DupaCycki

The best part is this was intended from the start. The very first proposed name for the European Union was literally United States of Europe.

Then there were several plans to move to a more federal system, but all of them failed, usually due to American interference.

What if they're bots and we've all been fooled?

Can confirm that Gandalf did not lie and the user in question does indeed have 0 posts and 1 comment

This by itself should be enough to have Twitter banned, at least temporarily.

You don't just get to retaliate for getting fined for breaking the law. That's how you upgrade a fine to a prison sentence if you're a regular person.

Well, the friends are right, because he is a dictator.

Which is still better than whatever USA has in store for Venezuela.

And which absolutely doesn't justify slaughtering Venezuelan civilians.

Everyone who originally proposed this or otherwise helped in drafting this should be thoroughly investigated under suspicion of foreign affiliation. Chat Control doesn't just start the EU's transformation into a surveillance state. It also weakens its digital defenses. No matter how you look at it, this is treason both towards the European people, as well as towards the individual countries and the Union as a whole.

Sociopaths will be sociopaths. They'll continue saying that protesting and violece are never the answer, while eroding our basic rights and ignoring all pushback.

So you're telling me the one person who's been making deals behind closed doors (illegal), and then 'accidentally' deleting all messages regarding said deals (also illegal) will be exempt from having all their communication scanned?

How can you know if the sources really are bad if it's not obvious aftet reading? Do you just trust a random person's words? In this case, you're essentially arbitrarily picking one version over another.

The problem with 'stopping lies' is it requires effort, which not everyone may wish to dedicate. I'm by no means denouncing the other person for trying to stop misinformation (assuming that's the case, since I still have no idea). However, it's all in vain if they don't bother to do anything to prove their point.

Anyone can post misinformation as sources, just as anyone can post that the sources are bad. Fundamentally there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two. If you really feel the need to defend people from being misinformed, some better source or other form of proof, or at the very least a deeper explanation would go a long way.

Disclaimer: not .ml.

Critisizing someone's sources and then refusing to provide any other ones "because it's pointless" seems a little hypocritical to me.

I’m pointing out the problems with the sources for all the other people that are observing that comment and being swayed, because it’s a bunch of baloney.

So we should trust your word over someone's who has at least put in the effort to provide sources?

Look, you don't need to prove anything, but if you're gonna argue or act like you're defending people from misinformation, then I'd expect to see more than just "don't listen to that guy". It's not exactly easy finding objective information about various issues in China and filtering out all the American propaganda. Personally, I'd very much appreciate any links that don't lead to obvious manipulation.

There are more 'social scores' than just the credit one. The main difference is that in the West it's kept in secret, while China is open about it. Of course, it's also different than American propaganda says.

Arguments can be made both in favor and against such systems or their parts. I think we can all agree that the American one goes far beyond reasonable social utility. The Chinese one too, probably. China may be a lot better than our media tells us, but it's still far from perfect.