I tend to agree with your first point, and feel that for user-driven content, allowing users to submit context to be displayed below the source is a good middle-ground.
As for the second point, I think that most critical thinkers understand that the laptop changed hands several times, undermining the "news" of the matter.
As far as I am aware, the laptop's original owner has not denied that the content that's been made public is genuine. If the info had been tampered with, I think Hunter Biden would have said so.
"The suit filed in California also claims Biden’s data was “manipulated, altered and damaged” before it was sent to Giuliani and Costello, and has been further altered since then."
the biden laptop story was temporarily banned for less than 24hrs as it violated various twitter rules for hacked content and nudity. The “Twitter Files” (cue x-files theme) show us this - it was certainly not banned because users reported it as fake news using a tool like this.
From Twitter yes. But NYPpost being banned and 50 intelligence agencies saying it had all the hallmarks of Russian Disinformation kept the ball out of the court until after the election.
Neuralink is basically doing ground breaking micro electrodes implantation through robotics assisted open brain surgery. Sometimes the implants cause complications. If you are familiar with how brain surgery works, nothing about what happened to the monkeys is considered remotely gruesome. This stuff has been going on in research labs and hospitals for decades. Lay people just don't get to hear about them often.
It's not clear what you're trying to communicate here. Yes, it draws a scary picture about the suffering of the "Animal 15". However it doesn't mean it wasn't "necessary".
Why do you put the burden of proof on me? You countered a usage of a word with a quote and no explanation. I took a wild guess on what you could possibly mean, and argue how that would be a non sequitur. If you make an actual argument I might agree, but it's not clear what your argument even is.
You are forcing me to guess. Even after I wrote it's not clear what you tried to communicate, you didn't care to elaborate, instead you're trying to force me to provide definitions. That's a ridiculous way to argue.
>> Musk’s promise was to revolutionize prostheses and engineer an implant that would allow human brains to communicate wirelessly with artificial devices, and even each other.
And from wikipedia:
>> In April 2017, Neuralink announced that it was aiming to make devices to treat serious brain diseases in the short-term, with the eventual goal of human enhancement, sometimes called transhumanism.[16][7][17]
It seems that while there might be medical applications of the developed technology it is not primarily developed for medical purposes. Plugging your brain to your iPhone doesn't sound like a great justification for animal experimentation.
All these arguments about what Musk should have done are pointless
The important question is, what would the Pentagon have done? Did they explicitly tell Musk to allow Starlink activation in Crimea to allow the attack on Russian fleet? If not, he was absolutely right not to activate Starlink over Crimea
Somehow, none of the news outlets cared to ask if the Pentagon is ok with enabling Starlink coverage over Crimea, and Starlink terminals strapped on drones to bomb the Russia sea fleet.
Is that what happened last night? Or was Elon just trying to disrupt Ukrainian communications on their own territory while they conducted their recent attack on Crimea?
The US army already has an agreement with starlink testing it in a warfighting support capacity. I imagine that not all customers have the same ToS as the one you linked which looks like the boilerplate they distribute "with the kit".
Any sufficiently large entity will negotiate their own terms of service
Why do you think this TOS is the same one Ukraine and other governments sign? Earlier Musk was expressly allowing Ukraine to use Starlink for military purposes, and from what i can tell is still fine with them using it just not in Crimea.
Even this TOS
Even this TOS doesn't say it is prohibited "However, Starlink is not designed or intended for use with or in offensive or defensive weaponry or other comparable end-uses. Custom modifications of the Starlink Kits or Services for military end-uses or military end-users may transform the items into products controlled under U.S. export control laws, specifically the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 C.F.R. §§ 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 C.F.R. §§ 730-774) requiring authorizations from the United States government for the export, support, or use outside the United States. " That just means they won't expressly support it and you need US governmental approval.
Remember the Hunter Biden laptop story? Was it fake news?