yet you waited until the predictable flooding happened before leaving?!
So quick to criticize, so slow to comprehend.
The degree of flooding surprised a lot of people, as the OP mentioned:
There was no precedent for 53" of rain, or the dams in the reservoirs to have to be opened unleashing millions of gallons of water into neighborhoods that had never flooded before.
It was a clusterfuck because Harvey dropped a lot of rain---more than hurricanes that were "bigger" based on size or wind speed.
Harvey had a coastal surge like every other hurricane, but it didn't really affect Houston. The intense rain and reservoir relief were not predicted, and they are what flooded the city.
How often are users actually targeted for MITM attacks? How many have shoddy security applications that handle SSL inspection poorly?
It's hard to judge the merit without knowing, and I'm betting the balance tips toward the latter. There are a lot of garbage applications out there, even at the enterprise level.
Because INFOSEC is really: Building a skyscraper with a $5 knock-off multitool.
3. Keep offering updates after more than 2 or 3 years, especially when phones can last 5 years or more and are still perfectly usable. It's unpleasant to stop getting updates so soon. Support these phones for at least 6 years. Make it easy for Android users to run the latest version of the OS on older phones, even if some functionality may be limited, so app developers don't have to support 5 or more different Android versions just to get decent coverage of the market!
This item has very little to do with their HTC acquisition, and it isn't going to happen because of it.
First of all, Google does not release Android builds for OEM handsets. Realistically, they can't. Project Treble includes a HAL for Android which should make upgrades easier in the future. This is a new feature in Oreo, however, so it doesn't apply to anything currently on the market.
Second, developers can target multiple versions of Android fairly easily. The Android SDK allows you to specify both a minimum version and a target version of Android. When doing this, you are limited to the feature set of the oldest version, but the application will automatically benefit from the target-level APIs on devices that support them. Obviously this doesn't apply to code built outside of the SDK, but if you're doing that then you already accepted the headaches associated with that decision.
And finally, it is the OEM's responsibility to support the phone for a reasonable lifespan, not Google's. Any OS update runs the risk of breaking proprietary features and other customizations. The manufacturer of the device is the only one who can fix those problems, so ultimately they must be involved in order for normal users to have a realistic upgrade path---and the OEMs have a financial incentive to keep users on the upgrade treadmill.
If you really want a better Android ecosystem, support vendors who deliver vanilla Android devices and promise/deliver long-term support. I'm leaning heavily toward Nokia for my next phone because they are doing the former and have a reputation for the latter. The new Nokia appears to be a relatively intact version of the pre-Microsoft Nokia.
Google, please just give us a well-balanced Android phone that's convenient to hold and use, that's reasonably affordable, and that will continue to get updates beyond a couple of years!
This I can agree with.
Your other comments can be applied on a device-by-device basis, and I largely agree with those too. Hopefully Google will manage future Nexus/Pixel products in a more tech-friendly way.
I would like to see longer support for their devices. If Project Treble works as expected, then maybe the 5X, 6P, and Pixel will be the first smartphones to have that 5-year lifespan.
IBM and MIT will jointly own the intellectual property that results from the projects conducted together. The company also has the option to buy out MIT for full ownership, Kelly said.
With Watson being completely underwhelming in most or all of its commercial applications, IBM needs something better. Something useful.
Hopefully MIT gets royalties as a part of that option, as I assume IBM is planning to make a lot of money from this endeavor. IBM gets access to some of the best minds in the field, and they would have no worthwhile product otherwise.
So we identify the human driver as the cause of 94% of accidents. This suggests that one way to make the roads safer is to replace the human---making the world better with technology. You respond to this with sarcasm and hostility? What kind of geek are you? Why are you even here?
Bear in mind that computers are the primary "driver" in a number of other vehicles. Guided missiles and spacecraft stand out, in particular.
Those earlier milestones were simpler because there are fewer variables. We essentially solved those problems 30 years ago. The only really novel problem with self-driving cars is interpreting all of the incoming sensor data, and deep learning is very effective at this sort of task. We finally have the missing piece that lets us do this in an active, stimulus-heavy environment. That is the true technical barrier, and, for the first time in decades, it appears we have a means of overcoming it.
The first autonomous vehicles are already out there accruing miles, data, and hard-won experience for the engineers. Private citizens will be getting 2nd- or 3rd-gen systems at the earliest, which will perform even better.
This may happen sooner than you think. Regulatory hurdles are a major problem, and those are being streamlined now.
And remember, computers can't be perfect. To be a sensible replacement, however, they just have to be better than the average human.
When apps are compromised, Google (and Apple) pull them from the app store and revoke them from user devices. The names don't matter because they're long gone by now.
Per the original article, most of the apps were compromised because a framework that they used was backdoored. This means that it was not malicious intent by the developers, so there is no point in starting a witch hunt against them directly. Hopefully, Google and the affected developers will respond intelligently to this threat vector.
And once again, the most basic security principle applies: only install what you absolutely need. Every bit of code carries a risk.
Not even close. There was credible evidence that DPR tried to order hits on people who he perceived as threats.
I assume the judge had the option to provide a lesser sentence, but if someone is willing to hire a hitman to protect his illegal business---how is he any better than a mob boss? Send him up the river.
Fuck that guy, he deserves to rot. Not for the drugs alone, sure, but he is a piece of shit.
The Supreme Court hasn't granted cert, so the case might not even be heard. This is along the lines of "any idiot can file a lawsuit".
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, then it will be interesting. In agreeing to hear the case, there is a presumption---no matter how slight---that they may overturn the appellate ruling.
Until the Supreme Court grants/denies cert, this is just background noise.
You can get local channels in HD free with an antenna. If there are "gaps" in your content, you can subscribe to a number of services---Netflix, Amazon, Crunchyroll, and, yes, even Sling.
Since most services are in the $10-$20/month range, you can have a variety of them for less than a monthly cable subscription. You can easily get more channels for a lower total cost. The content will be slightly different than what the cable company offers, which is fine because the cable companies aren't 100% consistent from region to region anyway.
Recreating the cable bundle by maxing a SlingTV subscription is the exact opposite of what cable cutters should be doing. I know of no one who is doing what the summary suggested.
According to the interview with Matthew Prince (Cloudflare CEO), he felt that he had to boot the Daily Stormer from Cloudflare because the Daily Stormer started claiming that Cloudlfare was run by Neo-nazis, and used Cloudflare's refusal to boot them as evidence to support their claims.
At first glance, this sounded like bullshit. So I checked, and that is exactly what happened.
The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology.
So, the operators of The Daily Stormer decided to run their mouths about the one company that tolerated their content. Not bright, unless they secretly craved a backwater existence on Tor.
And nobody is obligated to do background checks on everyone they sell a megaphone to and determine how worthy their speech is prior to the sale of said megaphone.
Nice strawman, but you're the only one suggesting that.
engage in free speech of your own to educate people on the opposing viewpoint.
That is exactly why I posted. How nice of you to notice.
Someday it could be you with the unpopular viewpoint
I have some unpopular views, and I manage to advocate them without aggravating public opinion.
If an actual crime has been committed, give the evidence to the authorities and let them sort it out.
There is no crime at all. This is all about private companies taking private action. There is no reason to involve the authorities at all.
Google and GoDaddy "stand against" racists because their users and potential clients will approve of that. CloudFlare "stands for" free speech because their potential clients approve of that.
It's corporate greed, and little else, that drives their decisions.
Where you see a boon, I see a problem. Everyone deserves a chance to speak.
And if people choose not to accept or spread his message, that is entirely his problem.
You can walk away or you can rally for suppression.
I have no problem with the response of Google, GoDaddy, or CloudFlare. I am not suppressing anyone, or any company. They are all self-serving, and they all acting legally even though they made different decisions.
Anyone who sees these as moral stands, however, is fooling himself. Be a corporate puppet if you must, but all three of those companies are more interested in their bottom lines than morality or justice.
Do you realize that if you keep antagonizing moderate on your right by calling them nazi, they might actually become such [and run over leftist cuckholds without shame] ?
If a little bit of antagonism leads them to murder, they are human garbage and belong in jail.
Likewise, if you cannot control your violent or homicidal tendencies, you belong in jail.
Seriously... sticks and stones, and all that. Grow up.
A bakery must sell to all customers and WordPress must sell to all customers.
Oh look, it's someone being wrong on the internet.
A bakery is not required to sell to all customers. A bakery is only prohibited from declining customers for a few specific reasons. One of those reasons is sexual orientation---in Colorado. Other prohibited reasons apply nationwide: nationality, race, sex, and religion.
There is no obligation to serve white supremacists. WordPress is perfectly within its rights to ban Vanguard America.
Not specifically, but there are general terms that may apply.
Can you cite the relevant statutes so that we can review expert opinion on the matter?
I'm no lawyer
Obviously. Very obviously.
I think a good lawyer could find lots of precedents
You're not even a bad lawyer. You'll excuse me if I place no value on your opinion regarding what a good lawyer could do.
One I think might apply is Rosa Parks.
Rosa Parks couldn't possibly be a precedent. The Montgomery segregation laws were struck down in Browder v. Gayle---which, if you'll note, does not include her name because she was not a party in that case.
the government supports and regulates the use of the wires and radio waves, so you could probably argue that it's a public accommodation.
Public accommodations are defined by the Civil Rights Act, which does not protect ideologies---including such things as white supremacy, nationalism, or racism.
You could argue that these services meet the requirements for public accommodations, and you might even prevail on that point. But the parties in question are not eligible for protection under the law. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against ideologies.
I assume you're talking about asymmetric encryption. (Correctly used) OTP already gives perfect security symmetric encryption.
Irrelevant. Roughly 99.999% of the way we use symmetric encryption is not compatible with OTPs.
Mentioning OTPs in a conversation about real-world crypto makes me wonder if you understand the matter at all. I intend to ignore the rest of your post, and I suggest others do so as well. It is better to wait for real experts to weigh in.
It doesn't matter if the brains work differently as long as they work comparably well.
If two people can solve the same set of problems using different strategies, they are both competent at those tasks.
Personally, I don't care if men and women end up with 50/50 representation in any particular field. However, I very strongly believe that the environment should not discourage that outcome.
There are cultural problems for women in STEM fields and men in education/child care. Not everywhere, but the complaints are frequent enough that the problems need to be addressed systematically.
Automation is going to supplant a lot of jobs. The only questions are: "Which ones?" and "How fast?"
Higher wages will accelerate the process, but we need to decide what happens as automation takes over regardless of changes to the minimum wage.
The whole article is a bit of a red herring. Whatever we decide for workers displaced by automation, we ought to do with these people. I'm not going to pretend I have a 100% fair solution, and no one seems to agree. So let's focus on the fundamental problem instead of fussing over a bunch of poorly-paid jobs that no one wants, including most of the people who have them.
Because on the whole, I think everyone is perfectly happy to let machines do more work. So we need to figure out how to make it work without FUD about losing jobs.
As long as Ryzen is segfaulting under load, AMD has won jack. E.g., my employer will not be buying any workstations or servers until the problem is conclusively fixed.
If some new feature is broken (like HLE when Intel launched it), then whatever---people will simply wait to adopt the new feature. But when basic functionality is broken (like heavy compilation jobs on Ryzen), you have a serious problem.
The competition is forcing Intel to adjust their prices, but Ryzen is neither a slam dunk winner nor an unqualified success. Wake me up when Ryzen v2.0 is out. I will consider a fully functional chip when one is available.
It takes greed. CloudFlare is a big business, and any moralizing should be assumed disingenuous until proven otherwise.
You can certainly judge a company by who they serve and how, but don't pretend morality enters the picture. GoDaddy, Google, and CloudFlare are all taking political stances to appeal to potential clients.
Free speech isn't optional. Only listening is optional.
The right to speak is protected, but access to technology isn't.
A man has the right to stand on a street corner and speak his mind. But just as no one is obligated to listen to him, neither is anyone obligated to sell him a megaphone.
And, likewise, no one is smashing down the server room door where The Daily Stormer is hosted.
If someone detroys their server or their network link, that's crossing the line. If someone decides not to do business with them, that's perfectly fine.
You are entitled to exist free from harm or threats; you are not entitled to publicity, social media, or a platform.
Slashdot Mirror
yet you waited until the predictable flooding happened before leaving?!
So quick to criticize, so slow to comprehend.
The degree of flooding surprised a lot of people, as the OP mentioned:
There was no precedent for 53" of rain, or the dams in the reservoirs to have to be opened unleashing millions of gallons of water into neighborhoods that had never flooded before.
It was a clusterfuck because Harvey dropped a lot of rain---more than hurricanes that were "bigger" based on size or wind speed.
Harvey had a coastal surge like every other hurricane, but it didn't really affect Houston. The intense rain and reservoir relief were not predicted, and they are what flooded the city.
How often are users actually targeted for MITM attacks? How many have shoddy security applications that handle SSL inspection poorly?
It's hard to judge the merit without knowing, and I'm betting the balance tips toward the latter. There are a lot of garbage applications out there, even at the enterprise level.
Because INFOSEC is really: Building a skyscraper with a $5 knock-off multitool.
3. Keep offering updates after more than 2 or 3 years, especially when phones can last 5 years or more and are still perfectly usable. It's unpleasant to stop getting updates so soon. Support these phones for at least 6 years. Make it easy for Android users to run the latest version of the OS on older phones, even if some functionality may be limited, so app developers don't have to support 5 or more different Android versions just to get decent coverage of the market!
This item has very little to do with their HTC acquisition, and it isn't going to happen because of it.
First of all, Google does not release Android builds for OEM handsets. Realistically, they can't. Project Treble includes a HAL for Android which should make upgrades easier in the future. This is a new feature in Oreo, however, so it doesn't apply to anything currently on the market.
Second, developers can target multiple versions of Android fairly easily. The Android SDK allows you to specify both a minimum version and a target version of Android. When doing this, you are limited to the feature set of the oldest version, but the application will automatically benefit from the target-level APIs on devices that support them. Obviously this doesn't apply to code built outside of the SDK, but if you're doing that then you already accepted the headaches associated with that decision.
And finally, it is the OEM's responsibility to support the phone for a reasonable lifespan, not Google's. Any OS update runs the risk of breaking proprietary features and other customizations. The manufacturer of the device is the only one who can fix those problems, so ultimately they must be involved in order for normal users to have a realistic upgrade path---and the OEMs have a financial incentive to keep users on the upgrade treadmill.
If you really want a better Android ecosystem, support vendors who deliver vanilla Android devices and promise/deliver long-term support. I'm leaning heavily toward Nokia for my next phone because they are doing the former and have a reputation for the latter. The new Nokia appears to be a relatively intact version of the pre-Microsoft Nokia.
Google, please just give us a well-balanced Android phone that's convenient to hold and use, that's reasonably affordable, and that will continue to get updates beyond a couple of years!
This I can agree with.
Your other comments can be applied on a device-by-device basis, and I largely agree with those too. Hopefully Google will manage future Nexus/Pixel products in a more tech-friendly way.
I would like to see longer support for their devices. If Project Treble works as expected, then maybe the 5X, 6P, and Pixel will be the first smartphones to have that 5-year lifespan.
IBM and MIT will jointly own the intellectual property that results from the projects conducted together. The company also has the option to buy out MIT for full ownership, Kelly said.
With Watson being completely underwhelming in most or all of its commercial applications, IBM needs something better. Something useful.
Hopefully MIT gets royalties as a part of that option, as I assume IBM is planning to make a lot of money from this endeavor. IBM gets access to some of the best minds in the field, and they would have no worthwhile product otherwise.
I wonder when, if, and which might make it to market.
It takes years to go from "we did it once or twice in a lab" to "commercial product is ready to ship". At best.
Engineering work takes time, especially when the product is targeting an established market.
So we identify the human driver as the cause of 94% of accidents. This suggests that one way to make the roads safer is to replace the human---making the world better with technology. You respond to this with sarcasm and hostility? What kind of geek are you? Why are you even here?
Bear in mind that computers are the primary "driver" in a number of other vehicles. Guided missiles and spacecraft stand out, in particular.
Those earlier milestones were simpler because there are fewer variables. We essentially solved those problems 30 years ago. The only really novel problem with self-driving cars is interpreting all of the incoming sensor data, and deep learning is very effective at this sort of task. We finally have the missing piece that lets us do this in an active, stimulus-heavy environment. That is the true technical barrier, and, for the first time in decades, it appears we have a means of overcoming it.
The first autonomous vehicles are already out there accruing miles, data, and hard-won experience for the engineers. Private citizens will be getting 2nd- or 3rd-gen systems at the earliest, which will perform even better.
This may happen sooner than you think. Regulatory hurdles are a major problem, and those are being streamlined now.
And remember, computers can't be perfect. To be a sensible replacement, however, they just have to be better than the average human.
You make it sound like this is unique to Intel. It is not.
AMD's TrustZone is basicallly the same thing---a processor which has supervisory access to the hardware and operating system.
Read all about it at:
http://www.amd.com/en-us/innov...
When apps are compromised, Google (and Apple) pull them from the app store and revoke them from user devices. The names don't matter because they're long gone by now.
Per the original article, most of the apps were compromised because a framework that they used was backdoored. This means that it was not malicious intent by the developers, so there is no point in starting a witch hunt against them directly. Hopefully, Google and the affected developers will respond intelligently to this threat vector.
And once again, the most basic security principle applies: only install what you absolutely need. Every bit of code carries a risk.
This the the worst crime. Defying authority!
Not even close. There was credible evidence that DPR tried to order hits on people who he perceived as threats.
I assume the judge had the option to provide a lesser sentence, but if someone is willing to hire a hitman to protect his illegal business---how is he any better than a mob boss? Send him up the river.
Fuck that guy, he deserves to rot. Not for the drugs alone, sure, but he is a piece of shit.
The Supreme Court hasn't granted cert, so the case might not even be heard. This is along the lines of "any idiot can file a lawsuit".
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, then it will be interesting. In agreeing to hear the case, there is a presumption---no matter how slight---that they may overturn the appellate ruling.
Until the Supreme Court grants/denies cert, this is just background noise.
You can get local channels in HD free with an antenna. If there are "gaps" in your content, you can subscribe to a number of services---Netflix, Amazon, Crunchyroll, and, yes, even Sling.
Since most services are in the $10-$20/month range, you can have a variety of them for less than a monthly cable subscription. You can easily get more channels for a lower total cost. The content will be slightly different than what the cable company offers, which is fine because the cable companies aren't 100% consistent from region to region anyway.
Recreating the cable bundle by maxing a SlingTV subscription is the exact opposite of what cable cutters should be doing. I know of no one who is doing what the summary suggested.
According to the interview with Matthew Prince (Cloudflare CEO), he felt that he had to boot the Daily Stormer from Cloudflare because the Daily Stormer started claiming that Cloudlfare was run by Neo-nazis, and used Cloudflare's refusal to boot them as evidence to support their claims.
At first glance, this sounded like bullshit. So I checked, and that is exactly what happened.
From https://blog.cloudflare.com/wh...
The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology.
So, the operators of The Daily Stormer decided to run their mouths about the one company that tolerated their content. Not bright, unless they secretly craved a backwater existence on Tor.
It is established that this is a marketing stunt, so Slashdot is giving it free publicity?
Screw that. It's not news, and it doesn't matter.
So apparently, this is some amateur-hour outfit? I thought they were supposed to be technically and legally astute.
They either don't have lawyers, don't know when to talk to them, or don't listen to them. Or they let random idiots post on their Twitter feed.
And nobody is obligated to do background checks on everyone they sell a megaphone to and determine how worthy their speech is prior to the sale of said megaphone.
Nice strawman, but you're the only one suggesting that.
engage in free speech of your own to educate people on the opposing viewpoint.
That is exactly why I posted. How nice of you to notice.
Someday it could be you with the unpopular viewpoint
I have some unpopular views, and I manage to advocate them without aggravating public opinion.
If an actual crime has been committed, give the evidence to the authorities and let them sort it out.
There is no crime at all. This is all about private companies taking private action. There is no reason to involve the authorities at all.
Google and GoDaddy "stand against" racists because their users and potential clients will approve of that. CloudFlare "stands for" free speech because their potential clients approve of that.
It's corporate greed, and little else, that drives their decisions.
Where you see a boon, I see a problem. Everyone deserves a chance to speak.
And if people choose not to accept or spread his message, that is entirely his problem.
You can walk away or you can rally for suppression.
I have no problem with the response of Google, GoDaddy, or CloudFlare. I am not suppressing anyone, or any company. They are all self-serving, and they all acting legally even though they made different decisions.
Anyone who sees these as moral stands, however, is fooling himself. Be a corporate puppet if you must, but all three of those companies are more interested in their bottom lines than morality or justice.
Do you realize that if you keep antagonizing moderate on your right by calling them nazi, they might actually become such [and run over leftist cuckholds without shame] ?
If a little bit of antagonism leads them to murder, they are human garbage and belong in jail.
Likewise, if you cannot control your violent or homicidal tendencies, you belong in jail.
Seriously... sticks and stones, and all that. Grow up.
A bakery must sell to all customers and WordPress must sell to all customers.
Oh look, it's someone being wrong on the internet.
A bakery is not required to sell to all customers. A bakery is only prohibited from declining customers for a few specific reasons. One of those reasons is sexual orientation---in Colorado. Other prohibited reasons apply nationwide: nationality, race, sex, and religion.
There is no obligation to serve white supremacists. WordPress is perfectly within its rights to ban Vanguard America.
Not specifically, but there are general terms that may apply.
Can you cite the relevant statutes so that we can review expert opinion on the matter?
I'm no lawyer
Obviously. Very obviously.
I think a good lawyer could find lots of precedents
You're not even a bad lawyer. You'll excuse me if I place no value on your opinion regarding what a good lawyer could do.
One I think might apply is Rosa Parks.
Rosa Parks couldn't possibly be a precedent. The Montgomery segregation laws were struck down in Browder v. Gayle---which, if you'll note, does not include her name because she was not a party in that case.
the government supports and regulates the use of the wires and radio waves, so you could probably argue that it's a public accommodation.
Public accommodations are defined by the Civil Rights Act, which does not protect ideologies---including such things as white supremacy, nationalism, or racism.
You could argue that these services meet the requirements for public accommodations, and you might even prevail on that point. But the parties in question are not eligible for protection under the law. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against ideologies.
I assume you're talking about asymmetric encryption. (Correctly used) OTP already gives perfect security symmetric encryption.
Irrelevant. Roughly 99.999% of the way we use symmetric encryption is not compatible with OTPs.
Mentioning OTPs in a conversation about real-world crypto makes me wonder if you understand the matter at all. I intend to ignore the rest of your post, and I suggest others do so as well. It is better to wait for real experts to weigh in.
It doesn't matter if the brains work differently as long as they work comparably well.
If two people can solve the same set of problems using different strategies, they are both competent at those tasks.
Personally, I don't care if men and women end up with 50/50 representation in any particular field. However, I very strongly believe that the environment should not discourage that outcome.
There are cultural problems for women in STEM fields and men in education/child care. Not everywhere, but the complaints are frequent enough that the problems need to be addressed systematically.
Automation is going to supplant a lot of jobs. The only questions are: "Which ones?" and "How fast?"
Higher wages will accelerate the process, but we need to decide what happens as automation takes over regardless of changes to the minimum wage.
The whole article is a bit of a red herring. Whatever we decide for workers displaced by automation, we ought to do with these people. I'm not going to pretend I have a 100% fair solution, and no one seems to agree. So let's focus on the fundamental problem instead of fussing over a bunch of poorly-paid jobs that no one wants, including most of the people who have them.
Because on the whole, I think everyone is perfectly happy to let machines do more work. So we need to figure out how to make it work without FUD about losing jobs.
As long as Ryzen is segfaulting under load, AMD has won jack. E.g., my employer will not be buying any workstations or servers until the problem is conclusively fixed.
If some new feature is broken (like HLE when Intel launched it), then whatever---people will simply wait to adopt the new feature. But when basic functionality is broken (like heavy compilation jobs on Ryzen), you have a serious problem.
The competition is forcing Intel to adjust their prices, but Ryzen is neither a slam dunk winner nor an unqualified success. Wake me up when Ryzen v2.0 is out. I will consider a fully functional chip when one is available.
This takes real balls.
It takes greed. CloudFlare is a big business, and any moralizing should be assumed disingenuous until proven otherwise.
You can certainly judge a company by who they serve and how, but don't pretend morality enters the picture. GoDaddy, Google, and CloudFlare are all taking political stances to appeal to potential clients.
Free speech isn't optional. Only listening is optional.
The right to speak is protected, but access to technology isn't.
A man has the right to stand on a street corner and speak his mind. But just as no one is obligated to listen to him, neither is anyone obligated to sell him a megaphone.
And, likewise, no one is smashing down the server room door where The Daily Stormer is hosted.
If someone detroys their server or their network link, that's crossing the line. If someone decides not to do business with them, that's perfectly fine.
You are entitled to exist free from harm or threats; you are not entitled to publicity, social media, or a platform.