Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Why Meta India Must Pay. Facebook and Instagram Should Face a Billion Dollar Fine For Restricting Modi's Speech. 1/ Meta's global affairs chief Joel Kaplan apologised to India's IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw. Mark Zuckerberg separately apologised over CSAM, deepfakes and "operational failures." Meta executives admitted money was paid to...

ByRakeshSimha's profile picture

Rakesh Krishnan Simha

99,651 subscribers

64,127 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & TechnologieNachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

#WATCH | Delhi: After chairing the meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications & IT, Committee Chairman and BJP MP Dr Nishikant Dubey said, "...The second question is that Meta India removed the Prime Minister's content. This is not the first time Meta India has done this. If you recall, Zuckerberg himself made a statement in January regarding the 2024 elections and later apologized. This shows that his intention is to destabilise the country. When a video of the Prime Minister of India can be removed, and they themselves admitted that the content was missing for five hours, from 12:30 am to 5:00 am, this is a very serious matter. Our committee has said two things and has clearly stated that the apology should come from Zuckerberg. If Zuckerberg does not give it, then the safe harbour protection under Section 79 should be withdrawn from him. CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material) is another issue. YouTube also has that content. Meta also has that content, and they do not remove content related to child abuse. They do not remove content related to women. Both these rules of the Government of India are very strict, and on top of that, they do not listen to the Home Ministry. They do not listen to the IT Ministry either. So, we have said that in all these matters, and in many other matters, you know that the Chief Minister of the Congress government of Telangana has filed an FIR against Meta India. We have said that safe harbour should be removed in all these matters..."
2:23

#WATCH | Delhi: After chairing the meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications & IT, Committee Chairman and BJP MP Dr Nishikant Dubey said, "...The second question is that Meta India removed the Prime Minister's content. This is not the first time Meta India has done this. If you recall, Zuckerberg himself made a statement in January regarding the 2024 elections and later apologized. This shows that his intention is to destabilise the country. When a video of the Prime Minister of India can be removed, and they themselves admitted that the content was missing for five hours, from 12:30 am to 5:00 am, this is a very serious matter. Our committee has said two things and has clearly stated that the apology should come from Zuckerberg. If Zuckerberg does not give it, then the safe harbour protection under Section 79 should be withdrawn from him. CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material) is another issue. YouTube also has that content. Meta also has that content, and they do not remove content related to child abuse. They do not remove content related to women. Both these rules of the Government of India are very strict, and on top of that, they do not listen to the Home Ministry. They do not listen to the IT Ministry either. So, we have said that in all these matters, and in many other matters, you know that the Chief Minister of the Congress government of Telangana has filed an FIR against Meta India. We have said that safe harbour should be removed in all these matters..."

ANI

55,478 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Did Meta Make A Big Mistake By Removing PM Modi's Video?? - Amit Dubey Meta did make a major error by temporarily removing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Facebook video, a move that sparked intense governmental backlash and severe legal warnings in India. In an interview on the channel of popular digital creator RJRaunac, cyber security expert Amit Dubey highlighted how this incident exposed deep flaws in how big tech operates. PM Modi posted a video on July 23 addressing Gen Z students about the NEET paper leak controversy. The video was suddenly blocked and remained unavailable on Facebook for over five hours. Meta initially cited legal obligations, but later blamed an automated AI filter glitch for the accidental takedown. The Indian government and a parliamentary IT panel, led by MP Nishikant Dubey, heavily grilled Meta's global team. They rejected the "technical glitch" excuse, raising questions about potential algorithmic bias and systemic flaws. Loss of Safe Harbour Protection: The Parliamentary Committee warned Meta that it could lose its "safe harbour" immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act if accountability isn't met. This protection shields Meta from legal liability for user-generated content; losing it would expose the company to massive legal vulnerabilities. Demand for Zuckerberg's Apology: While Meta's Global Affairs chief Joel Kaplan conveyed an official apology to IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, the parliamentary panel has heavily pushed for a personal, written apology from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The incident has significantly damaged Meta’s standing in India its largest global user market reigniting intense national debates around digital sovereignty and the lack of human transparency in big-tech content moderation. Credit : TRP/RJ Raunac.
13:24

Did Meta Make A Big Mistake By Removing PM Modi's Video?? - Amit Dubey Meta did make a major error by temporarily removing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Facebook video, a move that sparked intense governmental backlash and severe legal warnings in India. In an interview on the channel of popular digital creator RJRaunac, cyber security expert Amit Dubey highlighted how this incident exposed deep flaws in how big tech operates. PM Modi posted a video on July 23 addressing Gen Z students about the NEET paper leak controversy. The video was suddenly blocked and remained unavailable on Facebook for over five hours. Meta initially cited legal obligations, but later blamed an automated AI filter glitch for the accidental takedown. The Indian government and a parliamentary IT panel, led by MP Nishikant Dubey, heavily grilled Meta's global team. They rejected the "technical glitch" excuse, raising questions about potential algorithmic bias and systemic flaws. Loss of Safe Harbour Protection: The Parliamentary Committee warned Meta that it could lose its "safe harbour" immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act if accountability isn't met. This protection shields Meta from legal liability for user-generated content; losing it would expose the company to massive legal vulnerabilities. Demand for Zuckerberg's Apology: While Meta's Global Affairs chief Joel Kaplan conveyed an official apology to IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, the parliamentary panel has heavily pushed for a personal, written apology from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The incident has significantly damaged Meta’s standing in India its largest global user market reigniting intense national debates around digital sovereignty and the lack of human transparency in big-tech content moderation. Credit : TRP/RJ Raunac.

Augadh

16,468 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

#WATCH | Mumbai, Maharashtra: On Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's apology over the temporary removal of PM Modi's video, Cyber Expert Prashant Mali says, "If a social media platform has removed the Prime Minister of India's official video without valid justification, then this is not merely about one individual. It raises serious questions about accountability towards India's democratic institutions. However, I feel the government should deal with this issue strictly within the framework of law and not emotion. If Meta has violated Indian laws, the IT Act, the Intermediary Rules, or any other applicable legal provisions, the government is well within its rights to seek an explanation and initiate legal proceedings if warranted, because that is required. At the same time, Meta also must demonstrate transparency by publicly explaining why the video was taken down and whether this was the result of a human or technical error. An apology and a clear commitment to prevent such incidents in the future would be the responsible course of action. I feel India is one of Meta's largest markets, and every global platform, be it a technology platform or a social media platform, must respect India's laws, democratic institutions, and digital sovereignty. That's very important. Being a sovereign country and respecting digital sovereignty have become two things that Meta is clearly seen not doing here. And I think, henceforth, Meta will respect India's digital sovereignty." (Source: Self-Made)
3:26

#WATCH | Mumbai, Maharashtra: On Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's apology over the temporary removal of PM Modi's video, Cyber Expert Prashant Mali says, "If a social media platform has removed the Prime Minister of India's official video without valid justification, then this is not merely about one individual. It raises serious questions about accountability towards India's democratic institutions. However, I feel the government should deal with this issue strictly within the framework of law and not emotion. If Meta has violated Indian laws, the IT Act, the Intermediary Rules, or any other applicable legal provisions, the government is well within its rights to seek an explanation and initiate legal proceedings if warranted, because that is required. At the same time, Meta also must demonstrate transparency by publicly explaining why the video was taken down and whether this was the result of a human or technical error. An apology and a clear commitment to prevent such incidents in the future would be the responsible course of action. I feel India is one of Meta's largest markets, and every global platform, be it a technology platform or a social media platform, must respect India's laws, democratic institutions, and digital sovereignty. That's very important. Being a sovereign country and respecting digital sovereignty have become two things that Meta is clearly seen not doing here. And I think, henceforth, Meta will respect India's digital sovereignty." (Source: Self-Made)

ANI

114,432 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

#WATCH | Delhi: On Meta's explanation over PM Modi's post on strict action over paper leaks removal, S. Krishnan, Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology says, "...The authorised content from the authorised handle of the PM being removed is an extremely disturbing occurance, it should have never happened. I am happy that Meta realised that they had to apologise for this mistake. Their unconditional apology for the mistake is a good step. But having said that I think the explanation that it was a technical ground and that there was a technical glitch does not appear to be an acceptable explanation in its entirety. We have sought more details, we will have a very detailed technical meeting as to how these things happen. We will seek assurances that the handles of prominent personalities in India should be ringfenced and once it's a verified account, it should be ensured that content that is posted there is not removed on such flimsy grounds or on such mistakes which happen. I think it is very unfortunate that this happened and we will follow this up to see that there are systemic corrections to ensure that such incidents do not recur."
2:54

#WATCH | Delhi: On Meta's explanation over PM Modi's post on strict action over paper leaks removal, S. Krishnan, Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology says, "...The authorised content from the authorised handle of the PM being removed is an extremely disturbing occurance, it should have never happened. I am happy that Meta realised that they had to apologise for this mistake. Their unconditional apology for the mistake is a good step. But having said that I think the explanation that it was a technical ground and that there was a technical glitch does not appear to be an acceptable explanation in its entirety. We have sought more details, we will have a very detailed technical meeting as to how these things happen. We will seek assurances that the handles of prominent personalities in India should be ringfenced and once it's a verified account, it should be ensured that content that is posted there is not removed on such flimsy grounds or on such mistakes which happen. I think it is very unfortunate that this happened and we will follow this up to see that there are systemic corrections to ensure that such incidents do not recur."

ANI

23,936 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

This is not the first time, and it is not a heartfelt apology. It is a scripted, hollow response, possibly even AI-generated, with no real accountability behind it. You were forced to apologize, not from your heart. An apology should show sincerity, ownership, and a clear understanding of what was wrong, and this, in my opinion, falls far short of that. 💥
1:06

This is not the first time, and it is not a heartfelt apology. It is a scripted, hollow response, possibly even AI-generated, with no real accountability behind it. You were forced to apologize, not from your heart. An apology should show sincerity, ownership, and a clear understanding of what was wrong, and this, in my opinion, falls far short of that. 💥

✨ Lady Vet ✨

209,202 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🇺🇦 Zelensky: At the heart of Russia’s war against Ukraine is the false claim that Ukraine does not exist, that it is supposedly part of Russia. It is not just a matter of history, not just politics or ideology. This is the basis of their goal – to completely wipe Ukraine off the face of the earth. And not just Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly openly stated that it wants to control all its neighbors. It wants to decide what security should be in Europe and whether it should exist at all. Russia has spread its idea of ​​war all the way to Syria and Africa. This is truly a global threat. It is important that many in the world perceive it as such – as a global threat.
0:55

🇺🇦 Zelensky: At the heart of Russia’s war against Ukraine is the false claim that Ukraine does not exist, that it is supposedly part of Russia. It is not just a matter of history, not just politics or ideology. This is the basis of their goal – to completely wipe Ukraine off the face of the earth. And not just Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly openly stated that it wants to control all its neighbors. It wants to decide what security should be in Europe and whether it should exist at all. Russia has spread its idea of ​​war all the way to Syria and Africa. This is truly a global threat. It is important that many in the world perceive it as such – as a global threat.

MAKS 25 🇺🇦👀

13,932 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

I want to ask three questions first, which will make it very clear that the BJP is directing and using the Election Commission to damage India's democracy. ❓ Why is it that the CJI was removed from the selection panel of the Election Commissioner? What motivation could there be to remove the CJI? Do we not believe in the CJI? Of course, we believe in the CJI. Why is he not in that room? I sit in that room. It is a so-called democratic decision. On one side, PM Narendra Modi and HM Amit Shah. On the other side, the leader of the opposition. I have no voice in that room. What they decide is what happens. So, why are the Prime Minister and Amit Shah so keen on choosing exactly who the Election Commissioner is going to be? ❓ This is a devastating one. No Prime Minister has done this in the history of India. In December 2023, this government changed the law. They changed the law to make sure that no Election Commissioner could be punished for any action they take while they are Election Commissioners. Why would the Prime Minister and Home Minister give this gift of immunity to the Election Commissioner? Why would they need to give this tremendous gift that no prime minister has ever given before to the election commissioner? ❓ Why was the law with regard to CCTVs and the data that they contain changed? Why was a law put in place that allows the Election Commission to destroy CCTV footage 45 days after the election? What is the need? The answer given is that it is a question of data. But it is not a question of data. It is a question of stealing the election. : LoP Shri Rahul Gandhi in Lok Sabha
2:46

I want to ask three questions first, which will make it very clear that the BJP is directing and using the Election Commission to damage India's democracy. ❓ Why is it that the CJI was removed from the selection panel of the Election Commissioner? What motivation could there be to remove the CJI? Do we not believe in the CJI? Of course, we believe in the CJI. Why is he not in that room? I sit in that room. It is a so-called democratic decision. On one side, PM Narendra Modi and HM Amit Shah. On the other side, the leader of the opposition. I have no voice in that room. What they decide is what happens. So, why are the Prime Minister and Amit Shah so keen on choosing exactly who the Election Commissioner is going to be? ❓ This is a devastating one. No Prime Minister has done this in the history of India. In December 2023, this government changed the law. They changed the law to make sure that no Election Commissioner could be punished for any action they take while they are Election Commissioners. Why would the Prime Minister and Home Minister give this gift of immunity to the Election Commissioner? Why would they need to give this tremendous gift that no prime minister has ever given before to the election commissioner? ❓ Why was the law with regard to CCTVs and the data that they contain changed? Why was a law put in place that allows the Election Commission to destroy CCTV footage 45 days after the election? What is the need? The answer given is that it is a question of data. But it is not a question of data. It is a question of stealing the election. : LoP Shri Rahul Gandhi in Lok Sabha

Congress

45,821 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Think about what it takes for a government scheme to actually reach a woman in a village in UP. Someone has to design it and fund it. Someone else has to build the delivery infrastructure on the ground, make sure it reaches the right people, and make sure no middleman eats half of it before it does. That sounds like basic governance. It is not. In most of India, one of those two steps quietly fails and nobody is held accountable for the gap. In UP, neither step failed. Jan Dhan gave her the account and an SHG was there to channel her earnings into something real. Mission Shakti was not just a banner on a wall. It became a centre in her district, with a woman officer inside it, and a helpline that picked up. When both levels of government are serious about the same outcome, the last mile actually gets covered. That is what the double engine sarkar delivered in UP. Not a promise. A working chain. #DoubleEnginekiShakti
0:33

Think about what it takes for a government scheme to actually reach a woman in a village in UP. Someone has to design it and fund it. Someone else has to build the delivery infrastructure on the ground, make sure it reaches the right people, and make sure no middleman eats half of it before it does. That sounds like basic governance. It is not. In most of India, one of those two steps quietly fails and nobody is held accountable for the gap. In UP, neither step failed. Jan Dhan gave her the account and an SHG was there to channel her earnings into something real. Mission Shakti was not just a banner on a wall. It became a centre in her district, with a woman officer inside it, and a helpline that picked up. When both levels of government are serious about the same outcome, the last mile actually gets covered. That is what the double engine sarkar delivered in UP. Not a promise. A working chain. #DoubleEnginekiShakti

The Hawk Eye

17,886 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Jeff Bezos looked at a government waiting room and priced it at a hundred billion dollars. Bezos: “This is a $100 billion business, by the way. This is huge business.” That number is not ambition. It is a measurement. A company that size does not create a hundred billion dollars of new value here. It recovers a hundred billion that is already being destroyed, on schedule, in public, by a process everyone has agreed to call normal. The size of the opportunity is the size of the wound. Bezos: “They almost always say yes, they just make you wait a long time.” So the verdict was never in question. Only the delivery date. Which means the months bought nothing. They were storage. Your project sat in a room while the word yes waited its turn to be said. Nobody in there was deciding. Someone was scheduling. And the room bills by the day. Suarez: “The daily carrying cost, one day of interest, 200 to $400,000 per day.” Now find the recipient. There isn’t one. No school funded, no inspector paid, no safety review performed. A tax at least moves money into someone’s hands. This deletes it at four hundred thousand a day, and every dollar was real before the queue touched it. Bezos: “And that doesn’t count the frustration.” Count it anyway. It lands on a body long before it lands on a spreadsheet. Suarez: “Which is infinite. I have some white hairs as a result of this stuff.” That is the invoice. The money has a rate. The rest gets charged to the man, and he pays it whether the answer comes back yes or no. No one has ever been refunded a year. Every other cost in this economy can be hedged, insured, refinanced, or written off. Waiting is the only one that is final. A man will forgive being told no. He will never get back the time he spent standing there waiting to be told yes. We built a civilization that can move a decision at the speed of light and still schedule it at the speed of a man’s hair turning white. Bezos: “It should give you a yes or a no in 10 seconds. And if the answer is no, it should tell you the 6 things you have to change to get a yes.” For four thousand years the wait was honest. Someone had to hold the entire code in one head and walk it line by line against your drawings. Reading was slow because reading was human. That stopped being true in less time than it takes to approve one building. Bezos: “Maybe with AI it can just read all the plans. And it knows all the codes. Spit it out.” The constraint is gone. The wait stayed. Anything still moving at the old speed after the cost of thinking collapsed is not slow. It is choosing. The queue never protected you from a bad building. It protected a signature from a bad outcome. Nobody gets fired for the wait. They get fired for the answer. An institution has no lifespan, so time costs it nothing. You have one, so time is the only thing it can take. Every queue is a trade between something that dies and something that doesn’t, and only one side is ever charged. That trade held for the whole of recorded history because the mortal side had no leverage. It does now. Somebody is going to build this. A hundred billion does not sit in a waiting room forever. And the day it exists, the wait stops being a fact of the world and becomes a decision with a name attached. The hundred billion was never the prize. It is the receipt for how long we agreed to stand there. We are the first people alive who get to stop signing it.
1:55

Jeff Bezos looked at a government waiting room and priced it at a hundred billion dollars. Bezos: “This is a $100 billion business, by the way. This is huge business.” That number is not ambition. It is a measurement. A company that size does not create a hundred billion dollars of new value here. It recovers a hundred billion that is already being destroyed, on schedule, in public, by a process everyone has agreed to call normal. The size of the opportunity is the size of the wound. Bezos: “They almost always say yes, they just make you wait a long time.” So the verdict was never in question. Only the delivery date. Which means the months bought nothing. They were storage. Your project sat in a room while the word yes waited its turn to be said. Nobody in there was deciding. Someone was scheduling. And the room bills by the day. Suarez: “The daily carrying cost, one day of interest, 200 to $400,000 per day.” Now find the recipient. There isn’t one. No school funded, no inspector paid, no safety review performed. A tax at least moves money into someone’s hands. This deletes it at four hundred thousand a day, and every dollar was real before the queue touched it. Bezos: “And that doesn’t count the frustration.” Count it anyway. It lands on a body long before it lands on a spreadsheet. Suarez: “Which is infinite. I have some white hairs as a result of this stuff.” That is the invoice. The money has a rate. The rest gets charged to the man, and he pays it whether the answer comes back yes or no. No one has ever been refunded a year. Every other cost in this economy can be hedged, insured, refinanced, or written off. Waiting is the only one that is final. A man will forgive being told no. He will never get back the time he spent standing there waiting to be told yes. We built a civilization that can move a decision at the speed of light and still schedule it at the speed of a man’s hair turning white. Bezos: “It should give you a yes or a no in 10 seconds. And if the answer is no, it should tell you the 6 things you have to change to get a yes.” For four thousand years the wait was honest. Someone had to hold the entire code in one head and walk it line by line against your drawings. Reading was slow because reading was human. That stopped being true in less time than it takes to approve one building. Bezos: “Maybe with AI it can just read all the plans. And it knows all the codes. Spit it out.” The constraint is gone. The wait stayed. Anything still moving at the old speed after the cost of thinking collapsed is not slow. It is choosing. The queue never protected you from a bad building. It protected a signature from a bad outcome. Nobody gets fired for the wait. They get fired for the answer. An institution has no lifespan, so time costs it nothing. You have one, so time is the only thing it can take. Every queue is a trade between something that dies and something that doesn’t, and only one side is ever charged. That trade held for the whole of recorded history because the mortal side had no leverage. It does now. Somebody is going to build this. A hundred billion does not sit in a waiting room forever. And the day it exists, the wait stops being a fact of the world and becomes a decision with a name attached. The hundred billion was never the prize. It is the receipt for how long we agreed to stand there. We are the first people alive who get to stop signing it.

Dustin

17,133 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

The objection by the representative of India to Pakistan's mention of Jammu and Kashmir in the Arria Formula meeting was not surprising to us. India, as a party to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, has actually refused to implement the Security Council resolutions on this dispute, and has even refused to cooperate with the United Nations, including the good offices of the Secretary-General, and with all those mechanisms that form part of Chapter VI. As I stated in my statement, Kashmir is an international dispute. It is on the agenda of the Security Council. It was never a part of India, and it is not, and cannot be, part of India — because this was the core question at the heart of these Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir. The purpose was to determine the status of this territory: whether it wishes to be part of India or Pakistan. That status has not yet been determined, because the resolutions have not been implemented. To assert that Kashmir is a part of India is, in fact, itself a violation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. Please watch my response below to the misleading remarks of the Indian representative
2:14

The objection by the representative of India to Pakistan's mention of Jammu and Kashmir in the Arria Formula meeting was not surprising to us. India, as a party to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, has actually refused to implement the Security Council resolutions on this dispute, and has even refused to cooperate with the United Nations, including the good offices of the Secretary-General, and with all those mechanisms that form part of Chapter VI. As I stated in my statement, Kashmir is an international dispute. It is on the agenda of the Security Council. It was never a part of India, and it is not, and cannot be, part of India — because this was the core question at the heart of these Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir. The purpose was to determine the status of this territory: whether it wishes to be part of India or Pakistan. That status has not yet been determined, because the resolutions have not been implemented. To assert that Kashmir is a part of India is, in fact, itself a violation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. Please watch my response below to the misleading remarks of the Indian representative

Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, PR of Pakistan to the UN

62,808 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

In the last press conference, it was asked what to do when the democratic structure is not working. What we are doing is making it absolutely clear to the people of India what has happened. We are informing the people that the Prime Minister and the Home Minister are not legitimately in government. Similarly, the CM of Haryana is not legitimately in government because it has been stolen. It's the same with the government of Maharashtra. India's Gen Z and the youth have the power to restore democracy with Satya and Ahimsa—by expressing their desire for a democratic India, by fighting for a democratic India and by resisting this wholesale theft and murder of the Constitution and democracy. : LoP Shri Rahul Gandhi 📍Delhi
1:14

In the last press conference, it was asked what to do when the democratic structure is not working. What we are doing is making it absolutely clear to the people of India what has happened. We are informing the people that the Prime Minister and the Home Minister are not legitimately in government. Similarly, the CM of Haryana is not legitimately in government because it has been stolen. It's the same with the government of Maharashtra. India's Gen Z and the youth have the power to restore democracy with Satya and Ahimsa—by expressing their desire for a democratic India, by fighting for a democratic India and by resisting this wholesale theft and murder of the Constitution and democracy. : LoP Shri Rahul Gandhi 📍Delhi

Congress

10,913 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Emily Thornberry, "If a large and powerful country abducts the leader of another and then tries to intimidate the smaller country, in order to gain access to its resources" "Doesn't Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper agree that this should be called out?" "A break of international law" "It is not for the country breaking the law to say whether or not it has broken the law" "It is is for the West to surely stand up and call it for what it is" Yvette Cooper replies like the coward she is
2:16

Emily Thornberry, "If a large and powerful country abducts the leader of another and then tries to intimidate the smaller country, in order to gain access to its resources" "Doesn't Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper agree that this should be called out?" "A break of international law" "It is not for the country breaking the law to say whether or not it has broken the law" "It is is for the West to surely stand up and call it for what it is" Yvette Cooper replies like the coward she is

Farrukh

28,376 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

This is exactly why India needs an educated Prime Minister and political parties need educated, responsible leaders. If you cannot even understand what was discussed in the High Court and cannot distinguish between cheating and a paper leak, how can you be trusted with the responsibility of governing a country of 1.4 billion people? The High Court discussed the issue of cheating, not a paper leak. Yet, BJP is deliberately presenting it as a “paper leak” to spread misinformation. This is not just irresponsible. It is shameful. Now stop defaming Punjab.
0:30

This is exactly why India needs an educated Prime Minister and political parties need educated, responsible leaders. If you cannot even understand what was discussed in the High Court and cannot distinguish between cheating and a paper leak, how can you be trusted with the responsibility of governing a country of 1.4 billion people? The High Court discussed the issue of cheating, not a paper leak. Yet, BJP is deliberately presenting it as a “paper leak” to spread misinformation. This is not just irresponsible. It is shameful. Now stop defaming Punjab.

AAP

19,252 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

For every controversy, Meta’s default defence seems to be the same: “It was a technical glitch.” But a former Meta executive turned whistle-blower has punctured that narrative. Algorithms don’t create themselves. They are designed by people, trained on human choices, and operate within rules set by the company. Meta decides what gets amplified, what gets suppressed, and the guidelines that govern those decisions. When political content is selectively boosted or throttled, dismissing it as a mere “technical glitch” is no longer a credible explanation. It raises fundamental questions about accountability, transparency, and who really controls the digital public square.
6:15

For every controversy, Meta’s default defence seems to be the same: “It was a technical glitch.” But a former Meta executive turned whistle-blower has punctured that narrative. Algorithms don’t create themselves. They are designed by people, trained on human choices, and operate within rules set by the company. Meta decides what gets amplified, what gets suppressed, and the guidelines that govern those decisions. When political content is selectively boosted or throttled, dismissing it as a mere “technical glitch” is no longer a credible explanation. It raises fundamental questions about accountability, transparency, and who really controls the digital public square.

Amit Malviya

28,660 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Watch These Three Videos. In the first, the Chief Minister of Assam calls a Congress politician a Gan*u. On camera. In public. Without apology. In the second, teenage girls dance to "Unki maa ka bhos*a" with hip thrusts that mime rape. In the third, a religious procession moves, thousands of men watching while women perform explicitly sexual acts while dancing on a truck (in the name of God). If you think these three things are unrelated, you haven't understood what Hindutva actually is. This is not crudeness. This is not a culture war about manners or etiquettes. This is a deliberate project, the systematic sexualization of Indian political and religious life, where the female body becomes spectacle and territory, where the language of violation becomes the language of faith and victory, where a Chief Minister and a religious procession share the same vocabulary. And it is thought out. I grew up in India, in a Hindu society. I never saw anything like this. This is not what Hinduism is. Whether you like it or not, Hinduism is part of every Indian's life. We grew up on Sunday morning Ramayan at 9 AM. The festivals of Diwali and Holi. The idea that good wins over evil. And so much more. It was simple. It was moral. It was universal. It belonged to all of us, even those of us who weren't Hindu. We had our own religions, our own prayers, but that moral code was shared. It was in the air we breathed. This is what is being hollowed out. Not just a religion, a common inheritance. That Sunday morning feeling. The idea that there is such a thing as good, and that it wins. Hindutva has taken that and replaced it with a truck, thousands of men, and women performing a sexual dance. This is Hindutva's deep perversion. It has taken a civilization's religious life and turned it into a mob spectacle. It has taken its political language and soaked it in rape. It has handed teenage girls a rape anthem and called it a dance. The slur is not a slip. The procession is not spontaneous. The choreography is not innocent. What is being built, across platforms, campaign rallies, and now religious processions is a political vocabulary where your opponent is not defeated but penetrated, where the enemy is not wrong but he is a Gan*u. When language and ritual are both sexualized to this degree, something specific happens to the people inside it: they stop seeing clearly. The violence stops feeling like violence. The degradation stops feeling like degradation. The opponent becomes pest. The procession becomes devotion. The rape joke becomes a rally cry. This is what the normalization is for. The filth is the mechanism. Run it long enough, from the Chief Minister's mouth to the temple truck to the religious procession, and an entire society quietly crosses a threshold it can never name, only feel. This is not Hinduism. This is Hindutva in it's ugliest form. And it's all connected.
0:05

Watch These Three Videos. In the first, the Chief Minister of Assam calls a Congress politician a Gan*u. On camera. In public. Without apology. In the second, teenage girls dance to "Unki maa ka bhos*a" with hip thrusts that mime rape. In the third, a religious procession moves, thousands of men watching while women perform explicitly sexual acts while dancing on a truck (in the name of God). If you think these three things are unrelated, you haven't understood what Hindutva actually is. This is not crudeness. This is not a culture war about manners or etiquettes. This is a deliberate project, the systematic sexualization of Indian political and religious life, where the female body becomes spectacle and territory, where the language of violation becomes the language of faith and victory, where a Chief Minister and a religious procession share the same vocabulary. And it is thought out. I grew up in India, in a Hindu society. I never saw anything like this. This is not what Hinduism is. Whether you like it or not, Hinduism is part of every Indian's life. We grew up on Sunday morning Ramayan at 9 AM. The festivals of Diwali and Holi. The idea that good wins over evil. And so much more. It was simple. It was moral. It was universal. It belonged to all of us, even those of us who weren't Hindu. We had our own religions, our own prayers, but that moral code was shared. It was in the air we breathed. This is what is being hollowed out. Not just a religion, a common inheritance. That Sunday morning feeling. The idea that there is such a thing as good, and that it wins. Hindutva has taken that and replaced it with a truck, thousands of men, and women performing a sexual dance. This is Hindutva's deep perversion. It has taken a civilization's religious life and turned it into a mob spectacle. It has taken its political language and soaked it in rape. It has handed teenage girls a rape anthem and called it a dance. The slur is not a slip. The procession is not spontaneous. The choreography is not innocent. What is being built, across platforms, campaign rallies, and now religious processions is a political vocabulary where your opponent is not defeated but penetrated, where the enemy is not wrong but he is a Gan*u. When language and ritual are both sexualized to this degree, something specific happens to the people inside it: they stop seeing clearly. The violence stops feeling like violence. The degradation stops feeling like degradation. The opponent becomes pest. The procession becomes devotion. The rape joke becomes a rally cry. This is what the normalization is for. The filth is the mechanism. Run it long enough, from the Chief Minister's mouth to the temple truck to the religious procession, and an entire society quietly crosses a threshold it can never name, only feel. This is not Hinduism. This is Hindutva in it's ugliest form. And it's all connected.

Darab Farooqui

37,260 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

A dog just made the bravest decision I have seen anyone make this year. Not a founder. Not an athlete. Not a person with a plan and a five-year vision board. A dog, on an empty road, with nothing to lose and no idea what would come next. I have watched what comes next more times than I will admit in public. This post is 25,000 characters long. It is a list of reasons why you should watch it too. Read as much as you want, but understand one thing before you start: the video is the only part that matters, and this is everything the video doesn't have room to say. Sound on. Phone in both hands. Do not skip. I'll be here when you get back. THE NUMBER THAT SHOULD BOTHER YOU Let me start with two numbers. The first: commonly cited estimates put the world's stray dog population at around 200 million. Two hundred million animals with no address, no bowl with their name on it, and no one who would notice if they didn't come back tonight. The second number is one. That is how many people had to be on that road, at that exact minute, looking in that exact direction, in a good enough mood to stop. Not two. Not a crowd. One. Here is what nobody says out loud: for every dog you see rescued on camera, there are millions the camera never reached. We don't see them because no one was there. The videos that reach you are not a sample of reality. They are the winners of a lottery so brutal that Powerball looks like a coin flip next to it. So when one of these lands in your feed, don't scroll past it like content. Treat it like what it is: a statistical miracle that happened to end well. And miracles have a structure. Let's take this one apart. FIVE LINKS. BREAK ONE AND THE STORY DOESN'T EXIST. Link one: the dog has to survive long enough to be seen. Roads are not built for small animals. Vehicles do not slow down for shapes on the asphalt. Every hour out there is a coin flip the animal has to win again, and again, and again. Link two: someone has to be present. Not nearby. Present. Eyes up, phone down, brain not busy replaying the argument from breakfast. Link three: that someone has to notice. It sounds simple. It isn't. The human brain is a filtering machine, and a small animal on a road becomes a plastic bag, a shadow, a piece of tire. The most common reason a dog is not rescued is not cruelty. It is that nobody registered it as a dog. Link four: the person has to stop. This is the link that snaps most often. Seeing is free. Stopping costs you time, comfort, a schedule, and possibly the mood of your entire day. Link five: the dog has to let them. An animal that has learned that hands mean pain has every biological reason to run. Trust is not a given. It is a negotiation, and the dog holds the veto. Five links. All five held. Remember that when you press play. You are not watching a nice story. You are watching a chain that should have snapped at least four times. THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP DRIVING In 1968, psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latane published a set of experiments that changed how we think about helping. The finding was uncomfortable: the more people who witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to act. They called it diffusion of responsibility. Everyone assumes someone else will handle it. So nobody does. Later research added nuance. When an emergency is clear and dangerous, people step in more often than the original theory predicted. But the core insight has survived half a century of testing, because it describes something every one of us has felt: the small, quiet voice that says, somebody else will stop. Now picture a road with no crowd at all. No audience. No one to hide behind. No one to blame. Just you and a decision that is entirely, inescapably yours. That is the situation the person in this video walked into. And the reason it is worth your attention is not that they did something impossible. It is that they did something small, and it turns out small is exactly what almost nobody does. You don't need to be a hero. You need to be inconvenienced. THE FACE IS THE RESUME In 2013, researcher Bridget Waller and her team studied dogs in a UK shelter and asked a simple question: what makes one dog get adopted faster than another? It wasn't size. It wasn't age. It wasn't coat color. It was one tiny facial movement: the raising of the inner eyebrows. The move that makes a dog's eyes look bigger, softer, almost sad. Dogs that did it more often were chosen faster. Six years later, a study led by Juliane Kaminski found out why that movement is so easy for dogs and so hard for wolves. Dogs have a small muscle around the eye that wolves largely lack. Over thousands of years of living beside us, dogs evolved a way to make their faces speak our language. Read that again. A species rewired its own anatomy to be understood by another species. No other animal has done this to us. Nobody taught them. Nobody forced them. They looked at us, worked out what we respond to, and grew the tool. Now look at the face in this video. You will know the second you see it. That is not a coincidence, and it is not luck. It is fifteen thousand years of engineering aimed directly at your chest. THE ONLY LOOP LIKE IT ON EARTH In 2015, a Japanese team led by Miho Nagasawa published a result in the journal Science that made researchers stop and reread the abstract. When a dog and its owner look into each other's eyes, both of their oxytocin levels rise. Oxytocin is the bonding chemical, the same one that flows between a mother and her newborn. Dog looks at human. Human's oxytocin rises. Human looks back, touches, talks softly. Dog's oxytocin rises. Which makes the dog look longer. Which makes the human's oxytocin rise again. A feedback loop of affection, running across two species, powered by nothing but eye contact. Here is the part that gets me: the effect did not show up the same way in wolves raised by humans. The loop is not just training. It is something that evolved between us. So the next time someone says a dog is just responding to food, tell them there is a peer-reviewed study that disagrees. And keep this fact in your pocket for the video. Because at some point, a moment of eye contact happens in it, and I want you to know what is really going on in that room. THEY CAN SMELL WHAT YOU'RE HIDING Humans have roughly 6 million scent receptors. Dogs are commonly cited as having around 300 million. A large share of a dog's brain is devoted to processing smell. What you experience as a room, a dog experiences as a layered document: who was here, how long ago, and how they felt. In 2022, researchers at Queen's University Belfast tested something remarkable. They collected breath and sweat samples from people before and after a stressful task. Then they asked dogs to tell the samples apart. The dogs got it right nearly 94 percent of the time. Your body broadcasts your emotional state as chemistry. You cannot turn it off. You cannot fake calm. A dog reads your fear, your tension, your irritation, before you have opened your mouth. Which means every rescue is, at its core, a test of one thing: are you actually calm, or are you performing calm? The dog knows. It always knows. And that is why what happens in the first few seconds of this video matters more than anything that comes after it. Watch the body language. Watch how slowly things move. Watch what is not done. THE MOST IMPORTANT MOMENT IN ANY RESCUE IS THE ONE WHERE NOTHING HAPPENS Animal behaviorists describe fear responses in four flavors: fight, flight, freeze, and fawn. Fight is what people expect. Flight is what most strays do. Freeze is what looks like calm but isn't. And fawn, the desperate, wiggling, please-don't-hurt-me appeasement, is the one that breaks your heart the fastest, because it looks like friendliness and it is actually terror. Rescuers who have done this hundreds of times will tell you the same handful of rules. Don't loom. Don't stare straight into the eyes. Get low. Turn sideways. Slow everything down until it feels absurd. Let the animal close the last few feet on its own terms. The hardest instruction, and the one most people can't follow, is the last one: do nothing. Every instinct you have says reach out. Grab. Fix. Take control of the situation. And every good rescue begins with someone who did the opposite. Who made themselves small, patient, and boring, and waited for a frightened animal to decide that the safest thing in its whole world might be a stranger. You are about to watch someone do exactly that. Notice how little they need to say. THE TEARS THEY WON'T PUT IN THE HEADLINE Scientists are careful people. They do not like to say "dogs cry." But in 2022, a team from Azabu University in Japan, led by Takefumi Kikusui, measured tear volume in dogs during reunions with their owners. The result: tear volume rose significantly compared with reunions involving other familiar people. And when researchers applied oxytocin to the dogs' eyes, tear volume rose again. Not sadness crying. Not the crying we do. Something else, something closer to overflow. The body producing water at the exact moment the heart has more in it than it can hold. Nobody has proven that this is the same thing we feel. Scientists will tell you that, and they are right to. But here is a question worth sitting with. If an animal's eyes fill with water when it sees the one being it has decided to trust, what exactly are we arguing about? Watch the eyes in this video. Then tell me what you think you saw. ONCE IT HAS A NAME, IT STOPS BEING A STATISTIC In 2007, psychologist Paul Slovic and colleagues ran an experiment on generosity. They showed people a fundraising appeal for a hungry child, and then a second version that added statistics about millions of other children in the same crisis. More data. More context. More reasons to care. Donations dropped. Slovic called it psychic numbing. The human mind can hold one face. It cannot hold two hundred million. When a tragedy becomes a number, empathy quietly switches off, and we don't even notice it happening. This is why one named animal in one small video can do what a hundred reports full of charts cannot. It gives your brain something it can actually care about: a single life, with a face, a fear, and a future that could go either way. The stray population is a statistic. A dog is a story. And stories, unlike statistics, come with a name at the end. When you reach that moment in the video, pay attention to what it does to you. Notice the small shift in your chest. That is the sound of a number turning into a person, or close enough. THE WORD FOR WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO FEEL Researchers have a name for the feeling you get when something touches you so suddenly that your throat tightens and your eyes sting. They call it kama muta, Sanskrit for "moved by love." Anthropologist Alan Fiske proposed that it is a distinct emotion, triggered by a sudden intensification of closeness. Two beings who were strangers become bonded. Someone who was alone becomes part of something. People across many cultures describe the same set of signs: warmth in the chest, goosebumps, a lump in the throat, tears they didn't plan on, and a strong urge to hug someone or hold something. Here is what makes it useful and not just sweet: kama muta is one of the most reliable emotional responses we have. It shows up when reunions happen. When a stranger helps unexpectedly. When an animal, after a long time alone, is finally held. You've felt it. You just never had a word for it. Take note of the exact second it hits you in this video. I promise there is one. And if you're the kind of person who says "I never cry at videos," I would like to schedule a follow-up. WHY YOU'LL WANT TO BE A BETTER PERSON AFTER ONE MINUTE Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studied a related feeling and gave it a name: elevation. Elevation is what you feel when you watch someone do something morally beautiful, quietly, with nothing to gain. It is not envy and it is not admiration. It is an urge, physical and immediate, to do something good yourself. In studies, people who experienced elevation were more likely to help others afterward, more likely to volunteer, and more likely to describe wanting to become better versions of themselves. Read that as a design spec. A short piece of true, unstaged kindness can change what a person does in the hour after they see it. Which is a strange, lovely thing for a phone to be capable of. We spend so much time discussing what social media does wrong. Nobody wonders what would happen if the best five percent of it, the small, real, human moments, were the part that traveled farthest. Let this one travel. It has earned it. THE RARE THING: SOMETHING TRUE THAT WINS In 2018, researchers at MIT published a study in Science that analyzed millions of tweets. The result was grim: false news spread significantly faster and further than true news. False stories were about 70 percent more likely to be retweeted, driven largely by surprise and disgust. The lesson most people took away was that this platform rewards outrage. I want to take a different lesson. If false stories win because they trigger strong emotion, then true stories can win too, as long as they trigger stronger ones. A video with no villain, no scandal, and no argument. Nothing to be angry about. Nothing to dunk on. A rescue that is exactly what it looks like. That kind of content should lose on this platform. It has no fuel. And yet every so often, one of them breaks through and reminds everyone what this place was supposed to be. I am not asking you to like it. I am asking you to notice that you had a choice about what to feed today, and this was one of the options. SOME FRIENDSHIPS SHOULDN'T WORK Somewhere near the end of this video, a second character enters the story. I won't tell you who. I won't tell you what happens. I will tell you that if you have ever read anything about instincts, hunting drives, or the way certain animals are supposed to see each other, this moment will quietly rearrange your assumptions. Behaviorists talk about prey drive as if it were destiny. It is not. It is a tendency, and tendencies can be softened by experience, by safety, by being raised, or re-raised, in a place where no one is afraid. The same dog that once had to look after itself alone can, in a different life, learn that the world contains creatures that are not threats or meals. Only neighbors. That is the most hopeful idea in behavioral science, and it usually gets buried in footnotes: what an animal was is not the same as what an animal can become. The same is true for most of us, incidentally. But that is a different post. Stay for the ending. It is the reason I am writing this at all. THE PART THE INTERNET NEVER FILMS Every rescue video has the same shape: the meeting, the rescue, the transformation, the happy ending. It is edited that way because it is the only shape that gets watched. But ask anyone who has actually done this, and they will tell you the truth is in the gap between the second and third act. The first night. The first week. The first time a dog that has never lived indoors realizes there is a floor that doesn't move, a door that closes without danger, and a bowl that will be full again tomorrow. Rescuers have a rule of thumb for this, the 3-3-3 rule. Three days for a dog to decompress. Three weeks to start learning the routine. Three months to feel truly at home. It's not science, exactly, just a shorthand built from thousands of adoptions. But it captures something real: safety is not a switch. It is a process, and the animal has to believe it slowly, one uneventful day at a time. That means the happiest scenes in this video are not the ones that look like celebrations. They are the quiet ones. A dog that stops scanning the room. A body that finally lets go. Look for the moment the shoulders drop. Once you see it, you'll never unsee it. THE COST OF STOPPING: NINETY SECONDS Let's do the math on the thing that most people are afraid of. How long does it actually take to stop for an animal in trouble? Not the whole rescue. Just the decision, the pulling over, the first attempt. Ninety seconds. Sometimes less. Ninety seconds is the length of a bad song on the radio. It is the time you spend waiting for a light to change. It is a scroll through a feed you won't remember. And on the other side of those ninety seconds is the difference between a living animal and a statistic. I'm not saying this to make anyone feel guilty. Guilt is a terrible motivator. It makes people avoid the feeling instead of acting on it. I'm saying it because the barrier is almost always imagined. We inflate the cost of helping in our heads, and the imagined price is what stops us, not the real one. The person in this video paid the real price. It was small. What they got in return is something no one could have planned for. That is the part you should watch closely. IF YOU'RE EVER THE ONE ON THAT ROAD Save this section. Someday, someone reading it will need it. Put your safety first. Pull over where it's safe and turn on your hazard lights before anything else. A second accident helps no one. Do not chase. A frightened dog runs faster than you and directly into the worst possible place. Chasing turns a rescue into a pursuit. Get low and go slow. Sit down if you can. Turn your body sideways. Avoid direct staring. Speak softly, or don't speak at all. Use food, if you have any. Something plain, tossed a little closer each time, works better than any technique. Check for a tag and, if you can get near enough, ask a vet or shelter to scan for a microchip. Someone may be looking for this animal right now. Call for help early. Local rescues, animal control, and vets can handle what you cannot. Sometimes the bravest thing you can do is make the right phone call. Take photos and note the location. If you can't keep the animal, those details are what let someone else finish the job. None of this is complicated. The reason it is rare is that most people have never been told that it is allowed. You are allowed. THE REAL STAKES OF A SMALL DOG Here is a bigger picture, and it's a heavy one. Millions of companion animals enter shelters every year in the United States alone. That is just one country. Many are lost pets that never get reclaimed. Many are strays. Many are animals whose owners ran out of money, time, or hope. Shelters are often crowded, underfunded, and staffed by people running on love and very little else. Every animal that finds a home, or a foster, or a stranger with ninety seconds to spare, frees up a space for the next one in line. That means every single rescue is bigger than the animal in it. It is a small change to a very large system, and the system is nothing but small changes stacked on top of one another. This is not an argument for guilt. It's an argument for scale. One dog saved is one dog saved, but it is also proof of concept, a demonstration that the chain can hold, that the odds can be beaten, that a person and a road and a decision can end well. And proof of concept is contagious. That is why you are seeing it. WHO REALLY GOT RESCUED? If you talk to people who have taken in strays, you'll hear the same sentence over and over, in different words. "I thought I was saving him. It turned out he was saving me." Skeptics roll their eyes at that. It sounds like a greeting card. And research on pets and wellbeing is more mixed than social media would like. It doesn't say every dog fixes every life. But there is something real underneath it, and it's not mystical. A dog is a machine for creating routine, attention, and reasons to leave the house. It needs you at a certain hour. It notices when you come home. It doesn't care about your job title, your follower count, or what you failed at last week. For some people, that is the first unconditional witness they have had in years. The rescue, in this light, is not one-way. Two lonely creatures, one who knew it and one who didn't, found out that they could take care of each other. Nobody can prove that from a video. But there is a version of the story that runs in the background of every rescue, and you can feel it if you let yourself. Tell me whether you feel it here. THE ATTENTION PARADOX Here is a strange fact about the platform you're reading this on. The average post gets a glance. A few words, a flick of the thumb, gone. Brands spend billions every year trying to buy three seconds of your attention, and most of what they buy evaporates before it lands. And yet a video of one dog, with no budget, no celebrity, and no script, can hold a stranger for a full minute. Without a single trick. Why? Because attention is not really about tricks. It is about stakes. Your brain is built to track living things whose outcome is uncertain. The moment there is a creature on screen and you don't yet know if it will be okay, some ancient part of you leans in and refuses to look away. That is the secret behind every great story ever told. Someone we care about. Something that could go wrong. A question we need answered. Marketers call it a hook. Your nervous system calls it worry. This video has both, and it pays off the worry honestly, which is why you leave feeling better instead of used. That is rare enough to deserve a full minute of your life. HOW TO WATCH THIS Most people will watch it wrong. They'll half-look at it between two other things, mid-scroll, thumb already moving. Here is how to get the actual effect. Turn the sound on. There is more happening in the audio than you expect. Make it full screen. This is a story about faces, and faces need room. Watch the first ten seconds without expecting anything. The film is quiet at the start. That is deliberate, or at least it works as if it were. Do not skip ahead. The whole thing depends on the distance between where it starts and where it ends. Skip the middle and the ending is just a nice clip. Then, once it's over, watch it again. The second time, you won't be watching for the story. You'll be watching for the small things you missed: a hesitation, a glance, a change in how a body carries itself. That second watch is where it gets you. I said I have watched it more times than I'll admit. That is the honest reason. It doesn't wear out. It gets deeper. THE CHALLENGE I want to try something with this post. If the video moved you, leave one comment: the second it happened. Not a review, not an analysis. Just the moment. I'm curious whether it's the same one for everyone. My guess is that it isn't, and that the spread of answers will say more about what people carry around with them than about the video. If it didn't move you, that is fine too. I'd like to hear that as well. Honest is better than polite. And if you have ever been the one who stopped, and I know some of you have, write that instead. Tell the story in two lines. No one has ever regretted the ninety seconds. Someone reading this thread might need to know that. Reposting this is the simplest way to put it in front of someone who's scrolling right now, in a bad week, thinking that nothing good happens by accident anymore. Something did. THE LAST THING Let me end where I started. A dog made a decision on an empty road. It could not have known how it would turn out. It had no reason to believe that the next hand would be different from the last. It went ahead anyway. That is the whole difference between a life that changes and one that doesn't. Not certainty. Not a plan. A willingness to move toward the unknown when the alternative is more of the same. The animal in this video did that. Then someone did the same in return. That's it. That's the entire story. Two beings, each of whom took a small, terrifying step toward the other, and a road that was, for a few seconds, the most important place in the world. Scroll up. Press play. Watch the ending. Then come back and tell me I was exaggerating. P.S. If you read all of this, you are exactly the kind of person this video was made for. Most people never make it past the first screen of a long post. You did. That tells me you are someone who stays: through the slow part, through the uncertain part, all the way to the end. Which is, when you think about it, the only quality that mattered in the story you're about to watch. Follow for more like this. I only post the ones that earn it. Bookmark it for days you forget the feeling. #Rescue #DogsOfX #SecondChances #AdoptDontShop #Dogs #AnimalRescue #RescueDog
0:58

A dog just made the bravest decision I have seen anyone make this year. Not a founder. Not an athlete. Not a person with a plan and a five-year vision board. A dog, on an empty road, with nothing to lose and no idea what would come next. I have watched what comes next more times than I will admit in public. This post is 25,000 characters long. It is a list of reasons why you should watch it too. Read as much as you want, but understand one thing before you start: the video is the only part that matters, and this is everything the video doesn't have room to say. Sound on. Phone in both hands. Do not skip. I'll be here when you get back. THE NUMBER THAT SHOULD BOTHER YOU Let me start with two numbers. The first: commonly cited estimates put the world's stray dog population at around 200 million. Two hundred million animals with no address, no bowl with their name on it, and no one who would notice if they didn't come back tonight. The second number is one. That is how many people had to be on that road, at that exact minute, looking in that exact direction, in a good enough mood to stop. Not two. Not a crowd. One. Here is what nobody says out loud: for every dog you see rescued on camera, there are millions the camera never reached. We don't see them because no one was there. The videos that reach you are not a sample of reality. They are the winners of a lottery so brutal that Powerball looks like a coin flip next to it. So when one of these lands in your feed, don't scroll past it like content. Treat it like what it is: a statistical miracle that happened to end well. And miracles have a structure. Let's take this one apart. FIVE LINKS. BREAK ONE AND THE STORY DOESN'T EXIST. Link one: the dog has to survive long enough to be seen. Roads are not built for small animals. Vehicles do not slow down for shapes on the asphalt. Every hour out there is a coin flip the animal has to win again, and again, and again. Link two: someone has to be present. Not nearby. Present. Eyes up, phone down, brain not busy replaying the argument from breakfast. Link three: that someone has to notice. It sounds simple. It isn't. The human brain is a filtering machine, and a small animal on a road becomes a plastic bag, a shadow, a piece of tire. The most common reason a dog is not rescued is not cruelty. It is that nobody registered it as a dog. Link four: the person has to stop. This is the link that snaps most often. Seeing is free. Stopping costs you time, comfort, a schedule, and possibly the mood of your entire day. Link five: the dog has to let them. An animal that has learned that hands mean pain has every biological reason to run. Trust is not a given. It is a negotiation, and the dog holds the veto. Five links. All five held. Remember that when you press play. You are not watching a nice story. You are watching a chain that should have snapped at least four times. THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP DRIVING In 1968, psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latane published a set of experiments that changed how we think about helping. The finding was uncomfortable: the more people who witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to act. They called it diffusion of responsibility. Everyone assumes someone else will handle it. So nobody does. Later research added nuance. When an emergency is clear and dangerous, people step in more often than the original theory predicted. But the core insight has survived half a century of testing, because it describes something every one of us has felt: the small, quiet voice that says, somebody else will stop. Now picture a road with no crowd at all. No audience. No one to hide behind. No one to blame. Just you and a decision that is entirely, inescapably yours. That is the situation the person in this video walked into. And the reason it is worth your attention is not that they did something impossible. It is that they did something small, and it turns out small is exactly what almost nobody does. You don't need to be a hero. You need to be inconvenienced. THE FACE IS THE RESUME In 2013, researcher Bridget Waller and her team studied dogs in a UK shelter and asked a simple question: what makes one dog get adopted faster than another? It wasn't size. It wasn't age. It wasn't coat color. It was one tiny facial movement: the raising of the inner eyebrows. The move that makes a dog's eyes look bigger, softer, almost sad. Dogs that did it more often were chosen faster. Six years later, a study led by Juliane Kaminski found out why that movement is so easy for dogs and so hard for wolves. Dogs have a small muscle around the eye that wolves largely lack. Over thousands of years of living beside us, dogs evolved a way to make their faces speak our language. Read that again. A species rewired its own anatomy to be understood by another species. No other animal has done this to us. Nobody taught them. Nobody forced them. They looked at us, worked out what we respond to, and grew the tool. Now look at the face in this video. You will know the second you see it. That is not a coincidence, and it is not luck. It is fifteen thousand years of engineering aimed directly at your chest. THE ONLY LOOP LIKE IT ON EARTH In 2015, a Japanese team led by Miho Nagasawa published a result in the journal Science that made researchers stop and reread the abstract. When a dog and its owner look into each other's eyes, both of their oxytocin levels rise. Oxytocin is the bonding chemical, the same one that flows between a mother and her newborn. Dog looks at human. Human's oxytocin rises. Human looks back, touches, talks softly. Dog's oxytocin rises. Which makes the dog look longer. Which makes the human's oxytocin rise again. A feedback loop of affection, running across two species, powered by nothing but eye contact. Here is the part that gets me: the effect did not show up the same way in wolves raised by humans. The loop is not just training. It is something that evolved between us. So the next time someone says a dog is just responding to food, tell them there is a peer-reviewed study that disagrees. And keep this fact in your pocket for the video. Because at some point, a moment of eye contact happens in it, and I want you to know what is really going on in that room. THEY CAN SMELL WHAT YOU'RE HIDING Humans have roughly 6 million scent receptors. Dogs are commonly cited as having around 300 million. A large share of a dog's brain is devoted to processing smell. What you experience as a room, a dog experiences as a layered document: who was here, how long ago, and how they felt. In 2022, researchers at Queen's University Belfast tested something remarkable. They collected breath and sweat samples from people before and after a stressful task. Then they asked dogs to tell the samples apart. The dogs got it right nearly 94 percent of the time. Your body broadcasts your emotional state as chemistry. You cannot turn it off. You cannot fake calm. A dog reads your fear, your tension, your irritation, before you have opened your mouth. Which means every rescue is, at its core, a test of one thing: are you actually calm, or are you performing calm? The dog knows. It always knows. And that is why what happens in the first few seconds of this video matters more than anything that comes after it. Watch the body language. Watch how slowly things move. Watch what is not done. THE MOST IMPORTANT MOMENT IN ANY RESCUE IS THE ONE WHERE NOTHING HAPPENS Animal behaviorists describe fear responses in four flavors: fight, flight, freeze, and fawn. Fight is what people expect. Flight is what most strays do. Freeze is what looks like calm but isn't. And fawn, the desperate, wiggling, please-don't-hurt-me appeasement, is the one that breaks your heart the fastest, because it looks like friendliness and it is actually terror. Rescuers who have done this hundreds of times will tell you the same handful of rules. Don't loom. Don't stare straight into the eyes. Get low. Turn sideways. Slow everything down until it feels absurd. Let the animal close the last few feet on its own terms. The hardest instruction, and the one most people can't follow, is the last one: do nothing. Every instinct you have says reach out. Grab. Fix. Take control of the situation. And every good rescue begins with someone who did the opposite. Who made themselves small, patient, and boring, and waited for a frightened animal to decide that the safest thing in its whole world might be a stranger. You are about to watch someone do exactly that. Notice how little they need to say. THE TEARS THEY WON'T PUT IN THE HEADLINE Scientists are careful people. They do not like to say "dogs cry." But in 2022, a team from Azabu University in Japan, led by Takefumi Kikusui, measured tear volume in dogs during reunions with their owners. The result: tear volume rose significantly compared with reunions involving other familiar people. And when researchers applied oxytocin to the dogs' eyes, tear volume rose again. Not sadness crying. Not the crying we do. Something else, something closer to overflow. The body producing water at the exact moment the heart has more in it than it can hold. Nobody has proven that this is the same thing we feel. Scientists will tell you that, and they are right to. But here is a question worth sitting with. If an animal's eyes fill with water when it sees the one being it has decided to trust, what exactly are we arguing about? Watch the eyes in this video. Then tell me what you think you saw. ONCE IT HAS A NAME, IT STOPS BEING A STATISTIC In 2007, psychologist Paul Slovic and colleagues ran an experiment on generosity. They showed people a fundraising appeal for a hungry child, and then a second version that added statistics about millions of other children in the same crisis. More data. More context. More reasons to care. Donations dropped. Slovic called it psychic numbing. The human mind can hold one face. It cannot hold two hundred million. When a tragedy becomes a number, empathy quietly switches off, and we don't even notice it happening. This is why one named animal in one small video can do what a hundred reports full of charts cannot. It gives your brain something it can actually care about: a single life, with a face, a fear, and a future that could go either way. The stray population is a statistic. A dog is a story. And stories, unlike statistics, come with a name at the end. When you reach that moment in the video, pay attention to what it does to you. Notice the small shift in your chest. That is the sound of a number turning into a person, or close enough. THE WORD FOR WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO FEEL Researchers have a name for the feeling you get when something touches you so suddenly that your throat tightens and your eyes sting. They call it kama muta, Sanskrit for "moved by love." Anthropologist Alan Fiske proposed that it is a distinct emotion, triggered by a sudden intensification of closeness. Two beings who were strangers become bonded. Someone who was alone becomes part of something. People across many cultures describe the same set of signs: warmth in the chest, goosebumps, a lump in the throat, tears they didn't plan on, and a strong urge to hug someone or hold something. Here is what makes it useful and not just sweet: kama muta is one of the most reliable emotional responses we have. It shows up when reunions happen. When a stranger helps unexpectedly. When an animal, after a long time alone, is finally held. You've felt it. You just never had a word for it. Take note of the exact second it hits you in this video. I promise there is one. And if you're the kind of person who says "I never cry at videos," I would like to schedule a follow-up. WHY YOU'LL WANT TO BE A BETTER PERSON AFTER ONE MINUTE Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studied a related feeling and gave it a name: elevation. Elevation is what you feel when you watch someone do something morally beautiful, quietly, with nothing to gain. It is not envy and it is not admiration. It is an urge, physical and immediate, to do something good yourself. In studies, people who experienced elevation were more likely to help others afterward, more likely to volunteer, and more likely to describe wanting to become better versions of themselves. Read that as a design spec. A short piece of true, unstaged kindness can change what a person does in the hour after they see it. Which is a strange, lovely thing for a phone to be capable of. We spend so much time discussing what social media does wrong. Nobody wonders what would happen if the best five percent of it, the small, real, human moments, were the part that traveled farthest. Let this one travel. It has earned it. THE RARE THING: SOMETHING TRUE THAT WINS In 2018, researchers at MIT published a study in Science that analyzed millions of tweets. The result was grim: false news spread significantly faster and further than true news. False stories were about 70 percent more likely to be retweeted, driven largely by surprise and disgust. The lesson most people took away was that this platform rewards outrage. I want to take a different lesson. If false stories win because they trigger strong emotion, then true stories can win too, as long as they trigger stronger ones. A video with no villain, no scandal, and no argument. Nothing to be angry about. Nothing to dunk on. A rescue that is exactly what it looks like. That kind of content should lose on this platform. It has no fuel. And yet every so often, one of them breaks through and reminds everyone what this place was supposed to be. I am not asking you to like it. I am asking you to notice that you had a choice about what to feed today, and this was one of the options. SOME FRIENDSHIPS SHOULDN'T WORK Somewhere near the end of this video, a second character enters the story. I won't tell you who. I won't tell you what happens. I will tell you that if you have ever read anything about instincts, hunting drives, or the way certain animals are supposed to see each other, this moment will quietly rearrange your assumptions. Behaviorists talk about prey drive as if it were destiny. It is not. It is a tendency, and tendencies can be softened by experience, by safety, by being raised, or re-raised, in a place where no one is afraid. The same dog that once had to look after itself alone can, in a different life, learn that the world contains creatures that are not threats or meals. Only neighbors. That is the most hopeful idea in behavioral science, and it usually gets buried in footnotes: what an animal was is not the same as what an animal can become. The same is true for most of us, incidentally. But that is a different post. Stay for the ending. It is the reason I am writing this at all. THE PART THE INTERNET NEVER FILMS Every rescue video has the same shape: the meeting, the rescue, the transformation, the happy ending. It is edited that way because it is the only shape that gets watched. But ask anyone who has actually done this, and they will tell you the truth is in the gap between the second and third act. The first night. The first week. The first time a dog that has never lived indoors realizes there is a floor that doesn't move, a door that closes without danger, and a bowl that will be full again tomorrow. Rescuers have a rule of thumb for this, the 3-3-3 rule. Three days for a dog to decompress. Three weeks to start learning the routine. Three months to feel truly at home. It's not science, exactly, just a shorthand built from thousands of adoptions. But it captures something real: safety is not a switch. It is a process, and the animal has to believe it slowly, one uneventful day at a time. That means the happiest scenes in this video are not the ones that look like celebrations. They are the quiet ones. A dog that stops scanning the room. A body that finally lets go. Look for the moment the shoulders drop. Once you see it, you'll never unsee it. THE COST OF STOPPING: NINETY SECONDS Let's do the math on the thing that most people are afraid of. How long does it actually take to stop for an animal in trouble? Not the whole rescue. Just the decision, the pulling over, the first attempt. Ninety seconds. Sometimes less. Ninety seconds is the length of a bad song on the radio. It is the time you spend waiting for a light to change. It is a scroll through a feed you won't remember. And on the other side of those ninety seconds is the difference between a living animal and a statistic. I'm not saying this to make anyone feel guilty. Guilt is a terrible motivator. It makes people avoid the feeling instead of acting on it. I'm saying it because the barrier is almost always imagined. We inflate the cost of helping in our heads, and the imagined price is what stops us, not the real one. The person in this video paid the real price. It was small. What they got in return is something no one could have planned for. That is the part you should watch closely. IF YOU'RE EVER THE ONE ON THAT ROAD Save this section. Someday, someone reading it will need it. Put your safety first. Pull over where it's safe and turn on your hazard lights before anything else. A second accident helps no one. Do not chase. A frightened dog runs faster than you and directly into the worst possible place. Chasing turns a rescue into a pursuit. Get low and go slow. Sit down if you can. Turn your body sideways. Avoid direct staring. Speak softly, or don't speak at all. Use food, if you have any. Something plain, tossed a little closer each time, works better than any technique. Check for a tag and, if you can get near enough, ask a vet or shelter to scan for a microchip. Someone may be looking for this animal right now. Call for help early. Local rescues, animal control, and vets can handle what you cannot. Sometimes the bravest thing you can do is make the right phone call. Take photos and note the location. If you can't keep the animal, those details are what let someone else finish the job. None of this is complicated. The reason it is rare is that most people have never been told that it is allowed. You are allowed. THE REAL STAKES OF A SMALL DOG Here is a bigger picture, and it's a heavy one. Millions of companion animals enter shelters every year in the United States alone. That is just one country. Many are lost pets that never get reclaimed. Many are strays. Many are animals whose owners ran out of money, time, or hope. Shelters are often crowded, underfunded, and staffed by people running on love and very little else. Every animal that finds a home, or a foster, or a stranger with ninety seconds to spare, frees up a space for the next one in line. That means every single rescue is bigger than the animal in it. It is a small change to a very large system, and the system is nothing but small changes stacked on top of one another. This is not an argument for guilt. It's an argument for scale. One dog saved is one dog saved, but it is also proof of concept, a demonstration that the chain can hold, that the odds can be beaten, that a person and a road and a decision can end well. And proof of concept is contagious. That is why you are seeing it. WHO REALLY GOT RESCUED? If you talk to people who have taken in strays, you'll hear the same sentence over and over, in different words. "I thought I was saving him. It turned out he was saving me." Skeptics roll their eyes at that. It sounds like a greeting card. And research on pets and wellbeing is more mixed than social media would like. It doesn't say every dog fixes every life. But there is something real underneath it, and it's not mystical. A dog is a machine for creating routine, attention, and reasons to leave the house. It needs you at a certain hour. It notices when you come home. It doesn't care about your job title, your follower count, or what you failed at last week. For some people, that is the first unconditional witness they have had in years. The rescue, in this light, is not one-way. Two lonely creatures, one who knew it and one who didn't, found out that they could take care of each other. Nobody can prove that from a video. But there is a version of the story that runs in the background of every rescue, and you can feel it if you let yourself. Tell me whether you feel it here. THE ATTENTION PARADOX Here is a strange fact about the platform you're reading this on. The average post gets a glance. A few words, a flick of the thumb, gone. Brands spend billions every year trying to buy three seconds of your attention, and most of what they buy evaporates before it lands. And yet a video of one dog, with no budget, no celebrity, and no script, can hold a stranger for a full minute. Without a single trick. Why? Because attention is not really about tricks. It is about stakes. Your brain is built to track living things whose outcome is uncertain. The moment there is a creature on screen and you don't yet know if it will be okay, some ancient part of you leans in and refuses to look away. That is the secret behind every great story ever told. Someone we care about. Something that could go wrong. A question we need answered. Marketers call it a hook. Your nervous system calls it worry. This video has both, and it pays off the worry honestly, which is why you leave feeling better instead of used. That is rare enough to deserve a full minute of your life. HOW TO WATCH THIS Most people will watch it wrong. They'll half-look at it between two other things, mid-scroll, thumb already moving. Here is how to get the actual effect. Turn the sound on. There is more happening in the audio than you expect. Make it full screen. This is a story about faces, and faces need room. Watch the first ten seconds without expecting anything. The film is quiet at the start. That is deliberate, or at least it works as if it were. Do not skip ahead. The whole thing depends on the distance between where it starts and where it ends. Skip the middle and the ending is just a nice clip. Then, once it's over, watch it again. The second time, you won't be watching for the story. You'll be watching for the small things you missed: a hesitation, a glance, a change in how a body carries itself. That second watch is where it gets you. I said I have watched it more times than I'll admit. That is the honest reason. It doesn't wear out. It gets deeper. THE CHALLENGE I want to try something with this post. If the video moved you, leave one comment: the second it happened. Not a review, not an analysis. Just the moment. I'm curious whether it's the same one for everyone. My guess is that it isn't, and that the spread of answers will say more about what people carry around with them than about the video. If it didn't move you, that is fine too. I'd like to hear that as well. Honest is better than polite. And if you have ever been the one who stopped, and I know some of you have, write that instead. Tell the story in two lines. No one has ever regretted the ninety seconds. Someone reading this thread might need to know that. Reposting this is the simplest way to put it in front of someone who's scrolling right now, in a bad week, thinking that nothing good happens by accident anymore. Something did. THE LAST THING Let me end where I started. A dog made a decision on an empty road. It could not have known how it would turn out. It had no reason to believe that the next hand would be different from the last. It went ahead anyway. That is the whole difference between a life that changes and one that doesn't. Not certainty. Not a plan. A willingness to move toward the unknown when the alternative is more of the same. The animal in this video did that. Then someone did the same in return. That's it. That's the entire story. Two beings, each of whom took a small, terrifying step toward the other, and a road that was, for a few seconds, the most important place in the world. Scroll up. Press play. Watch the ending. Then come back and tell me I was exaggerating. P.S. If you read all of this, you are exactly the kind of person this video was made for. Most people never make it past the first screen of a long post. You did. That tells me you are someone who stays: through the slow part, through the uncertain part, all the way to the end. Which is, when you think about it, the only quality that mattered in the story you're about to watch. Follow for more like this. I only post the ones that earn it. Bookmark it for days you forget the feeling. #Rescue #DogsOfX #SecondChances #AdoptDontShop #Dogs #AnimalRescue #RescueDog

Earth Unveiled

15,706 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen

#WATCH | Bengaluru, Karnataka: On Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation, Congress Rajya Sabha MP Pawan Khera says, "I think this is the first resignation in this country of a minister which was snatched by the country. Nobody asked him to resign. He was forced to resign by the youth of this country and our compliments to the youth of this country... PM has to apologize. The way there was a crackdown on students. The way the prime minister stayed silent for so many days. The home minister ordered this kind of a crackdown because without the home minister ordering it, it is not possible... The youth of this country will ensure that the BJP will be willing to do everything that they want..." On former CM Siddaramaiah's "I will not contest in the 2028 assembly elections" tweet, he says, "That would be a huge loss for not just the party but also for the country and the state because leaders like Siddaramaiah are very rare. He is a very, very valuable asset for our party and for the state and for the country..."
2:20

#WATCH | Bengaluru, Karnataka: On Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation, Congress Rajya Sabha MP Pawan Khera says, "I think this is the first resignation in this country of a minister which was snatched by the country. Nobody asked him to resign. He was forced to resign by the youth of this country and our compliments to the youth of this country... PM has to apologize. The way there was a crackdown on students. The way the prime minister stayed silent for so many days. The home minister ordered this kind of a crackdown because without the home minister ordering it, it is not possible... The youth of this country will ensure that the BJP will be willing to do everything that they want..." On former CM Siddaramaiah's "I will not contest in the 2028 assembly elections" tweet, he says, "That would be a huge loss for not just the party but also for the country and the state because leaders like Siddaramaiah are very rare. He is a very, very valuable asset for our party and for the state and for the country..."

ANI

77,028 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

RFK Jr. just told Tucker Carlson that 2.7% of vaccines given — 1 in every 37 doses — may cause injury. The CDC buried the study that uncovered it. “The problem with VAERS is that it’s voluntary.” “It takes a doctor a half an hour to fill out the paperwork, so there’s a big incentive for them not to do it.” “There’s no course on vaccine injury in any medical school in this country.” “In 2010, CDC designed a new system, and it was a machine counting system.” “They designed a machine counting system that would do essentially a cluster analysis.” “It was a team led by a guy called Lazarus.” “And CDC paid for the whole thing, millions of dollars, and it was a long term study.” “They compared what the machine counting system had gotten and compared that to what VAERS had collected during the same period.” “VAERS was capturing fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries.” “The data showed injuries in about 2.7% of vaccines.” “Which is 1/37 vaccines you get, there’s an injury.” “CDC saw that and said we’re not going to use the system.” “They shelved it in 2010, and they’ve continued to use VAERS when they know that it doesn’t work.” “It was designed to fail.” “We’re going to create either within VAERS or, supplementary to VAERS, a system that actually works.”
3:41

RFK Jr. just told Tucker Carlson that 2.7% of vaccines given — 1 in every 37 doses — may cause injury. The CDC buried the study that uncovered it. “The problem with VAERS is that it’s voluntary.” “It takes a doctor a half an hour to fill out the paperwork, so there’s a big incentive for them not to do it.” “There’s no course on vaccine injury in any medical school in this country.” “In 2010, CDC designed a new system, and it was a machine counting system.” “They designed a machine counting system that would do essentially a cluster analysis.” “It was a team led by a guy called Lazarus.” “And CDC paid for the whole thing, millions of dollars, and it was a long term study.” “They compared what the machine counting system had gotten and compared that to what VAERS had collected during the same period.” “VAERS was capturing fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries.” “The data showed injuries in about 2.7% of vaccines.” “Which is 1/37 vaccines you get, there’s an injury.” “CDC saw that and said we’re not going to use the system.” “They shelved it in 2010, and they’ve continued to use VAERS when they know that it doesn’t work.” “It was designed to fail.” “We’re going to create either within VAERS or, supplementary to VAERS, a system that actually works.”

End Tribalism in Politics

171,949 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

"If so much could be achieved in just twelve years, then one must ask: why did it not happen over all the decades before 2014? That is the difference between the Congress growth rate and the NDA growth rate. There was a system that made people wait. Today, there is a system that delivers results. There was a system where projects were delayed, decisions were deferred, and progress was held back. Today, there is a system that says the work will be done, done on time, and done at scale. That is why the story of India between 2014 and 2026 is not merely a story of numbers. It is the story of a nation that, for the first time, began to run at the full measure of its potential." — Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi
1:11

"If so much could be achieved in just twelve years, then one must ask: why did it not happen over all the decades before 2014? That is the difference between the Congress growth rate and the NDA growth rate. There was a system that made people wait. Today, there is a system that delivers results. There was a system where projects were delayed, decisions were deferred, and progress was held back. Today, there is a system that says the work will be done, done on time, and done at scale. That is why the story of India between 2014 and 2026 is not merely a story of numbers. It is the story of a nation that, for the first time, began to run at the full measure of its potential." — Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi

G Kishan Reddy

13,848 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

#WATCH | Delhi: On media reports that the central government is likely to bring a bill to curb the powers of the Waqf Board over assets, Former Vice Chairman Of National Commission For Minorities Atif Rasheed says, "The Waqf Act was formed in 1954. The then government in 1995 changed it completely. In 2013, a lot of amendments were made to the act. So, now if an amendment is taking place, it does not need to be taken negatively. We should trust the government, it is dedicated to 'Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas'... As per the reports, it seems that there are going to be around 32 amendments in the act. If it is about registration with the Collector or a judicial inquiry, then why should one have a problem with it? In 2013, it was amended that the government should map it every 10 years... This is not an interference in the Shariat and it does not decrease the power of the Waqf..."
4:51

#WATCH | Delhi: On media reports that the central government is likely to bring a bill to curb the powers of the Waqf Board over assets, Former Vice Chairman Of National Commission For Minorities Atif Rasheed says, "The Waqf Act was formed in 1954. The then government in 1995 changed it completely. In 2013, a lot of amendments were made to the act. So, now if an amendment is taking place, it does not need to be taken negatively. We should trust the government, it is dedicated to 'Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas'... As per the reports, it seems that there are going to be around 32 amendments in the act. If it is about registration with the Collector or a judicial inquiry, then why should one have a problem with it? In 2013, it was amended that the government should map it every 10 years... This is not an interference in the Shariat and it does not decrease the power of the Waqf..."

ANI

14,687 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren