21–30 of 157 posts
Time to start building long distance (100+ mile) mesh nets. Alternately, I wonder if there's any way to lay down fiber long distance that doesn't require govt authorization...and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
Time to start building long distance (100+ mile) mesh nets. Alternately, I wonder if there's any way to lay down fiber long distance that doesn't require govt authorization...and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. >Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Gover…
Or maybe because the large public doesn't care reading about some things, thus the press will not write about it. That's capitalism at work and the freedom of the press. There's no law forcing us to read everything, luckily, and just because a few people consider something of interest doesn't automatically make it of interest.
The US has this capability too. It's an expansive power and largely unchecked. https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bi... ( " Representatives propose bill limiting presidential internet ‘kill switch’" )
If it gets misused then we'll protest, etc.
Edit: You can downvote if you like, but this comment of mine isn't made in bad faith. It's fair to worry about a global cyberwar and fair to point out that in-person protests are still a viable response to abuse.
The every day user, even on here, supports shutting down internet access for some - why wouldn't the government give them what they want. You cannot simultaneously hold that - for the good of us all - we have to remove people from internet services (see 'paradox of tolerance') and then pretend that the government shutting people out from the internet is bad. Too harsh? No. Check out the article on HN yesterday to see…
These aren't equivalent and don't contradict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nominal proponents Could you be slightly more specific?
Governments which claim to support values like freedom of speech, but in fact do not. Eg, the US — who is outspoken on that issue, but during an emergency used social media companies to censor doctors, politicians, etc who did not agree with them.
Just as you have freedom to pay for the consequences of that.
The every day user, even on here, supports shutting down internet access for some - why wouldn't the government give them what they want. You cannot simultaneously hold that - for the good of us all - we have to remove people from internet services (see 'paradox of tolerance') and then pretend that the government shutting people out from the internet is bad. Too harsh? No. Check out the article on HN yesterday to see…
> Check out the article on HN yesterday to see what your fellow users like and believe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501 I did check that link. It doesn't seem to support your argument. Can you be more specific? It is some HN comments? If so link them. Is it the article itself? If so quote at least one part.
I think I can talk about a few comments, not linked, without causing dang issues. I hope.
- Second highest root comment talking about how people being removed from twitter isn't a big deal, its not 'my freedoms' and the real threat is the government putting people in prison and this other stuff just doesn't matter. - ctrl-f paradox - ctrl-f intoleran
We, the people and the people on HN in particular, feel justified to silence those who disagree with us because its for the greater good.
More to the point, are you saying you have never seen folks on here talking about how we should censor/remove-from-services/silence/shadow-ban people that state believes opposite them?
A country gets the government it deserves - I feel like we are going to get one that is quite happy to silence individuals.
The US has this capability too. It's an expansive power and largely unchecked. https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bi... ( " Representatives propose bill limiting presidential internet ‘kill switch’" )
In my opinion, this is a good thing. It's akin to disconnecting gas mains during a bombing run or similar. War is war and we need real defensive measures for broad cyberattack. If it gets misused then we'll protest, etc. Edit: You can downvote if you like, but this comment of mine isn't made in bad faith. It's fair to worry about a global cyberwar and fair to point out that in-person protests are still a viable respo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which emergency are you referring to? And what censorship methods are you referring to? For example, I think the media choosing not to cover a story immediately when it is being peddled by an unreliable political agent doesn’t qualify as censorship. Even if it turns out to be true.
COVID was the example I had I mind, where they censored medical professionals, politicians, and journalists who said lockdowns were a bad idea, questioned the data supporting mRNA (eg, Robert Malone), etc. But since you mentioned not covering a story — we also have the Hunter Biden laptop, which wasn’t merely not covered, but actively censored on social media during an election. (Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg admitted as…
The US has this capability too. It's an expansive power and largely unchecked. https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bi... ( " Representatives propose bill limiting presidential internet ‘kill switch’" )
In my opinion, this is a good thing. It's akin to disconnecting gas mains during a bombing run or similar. War is war and we need real defensive measures for broad cyberattack. If it gets misused then we'll protest, etc. Edit: You can downvote if you like, but this comment of mine isn't made in bad faith. It's fair to worry about a global cyberwar and fair to point out that in-person protests are still a viable respo…