Global trade has been here for decades. Look at the Unitd Fruit Company or East Indian Company. Nothing new there. Horrifying oppression is always around, to a greater or lesser extent. People talking aobut the hypothetical oppression of the New World Order or whatever are generally quite happy ignoring the actual oppression going on now they are complicit it.
Case in point, transgender people
I think advanced technology, such as Twitter, are putting a new spin on what this "great reset" or "4th Industrial Revolution" will bring. It will be different than anything global trade has been doing previously. Social credit scores, carbon use taxes, an advanced surveillance state and more. I don't think we're going to be bored over the next couple of decades. Kind of its own topic. I'll review our Tech forum to see if anyone has been talking about this.
I haven't watched the show, but I read the first book a couple weeks ago. It's pretty solid if not a bit derivative. The usual 1984 stuff, big twist, the girl on fire, WHOS IN CHARGE OF THE SNOWPIERCER, whatever. "What if you knew the truth?!" Yeah yeah soilent green is people, blah blah. Fun though. Don't worry I'm not spoiling anything I'm just saying if you've read one of these dystopian books you've read them all, I liked the main character, curious to see how they adapt her on screen.
Well...yes...but then again that's also always been the case. The details change enormously, the broad scheme of things looks much the same.
The the reason being when each new iPhone that came out and when earlier adopters bought one, they became glorified beta testers. The phone's got over expensive and started off worse each time.
Despite some of its uses, Twitter was never good to begin with. I've said this time again and again, this cesspool of a "website" was always and there's nothing more than a glorified chat room everyone can see. Like I said before, Twitter sure as hell did do a damn thing about most of the Neo-Nazis, the Trump supporters, and KKK because they were afraid of a backlash from them, if said people at the top removed "free speech" from the fuckers, and fearing their bottom line. Not to mention Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and many other social media sites doing nothing and sitting on their asses when these malcontents were all planning to overthrow the government and pulled a terrorist attack. The fact that they removed all of Trump's tweets, and then later banned the alt-right douchebags after the fact, showed none of the people at the top of Twitter had nothing to fear to begin with, and only did so at the last minute to save face to the actual victims or those trying to do the right thing. The ones they were happily to abandon our use as their shields. Those who used to own Twitter or had a high position of authority are just as responsible as Musk. Even more so than his pathetic formaldehyde!
Not yet. One of the pieces of withdrawal legislation moved all existing EU regulations, including food safety standards, into UK law automatically. This was entirely necessary for Brexit to be possible: the UK (like many European countries) hadn't bothered to make separate British legislation for things already covered by EU regulation, because it would have been redundant. So that meant there was a heap of EU regulations we did want, alongside the ones we theoretically didn't want. Hence: auto transfer it all into UK law, then the gov can take its time repealing just what it doesn't want. Almost sensible, insofar as Brexit can be sensible at all, which isn't much.
This may come as a surprise to you, but businesses operate at the benevolence of the governments of countries outside the one they're founded in. Now this is not a defence of Edrogan or what he's doing but if a country says to Twitter that your operation is no longer welcome in our country without the following changes, then that business has two options: comply or leave. Its the way of things, and as we all know, businesses do not take (effective or genuine) moral stands.
While overall correct that companies don't take moral stands, this exact situation happened in 2014.
Yes, and by my quick read that was a challenge heard in a Turkish court which means the government sent representatives and the courts agreed to hear the case. The government can simply decide it has no case to answer and instruct the court to refuse to hear the case and you can pick any number of nebulous law or policies tucked away in national security and related legislation for that.While overall correct that companies don't take moral stands, this exact situation happened in 2014.
Twitter, instead of caving, challenged it in court and won. I don't know if Twitter 2020 would have done it again, but Twitter 2023 folded like a soggy napkin.
On the one hand, not wrong, on the other, it was clearly unenforceable and wildly unpopular. And sufficiently unpopular sentiment can dislodge quite a bit of wrongdoing.
Correct; Twitter's continued operation is now incumbent on the people of Turkey holding their government to account.
Well, you'll get no argument from me on that one.
www.forbes.com
