https://www.tiktok.com/@halluci.nation/video/7084059084445469953
Child marriage in USA!?
https://www.tiktok.com/@keribla/video/7090325923198848302
Is that cruel and unusual punishment? If so it’s unconstitutional.
https://www.tiktok.com/@amandapalermo108/video/7084276178684546350
Fraudulent advertising?
I looked up one of the sources mentioned:
“Ideological control and propaganda is the core of the toolkit for the communist party to achieve and maintain its success,” the [2018 Amazon] document notes. “We are not making judgement on whether it is right or wrong.”
A web search for site:mises.org amazon china propaganda didn’t turn up any coverage.
Our corrupt, traitorous elites are concerning.
Some details about Amazon’s control over the U.S. government and its data collection:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/amazon-privacy-lobbying
One 2018 document reviewing executives’ goals for the prior year listed privacy regulation as a primary target for Carney. One objective: “Change or block US and EU regulation/legislation that would impede growth for Alexa-powered devices,”
“We [Amazon] want policymakers and press to fear us,”
Amazon had more than 90,000 recordings Alexa devices made of the reporter’s family members
Amazon also lies heavily and initiates force in India:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/amazon-india-rigging
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/amazon-india-operation
https://www.tiktok.com/@crowdedfirescenes/video/7093339695827963182
Left wing version of something I’ve heard repeatedly on the right.
Example of a company using the government against another company. Previously Amazon did something similar to Apple regarding the ebooks market.
Rebuttals?
FYI, I only watched a few minutes of the trial.
Here is an article on Depp’s side that makes points not addressed in the article from “The Cut”:
I have watched some of the trial and what I have seen makes Amber Heard look dishonest. For example, here is some testimony about manipulation of photos presented by Heard’s lawyers as evidence that Depp beat her up:
She also doesn’t seem honest under cross examination:
I think Oliver’s position is (paraphrasing) people suggest school police because they don’t want to fairly consider, talk about, debate, etc. gun control which is the obvious solution.
There’s at least two things I think are wrong with that:
Most people who don’t want some kinds of gun control (for example, handgun bans) fully support other types of gun control (for example, full-auto gun bans). They want some kinds of gun control and not others for reasons - reasons generally not addressed by the people who want the specific gun controls they oppose. And most people who actually don’t want any kind of gun control (a small percent of the population) have considered it and also have objections that the pro-gun-control side doesn’t answer. There is some substitution going on where people who don’t want more gun control suggest alternatives like school police in hopes of avoiding gun control, but it’s not primarily knee-jerk as Oliver suggests. In fact, most of what I hear/see from the anti-gun-control side is lamenting school police but saying it’s a less bad answer to school shootings than gun control.
In response to school shootings, both the people calling for school police and the people calling for gun control take school itself in approximately its current form as a given. If there’s an unthinking or knee-jerk reaction I think that’s it. What people actually don’t seem to consider and talk about much are things like: bullying is a super common and very hard problem when you segregate kids by age and put them in a high child to adult ratio for long periods of time. As far as I know, we have no real solution to bullying in such circumstances, only some ideas about ways that make it a little worse or a little better. So as a practical matter with our current level of knowledge, bullying is an unavoidable aspect of school in its current form. I think a significant number of kids who are bullied end up having major major problems because of it which manifest in harmful behaviors to themselves and others, only one of which is school shootings. Even if what either side proposes could actually solve school shootings (which they won’t), it’d still leave all the ex: petty criminals, substance abusers, suicides, child abusers, gang members, etc. for which bullying is also a major causal factor. And bullying itself is just one of many problems with school in approximately its current form. I’m not suggesting it’s obvious to get rid of school in its current form, but neither side is considering, debating, discussing, etc. doing that in response to school shootings.
I noticed Oliver made some brief remarks about his conclusions about gun control. And they were pretty presumptive – I had the impression he was confident he was right and kinda thinks other people are unreasonable. Or he thinks his audience wants to feel superior to those people and be mean to them. He didn’t analyze that stuff with arguments – it wasn’t his actual topic this time.
I linked the video because I thought his main focus – some criticisms of school cops – had some good material.
Another problem with school cops that IIRC wasn’t mentioned was even if you put them in every school, and they work (which could easily require a dozen cops on shift at a time per school), that would be extremely expensive. And, bigger problem, I think people would start shooting up other softer targets instead – movie theaters, concerts, restaurants, etc. So I’m not sure it would significantly reduce shootings. And if they really want to shoot kids in particular, they can pick places like Chuck’e’Cheese, movies aimed at kids, the zoo, concerts with preteen audiences, or Disney on Ice shows. You can pretty easily find groups of kids at other places besides schools.
And we can’t just put cops at everything that has many people – that’s too expensive (and would be best handled by a much, much, much larger general police force, not by every individual place hiring their own security). Having security other than the general police only makes sense for particularly high value targets and should only ever be present at a pretty small fraction of places. Otherwise something is badly wrong. Schools are not particularly high value targets like a vault that stores a lot of gold, airports(?), or the home of a powerful famous person with enemies who can afford security.
You can’t just harden and protect all of society – there’s too much. And you shouldn’t pick a few special interest groups and put defenses at a few of the places they spend more time at. You need a different defensive strategy such as mobile police patrolling around, paying a lot for tips on school shooters, or monitoring social media for threats (I’m not suggesting those ideas; they are just the type of thing that could conceivably make sense, due to attempting to address the problem in a more broad, efficient way). Automation also works – if we put a killer drone in every school, rather than a cop, that could conceivably make sense. Then we just need a few people who can remote control it – much fewer than one person per school protected (this is just a plan to make the police more powerful without more manpower and could work for whole cities – it’s not school specific). Obviously there are downsides to putting drones with guns in schools, and I’m not recommending it, but at least it’s more scalable… And the drone operator will actually go in without worrying too much about (his drone) being shot, rather than waiting outside the door… Advocating something non-scalable doesn’t make sense. (Which reminds me that “arm teachers”, despite it’s problems, is at least scalable in a way that “add armed non-teachers to every school” is not.)
Putting cops in schools reminds me both of Captain Hindsight (from South Park) and post 9/11 airport security theater.
EDIT:
after refusing to be reasonable in private, Twitch changed their mind and unbanned Asmon after he complained in public
Amazon and Google CEOs are also personally involved in lobbying:
Jassy’s outreach is also a sign that he is approaching Washington differently than his predecessor, Jeff Bezos — who rarely directly interacted with members of Congress during his time at Amazon’s helm.
I think Steve Jobs also rarely directly interacted with members of Congress. So this appears to be getting worse.