501–510 of 813 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>And Epstein friends Lutnick, Larry Silverstein, Sarah Ferguson and Michael Jackson all had appointments in the WTC on 9/11 and all canceled last minute. I looked into this so I could call you out for spreading disinformation. Except what I found was that this statement is factually accurate as far as I can tell. Each person had their own separate story as to why they didn't go that day. Huh. Not sure what to make of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe there is a double standard here compared to section 230 of the communications act. Platforms can't be held liable for speech on their platforms for a reason. For full disclosure: I feel ambivalent about that. I don't know of an equivalent legal protection for I2P-like infrastructure.
You feel ambivalent about eg. HN not being held liable for some random user signing up and posting, say, a terroristic threat on it? You realise that if platforms/HN were legally punished for that, no website could accept user content, ever, and you are effectively suggesting the end of public communication on the internet?
> no website could accept user content, ever, and you are effectively suggesting the end of public communication on the internet?
That does not follow. Just like financial services are forced to KYC, there would have to be some similar provision. For example, a site might choose not to have anonymization and then liability passes through a KYC chain. If a site wanted anonymous then the burden would be on moderation before it became public. I think this probably already happens in large extent where images are scanned to avoid bad things appearing on public sites and there is already liability around that.
I know that isn't a popular position. It would change the entire character of the Internet. And it couldn't just be thrust upon people since the current contract is one of promised anonymity (even if that is probably not true wrt state actors).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Palestine Action has been designated a terrorist group in the UK as well after sabotaging military aircraft (the article says they sprayed paint, but does not say it was sprayed inside jet engines, rendering them inoperable). Masar Badil supports "armed struggle". One of the other groups ("hammer") recently designated a terrorist group (and linked to A/I Collective in another article I read ) got its name by attackin…
Here's my "nuanced" take: If a pro-zionist group were officialy designated as terrorists for spraying paint into a jet-engine I would find that ridiculous too.
Everyone’s missing the big picture here which is that this targeting of infrastructure providers as “terrorists” is unprecedented and concerning: https://decode39.com/16319/autistici-inventati-case-sets-a-n... If a radical group sets up shop on I2P, are I2P users and devs now terrorists? This is a problem. What about Monero users/devs? Veilid? Tox? Signal?
The picture everyone is missing is voting in November is how this gets resolved. The only way radical authoritarians survive on 30% approval ratings is apathy. Theres no reason to put up with this, the other side of a 70% electorate opposition is prison for the lawless incumbent
Everyone’s missing the big picture here which is that this targeting of infrastructure providers as “terrorists” is unprecedented and concerning: https://decode39.com/16319/autistici-inventati-case-sets-a-n... If a radical group sets up shop on I2P, are I2P users and devs now terrorists? This is a problem. What about Monero users/devs? Veilid? Tox? Signal?
The picture everyone is missing is voting in November is how this gets resolved. The only way radical authoritarians survive on 30% approval ratings is apathy. Theres no reason to put up with this, the other side of a 70% electorate opposition is prison for the lawless incumbent
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>[The US State Dept's] examples include alleged railway and pipeline sabotage in Europe, attacks on energy infrastructure, Rose City Antifa, resistance to Atlanta’s proposed police-training center, Jane’s Revenge and publications carrying statements attributed to armed organizations. At least one of these things is not like the others. Why are peaceful protests against "Cop City" (Atlanta's proposed police-training c…
> violent attacks > on energy infrastructure that's not violence
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You feel ambivalent about eg. HN not being held liable for some random user signing up and posting, say, a terroristic threat on it? You realise that if platforms/HN were legally punished for that, no website could accept user content, ever, and you are effectively suggesting the end of public communication on the internet?
You are mostly right about my ambivalence (re: liability) but wrong about the conclusion. > no website could accept user content, ever, and you are effectively suggesting the end of public communication on the internet? That does not follow. Just like financial services are forced to KYC, there would have to be some similar provision. For example, a site might choose not to have anonymization and then liability passe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>And Epstein friends Lutnick, Larry Silverstein, Sarah Ferguson and Michael Jackson all had appointments in the WTC on 9/11 and all canceled last minute. I looked into this so I could call you out for spreading disinformation. Except what I found was that this statement is factually accurate as far as I can tell. Each person had their own separate story as to why they didn't go that day. Huh. Not sure what to make of…
George Herbert Walker Bush and Richard Nixon were both in Dallas on November 22, 1963, the day that Kennedy was assassinated. What should rational people make of that? Nothing, other than that people have very poor statistical intuitions ... see the work of Kahneman and Tversky.
This is like straight out of every evil villains mouth.