Hey! I’ll have you know that at least one out of every hundred fights looks vaguely like a boxing match!

Yeah, also they’re sourcing from ISW. Which is fine, if proper considerations are made.

But, they were not. Really low-hanging fruit of an article imo.

The VA is a broken program. Where’s the lie? When did I mention civilian healthcare?

You wouldn’t have to strawman me if you had a meaningful point.

Calling the VA socialized medicine is correct.

It is also incorrect. Because it is a broken program.

Edit: It seems to have gone through now with no further intervention on my end. Hurray!

I really didn’t expect to have to read this corpo-apologist BS here.

You’re sick, please get well.

Are you lost?

Is this sarcasm?

The DMV is government-regulated and has a legal duty to safeguard your data. Unlike the corporations we were happily discussing before you decided to try out as Ben Shapiro.

The reason this doesn’t make sense to you is because of how you’re framing it.

This corpo is being run unilaterally by someone unconcerned with its longevity. It’s that simple.

What ever happened to book clubs.

How often do you find yourself hearing wild baboons yelling?

Everyone hates Philly until it’s time to assassinate a traveling robot.

You’re hired!

Product is sold by weight. Some settling during package and handling may occur. You can be assured of the proper weight regardless of settling.

Enjoy your 6 cornrings.

That is the entire (and only) point I was making. x)

On the contrary, I’m not conflating two specifics. I’m speaking in general terms about the demonstrable public perception (read: billions of social media users who happily hand over their data vs. the palpable unease over data publication in all walks of tech discussion) and how it is innately hypocritical.

It is perfectly normal and useful to discuss societal contradictions. For example: “We hate school shootings, but we do fuck-all to stop them from occurring.” That statement does not conflate two different vocal minorities, it purports to accurately describe the generalized societal contradiction at hand.

The rest of your post is completely off-topic.

Why? The masses have no issue forking data over to big tech. What difference does it make if it’s one or a million corporations using that data when it’s being sold willy-nilly to anybody with a checkbook?

The point is not how many actors have access to your data. The point is that in both scenarios (public data vs. single-corporation-controlled data), your data is pragmatically public from data sales, data leaks, and so on. However, in only one of them, your data is ostensibly “protected” by a corporation - the lie at hand. In the other scenario, you are under no spell that your data is protected or private - the truth.

My comment was simply pointing out how they’re effectively the same thing. Giving your data to a big tech firm is effectively the same thing as making it public. Hence, the outrage over one not matching the outrage over the other is amusing to me because it implies how effective the corpo framing of this issue is.

No bootlicking detected. The first sentence of my comment actually belies my contempt for them.

There’s something amusing about people feeling violated by their activity being made public, but not necessarily by corporations hoarding and capitalizing on that activity & data. I mean, one of them is out in the open. The other is pure abuse.

We don’t need to make up reasons to call corpos such as Alphabet evil. The fact of the matter is that at this time, nobody even knows if Google lifted a finger to forward the delisting of Tweets. For all we know, it could be entirely on Twitter’s end.

Hence, assigning blame to Google for this without understanding their role in it is premature.