I agree with that, however, people on the internet seem to take "free speech" to mean "you are obligated to give me an audience and platform, listen to me and you are not allowed to criticize me either directly or indirectly or else you're threatening free speech"
so twitter should be obligated to give him and others like him the ability to bully and harass without consequence, even if that leads to a loss of business as people who don't want to put up with it opt-out of using the platform? In what twisted world is it okay to compel a private company to host something that hurts its own business? That isn't free speech. He can have have the "anus of the internet" if he wants, but we aren't obligated to pay attention to him anymore. I can't see it turning out well for him. There's a reason why 4chan is having financial troubles: no one wants to put their money behind that shit!
by your logic, people disagreeing with you is an affront to free speech and that any criticism is oppression. Everyone is obligated to listen to you blow hot air or else they're oppressing you
Until the government is shutting down trolls and shitposters, the only strawman is calling demands for a platform to shitpost and be taken seriously "freedom of speech"
The government isn't trying to shut down trolls and shitposters. Trolls and shitposters, however, demand to be heard and call that free speech. Being judged for what you say does not violate your free speech. Social media platforms are not obligated to grant them a platform for their speech either. Facebook and twitter are not the government and can do whatever they want.
Needing root access would mean needing to sudo to run chrome, correct? I don't know what you're doing, but my chrome processes run as user processes, not root processes
Last time I checked, the government wasn't trying shut him or 4chan up/down. There isn't a need for a haven, he just wants a place for shitty people to be shitty people on the internet. Equating free speech with shitposting and demanding to be heard and respected demeans free speech and needs to stop!
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/
really? flamebait? Can't stand the facts, eh? Flaimbait would have been if I pointed out that releasing the names and ssns of donors (the biggest of whom are already publicly known) is essentially intimidation aimed at discouraging people from donating to the campaign.
Not disclosing information irrelevant information that harms innocent people who are only tangentially related to the leak is not bias, it's responsible and ethical
They've really gone downhill. Editorial review would go a long way. Release only what needs to be known. Releasing it in a sea of noise and irrelevant details that make victims of innocent people is not journalism or even responsible activism.
Misinformation? They leaked emails containing malware targeted at the people they were originally sent to. Rather than adopt any kind of editorial oversight, wikileaks is a firehose of irrelevant (emails to/from targets family), not-newsworthy (SSNs of donors whose names are already public record), privacy invading (names of gay Saudis, where homosexuality is punishable by death), and occasionally malware-laden (because why not target malware at high-profile politicians), leaks with only a few nuggets of anything of interest delivered with transparent animus and bias
That's not even the point we're arguing. You're equating statutory and de facto capital punishment and attempting to equate that with Islam when in fact christian fundamentalists are just as guilty of enforcing it and trying to pass laws to allow it
Slashdot Mirror
Why not run it in an unprivileged container then? It isn't hard!
I concede that point. If they're that concerned, run it in an unprivileged container. It isn't hard!
I agree with that, however, people on the internet seem to take "free speech" to mean "you are obligated to give me an audience and platform, listen to me and you are not allowed to criticize me either directly or indirectly or else you're threatening free speech"
chrome's executable is not SUID. Viol8 did not mention SUID, just that they believed chrome to require root in their original post
I know what SUID is. The chrome executable is not SUID and has 0755 permissions. So again, what the hell are you doing?
The fact that crackpots like you exist and post your fact-free "news" all over the internet is proof enough that we have free speech
so twitter should be obligated to give him and others like him the ability to bully and harass without consequence, even if that leads to a loss of business as people who don't want to put up with it opt-out of using the platform? In what twisted world is it okay to compel a private company to host something that hurts its own business? That isn't free speech. He can have have the "anus of the internet" if he wants, but we aren't obligated to pay attention to him anymore. I can't see it turning out well for him. There's a reason why 4chan is having financial troubles: no one wants to put their money behind that shit!
by your logic, people disagreeing with you is an affront to free speech and that any criticism is oppression. Everyone is obligated to listen to you blow hot air or else they're oppressing you
Is the government trying to shut him up? no! This is not a free speech issue.
actually that would be a false equivalence, not a strawman.
Until the government is shutting down trolls and shitposters, the only strawman is calling demands for a platform to shitpost and be taken seriously "freedom of speech"
The government isn't trying to shut down trolls and shitposters. Trolls and shitposters, however, demand to be heard and call that free speech. Being judged for what you say does not violate your free speech. Social media platforms are not obligated to grant them a platform for their speech either. Facebook and twitter are not the government and can do whatever they want.
Needing root access would mean needing to sudo to run chrome, correct? I don't know what you're doing, but my chrome processes run as user processes, not root processes
no, Milo is all about trolling and shitposting. This has absolutely nothing to do with free speech https://xkcd.com/1357/
seems you need to be reminded what free speech is and isn't. https://xkcd.com/1357/
Last time I checked, the government wasn't trying shut him or 4chan up/down. There isn't a need for a haven, he just wants a place for shitty people to be shitty people on the internet. Equating free speech with shitposting and demanding to be heard and respected demeans free speech and needs to stop! Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/
Let him do it! let it be a moneysink for him! let him go bankrupt! fuck that guy!
if only it were as simple as removing ads for viagra and horny moms in the area. There is a lot of non-spammy noise which is also not newsworthy
really? flamebait? Can't stand the facts, eh? Flaimbait would have been if I pointed out that releasing the names and ssns of donors (the biggest of whom are already publicly known) is essentially intimidation aimed at discouraging people from donating to the campaign.
AKA editorial review. A spamfilter cannot tell what is and is not newsworthy
Not disclosing information irrelevant information that harms innocent people who are only tangentially related to the leak is not bias, it's responsible and ethical
They've really gone downhill. Editorial review would go a long way. Release only what needs to be known. Releasing it in a sea of noise and irrelevant details that make victims of innocent people is not journalism or even responsible activism.
Misinformation? They leaked emails containing malware targeted at the people they were originally sent to. Rather than adopt any kind of editorial oversight, wikileaks is a firehose of irrelevant (emails to/from targets family), not-newsworthy (SSNs of donors whose names are already public record), privacy invading (names of gay Saudis, where homosexuality is punishable by death), and occasionally malware-laden (because why not target malware at high-profile politicians), leaks with only a few nuggets of anything of interest delivered with transparent animus and bias
That's not even the point we're arguing. You're equating statutory and de facto capital punishment and attempting to equate that with Islam when in fact christian fundamentalists are just as guilty of enforcing it and trying to pass laws to allow it
There's lot of evidence for Trump to be indited on any number of things, but he never is. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you