mejin's comments

That's one thing that really struck me as weird in this article. I'm not living in America but just like I would expect my boss to only contact my parents in an emergency, I would expect my University to only contact my parents in an emergency (and graduation).

For the same reason that there is net neutrality. So that the few unelected officials don't decide what the mass is allowed to see.

So wouldn't the best thing be to make sure that no one can restrict others speech? If the law is as simple and broad as possible then we don't have to worry about the "wrong" people gaining control of the government. For example, the right to bear arms is a very simple constitutional right. There are many people who oppose it but since it is simple, so deeply embedded into the laws and a large group of people support it, it has been really hard to restrict.

If there was a law to be created today making a list of speeches that should be suppressed, what topics do you think would be on there? With the current government, probably things like making it illegal to claim that climate change is happening.

If the left really wants to protect themselves during the upcoming 3 years, I would expect them to try to make free speech as protected as possible before it is too late.

My English is not so good so I hope that I understood you.

What I am trying to say is that there is no need to identify intolerant people. All that is needed is to make sure that intolerant and tolerant people do not limit free speech. Protecting free speech can be done without worrying that people will misinterpret laws. For example, a law saying that anyone wishing to publish something to their site can do so regardless if they are anarchists, Nazis, conspiracy theorist, or anyone else. No mater how much hate the intolerant write they will not be able to stop other people from writing about how much they hate the intolerant people.

How does that make sense? If a culture is tolerant and somewhat smart they can add tolerance to their constitution. By doing so they will both allow tolerance and not have to worry about anyone (tolerant people or not) taking away their "ability" to tolerate.

There was an issue in Israel recently. In Israel usable organs from the dead are given to whoever can use it the most (compatibility + health of recipient). That includes terrorists who are in need of an organ because their organ got damaged while performing a terrorist attack. That caused a lot of Israeli's to no longer opt in.

Now, whether it is better for many innocent people to die so that a terrorist doesn't live is up to you. You asked for a reason, not a good one.

ddg.gg redirects you to duckduckgo

While I completely support the goal of diaspora, I don't think that I can use it. one of the main benefits of Facebook is that I can look up someone's information / posts without them being informed. Imo that is what made Facebook so big in the first place.

Lets say that in this case you are right. Who decides where to draw the line between talking about Google fiber and "crowing over the death of someone"? If we were in Italy in 1610 writing that the Sun was the center of the solar system would be hate speech. If we were in Germany in the 1930s the government would tell us that writing that Germans are not the master race is hate speech. If we were in the US in the 1950s saying that Communism is good would be hate speech. If we were in current China saying that the Tibet is not part of China could be considered hate speech. Maybe in a little while the current US administration will say that writing that climate change is caused by humans is hate speech.

But more importantly, Google made the decision not due to laws that were created by the elected officials but rather based on how they felt. Imagine if a Catholic hospital refused service to anyone who suggested that people should read books from the banned book list. After all, the reason that they are on the banned book list is because someone decided that those books were hateful.

I don't understand how this is whataboutism.

So you may like Google's and GoDaddy's reaction in this case. be But try to think what could happen if this was the norm. Comcast could refuse to provide their services to sites that talk about Google fiber. Google could remove Bing from 8.8.8.8. T-Mobile could block calls to Sprint.

Some of what I listed are currently illegal, but are they in essence different? With rumors that the current administration might remove net neutrality, things like this will only encourage them to.

I wounder if this is the start of a significantly less free internet. In the past if one site started censoring ideas, one could open up a new site to express those ideas. Now that a hosting site is removing a site for hateful ideas, I wounder what would come next. Maybe in the not so distant future, sites that publish mainstream Republican news will be removed from GoDaddy, or maybe sites that disagree with SOPA [1] or that shooting wild elephants is wrong[1].

While I think that posting an article titled "Heather Heyer: Woman Killed in Road Rage Incident was a Fat, Childless 32-Year-Old Slut" shows that you are a terrible person, there has to be a media for them to express their ideas. If the government wont "sell" domains directly to people then there should be a rule similar to net neutrality that will require private companies to treat all sites equal no matter how much they disagree with the idea. The alternative to that is to make sure that you don't post anything on your own website that will anger the domain name registras.

Who knows if in the future your idea will become an idea that many others disagree with.

[1] GoDaddy supported SOPA and their CEO hunted a wild elephant.

> With Android 6 (Marshmallow) and beyond, one can control specific permissions post app install

There are a lot of apps that will simply refuse to open if you do not grant them permission for a list of unrelated permission.

What can Google or any other company do to hire more from one group (example, women) other then by making it easier (lowering the bar) for those groups to be hired?

Am I missing something? the number 1 is 1 in all of those bases and therefore can be written using 0 (0 times) and 1 (1 time).

I wonder if YouTube video ads count as "intrusive ads". Because YouTube was the tipping point that made me decide to install ublock origin. I also download Firefox for Android because I don't want my data to be eaten up by video ads when I'm browsing videos.

You can't just look at who predicted it correctly lat time. You also have to make sure that they didn't predict that it would occur other times when it didn't.

So you can't go to America. There are probably other decent countries that will accept you. You can start a business in Hungry for 5000 eur and get permanent residency. The question is, is your current place of residence better than any other place that will accept you? If so, where you are probably isn't that bad. If not, you can vote with your feet.

Yes, it may be annoying that America won't accept you, but that doesn't mean you don't have any options.

isn't one of the main reasons that people like ethereum is because instead of solving random hashes, miners run programs that people want solved? or maybe I'm confusing it with another thing

I don't know about the autoinjector, but for a lot of medication the list price is there simply so that when the insurance company negotiates a lower price, the manufacturer will get a reasonable amount. in many cases expensive drugs can even be free if your income is low enough.