Social media platforms should provide more tools to help people decide for themselves what is true and what is fake news/disinformation. One way might be to use those in a persons network to help a person decide what are reliable sources.
I am strongly against social media companies censoring fake news as they are not entities that I want to be arbiters of truth. They are potentially more powerful than government in their control of information and would generally be held unaccountable if they censored true information that is damaging to their priorities.
I agree with you. News must be independent and free from censorship. The emergence of entire corporations creating fake news is just awful. I think that we need more independent sources that provide information in their original form: only facts without political nuances. There is an argument to say that social media has caused cable news outlets to become more biased so they can try to get more “likes” and “shares” on social media. The media bias has resulted in lowering confidence in what the news reports. |
|
|
|
People who will get the special treatment from me
suchmoon
Looks like my trust rating on you is spot on. So I'm assuming I'm getting a free massage or something. Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.
I am not an expert, but I think you might have forgotten to explain why he is a scammer. |
|
|
|
Tbh, I don't think this matters much politically, despite all the hot air. This might swing a few conservative moderates and undecideds, but Trump's base is Trump's base. They do not perceive the rhetorical environment the President has fostered, and don't understand the constant attacks on Trump from liberal media. So any political coin gained is useless to spend.
What about the rhetoric by the likes of Maxine Waters, Corey Booker, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and others? Sometimes explicitly calling for violence and in others implicitly calling for violence. How do you feel about liberal Mayors ordering police to stand down for political purposes, resulting in danger to many innocent lives? What about either condoning or ignoring violence when it happens? All that is okay, right? The double standard of the left is sickening and removes their credibility. Frankly many on the left with these double standard are outright bad people. But none of these people are the POTUS. I would hope that the highest office in our country was held to a higher regard. I don't like Trump, but he is the president and I respect the office and consequently the man. Americans should have a role model in the POTUS, as he is the literal representation of our nation on a global stage. Is this behavior acceptable to you, sincerely? And finally, if it's enough to criticize on the other side, why condone the behavior from your own? The examples I gave were not taken out of context. The examples of Trump inciting violence are either exaggerated or taken out of context. I don't support Trump doing things like patting a congressmen on the back for body slamming a journalist, although I think it is a stretch that this was Trump encouraging violence. Further, several of the examples I gave were current sitting elected officials, and one was the presidential nominee from the Democrat party. The standard held to these people should not be that much lower than the President. |
|
|
|
It looks like a ton of new people, especially non-English speakers, think that DT are staff/moderators. They're not entirely wrong. After all, DT members *are* capable of effectively "banning" accounts from conducting any business here.
That's not true, though. I've seen cases where people with negs from DT have no trouble whatsoever doing deals here, depending on what the feedback was for, of course. A lot of members apparently don't even check a person's trust page before deciding whether to transact with that person--and that's how many of them get scammed, too. There are exceptions to all of this, however in general, someone who joins the forum for the purpose of conducting business will also otherwise contribute to the community, but only as long as they can continue conducting business. So if something is substantially impeding their ability to conduct business, they will stop contributing otherwise to the community. Also, on its face, having the warning to trade with extreme caution is going to prevent you from trading, and as such, many people will not even attempt to continue trading. This is not the case on this forum, however many other forums ban scammers from trading and some people may have seen elsewhere that those who are "tagged" as scammers cannot continue to trade. For those that attempt to continue trading after having their warning to trade with extreme caution on their profile and marketplace posts, few are able to conduct any meaningful business. |
|
|
|
So you don't really believe what you say? Nut up and support your words with actions. Put your money where your mouth is.
There is a difference between what I think will happen and what I am willing to wager will happen... Sometimes I think the Washington Generals will finally pull out a win but I wouldn't wager on it!!!!!!! 30 or I'll pass thanks. I get it, you don't really believe what you say.  Oh horse shit, it's an unpredictable future event. Just because I won't bet you on it doesn't mean I don't think it will happen, odds matter. Give me 2 to 1 odds and I will take the 35 seat bet!!! You want 2 to 1 odds for something that is favorable to happen? That doesn’t sound very fair. |
|
|
|
Tbh, I don't think this matters much politically, despite all the hot air. This might swing a few conservative moderates and undecideds, but Trump's base is Trump's base. They do not perceive the rhetorical environment the President has fostered, and don't understand the constant attacks on Trump from liberal media. So any political coin gained is useless to spend.
What about the rhetoric by the likes of Maxine Waters, Corey Booker, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and others? Sometimes explicitly calling for violence and in others implicitly calling for violence. How do you feel about liberal Mayors ordering police to stand down for political purposes, resulting in danger to many innocent lives? What about either condoning or ignoring violence when it happens? All that is okay, right? The double standard of the left is sickening and removes their credibility. Frankly many on the left with these double standard are outright bad people. |
|
|
|
I don't understand they say they arrested someone but then later in the article say they have 24 teams looking for the culprit? That is probably because they edited the article in a hurry to report on the news. This has been reported by multiple major news organizations. Authorities have made an arrest in relation to this.
We will probably find out his political affiliations soon and potentially his motives.
No we won't, unless of course it supports the mainstream narrative. If it is anything else it will be buried like Las Vegas. I am not sure about this. There is very little information available in regards to the Vegas shooting and there are more than one MSM organization with compeating ideology. |
|
|
|
|
Authorities have made an arrest in relation to this.
We will probably find out his political affiliations soon and potentially his motives.
|
|
|
|
Posting without reading anything is back again. Lol, I was going through my PMs when I saw your Profile with the Negative trust... Your last post led me to this thread. Went through 3 pages of it and surprisingly found you trolling. Something which I didn't associate you with in the past. But looks like getting Removed from Default trust has started to mess with your ego.  
Lauda has a long history of trolling those who he is in a dispute with. He rarely will engage in meaningful dialogue with his critics. |
|
|
|
|
Former CIA director John Brennan essentially blames Trump for the mailing of the bombs. It is statements like this that remove the credibility of the condemnations of this act of terror.
His employer should absolutely immediately fire Brennan for this, especially considering that he is not in any actual danger from these packages, it is the employees of the mailroom who these packages are most likely to hurt.
|
|
|
|
A select few people in power around here seem to be very power hungry. [...] You tried your best to get numerous positions of power here starting with default trust and then escrowing It is too bad that I never asked to be put on anyone's trust list, I resisted people who were suggesting that I ask to be put back on after I was removed the 1st time, and resisted requests from multiple people to create alts to be added to their DT1 trust list. It is also too bad that I initially resisted escrowing any transactions when I first started receiving requests to do so, and did not open an escrow thread until I completed dozens of escrow transactions resulting from unsolicited requests from others to me. Further, many on both Blazed's and hilariousandco's trust lists have little to no trading experience (yet interestingly have a decent amounts of trust ratings ), I don't usually look for people who have lots of trading experience, but for people who can leave what I believe to be accurate ratings. That is the problem. Those who lack trading experience lack the incentives to maintain a healthy marketplace, and have nothing to lose when they handle a rating unfairly, or unprofessionally. One could argue there is not even any basis to say they have or can leave accurate ratings.
One thing I have noticed is several instances in which negative ratings have been left for things that was very likely to be not nefarious behavior who attempt to dispute their loss of reputation only to be met with trolling and a refusal to discuss the underlying merits of the rating, and these people essentially rage quit by starting to troll and make transparent scam attempts they likely would not have made if their reputation had been intact. |
|
|
|
I would say shame on those in this thread who are attempting to politicize this act of terrorism. Fucking right wing nut jobs or IOW Trump NATIONALISTS!!!!!!!!!!!
Republicans produce terrorists, democrats produce affordable health care!
That is sad. Probably done by a right wing extremist with some serious psychiatric disorder.
Oh, looks like all the targets were Trump's targets, turns out he incited this violence.
Trump was right to quickly condemn this act of terrorism, and he was right to describe this as an attack on our democracy. This type of behavior has no place in our society. I can't say if this is a "false flag" or not, however it is very shameful for those on the left to claim this is somehow Trumps fault, when it has been many on the left actively advocating for what can reasonably be described as acts of violence on the right. |
|
|
|
From the WSJ editorial board:
The Politics of Pipe Bombs
All those who choose violence need to be held accountable.
Wednesday brought ugly news that bomb-like devices had been mailed to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, which followed the discovery Monday of a pipe bomb in the mailbox at the Westchester County, N.Y., home of George Soros, the billionaire funder of liberal political causes. Apparent explosive devices were also discovered Wednesday at the New York office of CNN, as well as at a district office of Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The motives of the sender aren’t known, though the devices suggest a pattern that could make them related. The urgent burden now is on the FBI, the Secret Service and the U.S. Postal Service to find the culprit.
Let’s hope the FBI does a better job than it did in 2001 when anthrax-laced letters killed several Americans. The FBI spent years hounding an innocent man before settling on a federal researcher who committed suicide in 2008 after learning he’d be charged. Especially so close to an election, the public should discount unconfirmed leaks about suspects or motives.
Close to an election there are also attempts to blame the devices on intemperate political rhetoric, especially from Donald Trump. We doubt this, and we doubt it in the same way we never believed the attack on Steve Scalise and other Republicans as they were playing baseball in Virginia in 2017 was the fault of Bernie Sanders, though the man guilty of the shooting rampage was a Bernie volunteer.
On Wednesday Mr. Trump condemned the act of sending the devices and said that “in these times, we have to unify. We have to come together, and send one very clear, strong, unmistakable message that acts or threats of political violence of any kind have no place in the United States of America. ”
That wasn’t good enough for Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, who issued a joint statement saying Mr. Trump’s “words ring hollow until he reverses his statements that condone acts of violence.” As if this is a moment to settle political scores.
Mr. Obama offered a better message in Tucson in 2011 when he paid tribute to those killed by the madman who also wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords. Mr. Obama said the lack of civility in politics wasn’t to blame—and he cautioned against a political impulse to “lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do.”
If we want to make America less vulnerable to violence, we’d do better to look past the political rhetoric and insist on exacting a higher price from those who choose violence. Those who burn universities because they don’t like the speaker, white supremacists who seek out and engage in brawls, or masked protestors breaking shop windows—they all deserve the full sanction of the law. The priority now is to find the person responsible—and then ensure the offender spends a long time in prison. |
|
|
|
|
The financial crisis was described at the time as a once-in-a-lifetime event by many economists. I believe they are likely correct considering that global financial crisis have occurred less than once per generation in the past.
The current economic cycle is at the point in which some kind of recession is likely in the future however it has been at that point for some time now.
The “wrench” in the economic equation is the buying up massive amounts of government debt as a way to lower long term interest rates. We don’t know how the unwinding of this stimulus will affect the economy or if this will be used in future recessions successfully.
In regards to how the price of bitcoin will be affected by a global recession, this depends on a number of things.
There is decent evidence that last years run up in price was largely driven by hedge funds and similar institutions, and many of these funds still have large holdings today. If these funds are facing withdrawal requests, they may sell some of their coins to pay these withdrawals. If there is a deep economic recession, many hedge funds will likely face a lot of withdrawal requests— this is actually what caused Madeoff (or however you spell his name) was exposed, he was facing more withdrawal requests than he could handle because everyone was selling nearly every financial asset.
If the recession is more mild, investors may go to crypto as a hedge against inflation that is risked when interest rates are lowered to combat the recession and spur economic growth. Citizens of countries whose economies are not based on dollars may also flock to bitcoin to prevent being affected by a deviation of their local currency.
|
|
|
|
....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.
Sounds about right, don't it lad? I wonder what AUTOBAN is. Bpip is confusing me. @Vod what does "profile has been autobanned" mean? Autobanned from bpip? Autobanned from sending you PM? German word for highway   It is posts like these make me wonder why other reputable people want to be associated with you. This is probably not a conversation they want to have. |
|
|
|
Does that fit? Copy: 1° L’utilisation de sociétés écran, dont l’activité n’est pas cohérente avec l’objet social ou ayant leur siège social dans un Etat ou un territoire qui n’a pas conclu avec la France une convention fiscale permettant l’accès aux informations bancaires, identifié à partir d’une liste publiée par l’administration fiscale, ou à l’adresse privée d’un des bénéficiaires de l’opération suspecte ou chez un domiciliataire au sens de l’article L. 123-11 du code de commerce ;
2° La réalisation d’opérations financières par des sociétés dans lesquelles sont intervenus des changements statutaires fréquents non justifiés par la situation économique de l’entreprise ;
3° Le recours à l’interposition de personnes physiques n’intervenant qu’en apparence pour le compte de sociétés ou de particuliers impliqués dans des opérations financières ;
4° La réalisation d’opérations financières incohérentes au regard des activités habituelles de l’entreprise ou d’opérations suspectes dans des secteurs sensibles aux fraudes à la TVA de type carrousel, tels que les secteurs de l’informatique, de la téléphonie, du matériel électronique, du matériel électroménager, de la hi-fi et de la vidéo ; -Snip-
Original: 1° L’utilisation de sociétés écran, dont l’activité n’est pas cohérente avec l’objet social ou ayant leur siège social dans un Etat ou un territoire qui n’a pas conclu avec la France une convention fiscale permettant l’accès aux informations bancaires, identifié à partir d’une liste publiée par l’administration fiscale, ou à l’adresse privée d’un des bénéficiaires de l’opération suspecte ou chez un domiciliataire au sens de l’article L. 123-11 du code de commerce ;
2° La réalisation d’opérations financières par des sociétés dans lesquelles sont intervenus des changements statutaires fréquents non justifiés par la situation économique de l’entreprise ;
3° Le recours à l’interposition de personnes physiques n’intervenant qu’en apparence pour le compte de sociétés ou de particuliers impliqués dans des opérations financières ;
4° La réalisation d’opérations financières incohérentes au regard des activités habituelles de l’entreprise ou d’opérations suspectes dans des secteurs sensibles aux fraudes à la TVA de type carrousel, tels que les secteurs de l’informatique, de la téléphonie, du matériel électronique, du matériel électroménager, de la hi-fi et de la vidéo ;
That is an exact copy of the website but he shouldn’t be banned for that post. The website was cited in the post above and it should be clear within the context of the post that he was not attempting to take credit for the copied content— he was citing reasons why AML(?) reports would have to be made and said that none applied to him. Edit: What I'm trying to say is that the posts are 12 hours apart. Within 7 (or 10 or whatever the grace period is) minutes you wouldn't get the dotted line and my parser wouldn't get a LastEdited date but after 12 hours it certainly would have a dotted line and an edit date.
I'm an idiot and definitely need to see (pun intended) an eye doctor. It is AM and PM...my god. /thread I would want to know why the original post was deleted. If it was deleted by the person behind the account, maybe that is an alt of the OP and he just reposted what he originally wrote. |
|
|
|
OP was only recently added to DT.
Quite off-topic OgNasty added OP on his/her trust list. As a result, OP was automatically trusted by the people who had added OgNasty on their trust list. Am I correct? I'm just little curious about the trust system. Correct, or more specifically, OPs trust ratings are automatically included in trust rating calculations to those that have OgNasty in their trust list. |
|
|
|
Just now noticed The Pharmacist tagged by OP iluvbitcoins as well he/she is also in DT list. Personally I don't think this is enough reason to tag. There is no reference to identify why he got tag. Is this counter tag ?
OP attempted to blackmail us into removing their ratings. We got tagged for not giving in. Any attempts at making their ratings appear under a real pretense is therefore void (actually makes them a even less trustworthy).  Do you have no self awareness? Or do you just not care about your transparent hypocrisy? |
|
|
|
The above says two things, 1st it explicitly says that the bitcoin would be held in 3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z, and 2nd, it implied that each of the three above escrows would be the sole custodian of one of the three private keys that can spend funds in the above address, requiring two of those keys.
No, it doesn't say that; this is what happens when a butthurt, pathetic scammer is interpreting the situation. That was that investment address; it has nothing to do with where funds were going to be kept. The above is a breach of contract.
There is no contract that implies any such restriction, nor was there any breach of any kind of imaginary contract. -snip-
There are no missing funds. When will you stop being upset that I trampled over your shady account-farming business? It's time to forfeit the lies. My analysts and the underlying facts speak for themselves. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
