141–150 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can help! Stop insisting that trans women are men, then there is no problem.
They are men, whether you like it or not. Men who desire to be women, or who just call themselves women, for whatever reason. No-one should be compelled to accept a false, reality-denying belief as if it were true. This absurd assertion that some men are women is a particularly pernicious falsehood.
Google might just claim a public trial would harm national security … not just clickbait…
If our national security depends on Google, then we're all going to end up on killedbygoogle.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haha, I've actually been thinking about this but was too scared to post such a theory on HN partially because it doesn't mean anything since India is huge...
They were born some 2000 km and many language families apart, and probably would have little in common if they met with no pretext. Who knows though, right?
Never mind sealed sessions - try secret trials. There was a trial in the U.K. a little over a decade ago over whether a certain media mogul was engaging in cartel behaviour - and apart from those parties directly involved in the trial, and a few others such as myself who have come to know about the matter through one of the parties involved, nobody even knows it happened. It was deemed to be in the public interest to…
Why all the secrecy on your part though? I can't see any reason you wouldn't tell us all names involved.
But sure, I can’t see any reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but I assume if he's in the UK, you take it for granted that all communications are monitored and big brother is everywhere. Ergo naming and shaming here runs the risk of the ire of those protecting said mogul... This is how democracy dies in the darkness
To be fair I was being somewhat obtuse. It's fairly obvious he's talking about Rupert Murdoch, but my point was to highlight that believing that big brother is watching us, means they don't even have to be watching us. OP could easily get away with spewing every detail right here without getting caught, but the constant fear of surveillance stops her. _This too_ is how democracy dies in the darkness.
1) There is no such thing as anonymity from state actors on the internet. Apart from anything else, semantic analysis can accurately indicate the identity of the writer of content - never mind the full take interception that has been a fact of life in the U.K. for over a decade now.
2) I really don’t want to bring the hellfire that rained on said friend down upon him once more, or upon myself. They crushed him like a damned insect. If I were to name him, you’d just say “oh, the pedophile. You can ignore anything he says, he’s a pedophile”. He is not, is anything but, and the “evidence” of his transgression that was presented doesn’t exist - the court transcripts from the incident in question show an entirely different picture from what the papers and prime minister threw at him. This made me acutely understand that the truth is entirely irrelevant, when you are up against the powers that manufacture reality.
The only reason courthouses are public is so the public can satisfy themselves that the courts are doing their job in a fair way. That is equally satisfied by having the court proceedings sealed for a given time , for example 5 years. By then, the information is nearly worthless to a competitor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't really add up to me. If a currently in progress trial is corrupt, we can prevent the harm that a corrupt outcome will cause before it happens. If you have to wait 5 years to discover that the trial was corrupt then we get at least 5 years of harm out of it. Potentially much more because have to retry the case years later will be much much more difficult due to evidence destruction.
It depends if the goal is to satisfy the public that courts are treating this case fairly, or cases in general fairly. One might imagine that if any unfairness is discovered, laws and processes are adjusted for future cases, but past cases will not be re-reviewed.
Never mind sealed sessions - try secret trials. There was a trial in the U.K. a little over a decade ago over whether a certain media mogul was engaging in cartel behaviour - and apart from those parties directly involved in the trial, and a few others such as myself who have come to know about the matter through one of the parties involved, nobody even knows it happened. It was deemed to be in the public interest to…
Why all the secrecy on your part though? I can't see any reason you wouldn't tell us all names involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but I assume if he's in the UK, you take it for granted that all communications are monitored and big brother is everywhere. Ergo naming and shaming here runs the risk of the ire of those protecting said mogul... This is how democracy dies in the darkness
To be fair I was being somewhat obtuse. It's fairly obvious he's talking about Rupert Murdoch, but my point was to highlight that believing that big brother is watching us, means they don't even have to be watching us. OP could easily get away with spewing every detail right here without getting caught, but the constant fear of surveillance stops her. _This too_ is how democracy dies in the darkness.
The UK govenrment monitors UK citizens internet people have already been prossecuted simply for having knowledge of this court case which in the UK is illegal. The fear of surveillance doesn't stop her the reality of the government survaling people and then acting on it does.
The article massively overstates the impact of the 1998 Microsift trial. What Microsoft got was a slap on the wrist that they considered just a cost of doing business. Netscape died, and Microsoft's behavior remained the same. Microsoft didn't blink until acround 2008 when the EU cases finally fined them enough that they blinked. See, for example, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-eu/eu-fines-mic... .
I remember this. This started a wave of lobbying and PR campaigns from industry groups that lasted until ~2013 or so stating that the EU was going to use its leverage its power to "issue fines to extract the wealth of American tech companies because there aren't enough European ones". Worded more eloquently (though I can't recall exactly how, I think they may have said something about the "EU Technology Tax" or somet…
The EU still doesn't have (almost) any big tech companies, and they still regularly issue 9 or 10 figure fines to US tech companies.