apple_innocent

9 ms·

31.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
OK, sometimes it's longer than 1s
32.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
"Page loading" is a lie. The truth is artifical delay has been intentionally inserted. You are waititng for ad auctions, e.g., header bidding, to conclude. About 1s. aa;dr = Ad auction. Didn't Read.
33.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
lr;dr = Login required. Didn't Read.
34.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
Perhaps the website would sue the author of the list. That does not explain why this comment suggests a browser author was afraid to use the list. The browser author could easily require the list author to agree that the browser author has
35.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
"For years, they said no, because they were worried about the liability of accidentally blocking something that wasn't a phishing site." Can anyone explain how a web browser author could be liable for using a blacklist. Once
36.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
"In the case of Munn v. Illinois in 1876, the Supreme Court upheld the right of government to regulate industries that affect the common good or public interest (in this case, private grain storage facilities that all local farmers dep
37.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/after-capitol-insurrection...
38.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
See also: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55678502
39.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
Perhaps this is why America's enacted laws have so often been drafted by lobbyists. Politicians might lack competency at drafting legislation.
40.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
The Ars Technica article has better information, including a links to the draft bill. FWIW, here's a thread for the Ars article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25806151 Interesting that he has set the threshhold
41.
North Dakota Bill Would Let Censored Citizens Sue Facebook, Twitter(arstechnica.com)
57 points by apple_innocent 6y ago|39 comments
42.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
Not "steal", but "use". (Facebook does not have to "steal", people give their information to the Facebook middleman willingly.) Why are WhatsApp communications encrypted. What can they be used for. Who can u
43.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
"The "tangible" damages to all these users is not clear to me." The Illinois Supreme Court decided there is no need to claim actual damages. As the article clearly states, there are statutory damages.1 You might think
44.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
A superior outcome would be OTT peer-to-peer communication, with small groups of peers forming their own mini-networks potentially linking with others if there is mutual interest. The massive groups that form via today's internet do n
45.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
Sounds good to me. And what is the gratuitously complex instrumentation by which all of these companies collect personal data and track users: the so-called "modern" web browser. Authored by, you guessed it, companies who rely o
46.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
Sci-Hub is a company?
47.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
100%. By the same token, however, despite how Section 230 has come to be interpreted, I think these companies should be held responsible for the user-generated content they publish. They should be publishing their own content not acting
48.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
If U.S. government provided a platform, then these "free speech" claims might have a basis in law. IMO, the issues would be easier to grapple with. Instead these enourmous websites are filling what is now an obvious void in publi
49.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
These massive websites/broadcast SMS cannot have it both ways. They cannot seek the protections of being "critical infrastructure" of any sort, common carrier, public forum, etc. and then, at the same time, disable user accou
50.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
If the reason for the decision is objectionable speech then what term do we use. Anyway, it does not change the point of the original comment which is that these entities are collectively taking action based on objectionable material withou
51.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
A different take on Parler's connection (or not) to the events of 6 Jan 2021: https://web.archive.org/web/20210112145206/https://greenwald...
52.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
"It's unlikely it would even be laglly possible to compel them to do this." But then, at a higher level, look at the unilateral/collective censorship ("deplatforming") that is happening right now... and being c
53.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
"The owner of Times Square relies upon the big advertising signs for their income." Times Square is just the first public place that I thought of. Not every public place is used for advertising. What if it was the National Mall
54.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
For an interesting comparison, consider the first person to be charged under CFAA. He's a co-founder and partner at YC. Both defendants were the children of parents who were involved with early UNIX, one at Bell Labs and NSA, and the
55.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
Yes, there are limits. See, e.g., 230(e)(1)
56.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
Wrong analogy. If someone got up to speak in Times Square, incited violence, and was charged with sedition, then the owner of Times Square is not going to be named in any charges.
57.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
"The platforms are attempting to limit their exposure to facilitating such actions" By "exposure", perhaps the commenter means possible sedition charges. To me, this is further evidence that these websites are neither co
58.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
"Nobody gets fired for banning Trump."
59.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
This archive has a video of Ms Babbit immediately after the shooting. I assume it also has some video of the shooting itself. If not, https://seed167.bitchute.com/btNqLs8QOEUX/8sCb5t8sGrVO.mp4 The shooter has since b
60.
by apple_innocent 6y ago
Absence of choice. Necessity.

More ›