johnnybgoode

51 ms·

1. 571.▲
   by johnnybgoode 17y ago

   I do mind, actually. I did read your other post in this thread, and you've made some unwarranted assumptions.
2. 572.▲
   by johnnybgoode 17y ago

   I agree with you. It's very important for people to have internet access for the reason you mentioned, and also to have better access to more knowledge (Wikipedia!).
3. 573.▲
   by johnnybgoode 17y ago

   Not in all countries! But yes, happy Mother's Day to any mothers here on HN. (I don't know if there are any, but hey, it's worth a shot.)
4. 574.▲
   by johnnybgoode 17y ago

   I believe you are correct about the law, but I was responding more to the idea expressed in the title and in the article of recognizing internet access as a "fundamental" right "on par" with the right to free expression.
5. 575.▲
   by johnnybgoode 17y ago

   Google is to privacy and respect for intellectual property rights what the Taliban are to women’s rights and civil liberties I suspect I'm more "anti-Google" than most people here, but when the article starts out like that, even I have to
6. 576.▲
   by johnnybgoode 17y ago

   If you meant about Estonia, here is a link: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0701/p07s01-woeu.html (I had no idea that it's been almost six years already since I saw that!) If you meant about the dilution of real rights, I'd have to get poli
7. 577.▲
   by johnnybgoode 17y ago

   I believe Estonia did this first, a few years ago. This only dilutes real rights, such as freedom of expression.
8. 578.▲
   by johnnybgoode 17y ago

   I agree with you, and unfortunately I must tell you that liability is indeed limited or erased. So, yes, it's a mistake.
9. 579.▲
   by johnnybgoode 17y ago

   They are. Progressives are not necessarily opposed to censorship. You can see this in the lack of free speech protections in many Western countries (Holocaust denial, "hate speech", etc.). I don't want to assume too much about you, but many