|
LeeMajors posted:Ah. gently caress Facebook. I dropped it in like 2009. Got back on briefly around the election, realized it was a mistake, immediately deleted. Yeah I’ve been off of it for a while but I keep debating getting back on under a fake name for promotion purposes. Hard to get people to come out to shows any other way. Facebook has a monopoly on getting people out to see live music.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
Harton posted:Yeah I’ve been off of it for a while but I keep debating getting back on under a fake name for promotion purposes. Hard to get people to come out to shows any other way. Facebook has a monopoly on getting people out to see live music. Weird my DJ/promoter friends barely bother with FB anymore, just Instagram (from FACEBOOK)
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Man I’m so old, I don’t even know what Instagram is or does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Harton posted:Man I’m so old, I don’t even know what Instagram is or does. Destroys your brain to monetise your interactions for advertising, just like all social media
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Reminder that Facebook uses the money it makes from you using fb and Instagram to further its right wing agenda and celebrate Brett kavanaugh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Destroys your brain to monetise your interactions for advertising, just like all social media But can I shamelessly self promote?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
I agree with Hoarse. Biden is just not mentally sound enough to it. If he was 10 years younger it might be a good idea, but not now. https://twitter.com/HoarseWisperer/status/1211735313820860417
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
Good https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1211831874605195265
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
sounds about right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
I remember doing the math a while back and facebook's revenue per user in north america is like $150 or something. The amount of advertising they pipe directly into your feed and the amount of your info they take to sell is truly staggering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I remember doing the math a while back and facebook's revenue per user in north america is like $150 or something. The amount of advertising they pipe directly into your feed and the amount of your info they take to sell is truly staggering. Yeah, instead of fully automated gay space communism we have fully automated incestuous earth capitalism. They took the concept of the TV from 1984, and gave it life as a website. Now we propagandize to levels never before thought of. I block Facebook at my router, and when my family came to visit for the holiday they threw a shitfit that they couldn't' access it. its loving sad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:I don't know if people saw, but the New York Times just released an article on Ukraine aid saying that Esper, Pompeo, and Bolton met with the President in late August asking him to release the aid, because, they said, it was in the US interest, but he refused. So just to be clear here the specific national security interest is the profits of the arms dealers. I thought this was the sort of mercenary attitude that the liberal press existed to push back against.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
1) the reasoning is a literal war against russian territorial expansion. That's just listed as a bonus 2) the NYT has been one of the most vehemently pro-war newspapers to ever exist. Other than their willingness to sometimes criticize conservative leaders and efforts, idk in what capacity the NYT is really meaningfully liberal. The only reason they ever publish anything humanitarian-minded is because some editor wants to gun for a pulitzer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
this thread is about the impeachment of donald j. trump, not whether American intervention in the Russia/Ukraine war is justified, thank you in advance for staying on topic
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DavidCornDC/status/1212203944711262208
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 09:08
|
|
|
one weird trick most defendants don't know about is to simply pretend you are the prosecutor
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
He's trying to say the Democrats impeaching trump are the racketeers, because projection, and he's too drunk/brain damaged to coherently complete a sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/K8brannen/status/1212736036318720001 https://twitter.com/davidgura/status/1212734125125382144 these people apparently got leaked some unredacted docs - these are the ones that were released through FOIA a few weeks ago, but so heavily redacted that they were of minimal use the tl;dr is basically everyone at DOD knew this was hosed up and illegal, expressed that in writing, and was told to gently caress right off (and those bits are all redacted) eke out fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Jan 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
i like this part the DOD official, McCusker, has spent the last two months telling OMB "yall are loving us" then, on september 9, right when they know the whistleblower complaint will be coming out soon, this douche at OMB replies with a formal letter, looping in her bosses, to try to deflect all blame and pretend omb has nothing to do with it quote:On Sept. 7, McCusker asked Duffey again, “When will impoundment paperwork be processed?”
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
I remember hearing commentators not know why Pelosi would hold articles and the obvious answer now is the prayer that good journalism does what the Courts can’t and actually get this poo poo out in the open. Still in disbelief we couldn’t turbocharge the process to get the SC to say that actually yes all these people need to honor Subpoenas just like was affirmed during Nixon’s impeachment, but I guess that’s just the era we live in of too much process and complication in every facet of our lives
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 15:43
|
|
|
What's keeping them from publishing the unredacted emails?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 15:52
|
|
|
Crazyweasel posted:I remember hearing commentators not know why Pelosi would hold articles and the obvious answer now is the prayer that good journalism does what the Courts can’t and actually get this poo poo out in the open. The court isn't slower, but rather the Executive even more obstructionist and the country more impatient. In fact, I think we did see a 'turbocharged process' 😐
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
Strange Poon posted:What's keeping them from publishing the unredacted emails? i dunno how those emails are stored but you can take a look at what's happened when the Intercept has published pdfs with hidden steganography and got people arrested. or, simpler than that, you could just forget to redact something in a header that makes it clear who received the document that must be your source there's also the possibility they were literally shown them and allowed to take notes but not given them outright by the source, for fear of the above happening. excerpting them in plain text is a responsible way to avoid even the potential of that. remember punishment for the source here is (1) definitely lose your job and clearance and the hope of any future job in government (2) likely face criminal charges (3) lifetime of harassment online directed by donald trump personally eke out fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jan 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 16:02
|
|
|
Crazyweasel posted:I remember hearing commentators not know why Pelosi would hold articles and the obvious answer now is the prayer that good journalism does what the Courts can’t and actually get this poo poo out in the open. Pelosi and the Democrats obviously know a lot more than what is publicly known right now. I am sure that the GOP knows at least some if not all as well, which is why they were trying to get everything swept under the rug as fast as possible before it comes to light. While this is big news I still get the feeling that there is something huge coming soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
reasonably good summary https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1212856009934417920
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
Are there any laws governing redactions in FoI documents? It seems like it would be pretty difficult to argue a legitimate government purpose for those ones. I assume it’s probably just “the administration can redact anything they want”, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Are there any laws governing redactions in FoI documents? It seems like it would be pretty difficult to argue a legitimate government purpose for those ones. i'm sure it's somewhere in the CFR anyways i assume if you're a lawyer doing foia work for the government, judges being mad at you for agencies over-redacting is probably like 90% of your job eke out fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jan 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/a_cormier_/status/1212879299142922243
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
Oh, that's really interesting for sure, man. BTW, is the moron still president?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Lambert posted:Oh, that's really interesting for sure, man. please stop shitposting in this thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
eke out posted:please stop shitposting in this thread That wasn't a shitpost, I was posting my genuine amazement at the personell working for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1212898050164871168
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
Surprising absolutely no one but at least we know for sure now
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 02:20
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Are there any laws governing redactions in FoI documents? It seems like it would be pretty difficult to argue a legitimate government purpose for those ones. EO 13526 Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) restrain competition; or (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security. Keep in mind FOIA itself is the legal authority for production, that is “the law governing redactions” and its exemptions are what are being used. Particularly (b)(5): https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide-2004-edition-exemption-5 In practice (b)(5) is basically the “we withhold because we feel like it” exemption as you say. Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jan 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
I think we got him,
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 04:19
|
|
|
drat thank god we got that ceremonial impeachment passed in the house of representatives, it really put that orange buffoon in his place and really made him squirm and really changed what history is going to write about him, we've really stopped him from doing any more damage or causing anymore worldwide catastrophes. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Gozinbulx posted:drat thank god we got that ceremonial impeachment passed in the house of representatives, it really put that orange buffoon in his place and really made him squirm and really changed what history is going to write about him, we've really stopped him from doing any more damage or causing anymore worldwide catastrophes. your big strong daddy trump wins again!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
The Iran skit wasn’t impeachment related, but would that action give senate republicans more reason to hop off the sinking ship? Or is it too early to tell?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 04:13
|
|
|
I’m perfectly willing to believe that the Republicans would claim “you can’t impeach a president during a war” (that he himself started).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
buglord posted:The Iran skit wasn’t impeachment related, but would that action give senate republicans more reason to hop off the sinking ship? Or is it too early to tell?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 17:51
|
|
