rscoots's comments

Edit: never mind, there is a slight difference there.

Twitter also annoyingly crops image previews.

Car appears to be the same if you click.

This has always really mystified me.

So many 4:3 shows are rendered unwatchable by these companies, most of which fancy themselves as having a cutting-edge tech stack.

You’re telling me no one at Netflix can build a toggle option allowing the user to select the aspect ratio?

>it's no more "might-makes-right" than the original theft/"sale" was, and is arguably less so

Clearly the specifics matter, but it gets more interesting when these 2 ‘sides’ have equally tenuous claim to the artifact, as IMO is quite often the case.

I suspect like in most ambiguous situations we’ll get a lot of politics/feelings based decision making. But again I don’t know, which is why I’m interested.

You would rather not be able to tell who is and isn’t racist in your society?

If someone is prone to racist remarks that should be noticed and their thought process/moral failings should be addressed. If you simply threaten reprisal in advance you not only don’t address their core issue, but you also hide it from sight!

> a national museum in the country where the artifact originated seems like a reasonable first-blush recipient.

Wouldn’t this boil down to a might-is-right approach in almost all cases? Don’t really see how a contemporary government annexing the land by force is much different than a foreigner simply taking the artifact. Other than that it might evoke more ethnic/tribalist gripes from people.

What are the contemporary moral considerations for who gets to ‘own’ ancient artifacts like these?

The government currently controlling the surrounding land? Ethnic tribalism? Genetic essentialism? Protection of the artifact? Exposure/accessibility of the artifact? ‘Feelings’-based reasons like ‘spiritual’ significance or paternalistic rich nations graciously returning things to the poors?

Much to ponder

> > One possible reading is you were actually intending to defend the laws in the article

>Of course I am. To me it doesn’t make a difference if you’re legally allowed to say something but then immediately face legal consequences from saying that thing, and just not being legally allowed to say something. It’s one and the same.

Then why deflect for several posts to talking about threats?

I get that you’re probably trying to cover for any legal consequences to your racist post (yes it was racist, tell it to the judge) We could’ve had a more fruitful discussion about the laws in the article otherwise. But my attention span is strained.

What precisely was the point of your original post then? To assert a concept that has nothing to do with the article and that no one disagrees with?

One possible reading is you were actually intending to defend the laws in the article (not threats), and then had to stealth-edit your racist post to be about threats after I called you out. Now you’re stuck in that position.

Glad we seem to agree the speech in this article should be legally allowed unless it is genuine physical threats.

It is legal in the US to yell fire in a crowded theater. It is not legal to intentionally create a false emergency situation, verbally or otherwise.

Similar to threats, it’s not the speech that is illegal but the intent to commit a crime. Like any other criminal trial, your words can be used against you.

Not sure what more you’d mean when you say “freedom from consequences” (or how this relates to the article) but youre arguing against a point no one is attempting to make it seems. None of what you’ve mentioned is what’s meant by ‘freedom of speech’.

I’ll decide what’s ‘novel’ and ‘of value’ for myself thanks. Which will require the right of ppl to express their conscience. Don’t need Boris Johnson’s (or anyone else’s) govt deciding this for me under threat of jail time.

Threats are prosecuted as intent to commit another crime, not ‘u said a naughty word.’ That’s why slogans such as “kill all men” would never lead to legal conviction in the US (they might in the UK!)

More importantly, the laws in this article are not about threats. Myself nor any freedom of conscious supporters I know of would claim verbal intent to commit a crime should be protected from legal consequence.

So unless you can name any, this is not only off topic but also a straw man.

Lol what did I say that was ‘heated’? Your first reply to me was a defense of street violence against me.

Threatening violence is a whole different topic and these laws encompass a lot more than “imminent violence” so not sure why you’ve brought that up.

Whoever makes the legal decision, I hope you have a good lawyer because the police should be knocking on your families’ door abt your racist post soon now. Cheers, I’m about to get rate limited by HN so might not reply.

Exactly, the ‘freedom’ to know what other people actually think about you is essential.

By silencing others you’re simply depriving yourself of your own right to hear them out.

The article is about government legislation.

Sounds kind of racist to imply minorities will attack me with street violence if I say words they don’t like.

I’ll have to report this to the authorities mate, hope you’re not a big football fan.

Edit: you stealth edited your post to include the “imminent harm” part. Sorry bro I’ve already sent the evidence to your friends Boris Johnson and the police who you trust to vet what is and isn’t racist.

It actually does precisely mean freedom from legal consequences, yes.

That or the fact that google massively profits off the presence of ads in mobile apps.

And yet we’re left to guess exactly what Twitter deemed us unworthy of reading.

The opaqueness of the censor is a feature not a bug.

>The problem isn't that "problematic" content exists but...

Then you'll be disturbed to learn that members of the team are literally government operatives lobbying for more censorship on Facebook: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29001625

Note the author's subtle toggling between denying a phenomenon exists, and then smugly implying that it does and should.

>The Economist cites the case of Colin Wright, a post-doctoral student who had difficulty finding a job after publishing a series of essays “arguing that sex is a biological reality” (TERFese for “trans people don’t exist”).