We explore real-life reformation here in this informed, online community.
The Supreme Court will be answering this question before long in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google LLC –
Background summary by the guys at Not the Bee:
Three decades ago, lawmakers protected internet companies by passing Section 230, a provision that exempts them from liability if someone says or does something illegal on their site. The argument is that a website like Facebook is not a publisher that condones or controls what is being written on the site; therefore, it should not be liable for lawsuits. But as we've seen from exposés like The Twitter Files, these websites ARE acting like publishers by choosing what content is allowed based on their ideological preferences. If Facebook bans sites like ours for posting stories that refer to men in wigs as men, then the argument goes that they should be liable to all the legal bindings of a formal publisher. If Section 230 is repealed, it would drastically change free speech on the internet... but not in all good ways...
Over the years, I have become convinced sunlight is one of the most essential nutrients for the body. Unfortunately, since no one has a financial interest in promoting sunlight (and it hence has no lobbyists), almost everything we hear instead focuses on why it’s terrible for us. For example, dermatology transformed itself from one of the least desirable specialties in medicine into one of the highest paying ones by rebranding its members as cancer fighters, which required scaring everyone senseless about the sun (while omitting that a lack of sunlight is what causes fatal skin cancers). Despite the billions now spent each year on skin cancer, the total death rate from it remains almost entirely unchanged (all of which is discussed here).
A similar story has played out with the light inside our homes. In 2022, the federal government effectively banned the incandescent bulb on the grounds most of its output is “wasted” as infrared, even though a rapidly growing body of research ...
Precious in the sight of the LORD Is the death of His godly ones.
Psalm 116:15
Rod Dreher asks, "I don’t understand why the government doesn’t deploy the army and shoot rioters until they stop. Philippe Lemoine, a Frenchman, says it’s not that simple."
Excerpt:
"We have let things rot for so long that, at this point, relying primarily on force to restore order would require a degree of violence far greater than what people realize and what is politically feasible.
It's possible to contain a riot using only moderate force when the number of police officers is high relative to the number of rioters, but when riots are so widespread and involve so many people because you have allowed this kind of things to happen for so long, that's just not possible and you have to use extreme violence to make up for the lack of manpower.
I know people on the Internet will say that it doesn't matter and that we should just do it, but the reality is that most of the people in charge are not prepared to use that kind of force and neither would most ordinary people if they saw ...
