Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

professional-troublemaker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#21

Post by the_trapper »

mr_overalls wrote: post #20
the_trapper wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the issue is a lot more complicated than that. I'm going to make the assumption that you are not from the United States. In a lot of ways the United States is not like the rest of the western world. The right to bear arms was so important to our founding fathers that it is the Second Amendment to our Constitution (right after the guarantee of freedom of speech, religion, etc.). The fact that American c…

> The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. How's that working out for you? The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately.

> The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump...

That is probably because the Democratic party platform pushes strongly for gun control. [1] I know many people who vote Republican in elections primarily because of this single issue.

> ...whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President.

Could you elaborate on this? I don't think Trump is a great president by any means, and several of his speeches, interviews, and Twitter rants are not very Presidential to say the least. However, I can't think of any authoritarian actions he has taken that are outside of his Constitutionally granted powers.

[1] - https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#22

Post by panarky »

us0r wrote: post #14

I thought Skype was now encrypted?

What you want is end-to-end encryption, not just encryption between Microsoft and the client.

Skype was rolling out end-to-end encryption using the Signal protocol, I don't know if everyone has it now.

In any case, it's only available for voice not video, and you have to know to request a "private conversation" since it's not e2e encrypted by default.

https://www.wired.com/story/skype-end-to-end-encryption-voic...

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#23

Post by cameldrv »

3chelon wrote: post #16
the_trapper wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell. He's right, gun free zones don't work. Every school shooting in this country was in a gun free zone.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Most of the western world is a gun-free zone, and there are very very few shootings, except in the US, where there are apparently more guns than people. Only in the US would it be argued that taking away guns would result in more shootings.

Maybe so, but he's still obviously right. The rest of the western world has border controls and customs inspectors guarding the boundaries of their gun free zones.

Maybe you want that in the U.S., fine. The fact is that guns are very prevalent and easily available in the U.S. Someone meaning to shoot up a school is not going to be thinking much about a gun possession in a school zone charge.

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#24

Post by emerged »

the_trapper wrote: post #2

What is up with the sudden intense push for all of this Orwellian censorship lately? Between this, Facebook, Google, and reddit trying to censor anything they deem to be wrongthink and the very hard push to deny American citizens their Second Amendment rights, I may have to consider purchasing some tin foil headgear. It's become open season on the Bill of Rights lately. It's starting to get more than just a little bi…

Death throes of a dying ideology.

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#25

Post by Chaebixi »

mr_overalls wrote: post #20
the_trapper wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the issue is a lot more complicated than that. I'm going to make the assumption that you are not from the United States. In a lot of ways the United States is not like the rest of the western world. The right to bear arms was so important to our founding fathers that it is the Second Amendment to our Constitution (right after the guarantee of freedom of speech, religion, etc.). The fact that American c…

> The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. How's that working out for you? The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately.

>> The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check.

> How's that working out for you? ...Trump...

Trump is not a tyrant, even though he'd probably like to be one if he could.

> Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately.

Unfortunately, there's no way to legislate judgement or restrict rights to only those with judgement. Insurrection by its very nature is illegal, even if it's necessary and right.

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#26

Post by 3chelon »

the_trapper wrote: post #17
3chelon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Most of the western world is a gun-free zone, and there are very very few shootings, except in the US, where there are apparently more guns than people. Only in the US would it be argued that taking away guns would result in more shootings.

That's because the issue is a lot more complicated than that. I'm going to make the assumption that you are not from the United States. In a lot of ways the United States is not like the rest of the western world. The right to bear arms was so important to our founding fathers that it is the Second Amendment to our Constitution (right after the guarantee of freedom of speech, religion, etc.). The fact that American c…

You're right in guessing I'm not American, and I do appreciate you have a fairly unique situation there with the Second Amendment and the sheer number of guns already in circulation.

But, a while ago everyone outside the US thought it was only a few right-wing NRA extremists that would claim arming teachers was the solution to the school shootings problem. But now you have a president threatening to pass it into law.

So the obvious next question is, where does it end? If fewer guns is really not the answer, then how many guns do you think you'll need to eradicate gun violence?

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#27

Post by tsaoutourpants »

3chelon wrote: post #16
the_trapper wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell. He's right, gun free zones don't work. Every school shooting in this country was in a gun free zone.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Most of the western world is a gun-free zone, and there are very very few shootings, except in the US, where there are apparently more guns than people. Only in the US would it be argued that taking away guns would result in more shootings.

Article author here. There are indeed very few shootings in Europe (excluding Turkey and Russia, of course). But there are plenty of stabbings. And occasional bombings and trucks running down crowds. And let's not forget the Bataclan.

My point is that people find a way to kill each other. We can reduce violence by addressing the root causes of violence better than by trying to take people's weapons.

Post reply on HN