581–590 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not available for iOS and you can only communicate with others who have it installed (which realistically will be next to no one). I wouldn't call that "perfect for emergencies".
THe rest of the world it's mostly Android based.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there's not a sale it's not advertising. I just can't anymore with HN. Who are these people who are redefining common terms to suit their own views?
What am I redefining? Can you point me to an example of advertising without the intent to sell?
No one has claimed anything about advertising without the intent to sell. Indeed, that's been everyone's point since this bit of the thread started with michaelt's comment. Commercial speech is an area were most people agree that some constraints are useful. Hence it was used as an example of why censorship is nuanced not binary. People have different standards for what's reasonable and what's not, but only the most die hard free speech advocates would not have a standard at all.
You have frequently taken examples that are clearly in the advertising with intent to sell context and treated them as if they apply in a non-commercial context. This is how we get to you accusing people of being OK with arresting people over light bulbs when they're actually saying they're OK with laws against fraudulent advertising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
THe rest of the world it's mostly Android based.
IIRC a quarter of all active smartphones are iPhones globally. I'm not in the US, lots and lots of iPhones in circulation here. Also, no Briar on nearly all of those Androids, so they're just as reachable as iPhones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What am I redefining? Can you point me to an example of advertising without the intent to sell?
You've introduced this 'intent to sell' bit when for most of the thread you were requiring the transaction to proceed to a sale before the advertising can be advertising. No one has claimed anything about advertising without the intent to sell. Indeed, that's been everyone's point since this bit of the thread started with michaelt's comment. Commercial speech is an area were most people agree that some constraints ar…
If you are selling or intending to sell something, and you choose to have it mediated by the government, whether or not you’re allowed to falsely advertise something has nothing to do with freedom of speech. We aren’t agreeing that censorship is allowed. Censorship isn’t voluntary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you have replaced a moral framework with a legal one. But the question of censorship is fundamentally a question of morality. It matters not how legal or illegal specific actions are in this discussion, so the legal means of enforcement that you rely on for your argument are a red herring.
Then you heard incorrectly. What I said is what I believe to be moral. You can’t arrest someone over non violent speech. Force is only justified in response to force. And at the same time, if you agree to enforcement you aren’t getting your rights violated.
It is hard to discern any moral content here, and I suspect there is none.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off-topic: Do most people there prefer "Türkiye" or "Turkey?"
As a Turk, I do not trust people who are using Turkiye in English. That is virtue signaling which is saying they are populist, nationalist etc. etc. I also find the change idiotic at the least though I understand why they did it.
As someone who was in that country for a year all over the place with a rifle attached to my chest, Americans always ask me about my exciting vacation there. As an American convervative myself, people's heads are blown whether the are left or right leaning when I pronounce it as "Ih-rahk." At this point I find the reactions fairly comical and get a kick out of experimenting on people, much to the dismay of my wife, who thinks I should just go with "Eye-rack" to stop embarrassing her.
By the way, I pronounce Turkey as like a Thanksgiving "Turkey."
Anecdotally I was told once upon a time by a first generation immigrant from Oman that you should pronounce a countries name as they pronounce it, as a respect thing. I thought more about it, and if I heard someone say United States as "Ooonited States," I wouldn't care one bit, but there really is only one way to pronounce the United States it so it's not really a fair comparison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's almost like the goal is not censorship for censorship's sake, but rather the goal is actually protecting the more vulnerable (which in this case is clearly the Turkish people and not Erdogan). It's almost like there are principles at play!
My principle is that force is only justified in response to force, and speech is not force (unless it makes a threat), false or not. If you don’t agree with that principle then I’d like to hear it explicitly.
Think about what makes you consider "threatening speech" a "force": presumably it has nothing to do with particle physics... is it perhaps that the act of speech itself causes people to adopt behaviours they wouldn't normally adopt? ie.: that it can carry some coercive weight? That it can be used to exploit/endanger vulnerable people in some circumstances?
Speech may be a very very weak force in most (or even "nearly all", just for the sake of argument) circumstances, but there are tons of examples of speech being a powerful force, causing large social and historical shifts. There are both positive and negative examples of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you heard incorrectly. What I said is what I believe to be moral. You can’t arrest someone over non violent speech. Force is only justified in response to force. And at the same time, if you agree to enforcement you aren’t getting your rights violated.
Neither "enforcement" nor "arrest" carries moral content. But you use both terms freely in justifying your allegedly-moral position, unfortunately implying your conception of "rights" is one based only on those granted by an enforcement body. It is hard to discern any moral content here, and I suspect there is none.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My principle is that force is only justified in response to force, and speech is not force (unless it makes a threat), false or not. If you don’t agree with that principle then I’d like to hear it explicitly.
I don't agree that speech is not a force unless it makes a threat. Think about what makes you consider "threatening speech" a "force": presumably it has nothing to do with particle physics... is it perhaps that the act of speech itself causes people to adopt behaviours they wouldn't normally adopt? ie.: that it can carry some coercive weight? That it can be used to exploit/endanger vulnerable people in some circumsta…