larger picture dominant way.
But Trump in the past multiple times said more or less "he will stop EV mandates and move the subventions over to battery development and production". I.e. if he doesn't just do the first half it means subventions move from profiting a variety to car companies to mainly profiting Tesla(as a battery company).
I.e. this seems long term beneficial for him.
5 replies →
[flagged]
Uh no, you can watch the video for yourself. Mush clearly made 2 back to back nazi salutes: Forcefully and unambiguously
He did it, repeatedly, and clearly.
Pls stop trying to sane-wash his actions.
2 replies →
What are you claiming? That The Guardian doctored the video?
How is footage that musk himself reposted misinformation?
do you remember 10 years ago when google promised only to tackle cp with their sensorship? and what happened in 2020-2023? all non-pharmaprofital messages were banned, deleted or flagged. Even 100% facts and even questions. wilder than in nz germany. There are already dozens of politicans in eu who has been convited of hate speech when all they did was publish public statistics of rpe crimes or vio1ence.
Why the government officials are not working to prevent actual physical crimes that ruin the rest of the lives of so many young children around the europe?
you argument is basically nit picking negative aspects from one side, sometimes taking out of context, too, and then pretending you paint a very clear picture when in fact you do not
Firstly wrt. YouToube censorship a lot is abuse of the copyright system YT doesn't care about because it doesn't make them money. There is still ton's of "non-pharmaprofital" content and similar on YT which wouldn't be there if YT would systematically censor it.
Wrt. politicians while people tend put all kinds of labels onto politicians being "convicted" of hate speech is a very different thing. Not only is it not very common, but in close to all case I had looked into it was done very rightfully so. It's just that after the conviction some (most times) right wing propaganda sources love to ignore a lot of the fundamental aspects/claims/arguments the legal process was based on and then focused on some partial side point which by itself isn't enough to convict anyone for anything and pretends they where convinced for that.
And if you would be you I wouldn't write "even just questions". Because questions aren't necessary any less hate speech then non question. E.g. holocaust denier love to formulate their conspiracy theories in questions (and naturally will ignore or claim fake news if someone answers their questions). But just because you formulate a conspiracy theory as a row of question doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory. And the same for hate speech. You always have to take more then just a sentence into context, something legal proceedings tend to do, and something people hit by such proceedings tend to claim they don't.
In general YT "censorship" as in people abusing the copyright system and similar approaches to "take down" content they don't like is an issue, one which spawns to Google and other places, too.
But giving how much mis-information, propaganda and non-pharmaprofitable information and similar you find on YT _even if you are not looking for it_ claiming that there is a huge problem with systematic censorship _today_ is kinda dump. (Yes in the pandemic there had been and issue, for a short time, before it got replaced by banners. It was a very unusual station no one was quite sure how to handle and people did make mistakes. But taking a short period in history and pretending nothing else change since then when a lot changed isn't very useful).
Hate speech is against only one religion. Against all other religions, it is perfectly ok according to these people as well as in Congress.
It’s time we start calling these things what they really are: censorship platforms.
They have declared themselves the arbiters of what is or isn’t true, and censor anything that doesn’t align with their views, right or wrong.
At one point YouTube was censoring videos telling people to wear masks, as it contravened the government’s recommendations (who were lying to preserve mask availability for healthcare workers).
Build and use alternatives. Tell your friends and favorite content creators to stop donating content for free to these censorship platforms.
what are the alternatives, and how are they not "censorship platforms"?
The alternative is moderation only on content (CP for example) and not on speech (save for crimes like death threats and so on).
The more you censor speech the more radicalized people become against the system setting that censorship. It becomes a self perpetuating feedback loop.
4 replies →
Mastodon is federated, like email so censorship is more difficult as you can switch servers.
Hate speech = political speech you don't like
No, in France it specifically refers to "Harmful speech targeted toward individuals or groups on the basis of intrisinc characteristics [to this group], that may threaten social peace." [1]
If your particular political ideology requires this sort of speech, you should probably do some introspection.
[1] https://www.un.org/fr/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/...
This is already a political position - you might consider something is harmful to a particular group, but I might view this as the opposite. I think it's very easy to see a practical example of this..
8 replies →
As long as those services are operated by companies based in the Fascist Idiotic Republic, I'm not going to believe a word they say.