141–150 of 196 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, so what? That you agree with the political motivation behind the decision does not make the decision any less politically motivated, proving that AWS does in fact kick out consumers based on politics.
just because you say it was politically motivated doesn't make it so.
As per mentioned Ghisler page: "The security assessment would have to be performed by a specialized company, and costs up to $75'000 per year and program (so $150'000 for 32bit+64-bit). This is not sustainable even with a subscription." [0] This is death kiss to indie developement. But paradoxically it is great. Killing interoperability is nail to coffin. This brings more and more focus to alternative solutions out o…
I wrote this response to another front page HN article on a similar topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41664753 I know everyone loves to dunk on Google, and I definitely agree their communication and customer service to app developers is shite, but this change to permissions scope is a good thing. If you have full, unfettered access to large number of people's Google Drive data, you're a huge target for male…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any company that's conservative-oriented in any way is coming under attack.
Elon Musk's companies are doing great under the democratic administration he publicly rails against. He's back on top of the richest list. Peter Thiel's portfolio seems to be doing great. PLTR is up 350% in the past five years. Facebook altered it's policies in a pro-conservative way by allowing falsehoods in political ads, and they're doing fine. Right-wing content has flourished there for years. Oracle and Larry El…
About Musk, once he took over Twitter, that mostly solved the Social Media "Free Speech" problem, because as long as the most popular gathering place in the world is free we're [mostly] all free. So you're right, there's lots of reasons for Conservative optimism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
just because you say it was politically motivated doesn't make it so.
They literally say it is! In the very article they state that the documents will end up hurting american interests. How is that not political?
They literally do not say it is. Citation needed. Quote what you're referring to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elon Musk's companies are doing great under the democratic administration he publicly rails against. He's back on top of the richest list. Peter Thiel's portfolio seems to be doing great. PLTR is up 350% in the past five years. Facebook altered it's policies in a pro-conservative way by allowing falsehoods in political ads, and they're doing fine. Right-wing content has flourished there for years. Oracle and Larry El…
None of that is evidence conservatives aren't under attack, it's evidence that we're winning the culture war. About Musk, once he took over Twitter, that mostly solved the Social Media "Free Speech" problem, because as long as the most popular gathering place in the world is free we're [mostly] all free. So you're right, there's lots of reasons for Conservative optimism.
None of those businesses are part of the culture war, or if anything they're 'woke' businesses.
Thiel doesn't make money being conservative, he makes money on venture capital and running a big government surveillance business. Larry Ellison makes money price gouging on licensing. Elon Musk's main source of income is a 'woke' EV business. Rupert Murdoch makes money on tabloids, of which Fox News is just one flavor - and the tabloids are arguably 'woke' as they mainly pitch conspiracy theories that the 'normies' don't know about.
Twitter under Musk is no more free speech than it has ever been. They comply with the vast majority of censorship requests from authoritarian governments[1]. They most recently rolled over for Brazil's demands and are now fumbling their execution on paying the fines Brazil levied against them. Musk also censored Ken Klippenstein's account when he published a link to his Substack article about the JD Vance opposition research dump. So no, "free speech" on Twitter is just a slogan and a marketing campaign for low information news consumers, and it's working.
[1] https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-el...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They literally say it is! In the very article they state that the documents will end up hurting american interests. How is that not political?
"They literally say it is!" They literally do not say it is. Citation needed. Quote what you're referring to.
You can be obtuse about it if you want, but this is basically what it means. The only innocent people that the documents could've exposed would be related to american intelligence agencies
One thing is for sure though, AWS has never terminated a website because they exposed Russian intelligence documents, or because they made non american classified documents public. If you are american, then you can obviously play dumb here but it is blatant for everyone else.
And even beyond that, caring about the clearance level of a document is inherently political, and they explicitly say that it was one of the reasons for their decision to terminate WikiLeaks' hosting.
I wrote this response to another front page HN article on a similar topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41664753 I know everyone loves to dunk on Google, and I definitely agree their communication and customer service to app developers is shite, but this change to permissions scope is a good thing. If you have full, unfettered access to large number of people's Google Drive data, you're a huge target for male…
This assumes that Google can be trusted with my data and other apps can't, and that I'm ok with Google assessing the safety of other apps. It's something that is automatic, and right now it needs to be explained. Yes, assessing the trustability of apps is important. No, I don't trust Google to do it properly. Maybe I didn't choose Google because I find them the best, but because I have to (because Google, surprise su…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"They literally say it is!" They literally do not say it is. Citation needed. Quote what you're referring to.
>It’s clear that WikiLeaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy. You can be obtuse about it if you want, but this is basically what it means. The…