What’s wrong with this? If I shop at Joe’s Grocery, then it’s no secret that I’m allowed to tell my county commissioner about the fact that Joe sold me a banana.
Are they saying that Joe can’t tell the county commission that I bought a banana?
This is all just stuff we learn. It’s basic freedom of speech.
Sure, if I paid Joe $2 to keep it secret because my wife thinks I’m allergic… that’s different.
As for tigers, I am not sure - there are some safety standards you'd need to comply to so that your neighbors don't become meals for Fluffy.
As for cannabis, all you need to do is move to one of the more enlightened states that allow cultivation. Given time, I believe all states will recognize the benefits it brings.
Which, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Modern residential (and small scale commercial) construction is designed for a 30-50 year useful life. The structure may be worth renovating if the location / design remain relevant, but it’s not like there’s a huge amount of wasted value. A larger waste would be encouraging labor to be under-utilized.
Yeah. The archetypal “second amendment” weapon… the kind any regular American would need to hold his own was a musket, then a rifle, then lever or auto loader, then an M16. Now it’s a drone. A man or crew out in the country with AR15s are Don Quixote tilting at windmills with the advent of cheap drones.
The places we're seeing drone warfare proliferate still have men with AR15s out in the country. The side that can no longer field those men will have lost the war
It’s criminal. Many people donated money, worked for them, gave data, etc. on the promise that OpenAI was working towards the public good. It turns out those transactions occurred under false pretenses. That’s fraud.
>A ruling of a court - even the highest court of the land - does not make something law.
Isn't that precisely how common law legal systems work? There is a law but its definition isn't strictly that of what the books say but rather the judicial precedents made in relation to it?
How do you get to authoritarian, when it’s the Brazilian authorities demanding that people be silenced? Perhaps you’re referring to some unrelated situation where X has been censoring people?
Also, those accounts were used by people who were investigated by the equivalent of the FBI, the Policia Federal (PF). The initial request to block those accounts AFAIK came from them, and the fact that this case ended up in the hands of the Supreme Court is because Elon decided to play chicken, escalating the situation in every possible way for seemingly no good reason.
That may make the Brazilian government less authoritarian, but that doesn’t make anyone else more authoritarian. If anything, the fact that Musk is opposing even a very small act of authoritarianism would suggest that he is very strongly against authoritarianism.
In Turkey this wouldn't fly for even a second. He thinks he can make an example out of Brazil (and it's clearly striking a nerve even if it ends up not working out.)
As another commenter noted, the illegal content (under Brazilian law) on Twitter is one thing, but additionally Twitter has not responded to any legal action and does not have a representative in the country, which Brazilian law requires of them (https://apnews.com/article/brazil-x-elon-musk-shutdown-morae...). Musk can whine all he wants, but boring procdural rules still apply to him.
Additionally, Musk complies prolifically with censorship requests when they come from racist fascists like Narendra Modi. The source for that is literally Twitter itself in its report on removal requests (the link is in this article): https://restofworld.org/2023/elon-musk-twitter-government-or... .
What's the difference? Well, Musk likes Modi and his vicious crackdown on Muslims, and he doesn't like Lula's government because he's a popular leftist. Like, you don't have to agree with either side to see that the only principle at play here is Musk's personal political grievances.
reply