They discuss performance in the FAQ section of this article.

I read it too fast that I thought TorrentFreak was down. 😅

I’m not saying it’s a literal witch hunt. Never heard of metaphors and figures of speech?

And just shouting “your opinions suck!” and running away is hardly productive to a healthy discussion. If you have any counter-arguments to the topic at hand (the individual “likes” being hidden on Twitter/X), feel free to present them.

I think people with ridiculous views should not have an issue with being ridiculed for those views.

You’re under no obligation to agree with another person point of view. But, if you’re presenting your arguments in good faith, you should be prepared to listen to the person you disagree with in good faith also. If you immediately disregard what others have to say just because you think it’s “too ridiculous to consider”, or throw the ad hominem starter pack: bigot, nazi, far-right, trumper, etc, then you’re just insulating yourself in a bubble in the best case scenario, or showing you don’t have the capability to articulate your argument effectively in the worst case scenario.

It really feels like you’re the immature bunch, trying to hide who you are because you’re too fragile to own up to it if it’s being scrutinized.

It’s not a matter of trying to hide anything for the sake of it. It’s just that some people use the free availability of a user’s previous posts/likes as a shortcut for “whataboutisms”. You may disagree with other posts I made, but what is being discussed here is the reasonableness of individual “likes” being public or not.

I think the crude scrutiny of a persons past posts to be, in many cases, dishonored. The person being scrutinized may have changed their views since then, specially when the post is years-old.

If you disagree, you’re free to offer your counter-arguments.

You have just proved right there why current internet users in general don’t have the maturity to have likes publicly visible. The urge to do a witch hunt is just too irresistible.

She said she regrets not having publicized her opinions on this subject earlier, so if her likes wouldn’t have exposed her, her subsequent retweets certainly would.

When cancel culture was not on full throttle, maybe likes being public made more sense. If only the global like count is the more widely known metric, hiding who liked what is not too significant of a change. It’s not something totally out of the ordinary either, considering most contries’ electoral systems guarantee the individual votes are kept secret.

Ok… Satisfied? 😅

It’s a well-known fact that the Earth is round and I can show you evidence with about two seconds of Googling.

You established that a well-known fact like the Earth being round is easy to prove in mere seconds by Googling. I did exactly what you suggested and the search results are plentiful with links in the first page confirming that there’s a left-leaning bias in USA universities. In the suggested images they even list survey results showing most students lean left.

The fact is so well-known that a simple Google search gives multiples articles confirming it. You suggested this criteria yourself. 🤔

Removed by mod

In the end of the day, it’s the law of the strongest. It’s no accident that Israel hoard a lot of weapons of war and build defensive systems like the Iron Dome. It’s a show of power for a very simple goal: deterrence. I don’t think Israel really though of using all their weapons, but just having them makes every one the enemy nations that surround them to think twice before attacking them. Well, Hamas did not think twice. And they cannot say they didn’t saw it coming.

Israel accepting a ceasefire deal would be nice for saving lives and all, but would leave them vulnerable for future missile attacks from Hamas. A nation will always think of its own citizens first. Maybe the Hamas already counted with this reaction of Israel, and though that other Arab countries would form a coalition to fight Israel simultaneously. Well, it didn’t pan out. Deterrence worked after all.

So, the ideal solution for you is a return to the status quo, but with the Hamas getting away with it. Plus a bonus: multiple prisoners released just for returning the hostages to their homes, from where they should never have been kidnapped from in the first place. And, the cherry in top, the Hamas still having the capability of launching missiles whenever it pleases. What a great deal! (for the Hamas only, of course)

Okay, if a Google search will make you believe me, here goes:

Does USA university students and faculty have a left-leaning bias?

Most search results confirm what I said. And remember: this is not an exact science, but a subjective assessment. Certainly there are university students that didn’t notice that bias because their institution was more politically neutral, or said person was not enrolled in humanities courses so the political activism was not very close to their day-to-day lives. But, in general, the bias is real and is only getting more intense as political polarization is on the rise globally.

If Israel really wanted the destruction of all Gazans, they’d not send their soldiers to a prolonged war. They’d rather send their own missiles and everything would be destroyed in seconds. They have that capability, but they didn’t use it. If it’s really a genocide as you suggest, it’s the dumbest one of all time, because they’re risking their soldiers when they can attack safely and decisively from a distance.

Dictionary definition: “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.”

If you were one of the parents/relatives of the kidnapped israelis, would you still think it was not worth it?

I know right? I’ve always thought calling it genocide a flagrant exxageration. When I think of genocide, it comes to mind images of some evil dictator using poison gas in a population, chemical weapons, an atomic bomb, etc.

To be a true genocide, it must be an indiscriminate elimination of the population of a nation or an ethnicity. It’s not the case of Isreal, which is targeting specifically the militants of Hamas. Just because there are civilian colateral damage in the process does not make it a genocide automatically, because the civilians are not what the IDF is after. They’re after Hamas militants. Gaza has a very high population density, and the Hamas militants don’t use any uniform to differentiate them from the civilians. They do it on purpose to make the IDF hesitant, and get them by surprise. They hide themselves in buildings that they know the IDF would be hesitant to attack, like hospitals, schools and mosques. They play dirty, and then cry genocide when the IDF respond to their missiles sent to Israel’s territory.

You just love to spread immense misinformation. You should actually educate yourself in this particular matter if you want to write and speak on the slogan. Don’t just blabber your personal opinion, give sources. Your personal opinion doesn’t matter, actual evidence does.

According to Wikipedia article for “From the river to the sea”: "Many Palestinian activists have called it “a call for peace and equality” after decades of Israeli military rule over Palestinians while for Jews it is seen as a call for the “destruction” of Israel. Islamist militant faction Hamas used the phrase in its 2017 charter. Usage of the phrase by such Palestinian militant groups has led critics to claim that it advocates for the dismantling of Israel, and the removal or extermination of its Jewish population." So it’s not as clear-cut as you suggested. It says some Palestinians define is as a call for peace, but even if it was taken as such in the past, nowadays I have the impression it’s mosly used as a defense of the destruction of Isreal. If it was just for the peace of Palestine, they’d use a more specific sentence because the way it’s pharsed it includes the Isreal territory in their intentions of “freedom”. But they want to be free from what? Free from the Israeli people presence? The article you linked kind of confirm what the Wikipedia article said: each side has an interpretation of what this sentece entails, but I’m more interested in the practical usage of the sentence today, and in my opinion it’s mostly anti-Isreal.

Not only that, do you know that Israel has made a slogan exactly like that too. So by your definition; Israel wants to exterminate all Palestinian people (and they’re currently doing so with the genocide).

From the same Wikipedia article: “The Palestinian phrase has also been used by Israeli politicians. The 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party said: “Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”” It seems a variation from “from the river to the sea” was used by a specific Isreali right-wing party in 1977. It was strictly a position of said party in 1977, so we cannot pin it on Isreal of 2024.

Israel flat out said they do NOT want a two state solution.

In the article you linked, this is an opinion of Isreali Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after he got spooked by what occured on October 7th. Who know’s what the next Prime Minister will think about it? Israel was explicitly in favor of the Two State Solution in 1937 and 1947, but in both cases the Palestinians refused. Now that missiles are launched from Palestinian territory into Isreal, don’t be surprised if Isreal takes a more conservative approach in the name of its national security.

Also explain to us; what is a Hamas flag? I have never heard about it nor seen one. I have only seen the Palestine flag. So tell us, show us and give us actual evidence with reliable sources.

Sure: Hamas Flag, Palestine Flag.