A pandemic and mass demonstrations at the same time. In a game of civilisation I'd consider reloading.

Depends on your relationship with her.

I don't know about the US, but in the Netherlands you can charge someone with 2nd or 3rd degree in the same writ, where 2nd degree is the primary claim and 3rd degree the secondary. You argue your case trying to prove both, so if the primary claim isn't accepted, you still have your secondary one.

But seriously, most people don't struggle against police officers as that will just escalate violence. And if you're black, probably doubly so. So we have a man who isn't struggling anymore but complaining about his breathing.

Change the imagery for a moment where the police officer isn't choking him with a knee but both his hands. For 4 minutes. And the other guy just stands there while he's doing it.

To be honest, in the Netherlands you can probably go for 1st degree as those 4 minutes gave him time to reconsider, sufficient time for it to be considered premeditated according to our court cases.

We had a case someone who was fighting stepped away, drew a knife and then killed his opponent. The fact he broke away to reach for a deadlier weapon made it premeditated according to the courts as it allowed a moment for reflection.

Looks exactly like Hong Kong. :sad:

Fucking laughable. It's clearly 2nd degree if someone says "I can't breathe" and is clearly in distress and you continue to sit on him like that for 4 minutes, which gives more than enough time to reconsider, then we're talking intent.

Again in full for those of us who cannot read.

I said:

That's not because only Democrats would act fraudulently, or "are [all Republicans] utterly truthful" according to you? It's because covid-19 disproportionally affects non-white US citizens who tend to vote Democratic more often. Denying them the ability to vote via mail-in ballots is the ploy and that's the real violation of rights here. Not a little link beneath the President's unsubstantiated claims. — Benkei

That doesn't make a shitting difference. It says follow the steps below and the first step is what I quoted. Stay. The. Fuck. Home.

But yeah, the fact you read something racist in what I said while simultaneously defending the disenfranchisement of minorities says it all about who the real racist is here.

Lmao. Fucking conspiracy bullshit "we can't trust the experts". So why the fuck are you trusting an MP? Or your "feels"? You reason like a teenage girl man. Grow up.

So you believe an anecdotal piece without any evidence but not the electoral commission whose reported on the leg work they've done to review this? Awesome disconnect there.

It is being done safely. All you have is "feels" when "you're afraid" something is "obviously" the case when the facts actually point to the opposite. It's amazing how much information you're willing to ignore just to maintain a position that is not in the slightest researched or thought out.

Now you have substituted your opinion for someone else's peppered with some anecdotal evidence of failed attempts. For the UK. But we're talking about the US.

And we mustn't forget that regular voter fraud in booths happen too. Buying votes, happens there too. It's about the effect of voter fraud via postal voting compared to in booth voting and then how those risks can be managed and how those risk controls could be implemented on time to make it a good addition to booth voting.

I think there's legitimate concern to be had where States that have no experience and no infrastructure to handle massive mail in ballots but I think it's stupid to exclude the possibility of mail in ballot voting entirely. There are six states working with all-postal voting (Hawaii, Oregon, California, Washington State, Utah and Colorado). There's no evidence this has contributed to substantial voter fraud.

Such schemes are incredibly hard to pull off undetected. A fraud big enough to swing any but the very closest elections is easily caught by looking for statistical outliers in vote totals, checking signatures and conducting basic detective work. Carrying an entire state election by mail ballot fraud would be a nigh-impossible triumph of concealment in all but a harrowingly close contest. — NYT

It's all about how you organise all-post voting. It shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Where are the facts this actually happens? I don't care about your opinion and I certainly don't care about your appeal to a majority. Most people say all Englishmen have crooked teeth. Can't back it up but it's true!

You must be over 60 that you think that comparison is sensible in any way.

Ask yourself this...have they ever done it to a mainstream left-leaning politician...if not does that mean all such politicians are utterly truthful ? I think we know the answer, don't you. — Chester

What left-leaning politician with a reasonable following has been lying about methods of voting in order to protect the interests of his own party? Trump just admitted as much that his resistance to mail-in voting is to avoid a Republican loss.

That's not because only Democrats would act fraudulently, or "are [all Republicans] utterly truthful" according to you? It's because covid-19 disproportionally affects non-white US citizens who tend to vote Democratic more often. Denying them the ability to vote via mail-in ballots is the ploy and that's the real violation of rights here. Not a little link beneath the President's unsubstantiated claims.

And I disagree with Mark. First off, the "fact checking" isn't deciding what's true or not so Mark creates a straw man and then puts it down. Totally uninteresting. What I don't get is what you think is wrong with providing different sides of the debate by offering other opinions.

In the end, Mark doesn't like things that affect his bottom line. Probably Dorsey doesn't either. So both their opinions need to be taken with a grain of salt.

You can't substantiate they are doing it to those they disagree with. Trump is just a high profile user. If done correctly the fact checking will finally do something about the echo chambers.

I think he means, what the fuck is a white dude doing at the protests, smashing windows at a store and then abruptly leaving without apparently participating in any form of protest? Was he paid to do that or just a crazy person?

If every adult US person stops using Twitter because of this it will affect 6% of its user base. Considering that less than 50% of americans agree with Trump to the point they'd leave Twitter, it's at most a 3% effect. I suspect Dorset said "fuck it, I'm rich bitch!"

Enter the Koch brothers and Murdoch with a hostile take over?

If I were the CEO of Twitter, I'd just ban Trump from using it - stating the legal fall out Trump is trying to create is too much of a hassle and since it's my platform he can go fuck off.

What's absurd is to argue the exercise of free speech infringed on Trump's right to free speech, even a violation of his human rights, and then pretend that that was intended as a moral argument.

Again, I never said Twitter’s new feature is illegal or not protected by the first amendment, so it’s stupid to keep trying to nail down that irrelevant point, as if someone was disputing it or arguing the opposite. Is this how lawyers argue? — NOS4A2

Says the guy who earlier claimed that it violated a human right. That would be illegal and is a legal argument.

I’m saying it’s wrong to alter someone’s expression and essentially violate their human right. — NOS4A2

Wriggle wriggle.

Pretty funny. Did you make that up yourself or are you sharing someone else's joke?

I didn't understand a word you wrote because of the bad grammar and spelling.

I didn't understand a word you wrote because of the bad grammar and spelling.

Civil disobedience for the win. There's an uncapitalised "i" in the paragraph after your 3 points.

You can keep trying to qualify it as something else but it's protected speech. First it was a stamp of approval, then it wasn't a comment because it didn't look like a tweet, now it's a feature and therefore not a comment. I'll repeat: the form of speech is irrelevant.

But it's nice to see you struggle with trying to reconcile your free speech absolutism with outcomes of free speech protection that you don't like. So either you'll have to accept you're not a free speech absolutist or you need to accept free speech absolutism leads to instances you personally don't like.

I'm in fact neither an absolutist (fuck corporations and free speech) but do accept people with abhorrent ideas or crude manners get their say or room to foul up the mood.

Yup. This is the dystopian near future we're heading for: business men setting the political agenda in broad daylight. Gates is advising on healthcare and education. Twitter and Facebook define the limits and exercise of free speech to the extent it won't affect their bottom line. Google, Apple and Facebook advise us on privacy. Politicians just have their poles greased and holes lubed.

Let's not kid ourselves that Dorsey would roll out this feature if it would hurt them. At the same time this particular change is good for everyone as it broadens the discussions with references to facts and other opinions and breaks the echo-chamber. If it's exercised on both sides of the spectrum (in the Netherlands, anti-vaxxers are left wing, retro-hippy know-it-alls) it's a win for Twitter users to get informed.

On the whole though, all these billionaires need to fuck off out of the political decision making process.

I don't get what point you're making. What mental steps did you go through to reach an Orwellian classification like that?

Twitter, Inc.

The form of speech is irrelevant. You just don't call it a comment now because it has a different form than "comments" in Twitter, which in fact are called tweets. It's not a tweet but both tweets and the link are speech. Go on... wriggle some more.

How is commenting on someone else's comment altering someone's expression?

And if we're going back for a second to your "stamp of approval", this in fact would be a stamp of disapproval. Which Trump does all the time by calling certain media outlets critical of him "fake news". Or calling people he doesn't like frauds or liars.

And Trump isn't even called that, it just has a link that says: "Get the facts about mail-in ballots". Only after clicking it, will you get links to CNN, NBC, the Hill and WaPo and various other papers and experts.

Meanwhile, great distraction from the fact that he's been responsible for about 40,000 needless corona deaths and higher costs to contain it due to his inaction during February. Also, he's still a corrupt and sore loser.

Also

Personally, I’m an absolutist when it comes to free speech. I believe all speech should be allowed. — NOS4A2

You claim they did something they shouldn't do. What law did they break? I claim whatever they say about a particular comment, even if they downright lied themselves, is protected by the first amendment.

Take it to the extreme. If you say "A" and I say "A is false" and "A" stands for whatever you say, regardless of me verifying whether "A" is true, I'm entirely free to do so. That's how it works. And if I do this on the website I own, that you use for free to reach millions of people, you really have fuck all to say about what I do with my property as well.

I like demonstrating what "free speech" really means by taking it to the extremes in the way all the new racists "must protect our way of life", "protect cultural identity", "norms and values" people do all the time. They figured out how to skirt the law while still getting their racist messages across. We have a couple of them on the boards here as well.

"They don't have our norms and values and we should limit immigration because they'll change the fabric of society".

"Some people say they [eat babies/insert weird cultural practice]".

Right. Leave the legal stuff to the lawyers, buddy.

No, it isn't. Moreover, it's not a stamp of approval it's a warning the comment might be false.

If I were Twitter I'd double down now with a warning under every tweet;

"Some people think the President is a total douche. Many state leaders don't take him seriously and we don't either. Take the above comment with a ton of salt and find independent corroboration of what he says. Btw, Fox News doesn't count."

And watch the meltdown.

His speech is still there. He hasn't been censored. Someone else exercised their right to free speech by saying a particular comment isn't proved. It's all basic first amendment stuff.

That would make every article critical of the President censorship.

Trump just admitted all Republicans lie.

The test method is close to fool proof. Nevertheless about 1 to 8% false positives occur with these type of tests due to laboratory conditions. Human error unfortunately. Depends a lot on which country it even which testing facility you're talking about.

The good news, as frank notes, is that they are 100% accurate. That is, they only test positive if a unique virus signature is detected. — Andrew M

I don't believe that's the case.