461–470 of 652 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When did half the population have their speech banned?
The whole argument is so silly. Trump could snap a finger and have cameras ready to air on national TV whatever he wanted to say. If Valve bans me from Steam for my language is that also violation of my free speech or is it their right to protect their platform?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That API was effectively public by design. It's the same API that anyone using the Parler mobile app would have been accessing.
That API --- their most obvious, public API --- appears to have done no authz, despite using sequential identifiers. There are private feeds on Parler. That's clownish. I don't understand why anyone would trust them going forwards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> States are lines on a map. Saying this doesn't make them less important, it just shows a childish attitude. Local and State governments and representation are important parts of the Republic. Dollars are just numbers in a database. Will you give me all your money? Or is it only certain "made-up" things that are important to you? > Do you seriously not see how that can lead to disproportionate representation of some…
> Local and State governments and representation are important parts of the Republic Why? What even is a state, if not its people? What even is a local or state government, if not the people in the city or state? Can you even have a state or a state government if there are no people in the state? What's special about the state or state government specifically that it should get its representation separate from the pe…
Amendments, like the 17th, are one way to change that union, with the consent of those members of it -- but if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a portion of those states will walk away from a union no longer defined as they define it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"popular vote" has absolutely no bearing on anything in this discussion. The US is not a direct democracy, it is a representative republic. The 50 senators who represent semi-conservative states represent the same number of states as the 50 who represent more liberal states.
Yeah, the obvious thing is to split LA, and New York into 5 different states each, so that the liberals gain more power in the senate. The state level representation of the senate is very arbitrary
We can do that all day to no real effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole argument is so silly. Trump could snap a finger and have cameras ready to air on national TV whatever he wanted to say. If Valve bans me from Steam for my language is that also violation of my free speech or is it their right to protect their platform?
It depends - is Valve also claiming liability protection under section 230 as a information service provider?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what? That's the point.
You might have had a minimal argument pre-17th Amendment, but that's not how the world works any more. In addition, there's 0 reason for the house to be as malapportioned as it is. 435 house members isn't written in the constitution. Third, the entire concept of smaller states having an outsized voice in the federal government comes from the slave owners from the South in 1789. There's no rational basis for it any lo…
No. It had to do with Connecticut, New Jersey and other small population states who wouldn't have ratified the Constitution unless there was state representation (as we have in the Senate) to balance out the representation by population (cf. The Connecticut Compromise[0]).
The southern states had (or expected to have) large populations, and as such, wanted representation by population.
History and facts matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole argument is so silly. Trump could snap a finger and have cameras ready to air on national TV whatever he wanted to say. If Valve bans me from Steam for my language is that also violation of my free speech or is it their right to protect their platform?
It depends - is Valve also claiming liability protection under section 230 as a information service provider?
What part of Section 230 do you think had any bearing on the issue being discussed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so one person consuming all the CPU time would negatively impact other customers So charge them more or limit their compute? If you are in the business of renting out compute resources then you need to spell out what the terms are. It's like renting out your car and then getting mad when someone drives it 2000 miles in one weekend. You need to spell out: "Yep, it's $50 a day, and you get 100 miles per day. Every mi…
Sure we could have done that, but allow me to use a dumb analogy here. I could go to the grocery store and try to buy the entire stock of milk. They would probably refuse to sell them to me, and would be within their rights to do so, even though they didn't put a sign specifically saying I couldn't do that. I could complain that they should just keep more milk in stock, but they won't, because I'm not the customer th…
Because we are starting to see that infrastructure level of the internet should be more like a public utility if we want to preserve fundamental freedoms. I would hope you would be outraged if T-Mobile listened in on cellular calls and terminated customers who said politically incorrect things even though the customer is using their service and they can do as they please with their customers as long as it isn't discrimination. You would also be outraged if the electric company terminated your power because you were powering a "stop the steal" neon sign in your window. It's time we start treating compute as a utility-like resource just like electricity, water, cellular data, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> he was saying that their tech rep at Amazon gave no hints that they were in danger of being shut down And I wouldn't expect them to do so! They're a tech rep, not a legal rep.
So deplatforming by surprise is okay? Facebook and Twitter don't own their data centers. If the DCs responded to the same pressure about hosting illegal content, the social media giants would disappear too. Edit: the downvotes and rate limits are about to push me away from HN for good. This is ridiculous. My platform is anti-fascism. I'm tired of people on both sides trying to shut down the other side.