dmatech

8 ms·

61.
by dmatech 4y ago
That doesn't appear to be the issue here, though. The users of the site don't find each other completely repugnant. The ISPs might, but repugnance has historically not been a justification for de-peering in the past (at least in
62.
by dmatech 4y ago
For decades, we've had a pretty consistent notion of what constitutes "network abuse". It's traffic that threatens the stability of the network itself (such as spam and worm traffic). Obviously illegal stuff can be tak
63.
by dmatech 4y ago
There's a fundamental difference between being spoken to and being spoken about . You have a right to prevent others from speaking to you but not about you (at least in the USA).
64.
by dmatech 4y ago
PayPal themselves linked to it as upcoming official policy on their main site. It doesn't appear to be a publication mistake. Amendments to the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy Effective November 3, 2022: Live link: https:&#
65.
by dmatech 4y ago
Why can't we just have some kind of "virtual squash" where the commits are preserved, but they're grouped together so you could view it as a single squashed commit if that's preferable?
66.
by dmatech 4y ago
Twitch did this a few years ago. Amazon Prime used to give you ad-free viewing, but they ended that. I believe the reason was so they could grow their ad business. Likewise, If too many people buy Premium, they won't be able to sell
67.
by dmatech 4y ago
Just because it's parked (in a WWW sense) doesn't mean it's unused. I've got a few domains that are used for Azure, Google Workspace, email, or just testing stuff. I don't really have any interest in setting up a
68.
by dmatech 4y ago
I must say that I dislike the rationale for banning structuring. It's basically a law that bans attempts to comply with the letter of another law without complying with its spirit. Complying with any law should be completely straight
69.
by dmatech 4y ago
Perhaps not, but there doesn't need to be legal benefit. Remember that there is absolutely no "right to erasure" in the USA (and I don't think it ever could exist given our First Amendment). At best, they can sue if th
70.
by dmatech 4y ago
The endgame appears to be the complete elimination of KF and all copies of it. They might claim that its mere existence psychologically harms marginalized people, but it seems that their real goal is more about power. You get a ton of clou
71.
by dmatech 4y ago
Being on the cover of a major magazine (with an accompanying article) absolutely makes you a public person, and you can't expect people not to criticize your family for doing something that is still controversial.
72.
by dmatech 4y ago
I'd be cautious. One of the people editing these articles has extremely high Wikipedia privileges yet has publicly campaigned for the elimination of the site. There is absolutely no neutrality here.
73.
by dmatech 4y ago
FOSTA/SESTA was a poorly-conceived law that created a lot of potential liability for the ostensible goal of reducing sex trafficking. Pretty much all sex work is potentially sex trafficking, so any corporate lawyer will tell managemen
74.
by dmatech 4y ago
That's why society is dependent on large companies staying in their lane. If a hospital decides to refuse service to bad people because the world would be better if they died, we'd obviously condemn that. The same is true of som
75.
by dmatech 4y ago
You're using the "stochastic terrorism" argument, and what that does is create liability for anyone who might recklessly increase the probability of something bad happening (even if there's absolutely no clear causation)
76.
by dmatech 4y ago
The most recent one was probably Parler. Usually deplatforming is due to a moral panic involving a massively exaggerated risk. All sites probably violate the AUP or TOS if you look closely enough. But during the panic, you can't see
77.
by dmatech 4y ago
Inciting harassment might be someone telling everyone to order pizzas and send them to an address. It wouldn't be posting a picture of someone's house with no context. While that might facilitate harassment, it doesn't actu
78.
by dmatech 4y ago
This has all the hallmarks of an overreaction to a moral panic, not a rational response to the actual evidence. People become incredibly sure of their positions and don't even want to look at the evidence, but to be honest, the eviden
79.
by dmatech 4y ago
Calling it "harassment" is perhaps a bit misleading if it's people gossiping about and making fun of someone behind their back. Harassment generally involves intentional (as opposed to incidental) communication to the target
80.
by dmatech 4y ago
What they wish to do is cut the head off the proverbial snake when the snake hasn't committed a crime or directly conspired with people who did commit a crime. It might be an effective strategy, but it's not one our laws allow, b
81.
by dmatech 4y ago
Sadly, I've had to block him and all the other people on this self-righteous authoritarian crusade and don't think I'll ever interact with them again. Most of the security community (and larger technology community) used to
82.
by dmatech 4y ago
Posting someone's address can obviously facilitate a swatting. In some cases, it might even make someone an accomplice to one. But just recklessly posting someone's address doesn't make one an accomplice. There's no im
83.
by dmatech 4y ago
In the case of the Christchurch video, the harm has already been done. One could argue that sharing the video creates demand for more shooting videos (as is argued with CSAM), but the USA considers this to be protected for whatever reason
84.
by dmatech 4y ago
There's pressure, but at some point, it can cross the line into extortion (which is not protected).
85.
by dmatech 4y ago
It's clear that they're trying to take down the site by any means necessary, and that's why I ultimately find them far more dangerous than the people on that site. Deplatforming using Twitter pressure is a terrifying tactic t
86.
by dmatech 4y ago
Correct. If you can get enough of a mob together, you can get any company to drop any client or fire any employee irrespective of the merits. I don't know of any workarounds so long as Twitter exists in its current form.
87.
by dmatech 4y ago
A realization that you have to share an internet with people who hate your guts so long as they don't break any laws. This includes all sorts of bigots. Rather than harassing internet backbones, file lawsuits.
88.
by dmatech 4y ago
It generally means freedom from government consequences. It also generally means that third parties won't actively prevent you from speaking to people who choose to listen to you.
89.
by dmatech 4y ago
As a society, the USA has decided that mere pragmatism is insufficient for restricting speech or the closing down of platforms. It would be much simpler if we could make case-by-case decisions based on cost-benefit or risk-reward, but we d
90.
by dmatech 4y ago
Getting back to cancel culture, you can see the tactic here. The host is privately owned. The data center is OK with them as a tenant. Now they're putting Twitter pressure on the upstreams to cut off the data center. These people a

More ›