Designing the bombs was the relatively easy part of the process and these two had the benefit of 20 yrs of knowledge since the invention.

The really tough part at the time was refining enough uranium for it.

We used to call drones "RC planes". It would be absolutely trivial to buy an off the shelf RC drone and put some sort of weapon on it.

and they give you a glorified RC plane.

They had to put you behind a desk after you took an arrow to the knee.

I mean sure, but that doesn't really change the underlying facts.

They were operating on false information, but the fact that operating without a taillight is legal was confirmed so why would any evidence found during a follow up search not be fruit of a poisonous tree?

It shouldn't matter what the officer thinks, it should matter what the law is. If you prove that the probable cause is bunk, then the search wasn't legal despite being done with "best intentions".

No, you're putting words in my mouth...

I'm saying that if you want to change the law, appealing to Biden, in the executive branch, isn't going to get you very far.

You're aware that right now, he's the President, right? And right now is what we're talking about?

OK, but we were talking about Biden specifically.

I get your frustration and I feel it too. However you're being imprecise in who you blame.

If you want to blame anyone for lack of legislative progress look at Manchin and Sinema. If you think those two represent the party as a whole you're going to have a hard time with me taking you seriously.

"I don't understand the limitations of the executive branch."

Because he literally can't. It requires legislation.

Not corporations. Rich selfish sociopaths... There are people who make these decisions who have names and addresses.

Sure, but at the cost of being found out. 50x white box trucks driving around would go unnoticed forever I would think.

Makes me wonder why they didn't just do this in a land vehicle. Not like they couldn't have someone drive around with a giant antenna in a truck. Our roads are completely open.

Is the altitude necessary?

Here y'go.

Is it slowly going to turn into a stock car racing game?

Dude, they're not mutually exclusive...

Torie is a group of ideas not an identity... Or shouldn't be. You can tell because you can switch away from it by simply changing you're mind. This is exactly what I mean by conservatives not getting it. You're treating your ideas as your identity so see criticism as bigotry.

Sorry bucko, that's not how it works. Attacks on political ideas are fine. It's called discourse.

Fuck the luddites. Fuck the willfully ignorant. Fuck conservatives. Fuck the bigots.

All good.

Fuck the leftists is ok too. Btw.

Having said that, it's not high quality discourse either.

You don't remember me saying that the statement has to be false and harmful? You don't remember me telling you that the only one of those that would run afoul is the "There was election fraud" one? The others aren't even close and would easily pass a "reasonable person" test in court of law.

In the case of the election fraud one that's a literal documented piece of disinformation. It's literally called "The Big Lie". We know it's an intentional lie with the intent to cause harm. If you're so credulous that you can't identify that one I'm not sure what to tell you?

I would imagine these deliberations would run very similar to defamation, slander or libel cases, but instead of a single person being libeled, it's a whole category. If I say "Kill Bob", that's incitement to violence. If I say "Kill all Bobs" how is that not worse?

Instances on private websites would of course be mediated by private websites.

> I mean, look, what you are describing was tried in the UK per this post. Lots of people spent a lot of time and money on it and it failed (hurt freedom and backfired).

Um, that's emphatically not what the article says. It says the plan was never implemented due to public distaste. We never got to see if it worked.

> Speech censorship has been tried and is tried throughout history and it has always significantly negatively impacted democracy and freedom.

Bullshit. We censor all the damn time! It keeps children safe. It keeps forums civil. You just don't see it because it's working. Not to say it's perfect but to say that censorship always fails is... I'm sorry... just ridiculous.

> Just saying "we just haven't figured it out yet" isn't a valid response to then take away freedoms yet again.

I'm not saying that. Plenty of people and organizations use censorship for good purposes effectively. It's figured out. I'm just not an expert so I can't give you the details.

> Saying "we need to do something" is dangerous in that it ignores the fact that the government and laws are not able to solve every problem in existence. The question should be instead "what effective tools do we have to limit hate speech?"

>"We need to do something " is an emotional argument to solve a logical problem. Wanting to solve it does not mean it's solvable.

I'm really not sure what your point is here. You seem to take it as settled fact that "censorship cannot be done effectively or precisely" and I keep pointing out that we already do it... constantly.

> You can't legislate away complex problems. Think about it, if we could effectively legislate away problems we would have done it by now.

This simply doesn't follow. Failure doesn't imply no solution. It simply means THAT method was a failure. You're smarter than this, you've shown me.

> Throwing shit at the wall isn't bad for society especially when it's at the cost of our freedom.

I mean... shit causes disease? You sure that's the metaphor you want?

> I'm not willing to give up my freedom because you want to "do something", especially when it has never proven to be effective. In contrast "doing something" results in making things worse.

Curious... what views do you hold that you think would run afoul of these rules? I'm really only talking about bigotry and harmful disinformation. Do you spread those often?

What value do we preserve by allowing bigotry and harmful disinformation? Cuz I don't buy that we cannot reliably identify it. Since we do it already.

> I think you describe it at a high level but where I think this breaks down is on literally the exact logic or criteria that would be used to deem something "hate" or "false and damaging". Basically where the rubber meets the road.

I would bet we could come up with something good enough. Could you give some examples of speech that you think would be difficult to classify?

> When you actually think about ok how do I describe this, it becomes very hard to do consistently and without casting too wide a net.

Why?

> Leaving it up to companies to just "use there best judgement" based on high level goals from the government is not good for a variety of reasons. It's too subjective and would be coerced.

Why? The government already advises on what it sees as disinformation. It's not binding nor coercive. (That would be a violation of constitutional free speech so it's not on the table.) There's no carrot or stick. It's just information.

> It's very hard to clearly define different types of speech to consistently and clearly dictate what is acceptable and what is not.

So we shouldn't try to do hard things? Or do you mean impossible?

> In anyone who I eve have talked to on this subject have ever been able to in detail describe "the rules" and instead it's very broad goals that would be way to subjective and overly prevent speech which is exatwhat happened in the UK when it was implemented...

That's an inherently flawed expectation though. We're just laypeople, we're not going to have detailed policy at the ready. We only have broad goals. We're not the ones responsible for the minutiae.

You seem to think that it's either too hard or not possible to write rules to police content. I disagree and can point to thousands of sites that do it everyday with varying levels of success. (Also, maybe, if your site is so big that you can't properly keep it safe you shouldn't have let it get so big without the proper expansion of infrastructure...)

Thanks! I appreciate that you recognized that. Really.

So first of all "Hate" is probably the easier one to tackle. It can be defined kinda like "Dehumanizing or calling for violence on vulnerable people for shit that's inherent to their persons". Let people be who they are without fear is the goal there.

Second, "false" isn't a problem. "False" and "damaging" are a problem. Like for a non-political example, if you spread information that say tide pods cure gastric reflux or something.

It's not about "offense" it's about information that can be shown with data to be harmful.

As to the who and how specifics... I honestly would need to think more about that. One law that might be interesting is that social media companies would be required to implement their policies equally and can be sued if they're found to not be.

As to the general question of finding "truth" our court systems combined with good science I think are the best tools we can look to. Not perfect, by far, but it's the best we got. (Don't get me started on judicial reform)

Dude, I literally told you it's because you're being condescending... and you're still being condescending.

What have I to gain here by talking to you? I'm not gonna change your mind and you're not gonna change mine. If you were open minded about things you wouldn't be condescending.

The fact that you're assuming I don't want to continue the conversation because I can't hang is just more proof you would rather "win" than have a discussion. So yeah, I'm trying to avoid that pointless back and forth. Apparently not doing so good though.

> Please explain 3 key things if you want any sort of credibility here.

LOL nvm... too much condescension for my taste. Christ... "if you want any sort of credibility". Get out of your own asshole.

How has it expanded in a way that you disagree with? Cuz as far as I can tell it's at it's most distilled "Fucking with people for shit that is inherent to their person".

The reason that your examples are allowed is because hate is viewed within context of our society and history. If you think that racism against white people or sexism against men has been significantly problematic ever you're pretty ignorant.

As soon as white men are under threat of subjugation or discrimination in any significant way I'll agree that those phrases should be banned. Until then they are only offensive and not harmful.

Bahahah talk about stupidity. They're talking about bigotry, not criticism of ideologies. That you don't seem to know the difference is worrying...

It's perfectly fine to criticize and dislike ideologies you disagree with. What's bad is hating people for who they are. It's fine to dislike how people behave.

This seems to lost on most conservatives...

Your examples show a complete misunderstanding of what people actually want to do... none of them would fall under the type of censorship discussed... except for election fraud.

There's nothing wrong with deleting that comment that is factually wrong and the user shouldn't feel upset for being corrected, right? If it's an honest mistake?

Also, nobody is owed publishing online. You still have free speech. You've just been ejected from a private business. Do NOT give me that "public square" bullshit either. Size does not make it public. Full stop. It has literally nothing to do with public vs private.