Because it’s not a list of rapists, just a list of people Epstein was interested in having influential control over.
…and even going to the Island just meant he was trying to influence you. He was looking for whatever leverage he could find over people.
The list of rapists certainly exists
Court papers said that alongside photos were compact discs with handwritten labels including: “‘Young [Name] + [Name],’
Agreed. Its a list. Anyone can make a list of people. They can even put people they’ve never met on the list.
I can make a list, put your name on it, label “bad people” and leave it for the FBI to find. Does that prove you’re bad?
For those who have truley committed the crimes suggested by the “list”, I vote for a beheading (not the one attached to the neck).
When was the last time Tik Tok was accused of rape?
Virginia Giuffre: What we know about Prince Andrew’s accuser
If the “protect children” politician does nothing about school shootings, you know they’re a PoS.
This is fucking retarded
It’s because Epstein’s island is a honeypot </tinfoil-hat>
A honeypot trap that’s never used as a trap is just free honey.
Of course the island was a honeypot trap. How else did Epstein create all his compact discs with handwritten labels including: “‘Young [Name] + [Name],’
How is this itself not a fake argument?
The arguments in support of tick-tock are a bizarre amalgamation of just about every category of bad faith argument. I haven’t seen one that suggests tick-tock it’s actually a net benefit.
it’s not that tiktok is good, it’s that banning it sets a bad precedent and will be used to justify further control and censorship of the internet
I’m all for setting a precedent if it’s about banning chinese spyware and propaganda weapons.
That’s a much better argument than what’s presented in this meme. There’s at least an argument to claim that the difference is about curtailing foreign interest through ownership. Ownership does heavily influence a platform. Unfortunately that hasn’t prevented Murdock from owning more formal messaging platforms.
On a side note, how do you feel about a handful of corporations controlling and censoring the Internet?
I may have missed something in civics class, but since when is access to a crappy social media site a right?
Since when is reading newspapers your government doesn’t agree with a right? Since when is communicating with people your government doesn’t like a right? Since when is publishing whatever you want a right? Since approximately 1776. It’s such an important right that it’s literally the first one in the constitution. Because our ability to speak freely and criticize the government is one of the rights that underpins all others. The medium shouldn’t matter, speech is speech whether it’s an app, website, chat server, newspaper, bulletin board, code, painting, drawing, whatever. If the government can just shut down any medium or venue they don’t like because “it’s propaganda”, that basically closes the door to any open criticism of the government.
We’ve tried not having those rights for the sake of convenience, expediency, or social pleasantness. Tends to not end well. Ask people in Russia or Iran how that “government gets to dictate where and how you speak” thing is going for them. Insane bootlicking going on in this thread.
That slope is very slippery.
- Are different, unrelated things
- Involve different parts of government
- Involve different people in charge
- Is smoothbrain understanding of criminal investigations
- Is smoothbrain understanding of due process
I’m starting to fly down some ‘conspiracy hole’ about this shit: I can’t trust or even hope that the avalanche of memes like these aren’t Chinese (or Russian? they love stirring our shit up for the lulz) in origin. This paranoia reinforces itself in a loop
