gnaritas

15 ms·

31.
by gnaritas 7y ago
> Furthermore, because Assange is a foreign national, 1st Amendment protections do not apply in this situation. Not remotely true, the first amendment protects anyone and everyone from government infringement. All of the bill of rights
32.
by gnaritas 7y ago
> my wife and I One of you stay home and raise your kids; that's rather the point of getting married. > With the upcoming summer, if we still lived in SF, we'd have four children in daycare. $6,400/mo. If paying other p
33.
by gnaritas 8y ago
Oh shut up and let people disagree you fucking insane sjw.
34.
by gnaritas 8y ago
> First, we know with absolute certainty that here is substantially different from anywhere else: we know there's life here, we haven't found life anywhere else No we do not. We haven't looked anywhere else, we don't
35.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Confirmed, you suck as a moderator. Can't take any critique, no, must be my fault you're such a snowflake. You're quite literally what's wrong with society these days, you outright reject anything that might potentially
36.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> That's freedom of thought. Don't be absurd, thought can't be policed absent being made public via speech so it must necessarily involve speech to even be an issue. You're stammering to find a position because your
37.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> Replace "government" by "no one", and I would agree. (I'll accept one exception, though: judges, when punishing me for some bad deed.) No. In the U.S. which is all I care about, no one but the government can vi
38.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Yes I would, again, not having a Google account does not threaten your ability to survive and you do not have a right to someone else's services and labor except under extreme special circumstances. As long as you can setup a blog and
39.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Boo, your moderation has utterly ruined HN. People can't even disagree anymore without you interfering. I'd be willing to bet there's more interesting content in all the detached threads than the content that survives your c
40.
by gnaritas 9y ago
No, I'm arguing future crime isn't a thing. You don't get to punish people because they "might".
41.
by gnaritas 9y ago
We do, and that's wrong; there shouldn't be any protected classes. You don't get to a place of treating people fairly by specifically protecting certain classes of people, that's the same irrational logic that led to no
42.
by gnaritas 9y ago
You do have alternatives, and no law grants you the right to alternative versions of luxury products. You don't need a social network at all to be a functioning member of society, it's not a right. You're not banned from th
43.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Strawman, no one claimed we shouldn't have anti-trust legislation. If you're going to engage in a debate, please do so honestly.
44.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> universal human rights declaration My country is bound by the Constitution, not by some bullshit the UN came up with. I don't believe in one world government and never will nor does our own supreme court which in 2004 declared th
45.
by gnaritas 9y ago
The areas themselves however are luxuries, you do not require access to a social network or internet search to live your life. And no, Google isn't the only option for search, nor Facebook the only option for social networks. There is
46.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Does anyone require a Google account to live, no; it's a luxury item. Unless and until not having a google account prevents you from living in this society, i.e. unless it becomes a basic utility which without you cannot function in s
47.
by gnaritas 9y ago
As neither of us are supreme court justices, everything here is opinion, that's what we're discussing, our opinions. I shouldn't need to prefix everything I say with "this is my opinion" just as I don't force
48.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> Property is a social invention, maintained and enforced by government, whose laws are controlled by the people. Yup. > We have free enterprise not because freedom is absolutely right or an absolute right, but because we've dete
49.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Ah the slippery slope, so basically you have no real argument then. We should punish them because they might do something wrong in the future, got it.
50.
by gnaritas 9y ago
They don't have monopolies so your counter is irrelevant.
51.
by gnaritas 9y ago
I agree, but we're not in a situation where Facebook and google accounts are necessary elements of life nor is that likely. Everything you've mentioned has viable alternatives because none of these companies are a monopoly on tho
52.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Oddly enough, I'm a liberal; the SJW's society wide are getting out of hand even for me. I'm not convinced HN has been taken over by them however.
53.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> Every monopoly should be regulated and, preferably, broke up. No, they shouldn't be and the law doesn't agree with you. You have to be a bad actor before such laws apply, you shouldn't be broken up merely because no one
54.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Not offering you their services isn't restricting your freedom. Your freedoms don't include a right to other people's services against their will.
55.
by gnaritas 9y ago
Not offering you their services isn't restricting your freedom. Your freedoms don't include a right to other people's services against their will.
56.
by gnaritas 9y ago
You don't need access to Google and Facebook to access information, there is an entire giant network out there for sharing information beyond Google and Facebook; there is zero valid reason to regulate these companies.
57.
by gnaritas 9y ago
None of these companies have a monopoly, and even if they did monopolies should only be regulated when they sell things we must have to live. Monopolies for luxury things are not a problem. Access to google and facebook are not essential th
58.
by gnaritas 9y ago
They don't control everything, they never have, and they never will.
59.
by gnaritas 9y ago
That's a different question and has nothing to do with the web dying, which it isn't. The freedom to put your voice out there has never included the right to be heard or popular. You have more ability today to be heard than ever
60.
by gnaritas 9y ago
> This specific part (that dominant companies can ban individuals with no recourse) shouldn't be tolerated. Freedom shouldn't be tolerated, really? We should force private companies in the private market to serve you because w

More ›