bzbarsky

30 ms·

241.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
Just to make sure we're clear on the numbers, Parler had ~2 million accounts last I checked. Facebook being 1e6 times bigger, as you claim, would be quite the feat. I get your larger point, but the actual numbers you picked to illustr
242.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
That's not correct, as I understand it. Section 230 says that you can't be held liable for content on your site that you did not create yourself, even if you generally moderate your content (i.e. are not just a common carrier). B
243.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
Since the mute LED is a user-facing security feature, it is in fact a pretty serious bug if users can't rely on it to be correct. Witness the wide variety of incidents over the last year where people ended up in serious trouble becaus
244.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
> When did speaking truth to power become "bullying"? It _can_ become bulling when people will arbitrarily claim that the victim of the bullying is the one who "had power" while the mob that got them fired, say, was j
245.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
This might be an interesting argument for municipal broadband which occurred to me last night: in that situation the ISP is in fact bound by the First Amendment, which limits its ability to do that sort of thing quite a bit...
246.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
> So, for example, it should be illegal to threaten somebody’s personal safety Even this seemingly-simple example is complicated in practice: who decides whether safety is threatened? I have seen people claim to feel physically unsafe w
247.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
> Free speech refers to government censorship. No, free speech refers to free speech. Government censorship is one thing that can prevent speech being free, but not the only one. Or put another way, there is a legal concept of "fre
248.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
The number here ($2.5 billion) seems to be ~20% of Boeing's 2016 EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization) and ~18% of their 2017 EBITDA. It's ~700% of their 2019 EBITDA (they had a pretty bad year reve
249.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
First of all, thank you for your service! I am absolutely not taking your comments as an assault, and I suspect we largely agree on specific cases. And specifically, taking down explicit incitement to violent illegal actions by someone alre
250.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
The answer varies. For example, in the US, depending on what you are trying to accomplish it ranges somewhere among "half of the population", "that one guy at the FCC who writes the policy", and "1/3 of either
251.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
I did not imply that a newspaper or facebook or twitter have to do anything. That said, if you want to read things into what I said and actually have this conversation, does my hosting provider have to host my website? Does their ISP have t
252.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
> The only speech assured by the constitution is from your literal mouth Even if you are going to narrowly interpret freedom of speech as "constitutionally protected rights only", the US Constitution explicitly says: Congre
253.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
It's not really Puerto Rico's decision, of course; the referendum is non-binding. It's Congress's decision, in the end, though officially adding Puerto Rico as a state against the wishes of a _majority_ of its citizens
254.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
It's a little weird, now that I looked into this more deeply, because while that's what the referendum question said on the ballot, the law that put it there is https://senado.pr.gov/Legislations/ps1467-20.pdf
255.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
I agree, in a world in which Congress actually performs its constitutional and moral duties (including little things like writing legislation, instead of just delegating more power to the executive branch). I wish we lived in that world...
256.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
The 2017 referendum was boycotted by opponents of statehood (for various reasons to do with the wording of the referendum question and the way it tried to slant the options) and had something like 23% turnout, so citing it as an expression
257.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
Why unexpected? The Soviet Union did too. A few reasons for that (for the Soviet Union; I know less about China): 1) One of the premises of communism is equality of all people, including equality of men and women. As a result, a bunch of
258.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
Several people who work on WebKit at Apple are regulars in HN comments, fwiw. You may just not have noticed because they may not advertise that they work at Apple.
259.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
When was this, though? There have been major changes in the college loan situation over the last 20 years or so....
260.
Continuing to Protect Our Users in Kazakhstan(blog.mozilla.org)
2 points by bzbarsky 6y ago|0 comments
261.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
I'd think pretty much everyone has access to https://rot13.com/
262.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_diagram#Reed%E2%80%93... is totally a thing I recall with moderate fondness from high school. Yes, if you try to apply it to some parts of "Moby Dick" it will be rather
263.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
The important part for the fuzzy understanding is shared context. This is what lets humans who have no languages in common communicate basic things in ad-hoc sign language bits as well. And if the context fails, things can go just as badly
264.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
Keep in mind also that in many cases (e.g. when using DNS over HTTPS), Firefox is in fact not using the OS API, and is directly hitting a DNS server instead. Of course in that case whatever is happening in /etc/hosts is either ge
265.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
> Consulting the local hosts file isn't contacting the configured caching DNS server Sure, see my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25439154 > and if that API behaves according to spec, including po
266.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
Yes, but is that what that API _actually_ does if you pass it "foo.localhost" that is not in /etc/hosts?
267.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
> Could a check to see if the name is "localhost" or "*.localhost" suffice to satisfy the "SHOULD NOT" requirement? To satisfy that requirement you have to check for those names and if that's what the n
268.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
What Mozilla is implementing here, I suspect, is RFC 6761 section 6.3 item 3, which says: Name resolution APIs and libraries SHOULD recognize localhost names as special and SHOULD always return the IP loopback address for address qu
269.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
Yes, that is exactly what it means: things that require a "secure context" in spec terms, like WebCrypto, will work on http://localhost even though it's not https.
270.
by bzbarsky 6y ago
Based on code inspection, I believe so, yes. It will map "dev.localhost" to 127.0.0.1.

More ›