>At the contrary, many are of the opinion that to defend Europe we have to oppose this recent trend of spending billions into the unproductive war machine.
We've tried that after the end of the cold war, now there is an active war in Europe. You can not unilaterally stop military spending if there are other countries ready to take advantage of it.
>When was the last time germans lined up to enlist in the army?
That would have been during the height of the Cold War, the resulting Reunification does have its drawbacks, but certainly beats getting overrun by the Soviet Union.
It very much depends on your personal threat model, if you expect targeted attacks LOS doesn't hold a candle to GOS, but at least for my threat model verified boot and hardware security features outside of my control don't have a substantial security benefit.
Obviously it would be preferable to have up to date security patches, but as long as there are plenty oven even more easily exploitable devices, and there is no WannaCry level attack ongoing it is a risk I'm willing to accept for more user freedom.
I think people generally aren't keen on putting their life on the line for anything. But even if this was a mandatory conscription, there is still the constitutional right of conscientious objection.
>If I do GPL, I have to make sure that I'm following the rules set out in that license
If its all your own stuff you don't really have to care about the license. Otherwise the rules are pretty simple, include a GPL license and if requested by a user supply the source code (which you can even charge some money for).
>and making sure others who have based their code on my project have done the same.
If you don't care what others do with it, you don't have to enforce it.
As the sole copyright holder (A)GPL only gives you more options.
/r/conservative is probably the most heavily censored echo chamber on Reddit, yet somehow you only take issue with other subreddits flagging participation.
You're listing several examples, including /r/conservative, yet even though this subreddit is widely known (on Reddit) to be a censored echo-chamber, you do not mention this aspect. I find it hard to believe, that this would be a coincidence.
I did explain my reasoning. You coincidentally not mentioning /r/conservatives censorship practices, simply doesn't appear plausible, given the context of your comment and demonstrated knowledge of reddit moderating practices.
> I disagree with your assessment, if I remember correctly I posted three times on that sub.
The sub currently requires moderator approval (specific flair) to comment on most threads.
The parent commenter is correct: It is widely known as one of the most censored subs on Reddit because the mods remove comments from unapproved accounts (those without flair).
Their rules claim that some threads are open for everyone to participate in, which may have been the case in the past when you commented.
However it’s not true for any of the popular threads. They will remove comments from unflaired accounts
This is all state in their rules. It’s not speculation. The parent comment is correct.
No, they are not correct. They are comparing 1 sub (which they disagree with the whole idea of) vs most every popular sub on reddit. There is no comparison.
How does the moderation in /r/conservatives, a subreddit for conservatives to discuss "from a distinctly conservative point of view", concern a liberal like yourself in any way?
This isn't a subreddit you need to participate in. I think it's more relevant how default subreddits or country subreddits are moderated in a similar way.
It concerns me insofar as the comment I was responding to, mentioned that participation in /r/conservative got him banned in another subreddit, while failing to mention the nature of /r/conservative as a heavily censored echo chamber.
I think the argument here is guilt by association.
It's a bit like banning entry into the US because you've visited Russia.
It doesn't really matter how Russia runs their own country, you might have even gone there to argue against totalitarian dictatorships.
But a US border guard looking at your passport and rejecting your entry based on that alone feels like overreach.
How subs choose to moderate their content is roughly speaking sort of fine, as long as there's no organised harassment, sharing of illegal materials (child porn, revenge porn, war materials etc) and threats of violence or death.
>But a US border guard looking at your passport and rejecting your entry based on that alone feels like overreach.
This is at least such a common practice, that certain countries issue their entry visas in such a way, that they can be removed from the passport. I'd expect issues entering the US, if I had an Iranian stamp in my passport.
/r/conservative doesn't even allow comments of users without a user flair.
They state: "This is designed so that a couple posts per day are almost guaranteed to have conversation which is not hijacked by leftists and other non-conservatives.Who Gets Flair?
Only mods can assign User Flair, and User Flair is only for conservatives. Once you have a solid history of comments in /r/Conservative, and have been commenting in the subreddit for at least two weeks,[..]
Please understand that this is for conservatives. We do our best to vet you based on your post history on reddit. You will need some post history to qualify - ideally within the subreddit itself. If you do not have a conservative leaning post history you will likely be asked to re-apply when you do."
"Strangely" there isn't a single post on their frontpage at the moment, which doesn't require a flair to comment.
Why are you so concerned about participation criteria for the conservative subreddit, one of the only distinctly right wing places on the whole platform?
The way HN and public forums work is that people can ask questions and others can answer. The post you are replying to is an answer to a question. You need to scroll a bit up to see the original question.
Pointing at the moderation of an explicitly conservative place for right wingers as a grievance to illustrate how it is only balanced how conservative opinions are getting banned across mainstream subreddits is fairly disingenuous.
And clearly this has been a discussion on that angle, rather than an answer to the rhetorical question above.
Part of the problem is the mods' narrow definition of "conservative". And this is the larger point of this entire comment thread. There are plenty of people with traditional conservative values who are not welcome in r/conservative. Not to mention, over time the tent has been shrinking as well.
Which, to be fair, is not unlike how the GOP has been operating over the last few years.
These examples are brilliant illustrations of an internet endgame for symbols, representations, metaphors. In other words, "the internet: where primate communication came to die."
The /r/conservative subreddit is unpopular among actual conservatives because it’s basically a propaganda outlet for the mods.
You can get banned for posting traditional conservative opinions there if they go against the message the mods want to allow, even if it’s conservative.
Don’t be tricked into thinking it’s some conservative safe space. It’s a propaganda outlet for the mods who ban even conservatives if they don’t toe the line and agree with the mods.
No comment by anyone proves anyone is a liberal or conservative. No comment anyone posts proves anyone is anything. That's the nature of the site.
The user raises concern that a right leaning forum has right leaning filters but fails to mention you see that with some left leaning forums. Based on the shock this person has never visited a left subreddit. Does that mean he is right leaning? Or does this person seek out a right subreddit because they are doing research?
I would guess research because the shock tells us he doesn't visit these places often and he doesn't visit more conservative places lile truth social because they censor at a higher rate.
There is my reasoning. You're challenge is to disprove this.
No one knows anything. Everything is an educated guess.
I gave my best answer with logical points. What is yours? This is a process law enforcement goes through when moving from unknown to known. I like my theory but I am open to others that may conflict.
I don't say things like "you are not X" when I do not know whether a person is in fact X or not.
I read all the same comments you did, and i didn't reach any particular conclusion about the person's politics. Your case is incredibly contrived, imo. A conservative who attempts to use a conservative forum and has a bad experience would have every right to talk about it. Why wouldn't they?
Why would they be shocked the top messages were from conservative viewpoints and report that here? At best the person is centre left with bi-curious right wing urges.
I am making a guess based on the opinions presented.
The point here being that it is hardly relevant how a subreddit specifically and explicitely for conservatives is moderated, when we are talking how mainstream subreddits are censoring conservative opinions.
Many grievances appear to be liberals concerning themselves with how /r/conservative is moderated, most likely after being banned for astroturfing there.
>France built 40 nuclear reactors in a decade. Here’s how they did it, and how the world can follow their lead today.
Today France takes more than a decade to build a single reactor (Flamanville 3) and the debts incurred nationalizing EDF, are now causing serious concerns about the whole nation defaulting. As clean and safe as nuclear power might be, I think the world will be fine not following that example.
Flammanville is a prototype, and much of the talent that was used to mass-produce reactors is long gone to time. The dumb thing now that Flammanville is finished would be to not follow up on it.
What's causing "serious concerns about the whole nation defaulting" is billionaires not paying enough taxes, not taking back 15% of what was ours in the first place...
>The reality is elite schools are supposed to filter for "the best and brightest" not "the hardest workers".
Maybe they are supposed to do this, but let's not act like the filter doesn't quite apply the same way if your parents are rich and or well connected. They're however very effective in filtering out bright kids whose parents can't afford the tuition and aren't lucky enough to get a scholarship.
>So, Chat Control is an attempt by a few politicians to give police some tools to prevent teenagers from shooting each other in gang wars
No that is not ChatControl, that is just some Swedish thing. Chat Control would make it mandatory for servive providers to scan every single message in the EU for offending material and notify the authorities if anything is detected. It's blatant mass surveillance under the guise of protecting the children.
>In Germany the government has literally collapsed due to the former coalition’s ineptitude.
The government collapsed because the party pushed by the country's most influential media company (Axel-Springer) with the expressed goal of collapsing the coalition did just that.
I’m sorry, what? Which party do you mean? The only parties involved with the collapse of the coalition was the coalition itself, SDP, FDP, and Greens. It was all internal disputes that led to the collapse.
We've tried that after the end of the cold war, now there is an active war in Europe. You can not unilaterally stop military spending if there are other countries ready to take advantage of it.
>When was the last time germans lined up to enlist in the army?
That would have been during the height of the Cold War, the resulting Reunification does have its drawbacks, but certainly beats getting overrun by the Soviet Union.