The title is incorrect. The child is a U.S. citizen and was not deported. His brother, also a U.S. citizen, remains in the U.S. The parents were illegally in the country and they were deported. They chose to take their young son back with them.
JasSmith
joined 2 years ago
I'm not really sure I understand what you're arguing here. That reusable rockets are easy to build as long as the government gives one some land to use? If that were true we would have had reusable rockets many decades ago.
I can confirm it's resolving rt.com. I've tested on two ISPs here in Denmark and both block the domain. I'm wondering if there are regional differences in the legislation or edicts.
I work in IT so I can confidently inform you that the vast majority of people do not change their DNS providers. Very few people would know how. Recall that my comment above is not about how easy circumventing censorship is, it was about the censorship existing at all, and how the EU would censor results in a search engine they create.
It's a perfectly valid ideological divide here, so I can't tell you you're "wrong." I would argue that in order to believe that democracy is valid, one must subscribe to the belief in individual agency. That is, the ability for people to make rational decisions about not only themselves, but their society. If one believes that, they should believe that the same people must have access to as much knowledge as they wish - especially if it's from the guys who oppose the current people in power. Democracy fails to function if the people in power can suppress criticism.
That's a fair and nuanced take. You're right that there should be some exceptions for illegal content, but my line is clearly much further into the freedom spectrum than the EU has drawn that line. To roll up to my original claim: they would immediately ban many sites on any search engine they created, and they would do so for many reasons I am uncomfortable with.
The user asked why I believed the EU would ban sites. I gave them the answer. Why would you expect me to reply with something unrelated to their question? You just don't like that a) I'm correct - the EU would immediately ban sites on their search engine, and b) you're comfortable with the government telling you which books you're allowed to read. I'm not.
I have whiplash. You've gone from an implied "that's not happening" to "okay so it's happening, and here's why it's a good thing!" Why feign ignorance if you knew that I was correct?
I don't believe any government has the right to restrict which books and news sites I should be allowed to access. I think I am the best person to decide which knowledge I should have access to.
rt.com is blocked for me. If you can access it and you're based in the EU it means you're using a foreign DNS provider like 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8.
I understand well the arguments used by governments to restrict access to books and websites. I reject them. I believe I am the best person to decide which knowledge I am allowed to access. I am certainly far more qualified than the government.
How quickly we shift from "it's not happening" to "okay it's happening, and here's why it's a good thing!" It's fine that you prefer the government to choose which information you're allowed to view. I don't. I believe I should be allowed access to all information, and I should be allowed to choose what I want to read. I think banning books and websites and news is wrong.
No I mean actual censorship. For example, RT and Sputnik. They have also banned PressTV and CGTN. They suspended broadcast licenses for EADaily / Eurasia Daily, Fondsk, Lenta, NewsFront, RuBaltic, SouthFront, Strategic Culture Foundation, and Krasnaya Zvezda / Tvzvezda. All of these sites would be explicitly banned from any EU based search engine.
Note that I am not giving American tech companies a free pass here. Google is one of the worst.
Also note that "censorship" doesn't exclusively refer to government censorship. That is an American-centric perspective using the Constitution as the lens. Censorship is often conducted by individuals and organisations. In this case I am referring to the EU.
Scroll down to spending categories. Most money is spent on things like social security, medicare, veteran care, unemployment insurance, and health. Defense is 13% (and absolutely needs to be audited ASAP). Interest payments on debt is now 13% and growing fast. This is why it's important to at least reduce the deficit as fast as possible. Imagine how much good the government could do with another $400B each year without those interest payments. (well, maybe not this government, but the next one).