Soo, I run my electric-powered A/C at home and I'm supposed to feel guilty (that's what the green police have told me anyway, trust me I don't), but running the electric-powered A/C in an electric vehicle plugged into a charger and that's "guiltless"? Did no one actually think that one through?
And let's be perfectly frank, are people actually that stupid that they don't realize that even with the efficiency gains from not using an ICE, shifting all the burden to power plants and onto the grid only causes *more* pollution from those sources and opens up a whole new set of problems and challenges keeping the electric grid operational, or is everyone just super disingenuous?
...that this is about terrorism. FFS we have the best military intelligence in the world, and we can't stop a rag-tag bunch of third-world "militants"? Bull. Shit.
Every time the elites want more control over the populace or want to ban something, they trot out their wholly-owned and operated subsidiary ISIL (or whatever they're called this week, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc.) to demonize the freedom du jure and everyone bends over. Banning encryption is not "central to defeating terrorism", banning encryption is "central to defeating personal liberty".
These Reuters/AP/wire reports always read properly when you replace terrorism with liberty or freedom anyway. Liberty must be stopped. Freedom is running rampant. Liberty is at odds with modern society. The actual terrorist acts could be stopped if governments wanted them to stop, but they don't want them to, they want to exacerbate them in the name of stopping freedom.
Anyone who gets the, ahem, pleasure of browsing at -1 consistently know this troll has been posting the same crap in nearly every article's comment section for like a week now. It's nothing against this particular article, just lowest-common-denominator trolling on the level of links to goatse, etc. Don't feed it.
2. Selling ads == money laundering. 3. He's not violating tax laws, yet the IRS is still involved. 4. Purchasing email services from a US provider somehow makes you subject to all laws of the United States?
You're really grasping at straws, here.
As for 1...I agree that his service enabled users of that service to infringe on the copyrights of US entities, but are those copyrights valid in Poland or Ukraine? Do the laws of those countries spell out the punishment for copyright infringement of foreign copyrights? Why isn't he being punished under the laws of either his country of citizenship or residency, then? Masterminding a bank robbery != running a torrent tracker. In that case, there's an actual law being violated in the country where the law exists. Running a website is hardly bank robbery.
Give me a fucking break. He had no assets in the United States, was not operating a company in the United States, seems to have had no ties to the United States.
And by your definition, a Mexican citizen who commits murder in Mexico should be extradited and tried under US laws? Explain that to me, please, I'll be waiting there, friendly.
Don't think we have a Global Government? Think Again!! You can run a site that's perfectly legal in the jurisdiction in which you operate it, make money off it which is perfectly legal in the jurisdiction in which it operates, not even be a US Citizen, or even a citizen of the country you reside in, but the friendly US Government will still come kick your door down and cart you off to the inner empire to a kangaroo court where you'll be railroaded into pleading guilty to charges you have no chance of fighting against.
I mean if the United States INTERNAL Revenue Service can investigate a Ukranian citizen living in Poland for "conspiracy" to launder money, does any nation on this planet, save Iran or North Korea, really have any sovereignty from the United States?
Citation needed. The only people that see racists everywhere are other racists. It's like homophobes, the ones that yell the loudest about others being gay ususally are pretty well in the closet themselves. Cut the shit.
Why are some people so concerned with blaming every action or opinion in the world that they don't like on "racism". Do you know how sick average people are of hearing your tired brand of tripe?
Hosting illegal materials is still illegal. The CDA doesn't exonerate someone who knowingly and willfully continues to make content available that is illegal regardless of who is considered the "publisher". Ever seen the operator of a child porn site get raided? Yeah, it's like that except with terrorists. Just because Facebook is Facebook doesn't make them above the law, and trying to cling to your weak/twisted interpretation of the CDA doesn't change that.
The CDA clearly states that the service won't be held liable for actions taken TO RESTRICT access to the things mentioned.
It doesn't say ANYWHERE that they won't be held liable for illegal activities that they fail to restrict. In fact, I believe that if you were to go in front of a judge and point out the fact that a service deletes and restricts extremely mundane content they disagree with while continuing to allow jihadi training videos and unfettered communications between terrorists (that, you know, is illegal to facilitate) it would only embolden the plaintiff's case.
It would be like saying I have the right to delete obscene content on my servers; if I delete photos of age-of-majority girls in bikinis but leave child abuse videos up, the CDA won't exonerate me for facilitiating the transmission of that content. Get it?
It takes a special brand of stupid to try and say that the CDA grants immunity to illegal activities performed over an interactive computer service.
Terrorism isn't hate speech? What worse form of hate speech is there than "I want everyone who isn't like me dead and will take actions towards those ends"?
Has no one ever heard the term "common carrier"? You don't get to pick and choose what speech you allow on your little safe space AND be free from liability if someone commits crimes or otherwise does "bad things" on your services. This is why telephone companies have been classified as common carriers for nearly a century. If you allow all speech, unfettered, then you're free from liability for what anyone does on your service.
I'm honestly shocked it took this long for someone to call these hypocritical companies out on their bullshit, and I support it 100%. They want to be able to control speech, but only speech "they" dislike. That's fine, but when you open up that can of worms, you'd better be ready to make sure you're keeping the walled garden free of ALL vermin (and apply your policies equally, which we all know these scumbags don't) or someone's eventually going to call you out on it.
Search up "common carrier' in your favorite engine. If internet companies would like to be free from liability for illegal activity conducted on or facilitated by their networks, they should see about becoming one. Of course, then they don't get to control narratives by censoring and disallowing speech they don't like.
Phone companies are common carriers. Common carriers are shielded from liability if someone uses their network to plan or commit nefarious activities. They even lobbied to be common carriers so they specifically aren't held liable for the content of the conversations that traverse the telephone network.
Internet companies are NOT common carriers. They have lobbied to NOT be common carriers specifically so they have the power to control and and disallow speech they personally disagree with. By NOT censoring terrorist groups, they have shown that they are giving de facto support to those groups and that they effectively agree with the speech of terrorists, thereby they can absolutely be held liable for the content of the conversations and speech that traverses their networks.
Hrm, if you think Hillary's web of deceit is an illusion started by a conservative writer in 1996, you need to seriously brush up on the history of the Clintons and the trail of people affected by them going all the way back to the 1970s.
Because quackery and junk science get passed off as the real deal every day across the globe. Was she a Trump supporter or something, or what was going on behind the scenes that convinced the establishment to come down so hard on this specific fraudster? Not that I disagree with making life hard for snake-oil salesmen, but it's so strange to me that some charlatans get so severely punished while others are quietly swept under the rug our outright supported.
This is happening more and more here on Slashdot. Entire conversations are being hidden from view, even when browsing at -1 (which I always do). If you are logged in when you post, you can still see that comment and its children if you look at your posting history, but it will be gone from the main comments section of the article.
I'm not surprised, however, as the new owners are just here to actually and finally destroy the site due to it's unwavering support for free and anonymous speech and the only moderation system that is actually fair. If they can't rig it, or sink it (dice), they'll just break it.
Slashdot Mirror
Guiltless endless A/C when parked.
Soo, I run my electric-powered A/C at home and I'm supposed to feel guilty (that's what the green police have told me anyway, trust me I don't), but running the electric-powered A/C in an electric vehicle plugged into a charger and that's "guiltless"? Did no one actually think that one through?
And let's be perfectly frank, are people actually that stupid that they don't realize that even with the efficiency gains from not using an ICE, shifting all the burden to power plants and onto the grid only causes *more* pollution from those sources and opens up a whole new set of problems and challenges keeping the electric grid operational, or is everyone just super disingenuous?
...that this is about terrorism. FFS we have the best military intelligence in the world, and we can't stop a rag-tag bunch of third-world "militants"? Bull. Shit.
Every time the elites want more control over the populace or want to ban something, they trot out their wholly-owned and operated subsidiary ISIL (or whatever they're called this week, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc.) to demonize the freedom du jure and everyone bends over. Banning encryption is not "central to defeating terrorism", banning encryption is "central to defeating personal liberty".
These Reuters/AP/wire reports always read properly when you replace terrorism with liberty or freedom anyway. Liberty must be stopped. Freedom is running rampant. Liberty is at odds with modern society. The actual terrorist acts could be stopped if governments wanted them to stop, but they don't want them to, they want to exacerbate them in the name of stopping freedom.
My 1991 Cadillac DeVille isn't susceptible to this sophisticated hack!
D-New York. Every. Fucking. Time.
Remember kiddies, when someone's banning something, regulating, or otherwise quashing freedom, look for the trademark D!
(Unless, of course, you're actually a kiddie. Then don't look for the D, or you'll end up on the registry.)
Anyone who gets the, ahem, pleasure of browsing at -1 consistently know this troll has been posting the same crap in nearly every article's comment section for like a week now. It's nothing against this particular article, just lowest-common-denominator trolling on the level of links to goatse, etc. Don't feed it.
I'd like Cyrus Vance to have all of his personal conversations posted to the Internet.
So, let me get this straight:
2. Selling ads == money laundering.
3. He's not violating tax laws, yet the IRS is still involved.
4. Purchasing email services from a US provider somehow makes you subject to all laws of the United States?
You're really grasping at straws, here.
As for 1...I agree that his service enabled users of that service to infringe on the copyrights of US entities, but are those copyrights valid in Poland or Ukraine? Do the laws of those countries spell out the punishment for copyright infringement of foreign copyrights? Why isn't he being punished under the laws of either his country of citizenship or residency, then? Masterminding a bank robbery != running a torrent tracker. In that case, there's an actual law being violated in the country where the law exists. Running a website is hardly bank robbery.
Give me a fucking break. He had no assets in the United States, was not operating a company in the United States, seems to have had no ties to the United States.
And by your definition, a Mexican citizen who commits murder in Mexico should be extradited and tried under US laws? Explain that to me, please, I'll be waiting there, friendly.
Don't think we have a Global Government? Think Again!! You can run a site that's perfectly legal in the jurisdiction in which you operate it, make money off it which is perfectly legal in the jurisdiction in which it operates, not even be a US Citizen, or even a citizen of the country you reside in, but the friendly US Government will still come kick your door down and cart you off to the inner empire to a kangaroo court where you'll be railroaded into pleading guilty to charges you have no chance of fighting against.
I mean if the United States INTERNAL Revenue Service can investigate a Ukranian citizen living in Poland for "conspiracy" to launder money, does any nation on this planet, save Iran or North Korea, really have any sovereignty from the United States?
It had fuck all to do with the IRS, either, considering this guy wasn't a US citizen. He wasn't even Polish, he was a Ukrainian living in Poland.
As to why the US government is involved at all, if you don't know the answer to that then you just haven't been paying attention.
But seriously? iPhone superior to Android? Were they buying budget phones?
Never used an iPhone, eh?
at very great cost to society and our future.
Citation needed. The only people that see racists everywhere are other racists. It's like homophobes, the ones that yell the loudest about others being gay ususally are pretty well in the closet themselves. Cut the shit.
Why are some people so concerned with blaming every action or opinion in the world that they don't like on "racism". Do you know how sick average people are of hearing your tired brand of tripe?
What are you, like 15?
It says they deleted his email account, too.
Funny, isn't it, how liberals can just find any reason for people they dislike to be wrong?
"She's shown her vagina in a magazine, perfect for you white trash conservatives!"
and if you say she shouldn't show her vagina in a magazine:
"What kind of misogynist bumpkin radical Christian conservatives would judge a woman for showing her beautiful body in a magazine?!"
Hosting illegal materials is still illegal. The CDA doesn't exonerate someone who knowingly and willfully continues to make content available that is illegal regardless of who is considered the "publisher". Ever seen the operator of a child porn site get raided? Yeah, it's like that except with terrorists. Just because Facebook is Facebook doesn't make them above the law, and trying to cling to your weak/twisted interpretation of the CDA doesn't change that.
The CDA clearly states that the service won't be held liable for actions taken TO RESTRICT access to the things mentioned.
It doesn't say ANYWHERE that they won't be held liable for illegal activities that they fail to restrict. In fact, I believe that if you were to go in front of a judge and point out the fact that a service deletes and restricts extremely mundane content they disagree with while continuing to allow jihadi training videos and unfettered communications between terrorists (that, you know, is illegal to facilitate) it would only embolden the plaintiff's case.
It would be like saying I have the right to delete obscene content on my servers; if I delete photos of age-of-majority girls in bikinis but leave child abuse videos up, the CDA won't exonerate me for facilitiating the transmission of that content. Get it?
It takes a special brand of stupid to try and say that the CDA grants immunity to illegal activities performed over an interactive computer service.
Terrorism isn't hate speech? What worse form of hate speech is there than "I want everyone who isn't like me dead and will take actions towards those ends"?
Has no one ever heard the term "common carrier"? You don't get to pick and choose what speech you allow on your little safe space AND be free from liability if someone commits crimes or otherwise does "bad things" on your services. This is why telephone companies have been classified as common carriers for nearly a century. If you allow all speech, unfettered, then you're free from liability for what anyone does on your service.
I'm honestly shocked it took this long for someone to call these hypocritical companies out on their bullshit, and I support it 100%. They want to be able to control speech, but only speech "they" dislike. That's fine, but when you open up that can of worms, you'd better be ready to make sure you're keeping the walled garden free of ALL vermin (and apply your policies equally, which we all know these scumbags don't) or someone's eventually going to call you out on it.
Search up "common carrier' in your favorite engine. If internet companies would like to be free from liability for illegal activity conducted on or facilitated by their networks, they should see about becoming one. Of course, then they don't get to control narratives by censoring and disallowing speech they don't like.
Can't have their cake and eat it, too.
Phone companies are common carriers. Common carriers are shielded from liability if someone uses their network to plan or commit nefarious activities. They even lobbied to be common carriers so they specifically aren't held liable for the content of the conversations that traverse the telephone network.
Internet companies are NOT common carriers. They have lobbied to NOT be common carriers specifically so they have the power to control and and disallow speech they personally disagree with. By NOT censoring terrorist groups, they have shown that they are giving de facto support to those groups and that they effectively agree with the speech of terrorists, thereby they can absolutely be held liable for the content of the conversations and speech that traverses their networks.
Hrm, if you think Hillary's web of deceit is an illusion started by a conservative writer in 1996, you need to seriously brush up on the history of the Clintons and the trail of people affected by them going all the way back to the 1970s.
Because quackery and junk science get passed off as the real deal every day across the globe. Was she a Trump supporter or something, or what was going on behind the scenes that convinced the establishment to come down so hard on this specific fraudster? Not that I disagree with making life hard for snake-oil salesmen, but it's so strange to me that some charlatans get so severely punished while others are quietly swept under the rug our outright supported.
This is happening more and more here on Slashdot. Entire conversations are being hidden from view, even when browsing at -1 (which I always do). If you are logged in when you post, you can still see that comment and its children if you look at your posting history, but it will be gone from the main comments section of the article.
I'm not surprised, however, as the new owners are just here to actually and finally destroy the site due to it's unwavering support for free and anonymous speech and the only moderation system that is actually fair. If they can't rig it, or sink it (dice), they'll just break it.