clucas

14 ms·

121.
by clucas 4y ago
Do you understand why people might get confused? They don't qualify what they mean by "more secure," and it seems reasonable to criticize the project if their idiosyncratic definition of "secure" actually excludes
122.
by clucas 4y ago
Wait, just for clarification... do you believe a company should be allowed to censor speech on its own platform if it wants to do so? Or are you saying a business should not be allowed to remove any posts unless a court has given its appr
123.
by clucas 4y ago
> All he did was go to another country and spread truthful information. Compare these two statements: "Mr. Kim, you can transfer money between bank accounts using wire transfers!" and "Mr. Kim, if you wire money to this b
124.
by clucas 5y ago
It's silly to bring up Kent State in a discussion comparing openness to criticism between the US and China. Kent State is well documented, it's taught in school. Tiananmen Square (government troops murdering protesting students) i
125.
by clucas 5y ago
I'm sympathetic to BLM and I don't think Rittenhouse should have been there with a gun. But calling what was going on in Kenosha a "civil rights protest" makes you look foolish. It was rioting and looting. The kid did no
126.
by clucas 5y ago
For those who want to reduce corporate weasel speak: Do not criticize those who USE it. It is a symptom of a larger problem. Rather, criticize people (like many in this thread) who say "you should sue" in response to any problem y
127.
by clucas 5y ago
I suspect that if Firefox got most of its funding from Hollywood, it would be even more susceptible to the politics-du-jour. Why do you think high-profile fundraising would make Firefox more independent?
128.
by clucas 5y ago
I agree that it's useful to compare the public-information environments (1) shortly after the widespread adoption of the printing press and (2) shortly after the widespread adoption of the internet. In the printing press example, what
129.
by clucas 5y ago
I am actively working on improving a nearly 30 year old MUD (rewriting major systems, adding new ones, etc.). There are maybe one to two dozen players at any given time, and I don't really expect it to get much bigger. It is a lot of f
130.
by clucas 5y ago
Can you provide examples?
131.
by clucas 5y ago
> > So your argument is... > Well, I made no such argument, the GGP did, and I'll quote: You are talking in other posts about how no one is able to rebut you, but then when I try to restate your argument so I can rebut it, y
132.
by clucas 5y ago
So your argument is... we should limit the money we spend on commercial space flight, because the current trend is exponential growth, and if that continues without leveling off, then space flight will require greater and greater resources,
133.
by clucas 5y ago
I just spent some time looking for the source, but I seem to have lost it, so take this all with a grain of salt, but based on some article I read: My understanding of the "shared DNA" factoids is that they are based on a very rud
134.
by clucas 5y ago
Ahh, this makes sense for why we wouldn't want to drill in the arctic, and I hadn't seen these arguments before, so thank you. The article was very unclear about this - it implied fossil fuel exploration in the arctic is bad becau
135.
by clucas 5y ago
I think getting off of fossil fuels should be a worldwide priority, and expanding fossil fuel exploration is a bad way to spend our time and effort as a species. But I don't understand this line: > Moreover, the government has recen
136.
by clucas 5y ago
Deplatforming doesn't apply to phones because phone communication is fundamentally different from social media. And prior to the internet, deplatforming still existed: when would you ever hear anyone make neo-nazi arguments on any of t
137.
by clucas 5y ago
> What I actually want is a world where people don't care whether FB censors things, because it doesn't matter as people can and do use other means to communicate. Fortunately, we already live in this world! We have the interne
138.
by clucas 5y ago
Having the government writing censorship rules sounds absolutely dystopian to me. There are plenty of ways to get information on the internet - just because Facebook says "no porn" doesn't mean you can't get porn on the
139.
by clucas 5y ago
> rights that are laid out in the constitution Just to be clear, under US law, what you are describing (creating a government censorship department that determines how social media companies are allowed to moderate) would have NOTHING to
140.
by clucas 5y ago
I think it's OK to say (1) you are allowed to send pornographic magazines through the mail from your place of business, but (2) you are not allowed to put a pornographic image on the front of your building. I also think it's fair
141.
by clucas 5y ago
I think this gets you into really weird places really quickly. How do you not end up with a censorship department of the government, that is tasked with writing moderation rules? It probably wouldn't be called a censorship office, bu
142.
by clucas 5y ago
Yeah, you're right that it's not a perfect analogy, but I think mine is closer to reality than OP's... There are plenty of apps (stores, in the analogy) out there that are actually designed to work on many platforms (with m
143.
by clucas 5y ago
The analogy doesn't work. A more apt analogy would be to compare Google and Apple to car manufacturers who charge you a 30% markup on anything you buy from a store you drive to... But the stores have to charge you that automatically, a
144.
by clucas 5y ago
That really doesn't seem like a good test for determining whether we remove a company's first amendment right not to distribute speech it doesn't want to. The New York Times has revenue greater than the tax revenue of a few d
145.
by clucas 5y ago
What are the criteria for determining if a corporation is "effectively a government"?
146.
by clucas 5y ago
You are probably right, but let's play it from the other angle to see why people are suggesting that they try to pursue a copyright claim against the police, using your post but turning it the other way: ---- Absolutely nobody, in th
147.
by clucas 5y ago
It's possible that obese people face health risks, but the ads in question (1) do not actually affect those health risks positively, (2) cause other harm that is greater than the health risks associated with obesity, or (3) both. I wou
148.
by clucas 5y ago
Interesting, thanks.
149.
by clucas 5y ago
I was specifically addressing OP's statement that the warrant requirement does not offer much protection - I'm not talking about situations where a warrant is not required. I think I probably agree with you that over-compliance by
150.
by clucas 5y ago
You are talking about a particular type of warrant. I don't think the average local police force is getting FISA warrants for their day-to-day police work (maybe I'm wrong? I would like to see numbers on that before I change my mi

More ›