Nonsense. You fail to understand how modern banking works
The reserve bank is not giving away money to a player. The reserve banks increases the reserves of a customer bank, allowing it to lend more money to its customers. Yes it allows for the bank to get increased revenues if it plays well (*) by lending to people who will return the money, but the money is not directly given to it.
Your solution, in change, will make 10X richer the richer people (those who can hoard money and store it until its value gets magically multiplied). Not to mention that it needs government control of prices (because else, John Doe who bought merchandise X worth $10 yesterday might refuse to sell it for $1 today).
As a socialist-communist myself, it never ceases to amaze me how "hard-money" advocates (theoretically very fiscally conservative) would so easily "cross the lines" when they fail to find valid arguments. I assume it is because, in the end, Marx was right.
It does not change anything. He could have started with 800 tokens. That will only mean that scarcity will happen later (with more people) in the game. The issue is that it is a fixed amount of money supply.
Even if you allow for the money to be arbitrarily divided (so you can put a price of $0.00045 in an item, and have a way to paying that price) you end with:
At the beginning, you have 800 tokens and 8 people producing a good each day. The first day, each of those goods will be worth (800 tokens/8 goods) = 100 tokens/good. The second day (assuming the goods don't perish/get consumed), each of the goods produced will be worth 800 tokens / (8 + 8) goods = 50 token / good. The third day shit happens and production is improved by 100%, at the end of the day a good is worth 800 tokens / (8 + 8 + 16) goods = 25 token / good.
It is not that difficult to see that in this case the best strategy is to hoard tokens and use them as little as you can, because each time they are worth more. So, there is no demand and no profit in creating goods --> no commerce.
Right now these fees are already in use, yet most stores find out convenient to offer card payment (remember that right now it is completely opcional). There are few stores/restaurants where you can't pay this way.
Why? Because of an evil government / big bussines conspiracy? Or because:
it is convenient to stores not to have to deal with notes (you know, stacking it, accounting, securing them from insider or outside theft, depositing in accounts),
because with it the customers have "automatically" extra money available (credit) and because they are less likely to not have in themselves the money they need if they go in impulse buying.
So, if now fees are not a big issue, it is not likely that it will be in the future as long as some solution is provided to "small thing stores" and the government prevents collusion.
You are forgetting about transferencies/cheques and so on. In fact, for anything over €1000 (and even lower) I would have to use one of these means as credit/debit cards do not grant enough funds.
If I steal your car and throw it down a mountain I will not have profitted from it, yet it would be a crime.
Even more, if I do not enter your car but I douse it with gas and lit, that would be another crime (yes, not theft but arson). Even if you were using that car to follow me and keep harassing me.
Now, we can discuss if the guy can claim that he was under pressure by the paparazzi as a way to soften the sentence. But that does not change that it was indeed a crime.
And for paparazzi, I think the same than sport stars: the problem is not that they get paid for doing what they do, the trouble is that someone is willing to pay them for doing it. Oh, it is easier to blame the individual paparazzi than the public that buys/sees all the gossiping media, but it does not adress the problem.
First: Turning another material into gold has already been done. It is just more expensive than natural gold. Done by science (it works, bitches).
Second: What alchemics means (in opposition to modern chemistry) is that, instead of experimenting, repeating experiments, validating theories, you just would get a bunch of philosophical gibberish about the "inherent" qualitites(good/bad for the souls, its "affinity", it is earth, fire or....) of this or that compound, that you need to perform certain mistical ritual before using them and the usual.
Could you explain me which part of TFA is "alchemic"?
In a related note, thinking about what you write before writting it is a good thing, you should try it.
I guess that what they really want is to make you pay according to the usefulness to you.
Theoretically, you will pay for a good as long as its price gives you more usefulness than the same money spent in any other good (say books / internet / going out). Of course, the tricky point is determining that point.
Right now, consumers who only have a small interest in TV just don't get suscribed. In the other hand, users which could not live without their favorite series pay the same that people who are just barely interested.
With a pure no suscription/pay per use model, everybody would be "suscribed" and they would get the cents from the people who watch little TV and the big bucks of people who is constantly watching it.
And yes, all of this is for increasing revenues / profit. After all, it is what is expected from everybody who works for/manages a bussiness in a capitalist economy.
Do you know nothing about advertising? If you don't buy my cars, chicks won't go with you. If you don't but my soap to clean your kids clothes, the other kids at the school will notice and they will lynch your sons....
A happy, fearless person is not a good customer. That has been known for millenia, here and in the Middle East
Now, about this "holy" book (and taxes and levies and everything else)... did you know that you are a sinner and that you will burn in Hell for Eternity?
I don't believe science and religion are mutually exclusive. ID is a shell game with literal Creationism as the pea. It's not religion. It's not science. It's a political attack on evolution. ID was designed to make teaching Creationism a politically and legally viable alternative to teaching evolution in biology classes.
In reality, it is an attack by a semiorganized group against anyone who dares not to follow their particular interpretation of the Bible (of course, suitable to be changed as it pleases/benefit them).
Their motto, as in the Middle Ages, is: "I tell you that God says this. You cannot challenge God (or if you do, you will be punished). So, I am right"
There is also a certain air of self righteousness and arrogance. These are highly off-putting character traits. If he feels obliged to share his religious views, he should consider working at a place where people believe the same things. Is there a church in his denomination that needs a person with his job skills. In such an environment of closed minds he should be happy as a pig in a wallow, and the rest of society can avoid the imposition of putting up with his uninvited opinions.
Sir, you win the prize to the best analogy of the day.
And how much does it cost to setup and maintain those filters vs. give unlimited access?
If you begin factoring in:
Virus / Malware
Bandwidth lost to students watching silly videos/going to social media / cost to upgrade infrastructure to support increased bandwidth.
Extra shared equipment (PCs) required due to increased usage of the existing equipment.
Lost productivity (I assume that the blocking affects also to the university workers).
Then you find that "unlimited access" is everything but free.
What the university needs is a process / form so the student can argue why he needs to access the page for his work (for example, in the same "blocked content page") so he has a way to get through if there are legitimate reasons (not everybody has the same needs, and also the filtering has just plain errors). Apart from that, it is all up IT department decission.
When asked, you just let tomhath answer for you (you have not given an alternative explanaition, so until then I will rightfully take it as that you agree with him). Anyway you are right that you don't explicity explained why this is "propaganda".
Anyway, you still have a few more rebuttals to answer (sorry, but just calling them names does not invalidate them).
I would like to know if you think that what happened to the Mayans is what you would like to happen (or would not care if it happened) to you.... as you are so eager to minimize it.
The Mayans are still there, living in the land their ancestors lived in. They were not "killed off". Any study that suggests they were "killed off" can be ignored as propaganda.
The Mayans made a transition from living in large, centralized cities to a more dispersed, less organized society.
And surely these changes were ordered, pacific and without bloodshed. Their culture survived, as did their way of life and society. In fact we do not need archeologists for learn anything about the Mayans, because we just can ask the contemporary Mayan scholars who know everything about their culture.
And there was neither famine nor infighting for the resources that suddenly had become scarce. And even better, from being an unsuccessful society with some degree of science and organization they became a bunch of happy-ever-after farmers, just like YOU want to be.
This is likely because their centralization was expensive and only supportable based on specific agricultural conditions and faith in their leaders to be able to sustain them. When those conditions changed, that faith could no longer be justified and the expense could no longer be afforded.
I do not follow you. Changes in the agricultural condition caused the changes, but anyone claiming that climate changes lead to changes in agriculture conditions that lead to the collapse of their society is a fear-mongering propagandist of AGW? I know many people in/. are urbanites, but most of us remember that most vegetables are grown outdoors/...
When your society is built on the idea of all-powerful mystic kings, then your society falls when the population loses faith in those kings' power.
And now, since you are the one who brought the subject of AGW: Even in the worst Nuclear War scenarios, some people would survive. The question is how many of them and in which conditions. So I do not fear that AGW will wipe out mankind. That does not mean that it should be ignored, though...
If you want to know what man can do to his environment, search for the history of Pascua.
I would agree that if the motive was voyeurism then it would not be hate crime. But then, posting his discovery in twitter makes it hard to believe that it was his motive "hey people! I find gay people making out interesting and I am a peeping tom!"
I don't think that the action (suicide) is warranted by the crime (published observation). Don't get me wrong - it's a totally creepy thing to do, and it's not up to me to judge what motivates anyone, but if *that's* what it takes for you to commit suicide, well, then you've got other problems ahead of you.
And who says the relation is direct? Maybe the outing lead to bullying at school, or the family disowning him or something else. Or maybe not and it is just an exagerated reaction by a teenager.So far I have no information about it.
The question is that the outing/spying was due to prejudices from Dharun, who wanted to harm his roommate. And whose prejudices are shared by a subset of the population large enough that the roommate could have trouble with the rest of his community. Hence, the hate crime. It is not as if Dharun is being judged by manslaughter.
If I try to catch a girlfriend cheating on me and post the video all over the place to show what a slut she is, it's stupid, it's childish, and it's selfish.
But it's not a hate crime.
There is no evidence that he had a general hatred of gays or was persecuting the gay community as a whole. Only that he wanted to "out" his roommate. And as despicable as that may be and as terrible as the end result was, that is NOT a hate crime.
The very fact that he wanted to out the guy shows the intent. Would he had do the same thing had the roommate being dating, say, the head cheerleader? I do not think so. I don't think he would have posted the news in twitter, either. He wanted his roommate marked as gay in front of the community, assuming that the community would shun him. That alone makes it a hate crime.
The difference between hate speech and being just an asshole is when being an asshole is so common place that it becomes a social problem. Lets say that this Dharun guy was not worried about his roommate being gay, but by him wearing Star Trek costumes. So he spies on him and "outs" him as a Star Trek fan. Ok, a little weird but there is no really social opinion against trekkies. Nobody would care / gossip / harass about that.
The trouble is that outing him as a gay, in an ambient where homophobic bullying is allowed(*) can really cause a problem. Think that he was not filming a 30 something adult who might give a shit about what his coleagues might think, but another teenager who probably wanted to blend in the crowd. It is really a very different thing.
* Note that I don't say that bullying from a majority or else, but even a very small vocal minority can cause really problems if the rest of the population does not stop them(think of the Scottsboro nutcracks). And we know that bulliers are rarely opposed by those who do not want to become targets.
Maybe you are missing the point that someone is (or is not) gay, it is not as if someone acts (or does not act) gay.
I am lazy at work, I steal or something else and you fire me? At the next job, I might think twice about doing the same thing.
Do you fire me because I am gay. At the next job I would still be gay. Will they me fire again when they find out? Should I ask at the interview if they allow gays.
Of course, there are lots of morons who would be happy to fire you because the least of the prejudices (maybe they do not like that I play videogames at home, or that I am not interested in sports/don't support his team), but that is a more individual thing, and I may reallistically hope that at the next job I will not find the same asshole (or at least the asshole prejudices won't work against me). But with homophoby still very extended, many people may think (rightfully or not) that being fired for being gay is something that will be repeated over and over.
That's why there is a difference between hate speech and being an asshole. Basically, hate speech is when enough people of the population is an asshole that it becomes a social problem.
A lot of time ago I did some schoolwork about mass media and read some essays. Some of them talked about the "Goebbels Effect/Law" (yes, named after the Nazi because he used it a lot): present an old situation as a new one so the public does not relate it with its preconceived ideas.
For example, if I say: "Country X (or the Martians) spends ten times more in military than in education, and a 10% of young are functionally illiterate" many of you would say that this country politic should change. Now if say "USA spends ten times more in military than in education, and a 10% of young are functionally illiterate" (*1) then some of the previous people (specially if you are from the USA, or the USA military/weapon industries) would say "but we really need to spend that much in armament, and if young people don't know how to read it is because they do not want".
This has been exploited through the ages, before SF there were "travel literature" where someone would go into an strange land and describe there the problem of its own (see Gulliver's Travel). Some SF also serves for it, but it is hardly new at all.
Since when "having a website" is the same as "doing bussiness"?
If you have a website, you "do bussiness" when you accept money either for the hosting of the adds. And here is where the single countries have leverage, because if you want to have some benefits you want to link addvertisers with their public.
If you have a blog written by chinese people that is read by chinese people, you will serve adds of products that can be bought by that chinese people (and further you can try do a demographic study to further maximize your impact). And if it goes well, you will have an office in China so advertisers in China can easily contact you and pay you without problem.
Of course, you can have your "Free the Tibet!" page at your server of the USA, no problem with that. But that site will be blocked in China (and probably, all of your server content too, even if it is not "offensive") and you won't get a cent in revenue from Chinese advertisers.
That is why "having a website" is not the same that "doing bussiness"
Slashdot Mirror
so they can loan money, barter/trade goods without tax burden (yard sales, craigslist, etc), gamble/wager or anything else you can imagine.
Yes, in TFA they point out that measure would fight fiscal crime (you know, that "tax burden").
So basically you agree but you condone people not paying taxes.
Nonsense. You fail to understand how modern banking works
The reserve bank is not giving away money to a player. The reserve banks increases the reserves of a customer bank, allowing it to lend more money to its customers. Yes it allows for the bank to get increased revenues if it plays well (*) by lending to people who will return the money, but the money is not directly given to it.
Your solution, in change, will make 10X richer the richer people (those who can hoard money and store it until its value gets magically multiplied). Not to mention that it needs government control of prices (because else, John Doe who bought merchandise X worth $10 yesterday might refuse to sell it for $1 today).
As a socialist-communist myself, it never ceases to amaze me how "hard-money" advocates (theoretically very fiscally conservative) would so easily "cross the lines" when they fail to find valid arguments. I assume it is because, in the end, Marx was right.
It does not change anything. He could have started with 800 tokens. That will only mean that scarcity will happen later (with more people) in the game. The issue is that it is a fixed amount of money supply.
Even if you allow for the money to be arbitrarily divided (so you can put a price of $0.00045 in an item, and have a way to paying that price) you end with:
At the beginning, you have 800 tokens and 8 people producing a good each day. The first day, each of those goods will be worth (800 tokens/8 goods) = 100 tokens/good. The second day (assuming the goods don't perish/get consumed), each of the goods produced will be worth 800 tokens / (8 + 8) goods = 50 token / good. The third day shit happens and production is improved by 100%, at the end of the day a good is worth 800 tokens / (8 + 8 + 16) goods = 25 token / good.
It is not that difficult to see that in this case the best strategy is to hoard tokens and use them as little as you can, because each time they are worth more. So, there is no demand and no profit in creating goods --> no commerce.
Only gold nuggets?
To be safe in the case that the western civilization collapses in my way from home to work, I never get out without:
Gold nuggets.
Silver nuggets (for spare change/tips in the postapocalliptical society).
A fully loaded and revised M-16
400 bullets for the former.
Water and canned food for 2 weeks.
A map of the supermarkets of the area so I can loot them. If possible, a description of the aissle so I can get quickly to the spirits section.
500 liters of gas and an entire spare engine for my car.
My shortwave emitter/transceiver and a satellite dish.
Full combat fatigues (already worn under the civilian clothes so not to waste time).
Camouflage paint (already applied just in case).
Right now these fees are already in use, yet most stores find out convenient to offer card payment (remember that right now it is completely opcional). There are few stores/restaurants where you can't pay this way.
Why? Because of an evil government / big bussines conspiracy? Or because:
it is convenient to stores not to have to deal with notes (you know, stacking it, accounting, securing them from insider or outside theft, depositing in accounts),
because with it the customers have "automatically" extra money available (credit) and because they are less likely to not have in themselves the money they need if they go in impulse buying.
So, if now fees are not a big issue, it is not likely that it will be in the future as long as some solution is provided to "small thing stores" and the government prevents collusion.
You are forgetting about transferencies/cheques and so on. In fact, for anything over €1000 (and even lower) I would have to use one of these means as credit/debit cards do not grant enough funds.
Stupid's theorem:
Every country that does not do what I think is right is either:
Nazi Germany
Stalinist SU
A previous version of either of the above.
Stupid's corollary:
Everyone who does not think the same as I is either a disguissed filo-nazi or filo-Stalinist
If I steal your car and throw it down a mountain I will not have profitted from it, yet it would be a crime.
Even more, if I do not enter your car but I douse it with gas and lit, that would be another crime (yes, not theft but arson). Even if you were using that car to follow me and keep harassing me.
Now, we can discuss if the guy can claim that he was under pressure by the paparazzi as a way to soften the sentence. But that does not change that it was indeed a crime.
And for paparazzi, I think the same than sport stars: the problem is not that they get paid for doing what they do, the trouble is that someone is willing to pay them for doing it. Oh, it is easier to blame the individual paparazzi than the public that buys/sees all the gossiping media, but it does not adress the problem.
First you are completely confusing scientific fields. Creating a compound from atoms is chemistry, changing an atom nucleus is nuclear physics.
Second, you should know that it is already possible to turn lead into gold and it already has been done
Really, you should put a little more effort in your comments.
First: Turning another material into gold has already been done. It is just more expensive than natural gold. Done by science (it works, bitches).
Second: What alchemics means (in opposition to modern chemistry) is that, instead of experimenting, repeating experiments, validating theories, you just would get a bunch of philosophical gibberish about the "inherent" qualitites(good/bad for the souls, its "affinity", it is earth, fire or....) of this or that compound, that you need to perform certain mistical ritual before using them and the usual.
Could you explain me which part of TFA is "alchemic"?
In a related note, thinking about what you write before writting it is a good thing, you should try it.
Not that easy.
I guess that what they really want is to make you pay according to the usefulness to you.
Theoretically, you will pay for a good as long as its price gives you more usefulness than the same money spent in any other good (say books / internet / going out). Of course, the tricky point is determining that point.
Right now, consumers who only have a small interest in TV just don't get suscribed. In the other hand, users which could not live without their favorite series pay the same that people who are just barely interested.
With a pure no suscription/pay per use model, everybody would be "suscribed" and they would get the cents from the people who watch little TV and the big bucks of people who is constantly watching it.
And yes, all of this is for increasing revenues / profit. After all, it is what is expected from everybody who works for/manages a bussiness in a capitalist economy.
Why should politicians comment about religion?
Do you know nothing about advertising? If you don't buy my cars, chicks won't go with you. If you don't but my soap to clean your kids clothes, the other kids at the school will notice and they will lynch your sons....
A happy, fearless person is not a good customer. That has been known for millenia, here and in the Middle East
Now, about this "holy" book (and taxes and levies and everything else)... did you know that you are a sinner and that you will burn in Hell for Eternity?
I don't believe science and religion are mutually exclusive. ID is a shell game with literal Creationism as the pea. It's not religion. It's not science. It's a political attack on evolution. ID was designed to make teaching Creationism a politically and legally viable alternative to teaching evolution in biology classes.
In reality, it is an attack by a semiorganized group against anyone who dares not to follow their particular interpretation of the Bible (of course, suitable to be changed as it pleases/benefit them).
Their motto, as in the Middle Ages, is: "I tell you that God says this. You cannot challenge God (or if you do, you will be punished). So, I am right"
There is also a certain air of self righteousness and arrogance. These are highly off-putting character traits. If he feels obliged to share his religious views, he should consider working at a place where people believe the same things. Is there a church in his denomination that needs a person with his job skills. In such an environment of closed minds he should be happy as a pig in a wallow, and the rest of society can avoid the imposition of putting up with his uninvited opinions.
Sir, you win the prize to the best analogy of the day.
The same computers could be infected when the students go back home, get an USB from a friend....
Conclusion: don't let computers you don't control in your network; at the very minimum keep them in an unstrusted VLAN.
And how much does it cost to setup and maintain those filters vs. give unlimited access?
If you begin factoring in:
Then you find that "unlimited access" is everything but free.
What the university needs is a process / form so the student can argue why he needs to access the page for his work (for example, in the same "blocked content page") so he has a way to get through if there are legitimate reasons (not everybody has the same needs, and also the filtering has just plain errors). Apart from that, it is all up IT department decission.
When asked, you just let tomhath answer for you (you have not given an alternative explanaition, so until then I will rightfully take it as that you agree with him). Anyway you are right that you don't explicity explained why this is "propaganda".
Anyway, you still have a few more rebuttals to answer (sorry, but just calling them names does not invalidate them).
I would like to know if you think that what happened to the Mayans is what you would like to happen (or would not care if it happened) to you.... as you are so eager to minimize it.
The Mayans are still there, living in the land their ancestors lived in. They were not "killed off". Any study that suggests they were "killed off" can be ignored as propaganda.
The Mayans made a transition from living in large, centralized cities to a more dispersed, less organized society.
And surely these changes were ordered, pacific and without bloodshed. Their culture survived, as did their way of life and society. In fact we do not need archeologists for learn anything about the Mayans, because we just can ask the contemporary Mayan scholars who know everything about their culture.
And there was neither famine nor infighting for the resources that suddenly had become scarce. And even better, from being an unsuccessful society with some degree of science and organization they became a bunch of happy-ever-after farmers, just like YOU want to be.
This is likely because their centralization was expensive and only supportable based on specific agricultural conditions and faith in their leaders to be able to sustain them. When those conditions changed, that faith could no longer be justified and the expense could no longer be afforded.
I do not follow you. Changes in the agricultural condition caused the changes, but anyone claiming that climate changes lead to changes in agriculture conditions that lead to the collapse of their society is a fear-mongering propagandist of AGW? I know many people in /. are urbanites, but most of us remember that most vegetables are grown outdoors/...
When your society is built on the idea of all-powerful mystic kings, then your society falls when the population loses faith in those kings' power.
Yes their problem was not that they did not have enough food. It is just that they did not have the right moral values. How clever of you!
And now, since you are the one who brought the subject of AGW: Even in the worst Nuclear War scenarios, some people would survive. The question is how many of them and in which conditions. So I do not fear that AGW will wipe out mankind. That does not mean that it should be ignored, though...
If you want to know what man can do to his environment, search for the history of Pascua.
I would agree that if the motive was voyeurism then it would not be hate crime. But then, posting his discovery in twitter makes it hard to believe that it was his motive "hey people! I find gay people making out interesting and I am a peeping tom!"
Anyway, that is what the judge is for.
I don't think that the action (suicide) is warranted by the crime (published observation). Don't get me wrong - it's a totally creepy thing to do, and it's not up to me to judge what motivates anyone, but if *that's* what it takes for you to commit suicide, well, then you've got other problems ahead of you.
And who says the relation is direct? Maybe the outing lead to bullying at school, or the family disowning him or something else. Or maybe not and it is just an exagerated reaction by a teenager.So far I have no information about it.
The question is that the outing/spying was due to prejudices from Dharun, who wanted to harm his roommate. And whose prejudices are shared by a subset of the population large enough that the roommate could have trouble with the rest of his community. Hence, the hate crime. It is not as if Dharun is being judged by manslaughter.
I don't agree.
If I try to catch a girlfriend cheating on me and post the video all over the place to show what a slut she is, it's stupid, it's childish, and it's selfish.
But it's not a hate crime.
There is no evidence that he had a general hatred of gays or was persecuting the gay community as a whole. Only that he wanted to "out" his roommate. And as despicable as that may be and as terrible as the end result was, that is NOT a hate crime.
The very fact that he wanted to out the guy shows the intent. Would he had do the same thing had the roommate being dating, say, the head cheerleader? I do not think so. I don't think he would have posted the news in twitter, either. He wanted his roommate marked as gay in front of the community, assuming that the community would shun him. That alone makes it a hate crime.
The difference between hate speech and being just an asshole is when being an asshole is so common place that it becomes a social problem. Lets say that this Dharun guy was not worried about his roommate being gay, but by him wearing Star Trek costumes. So he spies on him and "outs" him as a Star Trek fan. Ok, a little weird but there is no really social opinion against trekkies. Nobody would care / gossip / harass about that.
The trouble is that outing him as a gay, in an ambient where homophobic bullying is allowed(*) can really cause a problem. Think that he was not filming a 30 something adult who might give a shit about what his coleagues might think, but another teenager who probably wanted to blend in the crowd. It is really a very different thing.
* Note that I don't say that bullying from a majority or else, but even a very small vocal minority can cause really problems if the rest of the population does not stop them(think of the Scottsboro nutcracks). And we know that bulliers are rarely opposed by those who do not want to become targets.
Maybe you are missing the point that someone is (or is not) gay, it is not as if someone acts (or does not act) gay.
I am lazy at work, I steal or something else and you fire me? At the next job, I might think twice about doing the same thing.
Do you fire me because I am gay. At the next job I would still be gay. Will they me fire again when they find out? Should I ask at the interview if they allow gays.
Of course, there are lots of morons who would be happy to fire you because the least of the prejudices (maybe they do not like that I play videogames at home, or that I am not interested in sports/don't support his team), but that is a more individual thing, and I may reallistically hope that at the next job I will not find the same asshole (or at least the asshole prejudices won't work against me). But with homophoby still very extended, many people may think (rightfully or not) that being fired for being gay is something that will be repeated over and over.
That's why there is a difference between hate speech and being an asshole. Basically, hate speech is when enough people of the population is an asshole that it becomes a social problem.
A lot of time ago I did some schoolwork about mass media and read some essays. Some of them talked about the "Goebbels Effect/Law" (yes, named after the Nazi because he used it a lot): present an old situation as a new one so the public does not relate it with its preconceived ideas.
For example, if I say: "Country X (or the Martians) spends ten times more in military than in education, and a 10% of young are functionally illiterate" many of you would say that this country politic should change. Now if say "USA spends ten times more in military than in education, and a 10% of young are functionally illiterate" (*1) then some of the previous people (specially if you are from the USA, or the USA military/weapon industries) would say "but we really need to spend that much in armament, and if young people don't know how to read it is because they do not want".
This has been exploited through the ages, before SF there were "travel literature" where someone would go into an strange land and describe there the problem of its own (see Gulliver's Travel). Some SF also serves for it, but it is hardly new at all.
*1: Not factual, just a fabricated example.
Since when "having a website" is the same as "doing bussiness"?
If you have a website, you "do bussiness" when you accept money either for the hosting of the adds. And here is where the single countries have leverage, because if you want to have some benefits you want to link addvertisers with their public.
If you have a blog written by chinese people that is read by chinese people, you will serve adds of products that can be bought by that chinese people (and further you can try do a demographic study to further maximize your impact). And if it goes well, you will have an office in China so advertisers in China can easily contact you and pay you without problem.
Of course, you can have your "Free the Tibet!" page at your server of the USA, no problem with that. But that site will be blocked in China (and probably, all of your server content too, even if it is not "offensive") and you won't get a cent in revenue from Chinese advertisers.
That is why "having a website" is not the same that "doing bussiness"