MikeUt

16 ms·

181.
by MikeUt 5y ago
I don't think it's safe to assume the $699 price tag is the same as the unit cost to Facebook. They'll charge whatever they can get people to pay for it, plus they have a vested interest in portraying ad-free prices as unreas
182.
The racist legacy many birds carry(washingtonpost.com)
1 points by MikeUt 5y ago|0 comments
183.
by MikeUt 5y ago
Let me try to be clearer: Is Firefox "enforcing norms" when it allows access to websites a government (US included) has banned? Where does the force in en force ing come in?
184.
by MikeUt 5y ago
> But it is our greed, our demand for cheaper and faster, our uncaring nature to the extractive business practices that push the CIA into action. Evocative rhetoric, that falls apart upon examination. Is it your claim that if only most A
185.
by MikeUt 5y ago
It's odd to frame not forcing censorship on their users as "enforcing norms".
186.
by MikeUt 5y ago
> How, in the face of being presented with a list of evils the world over, are we all (us Americans) not prostrate in shame? You're asking Americans to feel shame for the actions of an unelected agency that has subverted their democ
187.
by MikeUt 5y ago
"Germany's Network Enforcement Law, or NetzDG … requires social media companies to block or remove content that violates one of twenty restrictions on hate and defamatory speech in the German Criminal Code," Diana Lee wrote
188.
by MikeUt 5y ago
contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. [..] Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic sp
189.
by MikeUt 5y ago
"Number of opinions" is a bad metric. Suppose that number is as low as 1: you can't express the opinion that Uyghurs are being genocided. Would you call this nearly-perfect free-speech?
190.
by MikeUt 5y ago
> What's said in private is a classic "they said, I said". It's not a legal danger. This is false, even if we limit ourselves to only legal danger. If you say something to two people, and one of them repeats your word
191.
by MikeUt 5y ago
Or they're worried things said in private would leak. If there's a large cost to saying something publicly, the risk carries over to saying it privately too.
192.
by MikeUt 5y ago
> but instead go to great pains to twist, alter, edit and selectively curate reality to fit their message. The video had long segments without cuts, that seemed to include enough context. Do you have any examples from that video in min
193.
Poll: Only 18 Percent of Germans Feel Free to Voice Views in Public (2019)(jonathanturley.org)
51 points by MikeUt 5y ago|65 comments
194.
by MikeUt 5y ago
The insinuation is that locking read-only access behind sign-in requirements is spreading, making preserving privacy online even more difficult.
195.
Tell HN: Google issue tracker does not allow viewing issues unless signed-in
69 points by MikeUt 5y ago|22 comments
196.
by MikeUt 5y ago
At least we would eventually learn that the government can do that, and fight it in court.
197.
by MikeUt 5y ago
> Men’s rights groups have taken to searching for the image included in various posters and ad campaigns, in a McCarthyistic hunt [..] Major corporations have disciplined or demoted employees for advertisements that used the pinching han
198.
by MikeUt 5y ago
I get redirected to a sign-in page. Google does not seem to allow even viewing an issue without signing in.
199.
Morocco Weaponized Migration to Punish Spain. That’s More Common Than You Think(washingtonpost.com)
2 points by MikeUt 5y ago|0 comments
200.
by MikeUt 5y ago
If you answer "no", the same logic can be used to strip you of all your rights. How much domestic violence and murder could be prevented if every home was required to have cameras and microphones installed?
201.
by MikeUt 5y ago
There's also the issue that it takes longer to climb to a higher position (even an entire generation), and the US was much less diverse a few decades ago. The "Hidden in plain sight" study the article cites [1] says executive
202.
by MikeUt 5y ago
Neither this article nor the related one it links to contain even a single one of these tweets. This kind of deliberate omission in reporting is sadly becoming a trend.
203.
by MikeUt 5y ago
From another comment: "Deere is the worst in this, but the rest of the industry isn't anywhere near as good as it should be." So no, the argument isn't that they don't want to make money. The argument is that they
204.
by MikeUt 5y ago
> Equipment manufacturers collect lots and lots of data about soil, weather, yields, and other factors, which they can then share with or sell to “affiliates and suppliers.” So a company selling seeds (with a no-reselling clause in their
205.
by MikeUt 5y ago
The deaths we see directly are overwhelmingly outnumbered by those we learn about second-hand.
206.
by MikeUt 5y ago
The question is simple but inane, and implies losing the right to speech cannot be life-threatening. Then once conditions progress and the right to life is directly under attack, there is "no one allowed to speak for you".
207.
by MikeUt 5y ago
Ok, I'll play your game. Political enemies (in China, the USSR, other historic Eastern European states, Turkey.. maybe you'd prefer MLK as an example) are denied the right to life on the basis of their speech. So if they fight for
208.
by MikeUt 5y ago
Or maybe they don't have the luxury of ignoring free speech, that others take for granted. Claiming a stance is a result of "luxury" is not the shortcut to win a debate that you imagine it to be.
209.
by MikeUt 5y ago
How convenient. Media mostly ignore an event. When there is predictably not much outrage among people that are largely unaware of it, claim this is evidence they think it's OK.
210.
by MikeUt 5y ago
Strong encryption and privacy is not an "alternative to the justice system" in the same way that allowing people to leave their homes without tracking collars isn't.

More ›