I have been paying a bit of attention. Help me out. GoDaddy was providing which service for them, and why can't they just hop on CrisisHost or something?
Europeans often smell themselves when it comes to the abstract idea of Liberty; in the concrete I prefer America's.
the abolition of "net neutrality" rules is a good thing, improving freedom.
Here though, we part company. Why is it Verizon's business that I have requested HTTP from Gab.com? Verizon and I have a contract to fulfill my HTTP requests for a certain charge per month. They have no business with Gab.com that I care about when making an HTTP request, and throttling my request makes the business relationship with Verizon much less worthwhile.
GoDaddy is not involved in Net Neutrality. I don't have a contract with GoDaddy to deliver HTTP to me.
As I argue elsewhere, providing a forum for the despicables is not — should not be — any more toxic, than defending same in court.
Here, we are in complete agreement. People who are crying for Gab's deplatforming are ignorant, short-sighted, slope-slippers. If you believe in free speech only for some, you don't believe in it at all.
That being said, you don't have to enable anyone else's speech. That is freedom, as well.
Yes, they have been persecuted in the commercial space, but I didn't think that's what we were talking about: that content wouldn't even have a chance of being hosted in Germany.
What I was saying is that a private entity which does not support Gab does not support the principles of free speech. That is, as you say, having it both ways.
However, preventing a private entity from terminating business arrangements or not entering into them does not strike me as a remedy. The current cycle of shaming and naming makes certain opinions completely, commercially-speaking, toxic. This is freedom, too.
Yeah, I'm pretty uncomfortable with them being deplatformed, too. I don't think that you can on the one hand say you support the principles of free expression and on the other say "Oh, well, that makes me uncomfortable."
On the other hand, no one has to pay for the bits which make up your speech, and the government isn't involved, so I'm not sure this is the exact hill on which to die.
We've handed the Town Square to a few powerful individuals and corporations.
The trick is recognizing the cause and what to do about it. Mostly-one-way-tubes is what caused that precondition. The average internet subscriber's *right-to-publish* must be taken back from ISPs.
There are model calculations for that. Go look them up if you're interested. Of course, it's not a very plausible scenario, so I can imagine that there's only limited interest in exploring it.
....there are model calculations for marching the secret climate police across the entire world to stop all carbon emissions?!?!?!
So the answer above is, if ALL emissions are ceased, the climate impacts will cease ('approximately cancelling').
Which means that you're running a scam here.
If you marched your secret climate police across the entire world to stop all carbon emissions, how long will that take? No one wants to give out a number.
However, what I'd like to ask is how many years do "science slashdotters" expect it to take before slowing down the increase of whatnots into the atmosphere is supposed to do anything on the order of slowing down climate change.
It's a very simple question. Don't try to overthink it; just put out a number. I have a rough guess. Let's compare.
The real issue isn't getting the service as practical as facebook, IMO it's already there.
Well, you're wrong. Critical social-mass requires an ease-of-use that is equivalent to FB's. Ease of use is what hooked people. Unfortunately, there's probably not any money in solving this problem.
Google's search algorithm business should be nationalized, its patents freed. Then their ad network would be much less offensive.
Facebook is different. We would need a magic-box-software install from which non-tech people could publish their own content, then a.torrent-based publicization method. It would end up similar to Newsgroups, but the security & trust problems are significant ("magic").
Slashdot Mirror
I'm on FF, with uMatrix blocking all non-1st-party cookies'n'scripts, and non-whitelisted cookies deleting.
Similar on mobile. My mileage is billboard-free.
The Right to Free Speech of course has limits. We limit all kinds of speech, but first we limit it with social pressure.
I have been paying a bit of attention. Help me out. GoDaddy was providing which service for them, and why can't they just hop on CrisisHost or something?
the report's authors
Europeans often smell themselves when it comes to the abstract idea of Liberty; in the concrete I prefer America's.
the abolition of "net neutrality" rules is a good thing, improving freedom.
Here though, we part company. Why is it Verizon's business that I have requested HTTP from Gab.com? Verizon and I have a contract to fulfill my HTTP requests for a certain charge per month. They have no business with Gab.com that I care about when making an HTTP request, and throttling my request makes the business relationship with Verizon much less worthwhile.
GoDaddy is not involved in Net Neutrality. I don't have a contract with GoDaddy to deliver HTTP to me.
As I argue elsewhere, providing a forum for the despicables is not — should not be — any more toxic, than defending same in court.
Here, we are in complete agreement. People who are crying for Gab's deplatforming are ignorant, short-sighted, slope-slippers. If you believe in free speech only for some, you don't believe in it at all.
That being said, you don't have to enable anyone else's speech. That is freedom, as well.
Heh.
Still, this is market forces saying that something is toxic. I don't for a second believe that there won't be a successor to Gab soon.
In fact, I'm looking forward to trolling nazis on it very soon.
People can create their own websites but it is a bit like shouting in an empty room, you have free speech but no one can hear you.
This is a feature, not a bug. If you want to talk to people, you have to go where the people are.
Yes, they have been persecuted in the commercial space, but I didn't think that's what we were talking about: that content wouldn't even have a chance of being hosted in Germany.
What I was saying is that a private entity which does not support Gab does not support the principles of free speech. That is, as you say, having it both ways.
However, preventing a private entity from terminating business arrangements or not entering into them does not strike me as a remedy. The current cycle of shaming and naming makes certain opinions completely, commercially-speaking, toxic. This is freedom, too.
You've conflated the platforms which will kick you off with the entire universe of broadcast, the internet, and publishing.
Perhaps I was too generous before.
No, you can do what everyone else who wants to be heard does: buy airtime/webtime/magazine-space.
And in North Korea, you fucking moron, you'll be SHOT for attempting to buy that airtime. Not in Freemerica.
"you might want to move to Estonia or Iceland", said no one, ever, to no one in particular.
Yeah, I'm pretty uncomfortable with them being deplatformed, too. I don't think that you can on the one hand say you support the principles of free expression and on the other say "Oh, well, that makes me uncomfortable."
On the other hand, no one has to pay for the bits which make up your speech, and the government isn't involved, so I'm not sure this is the exact hill on which to die.
We've handed the Town Square to a few powerful individuals and corporations.
The trick is recognizing the cause and what to do about it. Mostly-one-way-tubes is what caused that precondition. The average internet subscriber's *right-to-publish* must be taken back from ISPs.
You realize, of course, no one is forced to use closed protocols like Facebook.
Yes, I knew they're referring to the new impacts. How long?
No one wants to give out a number.
There are model calculations for that. Go look them up if you're interested. Of course, it's not a very plausible scenario, so I can imagine that there's only limited interest in exploring it.
....there are model calculations for marching the secret climate police across the entire world to stop all carbon emissions?!?!?!
So the answer above is, if ALL emissions are ceased, the climate impacts will cease ('approximately cancelling').
Which means that you're running a scam here.
If you marched your secret climate police across the entire world to stop all carbon emissions, how long will that take? No one wants to give out a number.
I'm yo huckleberry...
However, what I'd like to ask is how many years do "science slashdotters" expect it to take before slowing down the increase of whatnots into the atmosphere is supposed to do anything on the order of slowing down climate change.
It's a very simple question. Don't try to overthink it; just put out a number. I have a rough guess. Let's compare.
Pretty much.
Apple may be able to afford a lawyer or two. "Demanding" a retraction is like "threatening" to sue. Shit or get off the pot.
trade war started
Thanks for playing: the servers were dumped in '15-'16.
Undiscussed in all this is Why did both Apple and Amazon dump SuperMicro at roughly the same time?
The real issue isn't getting the service as practical as facebook, IMO it's already there.
Well, you're wrong. Critical social-mass requires an ease-of-use that is equivalent to FB's. Ease of use is what hooked people. Unfortunately, there's probably not any money in solving this problem.
^^ That's the whole issue: Facebook is a closed platform. Use open protocols, then make your platform have value over others. They did it backward.
Google's search algorithm business should be nationalized, its patents freed. Then their ad network would be much less offensive.
.torrent-based publicization method. It would end up similar to Newsgroups, but the security & trust problems are significant ("magic").
Facebook is different. We would need a magic-box-software install from which non-tech people could publish their own content, then a
Should I buy a boat?