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

The Big [Censored] Theory

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#851

Post by brigandish »

snowwrestler wrote: post #782
brigandish wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not a single one of those stories was suppressed by the government in the U.S. How long were the FBI in possession of Hunter Biden's laptop, why is Mark Zuckerberg trying to blame them for the censorship of the NY Post's story, and do you consider the FBI to be part of the government?

Zuck is trying to blame the FBI to draw attention away from the fact that it was his company that decided to limit the sharing of that story. The government tells publishers all the time not to print things. The decision is up to the publishers. That’s free speech. What do you think the government said when the Washington Post called them up and said “we have a bunch of top-secret stuff that one of your contractors s…

> Zuck is trying to blame the FBI to draw attention away from the fact that it was his company that decided to limit the sharing of that story.

That may well be true.

> The government tells publishers all the time not to print things. The decision is up to the publishers. That’s free speech.

If the mafia offer your business protection you could also make your own decision. Would that be freedom of conscience?

> What do you think the government said when the Washington Post called them up and said “we have a bunch of top-secret stuff that one of your contractors stole from the NSA”? The Post published the Snowden stories anyway. This sort of thing happens a lot.

Why does that incident mean that this incident is different? Were the same people involved?

> Many people posted and talked about the Hunter laptop story. None of those people went to jail for it.

Would people need to go to jail for the aims of the censor to be realised?

So many questions, so few answers.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#852

Post by Thorrez »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #661
Thorrez wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, are they allowed to rent out the backup copy if the original breaks? I thought rental was based on first sale doctrine and backup copies are based on fair use. I'm not sure if you can combine the 2.

well I don't know either, but what purpose would a video rental shop have in making a backup copy in case the primary gets damaged if not to rent it out?

Hmm, actually researching this more, I don't think it's actually legal for a regular individual or corporation to make a copy of a DVD movie for backup purposes. I don't think it actually falls under fair use.

You can backup software[1][2] (allowed by law, not fair use) but not movies.

[1] https://www.southerncaliforniapatents.com/articles/2014/10/0...

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#853

Post by wawjgreen »

wawjgreen wrote: post #724
jlawson wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misunderstanding the paradox of tolerance, at least as Karl Popper originally formulated it. The only form of intolerance Popper recognized was bigotry around beliefs. The concepts (and words) homophobia, racism, transphobia, and islamophobia were not even invented when he wrote about the paradox of intolerance. When he described the intolerant, he specifically meant people who would use violence to stop other…

why are you all so hell-bent on glorifying Popper (pooper). He was just a moron with an agenda. Btw, tolerance, like democracy is just a bulls$##t concept. Would you like to be tolerant of the neo-trans man going to the same toilet as your teenage daughters???

answer me: would you be comfortable if a MAN who says he thinks he is a woman went to the same toilet as your teenage daughters!? cowards downvote, if you are right, come debate me.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#854

Post by computerfriend »

dirtyid wrote: post #662
computerfriend wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not they would choose it if they could is orthogonal to the fact that they did not and could not choose.

> did not and could not choose Implying formal enfranchisement is required to choose when being loud in numbers petitioning/screaming at officials is enough and frequently more effective when said officials gets drown in shit if they fail to maintain political serenity. There's a reason Chinese trust in government is near record levels compared to declining trust in western systems which sure are good at choosing but…

There's no reliable polling on Chinese trust in government.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#855

Post by wodenokoto »

est wrote: post #644
wodenokoto wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone in China? Do they still have those dvd carts on the streets? Or did they lose out to streaming? What about torrents and such? Have they been blocked by the firewall or is pirated movies still readily available online?

No DVD carts, but NAS is somewhat popular. Xunlei or BaiduPan is insanely popular.

I’m assuming NAS is a local server with a hard drive.

What is is Xunlei and BaiduPan?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#856

Post by physicles »

est wrote: post #644
wodenokoto wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone in China? Do they still have those dvd carts on the streets? Or did they lose out to streaming? What about torrents and such? Have they been blocked by the firewall or is pirated movies still readily available online?

No DVD carts, but NAS is somewhat popular. Xunlei or BaiduPan is insanely popular.

In fact, you can paste a .torrent file into your baidu drive and it’ll download the torrent for you right into your drive. If someone else has already downloaded the same torrent then it basically appears instantly.

The catch is that the only fast way to download files from your baidu drive is to install the client on your computer, which I’d only do inside a VM.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#857

Post by qikInNdOutReply »

mr_toad wrote: post #339
koheripbal wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit like Jewish, Irish, Japanese, Korean, or Italian stereotypes in movies/tv - few real members of those groups get offended because we're not currently disadvantaged.

The whole show is a giant stereotype.

Yes, thats how people communicate. You start from a comon conception and then you diverge, as the real person emerges. Thats just human. Are you hating on the species for just being universally like it is? Cause that is irreparable, that is just a naturally evolved species, lazy computing concepts of the world. That will never go away, best you can do is, what TBT did. Help people to break out of preconceptions through media.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#858

Post by computerfriend »

dirtyid wrote: post #662
computerfriend wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not they would choose it if they could is orthogonal to the fact that they did not and could not choose.

> did not and could not choose Implying formal enfranchisement is required to choose when being loud in numbers petitioning/screaming at officials is enough and frequently more effective when said officials gets drown in shit if they fail to maintain political serenity. There's a reason Chinese trust in government is near record levels compared to declining trust in western systems which sure are good at choosing but…

> being loud in numbers petitioning/screaming at officials is enough and frequently more effective when said officials gets drown in shit if they fail to maintain political serenity.

Laughs in Hong Kong.

But sure, look at China's long history of protest and tell me they respect the will of the people. You're right about one thing, "serenity" (or "harmony") is the name of the game. Lots of ways to pacify the people, giving them what they want is only one.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#860

Post by npteljes »

int_19h wrote: post #844
npteljes wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we won't accept other[s] not accepting it I think that's right. Paraphrasing Popper: "In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance". It's not about being right or wrong, it's about how people should treat each other, even if they dislike how the other one acts.

In order to maintain a tolerant society, you must not tolerate intolerant actions . It does not require suppression of intolerant opinions .

I don't know how I would go about the specifics of implementing it, to be honest. Let's suppose we suppress the actions, not the opinions. Is allowing someone to express their opinion an action? Is operating a platform (like Twitter), and letting intolerant opinions proliferate there, an action?
Post reply on HN