It's basically searching for an i386 version of Chrome and throwing an error when it doesn't find one (since this was discontinued by Google a while back.) I've never taken the time to familiarize myself with all of the finer points of apt / dpkg, so I'm fuzzy on precisely why this happens, but apparently it only happens if you've enabled 32 bit packages on your 64-bit Ubuntu/Debian install, and also (I think) installed certain 32 bit packages. It doesn't prevent you from installing or using 64-bit Chrome, but it does throws the error every time you look for updates.
I was content to ignore the error message until I realized it was also preventing the proper execution of Qubes' update scripts, which is an extra annoyance at best (meaning I can't rely on the Qubes VM Manager's update notification or easy right-click update functionality), and at worst might end up somehow breaking some of Qubes' AppVM functionality or security features.
Chrome isn't my primary browser anyway so I'm considering just ditching it (or perhaps maintaining a separate x64-only Debian 8 Qubes template for it, if I think I can spare the space on my SSD), but I haven't had a chance to spend hours digging for a fix yet.
The error in question is:
Failed to fetch http://dl.google.com/linux/chr...
Unable to find expected entry 'main/binary-i386/Packages' in Release file (Wrong sources.list entry or malformed file)
More details on the issue can be found in the 'fix' that I linked to (which doesn't work for me or others.)
Does anyone have a fix for that error about the missing i386 file on Ubuntu/Debian when certain 32 bit packages are present? I've found a few proposed solutions, but none of them work. On my main box (Qubes OS, using a Debian 8 template), this error is especially annoying because it is preventing Qubes' update scripts from properly executing.
I'm suddenly compelled to offer a preemptive clarification:
Milo does not appear to be in bed with the KKK or Islamists. Rather, I said that certain segments of the left are in bed with the Islamists.
Note the distinction between sharing certain beliefs with someone and aligning with them or defending them as a group or movement (above and beyond the basic defense of tolerance that all who live in a freedom-oriented society should be granted.)
So: Even though the KKK or maybe even Milo might has more in common with Islamists than most self-described progressives, those people do not promote or defend or stand by the Islamists... whereas many self-described progressives will. I'm not saying those leftists are very much like Islamists (although other people are quite fond of that comparison), just that they defend and excuse them.
And this is dangerous and self-destructive behavior on the part of those leftists. Standing up for free speech is great, and I've done this repeatedly in this thread. (I'd even much prefer that just we let ISIS have a Twitter account.) But standing up for free speech is very different from defending abhorrent practices in the name of multiculturalism, standing in the way of stamping out those practices[1], and/or insisting that we allow self-described Islamists who openly reject our constitution to become citizens[2].
1. This is a much, much bigger problem in the UK at the moment than it is over here, but that's all the more reason to be vigilant against its spread. The left's behavior regarding coercion and violence against women, gender segregation from an early age, taxpayer subsidy of vile religious teachings and the forced surgical removal of some of the most joyful bits of humanity (glans clitoris) is reprehensible. Even the police often seem to be openly aligned with, or are at least deferring to the Islamists out of fear of being called racists (e.g. the Rotherham child rapes, the fallout from "Undercover Mosque".)
This appears to be a perversion of or unfortunate outcome of the "policing by consent" principle.
2. It's unbelievable how widespread this sentiment is, even when it's contrasted to the onerous hoops one must jump through to become a naturalized citizen of almost any other country. Not even someone like Bruce Perens can admit the self-destructive insanity inherent in allowing someone who openly, explicitly rejects the very foundation of a nation to become a naturalized citizen of that nation and be allowed to wander, associate, settle freely. You might as well argue the UK should be forced to allow KKK members to become citizens when in reality, any well known KKK member would be banned from even entering the country for a vacation.
There is a further wrinkle here in that phone calls are one-to-one while Twitter is one-to-many (but with some lingering one-to-one aspects), but I'm not following you down that rabbit hole unless/until you demonstrate intellectual honesty with the points I've just clarified.
even when it was your own initiative that brought up a subject.
Are you still repeating this lie? I did not bring up telemarketing. I brought up phone companies concerning themselves with the person you are calling and the contents of your (non-telemarketing) conversation. This are two very, very, very different things. In the context of my example, both people are willing participants and want to hear what the other person is saying, but the phone company is censoring them anyway.
Despite my ever-increasing suspicions that you are trolling me, I have further clarified the differences in my attitude toward telemarketing and other disruptive communication in another reply.
I have also made multiple attempts to get you to recognize that I'm fact, those telemarketers and spammers have associated themselves with free-speech advocacy
I said this like 5+ posts ago: I would also support an expansion of common carrier type rules that would compel all general purpose platforms to accept all legal, non-disruptive (e.g. spamming and crapflooding) content.
I never concerned myself with flooding issues. Technical countermeasures should first be used. When these are not sufficient, distinctions can be made pretty easily between crapflooding/spamming and non-spamming communications and I would support any measures necessary to keep such disruptive communications in check. This is almost entirely orthogonal to the issue at hand. The courts do not have a problem distinguishing the act of arresting someone because he's a member of the Communist Party of America vs. arresting someone because he is screaming into a bullhorn at 3am.
This is as much as I feel like addressing this issue at the moment. I've done so only because you asserted an overlap. I counter-assert that this overlap is minimal and there is virtually no disagreement among us on this issue except that, possibly, I would always prefer technical countermeasures be exhausted prior to "censorship" policies (e.g. content removal, bans and/or arrests, depending on the context) being used, but when it comes to disruptive communication (which DOES NOT INCLUDE "HATE SPEECH"), I am in principle fine with either.
I just don't see you making room for more moderate adherents of Islam.
I very clearly was not talking about them. "Islamists" is not a synonym for "Muslims". I don't really care what your thesaurus says. Do a google search and see how this word is commonly used around the net. Go look at how Maajid Nawaz uses the term. I'm very much not interested in catering to witch hunt mentalities so extreme that it is based around misunderstanding the common definition of words.
I use the term Jihadists, but I can suggest a few others if you like.
"Jihadist" implies violence or advocacy of violence. Islamist contains no such implication (but it doesn't necessarily imply nonviolence, either.)
I just don't see you making room for more moderate adherents of Islam.
'There are moderate adherents of Islam.' But saying "the KKK" doesn't mean I have to immediately bring up the moderate adherents of Christianity. That's not the subject at hand.
Just point out the right-wing's sacred cows when you start lambasting the left.
If you've been paying any attention whatsoever, you might notice that I am primarily lambasting the right (Islamists--not Muslims in general) and by implication this is much more severe than my lambasting of the left because I am merely criticizing them for so frequently protecting those right wingers without question, and not challenging their right-wing ideas nearly strongly enough.
The fact that much of the left sees this segment of the ultra-ring wing as a poor oppressed minority worthy of defense (above and beyond the very basic tolerance that they should also exhibit towards Republicans) is very disturbing, and represents a grave threat to the future of liberalism. The fact that you do not appear to process the fact that I am first and foremost criticizing [a segment of] the right wing here is highly illustrative of this problem.
Once again, I am talking only about their over the top protection of Islamists (and also very conservative but nominally non-Islamist Muslims, including but not limited to groups who keep their females in a perpetual state of oppression), not their protection of Muslims in general.
Like I said, whoosh, up in the air, a ballon spearing its way into the sky.
You are hopeless if you think that "non-right wing Islamists" is a useful phrase. It's right up there with "non-racist Ku Klux Klan".
They're all strange bedfellows, but by your own words, you aren't arguing the concept anymore
I don't feel like dissecting that right now but it sounds like you just pretended I said something that I did not say. Milo does not appear to be in bed with the KKK or Islamists. Rather, I said that certain segments of the left are in bed with the Islamists.
It would be a minimal effort which returned a lot of credit.... Really, you're not making a good case for you making a genuine distinction.
The distinction is Islamists are a subset of Muslims and subset of the extreme right wing. I'm not stuffing my posts full of extra disclaimers to satisfy the whims of an AC. Most people will not even bother composing a single lengthy reply so like I said, count yourself blessed.
However, you are beginning to sound a bit too much like another AC I was recently talking to, misunderstanding simple statements and attempting to insist that I address off-topic issues, so unless you want to log in or stop being so dense I think I'll leave it at that. You may not, in fact, be trolling me, but as an AC I'm afraid the onus is on you to demonstrate that.
See this is what I meant about not treating my grievance as legitimate.
Adjust your brain or adjust your glasses. I said two or three times, very very clearly, that I agreed it was a legitimate grievance. It was simply off-topic, because Milo was not banned for telemarketing or spamming and no one in their right mind would confuse banning for political speech with banning for spamming. These acts do not appear alike. The debates surround each topic are tangential at best.
I have declined to read beyond this first sentence. Go improve your crappy reading comprehension skills (and/or your crappy strawman skills) with someone else.
If you want additional elucidation here: Islamists are intrinsically right-wing because Muhammad was a right wing man and the laws set forth in all of the texts are right-wing (except for perhaps a small portion of the economic laws, but certainly not all economic laws.) The idea of Islamism comes from the text of Islam (the idea of using it as a general purpose lawbook), and you can't get non-right wing Islamism without completely ignoring the texts of Islam. It's not an over-generalization; it's intrinsic. Disputing that characterization is like disputing that helium is a noble gas; your only possible recourse would be to find very, very tiny bizarre corner case-obsessed or semantically-obsessed quibbling.
Islamists are a subset of the far right. This statement of fact is quite different from the lazy over-generalization you and/or TED were using when referring to Milo, the KKK, neo-Nazis, Trump, Trump supporters, i.e. the right wing in general. As a monolith, which it is not.
That wasn't the whooshing. Try examining your statement in full. Start at the beginning.
You realize that Islamism is not a synonym of Islam? Islamism is far right wing using any commonly accepted definitions of those terms. Islamism is the belief that secular society should be governed mostly or entirely by sharia. All four mainstream schools of sharia are extremely right-wing. The minor schools are not infrequently even more extremely right-wing. Maybe you can find some Baha'i or Qu'ranist who has some exceedingly bizarre, personal definition of the words "sharia" (specifically as it relates to secular law) or "Islamism" but at this point you're simply declaring war on the English and/or Arabic languages... you're not actually making any interesting intellectual point even if that was your implication.
Islamists are right wing. Quibblers only make themselves look foolish.
Oddly you're silent on those.
I'm not writing a goddamn term paper for you. Nothing here is comprehensive. Count yourself blessed that I reply to you at all, you intellectually slothful Anonymous Coward. If a right wing Christian blowhard wants to poke his head in here perhaps I'll insult him too, but I'm not here to perform tricks on command for your amusement.
When you go around to a business saying offensive speech and they ask you to leave on the grounds that you're offending their customers with your speech, that isn't a restriction of free speech
If the business is in the business of providing communication services to the general public, and your "offensive speech" was part of that communication (this matches the situation with Milo and Twitter), then this is absolutely a restriction of free speech. Go re-read my post. I can't explain it any other way, except maybe to flesh out the racism analogy even further. What the hey, let's try:
If I invite you to my public forum and you say something offensive, I will ask you to leave and your free speech is still not restricted.
Yes it is. It most clearly is. Free speech is a concept that exists beyond the first amendment. Free speech means the ability to communicate freely (within the given context), not "to not violate someone's first amendment rights." It's disgraceful that so many otherwise intelligent people cannot grasp this very, very, very simple distinction.
That doesn't mean we have to tolerate your presence of offensive speech in the places that we control
I said nothing about "have to tolerate." This has nothing to do with the law. Private golf courses in some instances have been able to LEGALLY turn away all black people. This was legal for them to do. It was still racism.
Just because it's legal for Twitter to ban Milo, does not mean it didn't interfere with his ability to communicate freely when they did so.
That doesn't mean we have to tolerate your presence of offensive speech in the places that we control
In which case, you do not believe supporting free speech within the confines of your business.
You might believe in supporting it on a strictly governmental level, but this is akin to saying "the post office shouldn't discriminate against black people because that's racist and the government can't be racist. But I, as the owner of a private club, am going to tell all black people to go away." You *can* say that in many cases. But this is clearly a racist thing to say and do.
Simply making it privatized doesn't magically mean it has nothing to do with racism any more, and making censorship privitized doesn't mean it has nothing to do with free speech any more.
I really think the simple truth of the matter is you people want to lie to yourselves, because it sounds so bad to say "I don't really support free speech" out loud.
I gave up 20% in. Zero desire to continue this if you're going to jackknife from point to point, alternating nonsequiturs with arguments that contradict what you were previously saying. Should've realized you weren't being intellectually honest here as soon as it became clear you weren't going to shut up about the off-topic telemarketing tangent.
I'm not going to curate a set of links for you but if you wish to educate yourself on the current state of affairs, Youtube is the easiest way. It's the most popular means of mass communication and easy to listen to whilst you multitask. If you really believe that criticism of Christianity on the internet is lacking, I suggest you start with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Dawkins before moving on through all of the prominent atheist Youtubers like The Amazing Atheist, Sargon of Akkad, Cenk Uygur, Steve Shives, etc.
Be sure to make a note of the popularity of these videos and the like/dislike ratios, and read some of the comments. Then go watch the pro-Christian vids, make a note of the like/dislike ratio and read the comments there (if they're even enabled.)
Atheism is beating Christianity on the internet among the people who care enough to debate these things, period. It's having a much, much tougher time vs. Islam, partially because there are many more ultra-conservative Muslims in the world than there are ultra-conservative Christians but also because they are being given so much assistance from prominent self-flagellating wings of the left, including many of those aforementioned Youtubers who don't hesitate to criticize Christianity (Steve Shives, Cenk Uygur) and also from Youtube itself.
Well, there goes your high ground complaints about being monolithic. Whoosh it goes, down the toilet.
I very clearly said "the hysterical segment."
No, they're crafted by people thinking they're being witty, which often just means they have a high opinion of themselves.
This, sadly, is not always the case. The feminists who donned the veil in solidarity with conservative Muslims, and who try to portray it as a symbol of female power (shielding themselves from The Male Gaze, blah blah blah), were definitely not joking. They appeared to have convinced themselves that conservative Islam was actually empowering for women on no other basis than the fact that the right-wingers they knew and despised were against Islam.
Yeah, watch what happens when you post THAT video. Seriously, I dare you.
Many, many, many people have posted "that video", including Atheism-is-Unstoppable, the buffoon who posted the aforementioned video on Islam. Youtube never removes "that video" on Christianity, because they don't consider radical Christians to be in need of coddling.
Right now, on the internet, it's a much, much more problematic criticizing Islam than criticizing Christianity, because both the delusional wing of leftists and the Islamists are opposing you. You could say "Try doing that on the streets in Texas" and my response will of course be "Try doing that on the streets in Mecca. Or Birmingham. Or Dearborn."
A little while back the #KillAllAtheists was one of the top hashtags trending on the Arabic version of Twitter, but nothing was done. This was as the killings of prominent atheist bloggers in Bangladesh were going on, so it's not like it's just some idle nonsense, either. Twitter, apparently, was too busy banning people like Milo to bother themselves with such things. And prior to that, they were taking pre-ban steps in an attempt to reduce the popularity of his account (like giving him un-verified status, as I recall) specifically because of his stance on Islam.
And when Milo wanted to talk, as a gay man, at UCF in the aftermath of the Pulse nightclub shooting, the police refused to protect him. He could point to the death threats made against him and they still refused protection and for that reason UCF refused to let him speak. The police were too busy, it seems, protecting every single mosque in the city, regardless of whether or not a threat had been made against them. Immediately afterwards, I saw them protecting the mosques in my city as well. I checked, but there was no report of a threat being made against those mosques.
And you know what? Good on them! Protecting mosques is great... up until the point where they refuse to protect Milo, because all of their men are too busy looking tough outside the mosque in Orlando that hosted a speaker who openly called for the murder of all gay people just months before the shooting.
You deny the reality of the facts on the ground, both on the internet and 'IRL', at your own peril. If the left refuses to remedy this situation, the country will swing right. It's as simple as that. I wish it weren't, but there it is. People don't have time to go out and form their own party of sane people. Instead, I see former leftists making excuses for Trump's antics. Trump may yet lose, but someone else playing a wiser version of him will sail through the next election with a comfortable margin if things continue as they are.
I don't know that we have a problem at hand. Milo wanting to buy 4chan was the start of the discussion, but we're clearly divorced from that.
It is intimately connected to his stated and implicit reasons for doing so. See above.
Milo is a jackass, but he is very much correct on a narrow range of points. There are a few times in the past year when little clips from Fox News (stumbled upon by accident, as I never seek it out) actually made me nod my head. This is a bad fucking sign. I am quite sure my own opinion of the situation hasn't been changing in recent years; it's just that Fox that has sensed and is weaseling their way into a void, attempting to exploit the left's weaknesses against them.
Yes, you are. If you weren't, you'd have flat out admitted I do have a legitimate grievance
I did that three posts ago. Do you also want to assert that rap music is annoying? Sure! I agree! But not relevant. Milo wasn't banned for spamming or telemarketing.
There is no trouble whatsoever differentiating censorship of flooders and censorship of unpopular opinions and your continued attempt to conflate these two, as if SEARCHING OUT A VIDEO ON YOUTUBE BY SUBJECT (because they're never going to put this shit
Preemptive clarification: One of the omitted details here involves spamming, crapflooding and other communications that degrade performance for the on-topic exchange of ideas. As I said in my other post, there is no reason to consider the blocking of disruptive communications, socially/morally/legally/technically speaking, in the same way that we consider the blocking of unpopular sociopolitical speech.
There many more potential nitpicks here that I have ready answers for, if you really insist.
Exactly, the phone companies censoring ideas. In particular, telemarketing and political calls.
I'm not playing this game with you, sorry. Any reasonable person will realize the stark difference between communicating with someone who wants to listen to you and communicating with people who do not wish to be disturbed. This is why censorship of crapflooding, spamming and telemarketing are treated much differently than the censorship of unpopular political opinions (which anyone is free to ignore or even block, client-side.)
That's why reasonable people treat them differently, I should say. I said two or three replies ago that it was a valid problem to consider, but it is emphatically not the problem at hand.
Or if I want to point out the biggest flaw, that would come up if he'd done it to say, Christians, is that he's painting in a broad stroke.
No. That's not a flaw. Fuck Christians. Their nonsense is dangerous, too. (And is, in fact, nonsense.) At this precise moment in history, it is apparently not quite as dangerous--globally speaking--as Muhammad's nonsense, but that's another discussion.
I suppose I'm just "dodging real issues" if I wished to prevent this debate from growing at a geometric rate, though?
If you're not going to do it,
I provided a second post exploring this other angle. It is necessary to maintain strong separation because other people, including yourself, will fail to properly separate shoulds from legal rights.
As far as everything else goes, I think we've at least cleared the air. I am pro free speech in a real and pragmatic sense and you are not. I'm not sure I particularly feel like embarking on a wider discussion on whether one can combat the unsavory elements using "bleach", except to say that it's doomed to fail. If this were North Korea maybe you could, but not when they already have so many other tools at their disposal.
The Stormfront forums are uncomfortably large (and are heavily policed against outsiders injecting logic into the debate), but you know what? Give them a Facebook and Twitter and Youtube page, and most racists won't ever bother visiting it. (UBBs are so 2003.) And on Youtube, there will be the thumbnail of a reaction video just to the right of the bullshit you just watched. A lot of people might not bother clicking on that video, but some will.
I switched over from Virtualbox (I only ever tried VMware player, which I found pretty underwhelming), so I can't provide you with any useful comparisons.
It's all Xen under the hood, if you've any experience with that.
AppVMs, which use PV drivers (maybe PVH? I forget) and various performance tricks, are stupid fast to the point where you'll regularly forget that they're not native. Or maybe ~5 second boot times are the norm on most platforms now, but they certainly weren't on Virtualbox (even with PV drivers in use.) I think Windows HVMs were about the same speed as they were on Virtualbox, but the Qubes windows mixing (not having to deal with a second desktop) was a really nice touch.
The point of the Qubes distro, it's worth underlining, is the intelligent plumbing, UIs, and security. The actual nuts and bolts of virtualization is left to the hypervisor, which as I said is Xen. (They're working on abstracting everything so that other virtualization platforms can be used down the road, but it isn't user-changeable at this time.)
The correct answer is that professed non-violent Islamists are part of the extreme right wing by any sane measure, generally a bit further to the right than the worst bible belt politician you'll ever see, but hysterical segment of the left wing that you appear to represent refuses to admit this. Instead, they prefer to ride the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" concept to dizzying new heights, which is how astonishingly bizarre slogans like "Queers for Hamas" are sometimes forged.
If you don't think X should do Y, then what will you do about it? Go ahead and answer it.
I think common carrier laws should be expanded such that if you are providing a platform for the communication of an arbitrary or broad array of ideas, open to the general public, that you should not be able to police that content except to block or remove illegal content.
I have almost no sympathy whatsoever with appeals to the rights of poor ole Joe Twitter, this imaginary person whose rights of free association would be violated by such restrictions. If everyone is forced to do it, no one will suffer from lost business because no one will be able to offer a sanitized alternative. Opt-in blocking can and undoubtedly would be encouraged.
Lots of other details I could get into here, but this is obviously what would be most conducive to a society and government ostensibly based on the free exchange and criticism of ideas. However, there needs to be a VERY large wall erected between what I just said here and my other post, because 90% of the people (yes I pulled that out of my ass but I'm being conservative here--it's more like 97%) on the opposite side of this conversation, yourself included, insist on dragging the question of rights into every single fucking corner of this debate.
That's why I put this is a separate post. Big wall. Completely different argument being made here. If a golf course owner bans all black people, there is a question of whether he should that exists completely independently of the question of whether he can (or whether we should change it so that he can or can't). If you believe that he should ban all black people then you are not an anti-racist, full stop. It doesn't matter what your opinions are about his rights (either what you think they are or what you think they should be); the fact that you believe he *should* deny entry black people means you are not anti-racism. I really hope I don't have to draw you a little diagram (with arrows) to illustrate how this analogy maps onto Youtube's censorship, but I'm starting to suspect that I might need to.
You're the one that brought it up. If you don't want to discuss that, don't bring something up. Seriously, don't. It's the same reason I don't buy your excuses about the golf course. YOU brought it up, and it's not my fault you didn't realize it was a REAL issue, with its own reality.
Nonsense. I did not bring up telemarketing. I brought up phone companies in the context of how it would work if they started censoring people and ideas.
And I brought up golf courses in a different context than the one you fixated on. Not just different, but actually completely opposed to. I brought up the golf course analogy specifically to move the conversations away from one of rights to one of shoulds, but you decided to ignore this and tried to steer the conversation back into rights anyway.
I think that Youtube needs to be proactive in their management of a lot of content.
And so, with a little bit of reading between the lines here, you are not in favor of free speech on Youtube. While society is still trying to figure out how it treats new media (and in particular these hugely popular proprietary walled gardens), I consider this to be on par with phone companies deciding whether conversations are appropriate, i.e. this means you don't believe in free speech in any serious or practical sense of the word. Free speech only in governmental contexts, with restricted speech everywhere else, is not a terribly useful thing to have. Better than nothing I suppose, but only just barely.
That said, from your description, I can already spot a lie to it.
That's really only possible if you're a Muslim, a pantheist who believes all of the books are true (snort), if you think those nonsensical ideas aren't dangerous (hah), or if you want to quibble about whether cultural but atheistic Muslims are actually Muslims (snore.)
I don't agree with a sentiment of hatred; I think that's a strong word that doesn't convey where I stand but there is something deeply offensive about banning human emotions from being expressed even when using only coolly calculated words.
Beyond that, I would be against removing the video almost regardless of its contents. If it were Nazi propaganda, I would think it would be vitally important that any member of the public could view it and toss another comment of disgust, derision and truthful analysis on the pile. Over the long term, sunlight is the only viable disinfectant. If we force all miscreants to develop and maintain their own private walled garden, completely insulated from criticism...
And if you want to know why I insist on it, there's a large share of purported free-speech advocates that are not particularly honest or genuine
If you claim to be a free speech advocate and you are in favor of general purpose new media platforms (like Youtube) policing political speech then you aren't particularly honest or genuine. Free speech as a concept is meaningless except when discussing the treatment of speech you disagree with, and free speech that nobody can use (because there's no government sponsored Youtube)... isn't all that useful.
Please note that at no point in this post did I discuss the creation of new laws compelling anyone to do or not do anything. That is an interesting topic that I touched on elsewhere (and I suspect we'd have some disagreements), but there is a completely separate conversation here about what Youtube *should* do (akin to whether the golf course owner *should* discriminate against black people, were it legal), not about what it is or should be legally compelled to do.
Well, you may have been intentionally shifting the subject slightly and I missed that, but for the sake of simplicity in my first reply I was attempting to keep the conversation entirely away rights, just leave it within the realm of shoulds and desirables.
It a distinction that is not just frequently lost in this debate, but usually lost.
The very first thing I tried to do with my friend's Echo was to activate the self destruct sequence. It was immensely disappointing to get a "don't understand" response instead of "Does the first officer concur?"
They may be completely useless, but easter eggs make excellent first impressions. You shouldn't necessarily need joke writers for it, though. Easiest way to figure out what to say in response to the user is to simply field test the crap out of it and google any curious-sounding repeated questions that you notice. That, plus maybe you get a meme database and try to include most of the more popular ones. You don't have to spam the user with references; just respond intelligently if they appear to be alluding to one.
Quite possibly the worst comic Munroe ever wrote. The phrase "free speech" did not pop into existence with the first amendment. And, for my standard C&P response by analogy to this intellectually bankrupt argument:
If a private golf course discriminates against a black person... it's racism! It's racism when the government does it. It's racism when a private business does it. It's racism even if it's legal for them to do it. And so it is with free speech.
If you're against free speech (whether completely or to some partial, qualified extent) then say so. But neither you nor Mr. Munroe have the power to redefine it in such an incredibly narrow fashion, just so you can have your cake and eat it too.
The amount of bad faith (or simply very, very wrong-headed) red herrings one has to deal with in this conversation is simply stunning.
Let me be very, very precise: for the sake of this argument, we are talking about preventing readers who are voluntarily interested in reading something... from reading that thing. Words have been destroyed due to the ideas they convey, and the speaker banned from using that platform ever again. That is the context surrounding the jackass martyr of Milo I'mnotgoingtomemorizethatlastname. It has almost nothing to do whatsoever with laws concerning telemarketing or unsolicited political robocalling.
A specific example I prefer (although not quite specific to Milo) is Atheism-is-Unstoppable's (another guy who's more than a bit of a jackass) banned video wherein he very clearly explains why he hates 'all Muslims'--not because he thinks they are all terrorists (he repeatedly uses the phrase "on a spectrum"), but because they believe and propagate lies, and sometimes dangerous lies at that. This video was deleted and accounts censured at least half a dozen times.... not just original, but they also sanctioned everyone who reposted it in solidarity. This is bad. And if you're in favor of this behavior from Youtube, you are not in favor of free speech in any meaningful sense of the term. You can't hide behind "bububuthe first amendment doesn't make it illegal for Youtube to do that!" That's a non-answer to the question of whether or not they should do it.
That is my thesis. I'm not saying that all of your side tangents are unimportant or uninteresting, but there is SO MUCH WHITE NOISE on this issue that I have to insist that people remain on-topic. It appears at though 90% of the people who fervently oppose free speech have convinced themselves that they're really pro free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
I was content to ignore the error message until I realized it was also preventing the proper execution of Qubes' update scripts, which is an extra annoyance at best (meaning I can't rely on the Qubes VM Manager's update notification or easy right-click update functionality), and at worst might end up somehow breaking some of Qubes' AppVM functionality or security features.
Chrome isn't my primary browser anyway so I'm considering just ditching it (or perhaps maintaining a separate x64-only Debian 8 Qubes template for it, if I think I can spare the space on my SSD), but I haven't had a chance to spend hours digging for a fix yet. The error in question is:
Failed to fetch http://dl.google.com/linux/chr...
Unable to find expected entry 'main/binary-i386/Packages' in Release file (Wrong sources.list entry or malformed file)
More details on the issue can be found in the 'fix' that I linked to (which doesn't work for me or others.)
Does anyone have a fix for that error about the missing i386 file on Ubuntu/Debian when certain 32 bit packages are present? I've found a few proposed solutions, but none of them work. On my main box (Qubes OS, using a Debian 8 template), this error is especially annoying because it is preventing Qubes' update scripts from properly executing.
Milo does not appear to be in bed with the KKK or Islamists. Rather, I said that certain segments of the left are in bed with the Islamists.
Note the distinction between sharing certain beliefs with someone and aligning with them or defending them as a group or movement (above and beyond the basic defense of tolerance that all who live in a freedom-oriented society should be granted.)
So: Even though the KKK or maybe even Milo might has more in common with Islamists than most self-described progressives, those people do not promote or defend or stand by the Islamists... whereas many self-described progressives will. I'm not saying those leftists are very much like Islamists (although other people are quite fond of that comparison), just that they defend and excuse them.
And this is dangerous and self-destructive behavior on the part of those leftists. Standing up for free speech is great, and I've done this repeatedly in this thread. (I'd even much prefer that just we let ISIS have a Twitter account.) But standing up for free speech is very different from defending abhorrent practices in the name of multiculturalism, standing in the way of stamping out those practices[1], and/or insisting that we allow self-described Islamists who openly reject our constitution to become citizens[2].
1. This is a much, much bigger problem in the UK at the moment than it is over here, but that's all the more reason to be vigilant against its spread. The left's behavior regarding coercion and violence against women, gender segregation from an early age, taxpayer subsidy of vile religious teachings and the forced surgical removal of some of the most joyful bits of humanity (glans clitoris) is reprehensible. Even the police often seem to be openly aligned with, or are at least deferring to the Islamists out of fear of being called racists (e.g. the Rotherham child rapes, the fallout from "Undercover Mosque".)
This appears to be a perversion of or unfortunate outcome of the "policing by consent" principle.
2. It's unbelievable how widespread this sentiment is, even when it's contrasted to the onerous hoops one must jump through to become a naturalized citizen of almost any other country. Not even someone like Bruce Perens can admit the self-destructive insanity inherent in allowing someone who openly, explicitly rejects the very foundation of a nation to become a naturalized citizen of that nation and be allowed to wander, associate, settle freely. You might as well argue the UK should be forced to allow KKK members to become citizens when in reality, any well known KKK member would be banned from even entering the country for a vacation.
There is a further wrinkle here in that phone calls are one-to-one while Twitter is one-to-many (but with some lingering one-to-one aspects), but I'm not following you down that rabbit hole unless/until you demonstrate intellectual honesty with the points I've just clarified.
even when it was your own initiative that brought up a subject.
Are you still repeating this lie? I did not bring up telemarketing. I brought up phone companies concerning themselves with the person you are calling and the contents of your (non-telemarketing) conversation. This are two very, very, very different things. In the context of my example, both people are willing participants and want to hear what the other person is saying, but the phone company is censoring them anyway.
Despite my ever-increasing suspicions that you are trolling me, I have further clarified the differences in my attitude toward telemarketing and other disruptive communication in another reply.
I have also made multiple attempts to get you to recognize that I'm fact, those telemarketers and spammers have associated themselves with free-speech advocacy
I said this like 5+ posts ago: I would also support an expansion of common carrier type rules that would compel all general purpose platforms to accept all legal, non-disruptive (e.g. spamming and crapflooding) content.
I never concerned myself with flooding issues. Technical countermeasures should first be used. When these are not sufficient, distinctions can be made pretty easily between crapflooding/spamming and non-spamming communications and I would support any measures necessary to keep such disruptive communications in check. This is almost entirely orthogonal to the issue at hand. The courts do not have a problem distinguishing the act of arresting someone because he's a member of the Communist Party of America vs. arresting someone because he is screaming into a bullhorn at 3am.
This is as much as I feel like addressing this issue at the moment. I've done so only because you asserted an overlap. I counter-assert that this overlap is minimal and there is virtually no disagreement among us on this issue except that, possibly, I would always prefer technical countermeasures be exhausted prior to "censorship" policies (e.g. content removal, bans and/or arrests, depending on the context) being used, but when it comes to disruptive communication (which DOES NOT INCLUDE "HATE SPEECH"), I am in principle fine with either.
I just don't see you making room for more moderate adherents of Islam.
I very clearly was not talking about them. "Islamists" is not a synonym for "Muslims". I don't really care what your thesaurus says. Do a google search and see how this word is commonly used around the net. Go look at how Maajid Nawaz uses the term. I'm very much not interested in catering to witch hunt mentalities so extreme that it is based around misunderstanding the common definition of words.
Or maybe you'd like to give me grief about the word "niggardly" while you're at it?
I use the term Jihadists, but I can suggest a few others if you like.
"Jihadist" implies violence or advocacy of violence. Islamist contains no such implication (but it doesn't necessarily imply nonviolence, either.)
I just don't see you making room for more moderate adherents of Islam.
'There are moderate adherents of Islam.' But saying "the KKK" doesn't mean I have to immediately bring up the moderate adherents of Christianity. That's not the subject at hand.
Just point out the right-wing's sacred cows when you start lambasting the left.
If you've been paying any attention whatsoever, you might notice that I am primarily lambasting the right (Islamists--not Muslims in general) and by implication this is much more severe than my lambasting of the left because I am merely criticizing them for so frequently protecting those right wingers without question, and not challenging their right-wing ideas nearly strongly enough.
The fact that much of the left sees this segment of the ultra-ring wing as a poor oppressed minority worthy of defense (above and beyond the very basic tolerance that they should also exhibit towards Republicans) is very disturbing, and represents a grave threat to the future of liberalism. The fact that you do not appear to process the fact that I am first and foremost criticizing [a segment of] the right wing here is highly illustrative of this problem.
Once again, I am talking only about their over the top protection of Islamists (and also very conservative but nominally non-Islamist Muslims, including but not limited to groups who keep their females in a perpetual state of oppression), not their protection of Muslims in general.
Like I said, whoosh, up in the air, a ballon spearing its way into the sky.
You are hopeless if you think that "non-right wing Islamists" is a useful phrase. It's right up there with "non-racist Ku Klux Klan".
They're all strange bedfellows, but by your own words, you aren't arguing the concept anymore
I don't feel like dissecting that right now but it sounds like you just pretended I said something that I did not say. Milo does not appear to be in bed with the KKK or Islamists. Rather, I said that certain segments of the left are in bed with the Islamists.
It would be a minimal effort which returned a lot of credit. ... Really, you're not making a good case for you making a genuine distinction.
The distinction is Islamists are a subset of Muslims and subset of the extreme right wing. I'm not stuffing my posts full of extra disclaimers to satisfy the whims of an AC. Most people will not even bother composing a single lengthy reply so like I said, count yourself blessed.
However, you are beginning to sound a bit too much like another AC I was recently talking to, misunderstanding simple statements and attempting to insist that I address off-topic issues, so unless you want to log in or stop being so dense I think I'll leave it at that. You may not, in fact, be trolling me, but as an AC I'm afraid the onus is on you to demonstrate that.
See this is what I meant about not treating my grievance as legitimate.
Adjust your brain or adjust your glasses. I said two or three times, very very clearly, that I agreed it was a legitimate grievance. It was simply off-topic, because Milo was not banned for telemarketing or spamming and no one in their right mind would confuse banning for political speech with banning for spamming. These acts do not appear alike. The debates surround each topic are tangential at best.
I have declined to read beyond this first sentence. Go improve your crappy reading comprehension skills (and/or your crappy strawman skills) with someone else.
If you want additional elucidation here: Islamists are intrinsically right-wing because Muhammad was a right wing man and the laws set forth in all of the texts are right-wing (except for perhaps a small portion of the economic laws, but certainly not all economic laws.) The idea of Islamism comes from the text of Islam (the idea of using it as a general purpose lawbook), and you can't get non-right wing Islamism without completely ignoring the texts of Islam. It's not an over-generalization; it's intrinsic. Disputing that characterization is like disputing that helium is a noble gas; your only possible recourse would be to find very, very tiny bizarre corner case-obsessed or semantically-obsessed quibbling.
Islamists are a subset of the far right. This statement of fact is quite different from the lazy over-generalization you and/or TED were using when referring to Milo, the KKK, neo-Nazis, Trump, Trump supporters, i.e. the right wing in general. As a monolith, which it is not.
That wasn't the whooshing. Try examining your statement in full. Start at the beginning.
You realize that Islamism is not a synonym of Islam? Islamism is far right wing using any commonly accepted definitions of those terms. Islamism is the belief that secular society should be governed mostly or entirely by sharia. All four mainstream schools of sharia are extremely right-wing. The minor schools are not infrequently even more extremely right-wing. Maybe you can find some Baha'i or Qu'ranist who has some exceedingly bizarre, personal definition of the words "sharia" (specifically as it relates to secular law) or "Islamism" but at this point you're simply declaring war on the English and/or Arabic languages... you're not actually making any interesting intellectual point even if that was your implication.
Islamists are right wing. Quibblers only make themselves look foolish.
Oddly you're silent on those.
I'm not writing a goddamn term paper for you. Nothing here is comprehensive. Count yourself blessed that I reply to you at all, you intellectually slothful Anonymous Coward. If a right wing Christian blowhard wants to poke his head in here perhaps I'll insult him too, but I'm not here to perform tricks on command for your amusement.
When you go around to a business saying offensive speech and they ask you to leave on the grounds that you're offending their customers with your speech, that isn't a restriction of free speech
If the business is in the business of providing communication services to the general public, and your "offensive speech" was part of that communication (this matches the situation with Milo and Twitter), then this is absolutely a restriction of free speech. Go re-read my post. I can't explain it any other way, except maybe to flesh out the racism analogy even further. What the hey, let's try:
If I invite you to my public forum and you say something offensive, I will ask you to leave and your free speech is still not restricted.
Yes it is. It most clearly is. Free speech is a concept that exists beyond the first amendment. Free speech means the ability to communicate freely (within the given context), not "to not violate someone's first amendment rights." It's disgraceful that so many otherwise intelligent people cannot grasp this very, very, very simple distinction.
That doesn't mean we have to tolerate your presence of offensive speech in the places that we control
I said nothing about "have to tolerate." This has nothing to do with the law. Private golf courses in some instances have been able to LEGALLY turn away all black people. This was legal for them to do. It was still racism.
Just because it's legal for Twitter to ban Milo, does not mean it didn't interfere with his ability to communicate freely when they did so.
That doesn't mean we have to tolerate your presence of offensive speech in the places that we control
In which case, you do not believe supporting free speech within the confines of your business.
You might believe in supporting it on a strictly governmental level, but this is akin to saying "the post office shouldn't discriminate against black people because that's racist and the government can't be racist. But I, as the owner of a private club, am going to tell all black people to go away." You *can* say that in many cases. But this is clearly a racist thing to say and do.
Simply making it privatized doesn't magically mean it has nothing to do with racism any more, and making censorship privitized doesn't mean it has nothing to do with free speech any more.
I really think the simple truth of the matter is you people want to lie to yourselves, because it sounds so bad to say "I don't really support free speech" out loud.
I gave up 20% in. Zero desire to continue this if you're going to jackknife from point to point, alternating nonsequiturs with arguments that contradict what you were previously saying. Should've realized you weren't being intellectually honest here as soon as it became clear you weren't going to shut up about the off-topic telemarketing tangent.
I'm not going to curate a set of links for you but if you wish to educate yourself on the current state of affairs, Youtube is the easiest way. It's the most popular means of mass communication and easy to listen to whilst you multitask. If you really believe that criticism of Christianity on the internet is lacking, I suggest you start with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Dawkins before moving on through all of the prominent atheist Youtubers like The Amazing Atheist, Sargon of Akkad, Cenk Uygur, Steve Shives, etc.
Be sure to make a note of the popularity of these videos and the like/dislike ratios, and read some of the comments. Then go watch the pro-Christian vids, make a note of the like/dislike ratio and read the comments there (if they're even enabled.)
Atheism is beating Christianity on the internet among the people who care enough to debate these things, period. It's having a much, much tougher time vs. Islam, partially because there are many more ultra-conservative Muslims in the world than there are ultra-conservative Christians but also because they are being given so much assistance from prominent self-flagellating wings of the left, including many of those aforementioned Youtubers who don't hesitate to criticize Christianity (Steve Shives, Cenk Uygur) and also from Youtube itself.
Well, there goes your high ground complaints about being monolithic. Whoosh it goes, down the toilet.
I very clearly said "the hysterical segment."
No, they're crafted by people thinking they're being witty, which often just means they have a high opinion of themselves.
This, sadly, is not always the case. The feminists who donned the veil in solidarity with conservative Muslims, and who try to portray it as a symbol of female power (shielding themselves from The Male Gaze, blah blah blah), were definitely not joking. They appeared to have convinced themselves that conservative Islam was actually empowering for women on no other basis than the fact that the right-wingers they knew and despised were against Islam.
Yeah, watch what happens when you post THAT video. Seriously, I dare you.
Many, many, many people have posted "that video", including Atheism-is-Unstoppable, the buffoon who posted the aforementioned video on Islam. Youtube never removes "that video" on Christianity, because they don't consider radical Christians to be in need of coddling.
Right now, on the internet, it's a much, much more problematic criticizing Islam than criticizing Christianity, because both the delusional wing of leftists and the Islamists are opposing you. You could say "Try doing that on the streets in Texas" and my response will of course be "Try doing that on the streets in Mecca. Or Birmingham. Or Dearborn."
A little while back the #KillAllAtheists was one of the top hashtags trending on the Arabic version of Twitter, but nothing was done. This was as the killings of prominent atheist bloggers in Bangladesh were going on, so it's not like it's just some idle nonsense, either. Twitter, apparently, was too busy banning people like Milo to bother themselves with such things. And prior to that, they were taking pre-ban steps in an attempt to reduce the popularity of his account (like giving him un-verified status, as I recall) specifically because of his stance on Islam.
And when Milo wanted to talk, as a gay man, at UCF in the aftermath of the Pulse nightclub shooting, the police refused to protect him. He could point to the death threats made against him and they still refused protection and for that reason UCF refused to let him speak. The police were too busy, it seems, protecting every single mosque in the city, regardless of whether or not a threat had been made against them. Immediately afterwards, I saw them protecting the mosques in my city as well. I checked, but there was no report of a threat being made against those mosques.
And you know what? Good on them! Protecting mosques is great... up until the point where they refuse to protect Milo, because all of their men are too busy looking tough outside the mosque in Orlando that hosted a speaker who openly called for the murder of all gay people just months before the shooting.
You deny the reality of the facts on the ground, both on the internet and 'IRL', at your own peril. If the left refuses to remedy this situation, the country will swing right. It's as simple as that. I wish it weren't, but there it is. People don't have time to go out and form their own party of sane people. Instead, I see former leftists making excuses for Trump's antics. Trump may yet lose, but someone else playing a wiser version of him will sail through the next election with a comfortable margin if things continue as they are.
I don't know that we have a problem at hand. Milo wanting to buy 4chan was the start of the discussion, but we're clearly divorced from that.
It is intimately connected to his stated and implicit reasons for doing so. See above.
Milo is a jackass, but he is very much correct on a narrow range of points. There are a few times in the past year when little clips from Fox News (stumbled upon by accident, as I never seek it out) actually made me nod my head. This is a bad fucking sign. I am quite sure my own opinion of the situation hasn't been changing in recent years; it's just that Fox that has sensed and is weaseling their way into a void, attempting to exploit the left's weaknesses against them.
Yes, you are. If you weren't, you'd have flat out admitted I do have a legitimate grievance
I did that three posts ago. Do you also want to assert that rap music is annoying? Sure! I agree! But not relevant. Milo wasn't banned for spamming or telemarketing.
There is no trouble whatsoever differentiating censorship of flooders and censorship of unpopular opinions and your continued attempt to conflate these two, as if SEARCHING OUT A VIDEO ON YOUTUBE BY SUBJECT (because they're never going to put this shit
Preemptive clarification: One of the omitted details here involves spamming, crapflooding and other communications that degrade performance for the on-topic exchange of ideas. As I said in my other post, there is no reason to consider the blocking of disruptive communications, socially/morally/legally/technically speaking, in the same way that we consider the blocking of unpopular sociopolitical speech.
There many more potential nitpicks here that I have ready answers for, if you really insist.
Exactly, the phone companies censoring ideas. In particular, telemarketing and political calls.
I'm not playing this game with you, sorry. Any reasonable person will realize the stark difference between communicating with someone who wants to listen to you and communicating with people who do not wish to be disturbed. This is why censorship of crapflooding, spamming and telemarketing are treated much differently than the censorship of unpopular political opinions (which anyone is free to ignore or even block, client-side.)
That's why reasonable people treat them differently, I should say. I said two or three replies ago that it was a valid problem to consider, but it is emphatically not the problem at hand.
Or if I want to point out the biggest flaw, that would come up if he'd done it to say, Christians, is that he's painting in a broad stroke.
No. That's not a flaw. Fuck Christians. Their nonsense is dangerous, too. (And is, in fact, nonsense.) At this precise moment in history, it is apparently not quite as dangerous--globally speaking--as Muhammad's nonsense, but that's another discussion.
I suppose I'm just "dodging real issues" if I wished to prevent this debate from growing at a geometric rate, though?
If you're not going to do it,
I provided a second post exploring this other angle. It is necessary to maintain strong separation because other people, including yourself, will fail to properly separate shoulds from legal rights.
As far as everything else goes, I think we've at least cleared the air. I am pro free speech in a real and pragmatic sense and you are not. I'm not sure I particularly feel like embarking on a wider discussion on whether one can combat the unsavory elements using "bleach", except to say that it's doomed to fail. If this were North Korea maybe you could, but not when they already have so many other tools at their disposal.
The Stormfront forums are uncomfortably large (and are heavily policed against outsiders injecting logic into the debate), but you know what? Give them a Facebook and Twitter and Youtube page, and most racists won't ever bother visiting it. (UBBs are so 2003.) And on Youtube, there will be the thumbnail of a reaction video just to the right of the bullshit you just watched. A lot of people might not bother clicking on that video, but some will.
I switched over from Virtualbox (I only ever tried VMware player, which I found pretty underwhelming), so I can't provide you with any useful comparisons. It's all Xen under the hood, if you've any experience with that.
AppVMs, which use PV drivers (maybe PVH? I forget) and various performance tricks, are stupid fast to the point where you'll regularly forget that they're not native. Or maybe ~5 second boot times are the norm on most platforms now, but they certainly weren't on Virtualbox (even with PV drivers in use.) I think Windows HVMs were about the same speed as they were on Virtualbox, but the Qubes windows mixing (not having to deal with a second desktop) was a really nice touch.
The point of the Qubes distro, it's worth underlining, is the intelligent plumbing, UIs, and security. The actual nuts and bolts of virtualization is left to the hypervisor, which as I said is Xen. (They're working on abstracting everything so that other virtualization platforms can be used down the road, but it isn't user-changeable at this time.)
The correct answer is that professed non-violent Islamists are part of the extreme right wing by any sane measure, generally a bit further to the right than the worst bible belt politician you'll ever see, but hysterical segment of the left wing that you appear to represent refuses to admit this. Instead, they prefer to ride the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" concept to dizzying new heights, which is how astonishingly bizarre slogans like "Queers for Hamas" are sometimes forged.
If you don't think X should do Y, then what will you do about it? Go ahead and answer it.
I think common carrier laws should be expanded such that if you are providing a platform for the communication of an arbitrary or broad array of ideas, open to the general public, that you should not be able to police that content except to block or remove illegal content.
I have almost no sympathy whatsoever with appeals to the rights of poor ole Joe Twitter, this imaginary person whose rights of free association would be violated by such restrictions. If everyone is forced to do it, no one will suffer from lost business because no one will be able to offer a sanitized alternative. Opt-in blocking can and undoubtedly would be encouraged.
Lots of other details I could get into here, but this is obviously what would be most conducive to a society and government ostensibly based on the free exchange and criticism of ideas. However, there needs to be a VERY large wall erected between what I just said here and my other post, because 90% of the people (yes I pulled that out of my ass but I'm being conservative here--it's more like 97%) on the opposite side of this conversation, yourself included, insist on dragging the question of rights into every single fucking corner of this debate.
That's why I put this is a separate post. Big wall. Completely different argument being made here. If a golf course owner bans all black people, there is a question of whether he should that exists completely independently of the question of whether he can (or whether we should change it so that he can or can't). If you believe that he should ban all black people then you are not an anti-racist, full stop. It doesn't matter what your opinions are about his rights (either what you think they are or what you think they should be); the fact that you believe he *should* deny entry black people means you are not anti-racism. I really hope I don't have to draw you a little diagram (with arrows) to illustrate how this analogy maps onto Youtube's censorship, but I'm starting to suspect that I might need to.
You're the one that brought it up. If you don't want to discuss that, don't bring something up. Seriously, don't. It's the same reason I don't buy your excuses about the golf course. YOU brought it up, and it's not my fault you didn't realize it was a REAL issue, with its own reality.
Nonsense. I did not bring up telemarketing. I brought up phone companies in the context of how it would work if they started censoring people and ideas.
And I brought up golf courses in a different context than the one you fixated on. Not just different, but actually completely opposed to. I brought up the golf course analogy specifically to move the conversations away from one of rights to one of shoulds, but you decided to ignore this and tried to steer the conversation back into rights anyway.
I think that Youtube needs to be proactive in their management of a lot of content.
And so, with a little bit of reading between the lines here, you are not in favor of free speech on Youtube. While society is still trying to figure out how it treats new media (and in particular these hugely popular proprietary walled gardens), I consider this to be on par with phone companies deciding whether conversations are appropriate, i.e. this means you don't believe in free speech in any serious or practical sense of the word. Free speech only in governmental contexts, with restricted speech everywhere else, is not a terribly useful thing to have. Better than nothing I suppose, but only just barely.
That said, from your description, I can already spot a lie to it.
That's really only possible if you're a Muslim, a pantheist who believes all of the books are true (snort), if you think those nonsensical ideas aren't dangerous (hah), or if you want to quibble about whether cultural but atheistic Muslims are actually Muslims (snore.)
I don't agree with a sentiment of hatred; I think that's a strong word that doesn't convey where I stand but there is something deeply offensive about banning human emotions from being expressed even when using only coolly calculated words.
Beyond that, I would be against removing the video almost regardless of its contents. If it were Nazi propaganda, I would think it would be vitally important that any member of the public could view it and toss another comment of disgust, derision and truthful analysis on the pile. Over the long term, sunlight is the only viable disinfectant. If we force all miscreants to develop and maintain their own private walled garden, completely insulated from criticism...
And if you want to know why I insist on it, there's a large share of purported free-speech advocates that are not particularly honest or genuine
If you claim to be a free speech advocate and you are in favor of general purpose new media platforms (like Youtube) policing political speech then you aren't particularly honest or genuine. Free speech as a concept is meaningless except when discussing the treatment of speech you disagree with, and free speech that nobody can use (because there's no government sponsored Youtube)... isn't all that useful.
Please note that at no point in this post did I discuss the creation of new laws compelling anyone to do or not do anything. That is an interesting topic that I touched on elsewhere (and I suspect we'd have some disagreements), but there is a completely separate conversation here about what Youtube *should* do (akin to whether the golf course owner *should* discriminate against black people, were it legal), not about what it is or should be legally compelled to do.
Well, you may have been intentionally shifting the subject slightly and I missed that, but for the sake of simplicity in my first reply I was attempting to keep the conversation entirely away rights, just leave it within the realm of shoulds and desirables.
It a distinction that is not just frequently lost in this debate, but usually lost.
The very first thing I tried to do with my friend's Echo was to activate the self destruct sequence. It was immensely disappointing to get a "don't understand" response instead of "Does the first officer concur?"
They may be completely useless, but easter eggs make excellent first impressions. You shouldn't necessarily need joke writers for it, though. Easiest way to figure out what to say in response to the user is to simply field test the crap out of it and google any curious-sounding repeated questions that you notice. That, plus maybe you get a meme database and try to include most of the more popular ones. You don't have to spam the user with references; just respond intelligently if they appear to be alluding to one.
Quite possibly the worst comic Munroe ever wrote. The phrase "free speech" did not pop into existence with the first amendment. And, for my standard C&P response by analogy to this intellectually bankrupt argument:
If a private golf course discriminates against a black person... it's racism! It's racism when the government does it. It's racism when a private business does it. It's racism even if it's legal for them to do it. And so it is with free speech.
If you're against free speech (whether completely or to some partial, qualified extent) then say so. But neither you nor Mr. Munroe have the power to redefine it in such an incredibly narrow fashion, just so you can have your cake and eat it too.
The amount of bad faith (or simply very, very wrong-headed) red herrings one has to deal with in this conversation is simply stunning.
Let me be very, very precise: for the sake of this argument, we are talking about preventing readers who are voluntarily interested in reading something... from reading that thing. Words have been destroyed due to the ideas they convey, and the speaker banned from using that platform ever again. That is the context surrounding the jackass martyr of Milo I'mnotgoingtomemorizethatlastname. It has almost nothing to do whatsoever with laws concerning telemarketing or unsolicited political robocalling.
A specific example I prefer (although not quite specific to Milo) is Atheism-is-Unstoppable's (another guy who's more than a bit of a jackass) banned video wherein he very clearly explains why he hates 'all Muslims'--not because he thinks they are all terrorists (he repeatedly uses the phrase "on a spectrum"), but because they believe and propagate lies, and sometimes dangerous lies at that. This video was deleted and accounts censured at least half a dozen times.... not just original, but they also sanctioned everyone who reposted it in solidarity. This is bad. And if you're in favor of this behavior from Youtube, you are not in favor of free speech in any meaningful sense of the term. You can't hide behind "bububuthe first amendment doesn't make it illegal for Youtube to do that!" That's a non-answer to the question of whether or not they should do it.
That is my thesis. I'm not saying that all of your side tangents are unimportant or uninteresting, but there is SO MUCH WHITE NOISE on this issue that I have to insist that people remain on-topic. It appears at though 90% of the people who fervently oppose free speech have convinced themselves that they're really pro free speech.