Which is why we should either ban them or force them to make their algorithm public. Being a Chinese company, you have to be very naive not to assume close ties to the Chinese state. As a system rival, China is more opponent than partner and allowing them to operate such a network of influence, while they tightly prohibit any unwanted information themselves is foolish.

It’s time to tighten the grip.

They did waste vast amounts of own men and material when deciding to enter Ukraine to take a quick “short stroll” that somehow now already takes over 900 days. Wouldn’t be the first time they shoot themselves in the foot proper.

Why not both? ;)

“Hey! Hey! Notice me! I’m edgy! Hey!”

Perhaps I could say what I really think here, after all!

There’s only one way to find out.

I’m all in for disrupting bubbles here and there to prevent too strong biases from building. And sure, I guess you’ll collect a bunch of downvotes for your opinions. But as long as you stick to the rules, those comments should stay there, no matter the downvotes.

I would agree if the mods were to actually delete comments calling for e.g. stricter immigration laws or quicker deportations of rejected asylum seekers. This didn’t happen here and what was deleted wasn’t a contribution to discussion but generalising bs.

Feel free to contribute to the discussion with your own points of view. Those can be controversial without violating the community rules.

But since they are to be cut down eventually nevertheless, them being cut down now for a construction site isn’t as bad as the article makes it seem. Especially since Tesla was obliged to plant trees for an actual forest (i.e. diverse species) as compensation, which wouldn’t have happened otherwise. So in the end, cutting down these trees even creates more forest than before.

Those at least could be real…

The conversation is indeed over. Just not for the reasons you state here. As I pointed out you contradicted yourself and now try to deal with it in a “face-saving” manner. Block me if it helps you, I made my point. Bye.

I don’t think that “exposing” is the right term here.

I think it is. Bit by bit you are revealing that you are not condemning Russia’s invasion or maybe even apologise it, yourself treating it as a secret.

Russia did, and it had reasons for that. Whether I agree with the reasons is not the issue here, by the way

Oh, but it actually is! Your initial argument has been mocking those that complain about laws they don’t like. Your point was: laws are laws, whether you like them or not. A very broad and universal statement. From a legal point of view, this invasion of Russia is most definitely illegal. So you saying now that Russia had reasons and it does not matter whether you agree with or I know these “reasons” is the final erosion of your own argument. Would you follow what you preached earlier, you would strictly oppose this invasion. Yet you do not. Go figure.

I do not hold the view that there are cruel and less cruel war crimes.

There are and I am sure that you do, too. In other conflicts, be it World War 2 or maybe Middle East, I’d be more than surprised seeing you make this claim that both sides are simply equally as bad and hence picking a side is difficult. In this conflict, it is simply convenient for you to hide from nasty, challenging truths by proclaiming a general pardon “both sides are equally bad!”. As implausible as it might be.

This “aha, WHO attacked WHOM, huh? YOU SEE!!!” just misses the point of everything

From a legal point, it does not. And since legality is the core of this discussion, it is most relevant.

Could you please tone down your pitiful attempts at an ad-hominem discussion?

Ad hominems aim at irrelevant properties of a person. Whether the question where you are politically at home is aiming at something irrelevant can be debated, since it very likely is closely linked to your position in the conflict we are discussing. Nevertheless, it was a question and you are not obliged to answer it if it makes you uncomfortable.

Please let’s stay on track.

I won’t stop you exposing yourself.

It’s not like Putin woke up one morning and thought “I’m bored, I’m gonna invade Ukraine”.

That’s not an answer to my question. Who invaded?

Do you deny the fact that both sides committed (and continue to commit) war crimes?

Do you deny the extents of the crimes that happened in Butcha when attempting to “bothside” Ukraine and Russia here or do you actually think Ukraine has done equally horrible things?

It is debatable whether it was a “part of Ukraine” between the dissolution of the USSR and 1995.

From your source: In June 1992, the parties reached a compromise, that Crimea would have considerable autonomy but remain part of Ukraine.

I just found the phrase “Russia’s war” too simple.

Seeing how much difficulty you have to correctly name the country invading, I bet you do!

Let me ask: is it the German political landscape you are at home at or maybe even the Russian? Because even the putinophilic far-right nutjobs from the AfD only excuse Russia’s invasion (as does the equally putinophilic and equally populistic self-declared “left” poster girl Sarah W), but denying it is new. In which rabbit hole do I have to crawl to find these kind of positions?

Ahh, finally! So this is where we are going here.

It is not even “Russia’s war”.

Who invaded, then? Who massacred settlements like Bucha? Who declared that Ukraine isn’t a state but a part of Russia?

Are you aware of how Crimea was made a part of Ukraine in 1995?

No, I am not. Because Crimea was already a part of Ukraine beforehand (1954/1992), acknowledged by Russia. But I wonder what your point is? Ukraine deserved this war?

You’re still whatabouting here.

Pointing out that you yourself do not abide by the bold general statements you chose to make here is not whataboutism. That you permanently try to avoid any statement regarding Russia’s war and these laws doesn’t help you and your position either…

I dislike the law that makes them a criminal. That’s a different thing.

What makes you think this is different here? I don’t know her, but I think 15 years of penal colony for a 45€ donation is absolutely ridiculous. Especially, as the underlying war of aggression is - as we hopefully both agree?? - wrong. Why you choose to defend this is beyond me.

I still can’t see why Assange having been kept in prison for something that should not be illegal is relevant here.

Your words:

But I guess everyone here has a problem with people who violate the law. Now I can see that the laws in Russia are not what you, personally, think is right. FWIW, each country has laws which other countries don’t agree with.

He’s in violation of the law just as much as this ballerina. One of them you defend, the other not.

I support the endeavours of every country and every people to counter supranationalism (“strong state EU”, “strong state USA”, that sort of thing) with sovereignty.

Then you should have a critical opinion on Russia’s imperialistic adventures in its neighbouring country and the laws ensuing this aggression. Or does this support conveniently only include those countries under attack/pressure from “the West”?

As I said, two wrongs don’t make a right.

No one is trying to make this point. The point is that you defend the victim of American “unfair” laws but not the victim of Russian “unfair” laws, making your argument seem rather shallow.

I openly denounced the fact that our “friends” from the “Western values” are imprisoning a journalist for doing his job. I demanded that they raise their laws to a non-dictatorial level. The fact that international and national law are not always the same thing has once again been clearly demonstrated here. But what does this excursion into whataboutism have to do with the criminals being prosecuted in Russia?

So "I like criminals if the victim is someone I don’t like!” is apparently something you are as equally guilty of as those you are trying to attribute it here. It would have been more consistent for your standpoint if you had actually also applied it towards those criminals you feel inclined to.

Treason is not only a crime during a war.

It is not. But as you can read in the article, it has recently been tightened in line with fear of growing criticism of the Russian war of aggression. Of course you might choose to defend this. Maybe as it isn’t, for a change, a war of - your words and punctuation - our “friends” of “Western values” and some might find it challenging to escape from their traditional world view with America as the force behind wars. Or maybe because you simply support Russian nationalism and aggression, I don’t know. It is, however, a very strange look and a weird hill to die on.

Assange was held in accordance with the law, although I personally don’t think journalism should be penalised.

So you didn’t object his prosecution? Can we make this point clear? Although you personally don’t think journalism should be penalised, you were okay with him living the life he did for the last years and openly said so?

I understand that the Russian laws don’t suit you.

Yup, especially since we are talking about those that have been imposed or tightened in line with Russia’s invasion. I oppose these laws as I oppose their cause: the barbaric and imperialistic war Russia brings to Ukraine until this very day. And so should you, btw.

(Almost) Nobody here likes autocrats, my friend.

Yet I have the feeling I found one of the few that does.

I guess everyone here has a problem with people who violate the law. Now I can see that the laws in Russia are not what you, personally, think is right. FWIW, each country has laws which other countries don’t agree with.

Alrighty, let’s put that to the test: do you want Snowden and Assange locked up behind bars?

e: “Runterwählen ist kein Gegenargument”, don’t forget that… ;)

“I like autocrats if others are the victims!”

So what’s the alternative? Hitler could be defeated by “externals” (i.e. other countries) by force because he didn’t have the bomb.

With Putin, that’s different. No one in their right mind would suggest invading Russia by force and toppling him, as that would likely lead to nuclear escalation. However, that only leaves an “internal” solution. As we (extern) cannot topple him, his citizens (intern) have to do it instead. And I don’t think we have to sit there and silently accept him and his country spreading war in the meantime.

Morale is one of the most important things in war… :)