fixermark

I was looking at (3) "...or other place of exhibition or entertainment." But still: lots of head-turning and squinting, so may not apply.

That would likely depend heavily on whether the BP is calling for black nation separatism.

Depending on how you turn your head and squint, Title II of the Civil Rights Act (assuming we can interpret Facebook as a public accommodation engaging in interstate commerce).

... though it's unclear whether it's more of a private club.

Essentially. A person's freedom of speech doesn't imply curtailment of another person's freedom of the press.

... and yet, child pornography possession and distribution is illegal. Do we think Chomsky would find this unacceptable?

If we're limiting our discussion to US law and mores, then at least in the context of banning African-American content, there's specific federal law they'd be tripping over.

That same law has not been (and probably should not be) extended to protect white supremacy or white separatism, which are political ideologies.

Company towns were a bizarre (and, arguably, pathological) special case in American history.

I agree with you. Apologies; I was unclear. Scenario in my head: actor (a) spreads hate speech, actor (b) goes and kills someone named as the hated party by (a).

Unless (a) directly incited (b) (via the boundary test you cited), (a) isn't legally guilty of anything.

But if the law discovers (b) heard (a) and acted because they believed (a)'s rhetoric, (b)'s crime rises past just violent crime to hate crime (because their reason to commit violence was a hate-crime motivation).

I think we're about to watch us have it both ways.

Without delving too deeply, because I don't want to engender any negative emotions: do you take the people who openly advocate genocide against you seriously?

If you do and it doesn't cause you to experience any negative emotions, I am surprised.

If you don't, I am also surprised. In light of what has happened in Pittsburgh and Christchurch.

With respect, putting a bad idea in quotation marks doesn't make it a good idea. Mencken was extremely intelligent, but applied over-broadly, the concept embodied in this quote implies we should defend even murderers against the oppression of banning murdering.

I much prefer "Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

I strongly suspect neither 4chan nor 8chan are going anywhere anytime soon.

IIUC, it becomes discerned by US law if someone acts on violent rhetoric. Then, the violent rhetoric can be used as evidence that the actions were part of a hate crime.

I don't see why this would lead to an S230 repeal if banning nudity doesn't.

If we're talking a vendor actually altering their offers, it's in their best interest to do so generally. They don't want a civil lawsuit for false advertising to get to discovery where they'd be compelled to answer questions about their process.

Not without leaving the email UI, no.

If I'm concerned about content being changed in the era of dynamic external-server emails? Sure will.

With respect, "anything that benefits corporations harms me" is a weird attitude.

AMP in email could, hypothetically, allow me to hit the "checkin to my flight" button for a Southwest flight directly from my confirmation email without having to bump over to their website. That's cool, convenient, and simplifies my life. It also benefits the corporation (their resource allocation is easier if they have a firm count of flyers) and it benefits Google (I'm more likely to use an email client that facilitates this).

The business world is full of win-wins, and this has the potential to be one of them.

AMP gates the JavaScript it allows and requires asynchronous evaluation. 3rd party JS is also allowed, but it has to be in a sandboxed iframe which, in a browser at least, would guard some of the user's state from exfiltration attacks (it's unclear to me if the iframe feature is available in email AMP).

https://www.ampproject.org/learn/about-how/

Yes. The advantages of HTML in an email are well-documented in the TC article and the Google announcement. I would make use of that, personally.

> Email is not part of the web

Content-Type: text/html seems to disagree with your assertion.

It looks like they're leveraging the safety aspect of AMP here. IIUC, the subset of HTML behavior AMP enables is generally considered to be "safe." If that property can hold, AMP-enabled email can allow for the benefits of live HTML in the client without the drawbacks of the surprises that can occur from arbitrary HTML execution.

Sorry, how does AMP reach into my client machine and delete my screenshots?

Or, based on the evidence...

... Microsoft and Yahoo think it's a good idea and want to support it. There's no particular reason email needs to sit around in the gutter while the rest of the web gets more multimedia and more performant.

There's nothing quite so colonialist as jotting down "ISLANDS OF DISAPPOINTMENT" on your map for generations of future travelers to see because the locals responded to your desire to pillage their food supply by threatening you with spears and chucking rocks at your party.

What would stop someone from building a Stadia competitor as a Native Client app?

So no, you were not there. You have sources you trust more than the official reports, reason to believe those reports are bogus based on those sources, and you're using your beliefs about German process in a German autopsy to evaluate practices in an American case.

I don't think we have any more to discuss. I don't trust your unnamed sources. And I have a sinking suspicion they're exactly the sort Australian telco would find it necessary to de-list from DNS.

He died six hours later. You're really playing fast and loose with documented facts in this discussion. Were you there?

Well, no. A murder didn't used to be something extraordinary. Especially not in Germany---with respect, we are still talking about the country that committed genocide as state policy in the '40s. Germany's murder rate has remained basically flat for decades [https://ourworldindata.org/homicides]. What has changed is the population has risen by about 10 million in 50 years, so with a flat rate, you're going to see more murders.

...but more importantly, what has also changed extraordinarily is communication. We see a lot more of the murders, be they local, national, or international (the fact that we, a German and an American, are discussing Australian policy in response to a New Zealand murder spree is indicative of this). Internationally, we're a lot less tolerant of murder than we were because we can see it now. And as a species, we're pretty bad at risk assessment and filtering with this newfound panopticon power. It's a pretty well-documented phenomenon that fear in Germany of crime doesn't align with the hard numbers on incidents. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-05-09/german...

People see what they expect to see all too often.

If I may make an observation... You appear to be ascribing to some conspiracy-theory thinking in the statement that the coroner report aligned with perceived political pressure. Where is that notion coming from?

... probably also worth noting: not unlike the US, crime metrics on immigrants in Germany suggest that as a population, they're less likely to commit crimes than native Germans.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may...