That’s one of the reasons why you get delayed or cancelled, over-budget projects that go nowhere. ( another big one is corruption and general financial shenanigans ).

if you throw a lot of money at a problem/project that doesn’t have reasonable management and competent understanding of where that money could work efficiently then you’re asking for trouble.

Destinating more resources to that quickens and makes better that process, though, incentivating people to work on it and test it.

That is charmingly naive, in my experience.

I’m not saying more money wouldn’t help, I’m saying throwing money at it isn’t generally a stand-alone solution, which is what i think the person you were replying to was trying to say.

So , given that New Zealand and Australia are using their law based framework to deny visa access it’s all good right ?

I also noted you conveniently didn’t address this in your response.

Yes freedom of speech ends at criminal action or illegal behavior. That is where those boundaries exist. If they do not end at that juncture then where do they end?

I’m not saying that laws aren’t useful for this purpose I’m saying that using laws as a baseline without accounting for laws being different in different places is a weak argument foundation, not even mentioning that laws change over time based on unlawful actions being allowed and previously lawful actions now being denied, so not only do you need to account for geographic location you also need to account for time.

As an example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67601647

By your proposed framework, you’re cool with this because their freedom of speech (or i suppose expression in this instance) is illegal.

To be clear, if you are cool with that, you do you, I’m not your parent, nor am i any moral or ethical authority. I’m using it as an example to gauge how married you are to the idea of laws as absolutes when it comes to freedom.

So your baseline is whether or not something is criminal.

That’s easily solved, create laws outlawing the undesirable behaviour, such as the ones in Germany regarding Nazi paraphernalia.

Or the ones defining potentially damaging behaviour as a reason for denying visa access… give it a sec, I’m sure you’ll get it.

Obligatory, countries outside of the US exist and, I imagine rather inconveniently for your argument, have their own laws.

But if your definition of the basis of democracy is freedom of speech except for when there is a law specifically preventing it then you probably have bigger concerns than weak foundations for your arguments.

It’s interesting as a subject but I dislike this as a presentation format.

This is the video equivalent of “this meeting could have been an email”.

Also his voice and cadence are irritating, but I recognise that that’s a personal gripe. Certainly an “old man shouts at cloud” moment but coked up youtuber energy isn’t my jam.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1149

Julie d’Aubigny

Are you suggesting that generation-specific vernacular is a sign of poor education?