heartbeats

Not really. Lots of people get in with bad crowds when they're young. If you have a bright kid with a promising future who's about to ruin it by getting into political extremism, isn't it better that he seek therapy?

8chan was only served because they managed to find some very shady Russian hosters. They were very close to being depeered from the Internet backbone.

>But that is a much bigger problem IMO and the answer of "more speech" is at most helplessly incomplete wrt it.

Why? Why can't the leftists push people down rabbit holes and make them rabid communists? Serious question.

>Harassment

That is not regulated in the capacity of speech.

>yelling "fire" in a crowded theater

That line is from a 1919 court case about whether you could oppose the draft.

>calling for literal violence against others

This is permitted under Brandenburg v. Ohio. Calls to illegal action are only prohibited if they are (1) intended to cause illegal action, (2) reasonably likely to produce such action and (3) imminent.

This seems like a good solution to combat the rising tide of extremism in the West. You can't force anyone to do it, but I'm sure a lot of those people would do it voluntarily, to be allowed back into society so to speak.

By arriving worse numbers, you arrive at a higher price, so it makes your point weaker if anything. If a site bundles half a meg of JS, it's going to be unpleasant to use, and if you're serving so much JS it's hurting you financially, it's probably time to reconsider what you're doing.

Why are you serving 400kb of JavaScript? Why are you paying $0.15/GB?

These numbers are certainly not on the low end.

Just how much JavaScript do you have to use for it to make it a significant difference? If you serve 100k of JS (please don't), at 1 million hits per month you're looking at 100GB. Even at EC2's obscene pricing, this is still just $10/month.

If you're that stingy, why aren't you just putting the entire website behind CloudFlare and calling it a day?

The U.S. selling weapons to Saudi Arabia doesn't harm U.S. interests in any way, but it's profitable and benefits the weapons industry, which is good from a self-defense perspective.

To blow up the evil people, of course.

Bitcoin mining is dominated by capex, not opex. It makes much more sense to buy your rigs and pay whatever you have to pay to keep them on 24/7.

What you are planning to do is illegal. Depression is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If you have more than 15 employees, you are obliged to provide reasonable accomodations for such employees, and you may not discriminate against them while hiring.

It is also deeply unethical. If they've expressed some intent to not take it seriously, you'd have a point, but the idea that people with less-than-stellar mental health shouldn't have jobs is completely sickening.

What's the point in making JS faster if websites are just going to pile on another layer of React.JS dogshit abstraction to compensate? What Bill giveth, Andy taketh away.

It just seems like they're fighting the inevitable. It's extremely easy to do facial recognition, and most people don't put any value on being anonymous on the street.

We're slowly getting rid of anonymity on the Internet, and it doesn't seem like meatspace lags that far behind.

Anyone know what routing servers? BGP?

Well, why would they want to do that? They're going to be selling a lot of juicy ads now. You wouldn't want to interfere with that.

They've already got the headline of "Facebook to launch Oversight Board to oversee ads", so now they can safely kill it.

What do you want to accomplish, not hiring depressed people? That seems somewhat illegal.

Yes, it's about when freedom of speech trumps freedom of association.

If the freedom of association is inviolable, why can't I put up a sign outside my store saying "NO BLACKS"?

If it's about someone making statements at work, would you accept if a business owner said that they'll fire you if you're Jewish, but let you work there as long as they don't know about it?

That is about changing an agreement. The bank can fire you as a customer, pursuant to the existing agreement, usually without specifying a reason. This has happened in the past.

Does freedom of association give my employer the right to fire me because I'm black? Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional?

Pretty much all personal bank accounts have a unilateral termination clause. I would be surprised to see a mortgage where the bank can't totally wreck you if they feel like it.

Anyhow, you still need a bank account to get paid. If you can only work jobs that pay you in cash and don't need any access to bank accounts or the Internet themselves, that rules out 99% of businesses that could employ you.

What if my "racism allowed" alternative to CloudFlare gets depeered by, say, AT&T?

But is there anything morally wrong with it? Does it inhibit freedom of speech to execute people for criticizing the government? If so, how?

What if you get a letter from the bank telling you to withdraw all your money and cough up the value of the mortgage in a week or be evicted?

If all speech has consequences, and there's nothing wrong with putting consequences to speech, what's wrong with the government doing so?

Losing my job over them definitely dissuades me from sharing them in the future. This impedes my freedom of speech.

If you're saying that you're not physically prevented from saying whatever you'd like, but with that being the limit, it seems like just about any infringement becomes acceptable.

> Being put to death by the government has not prevented you from sharing those statements.

You do need to use CloudFlare, or your site will get DDoSed into oblivion.

CloudFlare doesn't have many alternatives. There's VanwaNet, ddos-guard.net, and I think that's it.

Should you start your own DDoS protection service too?

I'm always sad to see people cheering this stuff on. Every time I hear someone cheering on some oligarch who got exposed doing shell corporation stuff in offshore jurisdictions (Panama Papers, etc), I die a little inside.

Since 2001, we've seen drastic expansions in mass surveillance. Even if these are bad people, you wouldn't see these articles cheering on FBI employees who "cracked secret darknet encryption to catch criminals, pedophiles, and terrorists".

In my view, the banks' actions are morally justified. The KYC regulations everyday people are subject to when going about their business is overbearing, and we should fight back against it. The police should investigate crimes, and banks should do banking. Banks shouldn't be government surrogates.

No, it should decrease. If you're a gazillion dollars deep, your best incentive is to cover up the fraud and try to dump it on someone else.