That's exactly the BSD advocate's equivocation that I was referring to.
You'll find no GPL-licensed software where the licensor's intent is to blur the distribution/use distinction rather than specifically separate the two. Consequently any exploitative follow-on to your pet theory will fail radically in court.
Dismissing the GPL would've done them no good: then they'd have been without any license at all, which would make them guilty of all sorts of egregiously-penalized criminal copyright violations. A party can either accept the GPL in all its parts, or not have any rights to distribute the work or its derivatives whatsoever.
It's the Stallman Slam Article time of the year. Springtime as usual. Wonder if we'll get about half a week's worth of that feminist talking-point shit next?
Your tinfoil hat obstructed facial recognition, and was secured by automatic operatives of WalMart Holdings LTD to ensure continued well-being and security of all subjects.
>But as we have already established, it is permitted where private individuals or organizations are concerned.
As I have pointed out time and again, the issue is not whether it's permitted of Twitter or not. The rest of your comment is you listening to yourself babble.
>Who said it did? However, giving extremists a worldwide platform in which to spread their alternate news is not the responsibility of a social media platform.
Weasel words for controlling which views people are allowed exposure to. There's a fundamental distrust in Joe Q. Public in this reasoning, which assumes that seeing a video of ISIS beheading a civilian causes him to turn to the side of medieval murderers in a lickity split.
Meanwhile actual terrorists with high double-digit body counts have managed to radicalize themselves perfectly well without any public forum whatsoever. Take Breivik for example, with his bat-shit insane manifesto calling for non-believers to be rounded up in cities and then executed en mass by nuclear bombing.
>If people stop going there because it sucks because it's full of lulz nazi eggs shouting caps-locked slurs at them, that hurts Twitter right in the pocketbook.
That's why Twitter recently rolled out keyword muting. Add slur du jour, problem addressed.
This being said, I've never seen any evidence of this giant mudslide of abuse that wasn't screencaps obviously doctored to maximize internet martyr points. On the contrary, there's quite a bit of maoist peer-pressure stuff and such going on in the moonbat sector; but even that appears to require no suspensions whatsoever.
It says that their reason for suspending hundreds of thousands of accounts is "violent extremism". Unfortunately no-one can verify if this is true in any given case, since all evidence is hidden behind the mechanism of suspension. Might as well call it wrongthink, not that extremism has any better a definition.
Try this thought experiment out for size: if Twitter's workforce were to try and unionize, do you think Twitter would permit them the use of their own platform?
For a concrete example, right-wing bourgeois politicians at the EU level (i.e. NGOs and such) have repeatedly attempted to have communism declared an act of terrorism. Their definition includes such heinous things as striking, unionization, the ability of workers to switch companies as they themselves see fit, and limits on onerous forum clauses. Surely that's on par with truck bombs and gunning children down at a summer camp, for everyone.
>I've never quite understood this argument how censorship actually makes extremists stronger.
That's not the argument. The argument is that censorship neither removes extremism nor makes it less relevant in a concrete security sense, and that censorship is invariably applied to goals that have nothing to do with anti-extremist programs. See the "baby w/ bathwater" simile in my first post.
Furthermore, censorship is anathema to an open society. To wit: once permitted, you'll find that the censors are never wrong, and that they commit no errors.
That's a silly viewpoint. Certainly we have media even now that's able and willing to pick-and-choose what they publish; given this, it's absolutely necessary to have open fora -- and for platforms like Twitter etc. -- for the presentation of minority views. Such as yours, and mine. As such, basic communication tools shouldn't be subject to a Gestapo-esque gimping. What's more, China's example shows us that the logical endstate of that is private messenger applets that dock your good-citizen points for discussing Scunthorpe, with double penalty for using a computer while doing so.
>Your own wack bullshit DOES depend on similar constructions!
Moreover, I'd like to have all the extremist argumentation slapped the fuck down by intellectuals in public. Given the way things are going however, it's as though transparency and public discussion were anathema to those with power to censor.
I mean, it can't possibly be that some jack-ass white supremacist, trash-ass ISIS goon, or wank-ass Hillary Trumponite, were hard to repudiate -- unless your own wack bullshit depends on similar constructions. Then it's really hard without stabbing yourself in the back.
Or anyway those who don't have a simplistic, easily-probed agreement or other conflict of interest with classified U.S. three-letter agencies. This criteria changes exactly nothing.
Beware the false prophets. Ineffective activism is exactly equivalent to doing nothing at all.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly the BSD advocate's equivocation that I was referring to.
You'll find no GPL-licensed software where the licensor's intent is to blur the distribution/use distinction rather than specifically separate the two. Consequently any exploitative follow-on to your pet theory will fail radically in court.
The GPL governs distribution, whereas EULAs govern use. Two different things.
(except to nutters such as BSD advocates.)
Dismissing the GPL would've done them no good: then they'd have been without any license at all, which would make them guilty of all sorts of egregiously-penalized criminal copyright violations. A party can either accept the GPL in all its parts, or not have any rights to distribute the work or its derivatives whatsoever.
It's the Stallman Slam Article time of the year. Springtime as usual. Wonder if we'll get about half a week's worth of that feminist talking-point shit next?
Such as this one right here on /.
Your tinfoil hat obstructed facial recognition, and was secured by automatic operatives of WalMart Holdings LTD to ensure continued well-being and security of all subjects.
Most importantly, the vandalized security robots would otherwise have bullied people.
This is the tale of the lazy worker. It's what employers use to teach employees to hate and spy on one another.
>this is a lie that striking has been equated with terrorism.
It is absolutely not a lie. But I also note that you make no comment on the other things.
Calling the dog rabid is an excuse for putting it down.
>But as we have already established, it is permitted where private individuals or organizations are concerned.
As I have pointed out time and again, the issue is not whether it's permitted of Twitter or not. The rest of your comment is you listening to yourself babble.
>Who said it did? However, giving extremists a worldwide platform in which to spread their alternate news is not the responsibility of a social media platform.
Weasel words for controlling which views people are allowed exposure to. There's a fundamental distrust in Joe Q. Public in this reasoning, which assumes that seeing a video of ISIS beheading a civilian causes him to turn to the side of medieval murderers in a lickity split.
Meanwhile actual terrorists with high double-digit body counts have managed to radicalize themselves perfectly well without any public forum whatsoever. Take Breivik for example, with his bat-shit insane manifesto calling for non-believers to be rounded up in cities and then executed en mass by nuclear bombing.
>If people stop going there because it sucks because it's full of lulz nazi eggs shouting caps-locked slurs at them, that hurts Twitter right in the pocketbook.
That's why Twitter recently rolled out keyword muting. Add slur du jour, problem addressed.
This being said, I've never seen any evidence of this giant mudslide of abuse that wasn't screencaps obviously doctored to maximize internet martyr points. On the contrary, there's quite a bit of maoist peer-pressure stuff and such going on in the moonbat sector; but even that appears to require no suspensions whatsoever.
It says that their reason for suspending hundreds of thousands of accounts is "violent extremism". Unfortunately no-one can verify if this is true in any given case, since all evidence is hidden behind the mechanism of suspension. Might as well call it wrongthink, not that extremism has any better a definition.
Try this thought experiment out for size: if Twitter's workforce were to try and unionize, do you think Twitter would permit them the use of their own platform?
Commercial pressure to censor is, where effective, equivalent to primary censorship. As seen in Twitter's transparency report.
For a concrete example, right-wing bourgeois politicians at the EU level (i.e. NGOs and such) have repeatedly attempted to have communism declared an act of terrorism. Their definition includes such heinous things as striking, unionization, the ability of workers to switch companies as they themselves see fit, and limits on onerous forum clauses. Surely that's on par with truck bombs and gunning children down at a summer camp, for everyone.
>I've never quite understood this argument how censorship actually makes extremists stronger.
That's not the argument. The argument is that censorship neither removes extremism nor makes it less relevant in a concrete security sense, and that censorship is invariably applied to goals that have nothing to do with anti-extremist programs. See the "baby w/ bathwater" simile in my first post.
Furthermore, censorship is anathema to an open society. To wit: once permitted, you'll find that the censors are never wrong, and that they commit no errors.
That's a silly viewpoint. Certainly we have media even now that's able and willing to pick-and-choose what they publish; given this, it's absolutely necessary to have open fora -- and for platforms like Twitter etc. -- for the presentation of minority views. Such as yours, and mine. As such, basic communication tools shouldn't be subject to a Gestapo-esque gimping. What's more, China's example shows us that the logical endstate of that is private messenger applets that dock your good-citizen points for discussing Scunthorpe, with double penalty for using a computer while doing so.
>Your own wack bullshit DOES depend on similar constructions!
Speak for yourself, fampai.
Moreover, I'd like to have all the extremist argumentation slapped the fuck down by intellectuals in public. Given the way things are going however, it's as though transparency and public discussion were anathema to those with power to censor.
I mean, it can't possibly be that some jack-ass white supremacist, trash-ass ISIS goon, or wank-ass Hillary Trumponite, were hard to repudiate -- unless your own wack bullshit depends on similar constructions. Then it's really hard without stabbing yourself in the back.
Because shutting down extremist accounts ends violent extremism... how exactly? What about the baby, freshly dumped alongside bathwater?
(of course the point was always to dump the baby to begin with.)
So what about Asia? Biggest of them all? Is that also smaller on this new, slightly PC-ish projection?
Anything that anyone does can be dismissed in this way.
Or anyway those who don't have a simplistic, easily-probed agreement or other conflict of interest with classified U.S. three-letter agencies. This criteria changes exactly nothing.
Beware the false prophets. Ineffective activism is exactly equivalent to doing nothing at all.
That's what PulseAudio does, isn't it?
It's handwaving, because you give no reason the workaround couldn't be implemented in Firefox as well.