At least the name suits the aggregated-from sites.

That was partially the purpose of the name, yes. :)

Cus sending money to Ukraine benefits our politicians (wether thru holding 'defense' stocks or investments in rebuilding Ukr). Helping out the poor is un-American, anti capitalistic.

Stronger seems to mean afraid in this case. RF are taking care of business. Americans dont have any on the ground tactics, in this case, they are taking notes how to fight.

This is SpaceX though not Tesla, has he given a similar statement for their policy?

Unless it's about Russia, then flame away!

Not so - we care about this rule regardless of country - it would be hypocritical otherwise. Unfortunately, massive global trends overwhelm moderation and there's a limit to what we can do under one of those tidal waves. For one thing, it's not possible to read all the comments.

The Guardian(lmao at the name): Russia bad. Western knuckleheads: Yes, this is known.

At least require them to watch a sped up 5min video of a lithium battery bursting on fire. With attempts at extinguishing the flames. Make the user realize it will not be a normal fire. A lot of people wouldnt imagine a small solid device to act that way.

Huh, I wonder if they wrote that in after they looted dry their former colonies..

Why, what difference would it make? The law is that the crown (potentially) owns it, so assuming you're meaning that it's hypocritical... no not really? (Unless 'they' is 'the British people' who democratically/collectively looted and then later (or whenever it was) wrote laws?)

They did leave a source pointing to examples. It was a bit of a long read but I found it relieving.

I see an indictment of media behavior, probably deserved. But no actual false statements (although I bailed after the first couple thousand words).

Specialist sounds like they need someone with a thicker skin for that role. Most 'social media' roles are filled with snowflakes anyway, staffing failure. Stay offline.

This kind of discourse sounds very much alike to the school yard bully calling others "snowflakes". Where do we draw the line on abusive language? Should it be totally accepted online and only in school yards banned? Should it be allowed everywhere? Should we allow the president mock people with disabilities? "Stick and stones can break my bones but words never harm me" sounds a bit antiquated nowadays but should we come back to that age of disrespect for the others, only because it's not physical?

> Where do we draw the line on abusive language?

Social interactions are full of gray areas and legislation obviously doesn't and can't catch it all. Some people have rather controversial definitions of violence and abuse. Though, I think social consensus is that physical violence threats are well beyond any grayness.

I think you didn't read the article.