This is one side of the story. It’s entirely possible CF did provide those details

Thank you for bringing some sanity to the discussion

They’re a Filipino. Not exactly an infamous source of antisemitists. And ‘88’ may mean something in the west, but here in Asia it generally means nothing more than your birth year.

Are we now accusing others of antisemitism based on nothing more than a few random letters? WTF?

Becky sounds fun. Got her number?

That’s not sarcasm, that’s satire

Hope she’s doing well, shame what the CCP did to her

Just don’t do it in the landfills, then? Ethylene glycol is a chemical with practical uses, there’s no reason not to collect it in a recycling facility.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

Lots of things are toxic, we can deal with them in industrial settings just fine. Pretty much everything we use is toxic at some point in its manufacturing process

Xitter is pretending that this is about free speech and censorship.

It’s not.

Yes it is. Especially considering that Xitter is an American company and this is legal by American law, again, Australia is overstepping its authority. It doesn’t matter that Musk is a PoS. It doesn’t matter that I personally want the video gone myself. What matters is Australia does not have the legal authority to make decisions affecting the entire world.

Your comparison to CSE is disingenuous as CSE is illegal worldwide, or at least in every country that matters. This video is not.

Sure. If the Christchurch group or Aussie govt wants to call them out for not honouring their agreement, shame them, kick them out, whatever, that’s fine. I’m all for that. Fuck Xitter. I fully understand there’s nothing noble about their motives. There is however a difference between that and legally forcing a platform to censor content worldwide. Australia is claiming legal authority over the entire world, how do you not see the issue there?

What point are you trying to make here? I’ve already stated that the content is objectionable, and that ideally Xitter should have taken it down themselves. The problem I, and everybody else here, has is that Australia does not have the authority to unilaterally decide what content the entire world may or may not access. This is regardless of the video content and it would be nice if you could discuss the actual point.

It may be legal and appropriate according to Australian law. That doesn’t mean the rest of us around the world are ok with abiding by their laws and whatever they decide is ‘acceptable’ for us to watch. Especially given Australia’s history of censorship when it comes to media and culture.

Farmers have to rely on adding mined potash to the soils to compensate for that loss.

You mean this sentence in the comment you replied to? This sentence that claims potassium cannot be replaced?

Again, they’re not obeying the Christchurch agreement they signed. I agree with you on that point. That was not the point of my comment.

What’s the relevance?

I agree with the Christchurch Call, that platforms, media and govts should avoid disseminating and giving publicity to terrorists and their causes. If Xitter were to take down content for that reason, I’d applaud them. However, that is a voluntary agreement that should be self-enforced by the signatories upon themselves. Nothing there gives Australia the right to determine for the rest of the world what content may or may not be shared online.

Musk is an ass, but this is a complex issue that goes way beyond Australia. Many govts are censoring content on social media within their countries. The last thing they need is precedent allowing them to remove videos from a platform entirely worldwide.

You did read the article, or at least the summary, right? It’s discussing shortage of fertiliser due to supply issues

How would crop rotation replenish a physical element that can’t be pulled out of the air, though?

Eh, it’s pretty common in a lot of other countries as well. Those with significant Muslim populations, and even countries like Norway.