ttt0

53 ms·

451.
by ttt0 6y ago
I have no idea, but neither did the people who fired this person. It was purely on the grounds that he had an account there.
452.
by ttt0 6y ago
Like extending free speech laws to these corporations. So banks, domain registrars, payment processors, cloud services, DDOS protection services etc. can't just terminate the contract for simply disagreeing with speech that is protecte
453.
by ttt0 6y ago
> In any case, my point is that in this society we live in, merely having an account is seen as an espousing of the views. You can even get fired for having an account there. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25922486
454.
by ttt0 6y ago
Not that I disagree, no one should ever rely on Google or do any business with them. But as it stands right now, our corporate overlords completely privatized our freedom of speech, especially considering the fact that we're in the mid
455.
by ttt0 6y ago
Yes, and Google can shut down your app or entire account for no reason at all and you have no right to complain about it, because free market capitalism.
456.
by ttt0 6y ago
Reminds me of the interview with Tarn Adams from Dwarf Fortress. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAhHkJQ3KgY
457.
by ttt0 6y ago
I can bet there are command line tools that allow you to browse SO from the terminal.
458.
by ttt0 6y ago
If compiling 7 lines of code in release mode takes few minutes in Rust, just like it does in Crystal (I don't know exactly how long, I got bored and gave up, so it's possibly more), then I wouldn't touch that language with a
459.
by ttt0 6y ago
I tried it out at some point, and it's a nice language I guess, but man, the compile times. It's not worth it, just learn C or C++.
460.
by ttt0 6y ago
Damn, I knew the governments hated cryptocurrencies and will try to shut it down at some point, but I haven't realized there was such hostility towards it.
461.
by ttt0 6y ago
What got debunked? Videos were fake or some mental gymnastics about how it was justified and there was actually nothing wrong with poll observers having to observe the process from behind the barriers 30 feet away? This is what CBS says: &g
462.
by ttt0 6y ago
Micro?
463.
by ttt0 6y ago
That's especially interesting considering that they didn't allow poll observers to observe the process.
464.
by ttt0 6y ago
That's really cool, but didn't you guys got sued for tracking people even after they opted out? https://www.cnet.com/news/google-sued-for-allegedly-tracking... If I remember correctly you were also tracking l
465.
by ttt0 6y ago
At the same time let's not forget it's Google we're talking about. They are even parsing your emails to extract all the data from your transactions. They already have all your personal information, they just need to keep trac
466.
by ttt0 6y ago
If we talk purely about "reasonable", I don't think it's even possible to draw any line, besides something obvious like unique user identifiers. It's hard to predict what data can be used for fingerprinting until so
467.
by ttt0 6y ago
I don't know, are fonts installed on your system PII? Because it can be used for fingerprinting. But I don't know the precise definition, so maybe you're right.
468.
by ttt0 6y ago
And I don't, but some people are more or less forced to use either Google or Microsoft products by their employers. I really wish the solution was as simple as that.
469.
by ttt0 6y ago
> it doesn't contain any PII. Even if that was the case, this is a bullshit argument. They don't need any PII, it's just more fingerprinting. They already have all the personal information they'll ever need by using a
470.
by ttt0 6y ago
By saying that I didn't meant to attack them as such, but pretty much what you've said in the first paragraph.
471.
by ttt0 6y ago
> How many years can you go back? Probably one election cycle.
472.
by ttt0 6y ago
I just want to point out that the stories seem to be about predominantly left-wing causes. I don't expect anyone in the right-wing free-speech faction to even know about them, since 1. it was silenced, 2. it was probably talked about o
473.
by ttt0 6y ago
Completely off-topic, but why did they list only 5 items per page? I sometimes see websites do this and I don't get it, is it for clicks?
474.
by ttt0 6y ago
Besides minor details, I don't really have any disagreements with you on your reading of the situation. > So then, the same as it's always been? I don't think I'd call it business as usual. A lot of clueless and naive
475.
by ttt0 6y ago
Your answer is dishonest at best, you're trying to portray it as if they waited until it was "justified" to censor people. And that's not what happened, Twitter was banning people on the election night. Some of it was le
476.
by ttt0 6y ago
Okay, so questioning the validity of elections in bad faith is fascism and hate speech. I have nothing to complain about then. Thanks for your insightful input.
477.
by ttt0 6y ago
> Who is right, the American laissez-faire pro-corporate/neoliberal philosophy or the traditional European approach that wants government to have that duty? I'd prefer neither and that they'd just stop censoring people, no
478.
by ttt0 6y ago
To summarize where we're at right now: questioning the validity of elections is fascism and hate speech. I get that people might not believe those claims, but just let that sink in and enjoy the future you chose.
479.
by ttt0 6y ago
Are you suggesting that the situation would be any different if they weren't doing that? I didn't actually care about Parler for that precise reason, but it doesn't make what happened to it fine.
480.
by ttt0 6y ago
> But there’s no evidence that Twitter intentionally shadow banned Republicans or anyone else. Rather, Twitter said it experienced a technical glitch which caused some 600,000 accounts including those of some Democratic politicians—not t

More ›