TWeaK

Oh no. Whatever will people do. I guess they just won't be able to find music.

Fucking good riddance to Spotify.

Mostly just how subservient he was to Dominic Cummings when he got into office. Cummings used to live in Russia before he popped up on the UK political scene (first as Gove's advisor, then Brexit, then Boris) and yet for some reason Boris went AWOL and left Cummings filling his role. The first COBRA meetings for Covid were chaired by Cummings. Then towards the end, Cummings toured the UK's nuclear weapons facilities.

I'm aware Cummings has been throwing everything about Covid on Boris in the recent enquiries, but frankly I don't buy it. Cummings clearly wore the pants in their relationship - and that was very strange for someone like Boris.

Boris also was not hard that on Russia. The sanctions they talked about making at the start excluded Russia's biggest bank for 28 days - which ended up coinciding with Russia's first withdrawal. I don't know if said sanctions were ever actually applied. Furthermore, the UK set up an arms deal with Ukraine literally 4 months before, and all the "donations" are in fact bilateral aid agreements - if Ukraine survives, it will be expected to pay back the UK at inflated rates (bilateral aid always favours the giving country, as the receiving country is desperate). Of course, Ukraine probably won't be able to pay, but that's a future government's problem. Meanwhile, Rishi (then chancellor) was able to fiddle the books a little because of it.

Yes exactly. They proved that advertisements can and will be shown alongside objectionable content, and that there are no protections against that. Them conducting a test is not "manufacturing images". X arguing the vast majority of users won't experience that is merely because the majority of users won't browse that content - but those who do will see any adverts alongside it.

This is a frivolous lawsuit from a company that will probably be gone before the suit is even heard. Twitter is worth barely more than its debt at this point - and that's ignoring things like not paying rent for their offices.

I never thought it was false. It's entirely in line with Russia to use both the carrot and the stick at the same time. The carrot was obvious: help Trump become president. The stick was also obvious: release tapes of him getting peed on by prostitutes. Most people - even his fans, hell especially his fans - probably wouldn't care, but Trump really cares about his image, to an unhinged level.

The better question to me is what dirt they might have had on Boris Johnson. Complete speculation, but I think one of his many bastard children was fathered to an underage girl - that would be just about the only thing that would make BoJo step into line.

No, you said that all your rights were important, and compared it to rights that obviously are important. I'm saying that the right to have guns is nowhere near as important as the right to free speech. I'm asking you to justify the statement you made.

Why is it important for you to have the right to own and use guns with no meaningful restrictions?

Israel doesn't have enemies anymore, it has customers. It sells weapons grade hacking technology to oppressive regimes - hell, even to the Mexican cartels.

But even so the US cutting them off would be a severe blow. Unfortunately it would also have significant blowback within the US.

Well yeah, but it is still "the pot calling the kettle black" because he's accusing someone else of committing genocide, when he has been doing the same.

I know right? That totally isn't big enough for beans.

Unfortunately Facebook and Instagram is almost essential for small businesses to get off the ground. It's not that they rely on the service, they rely on word of mouth, and word of mouth spreads better on mass social media than anywhere else.

But why is it important for you to have guns?

I mean he isn't wrong for calling out Israel and Netanyahu, but he is wrong for calling for him to be put to death without trial. Meanwhile, his government commits atrocities against its own people and faces no consequences.

Point being, if people were to be put to death without trial, India's politicians would be just as high if not higher up on the list.

Pot calling the kettle black much?