wbxrs

What happens in China is the result of not having been brainwashed since childhood about how bad authoritarianism is.

Yeah, instead we have US occupation in many other countries. And US military bases all around the world. Yahoo!

This is SO COOL. But I was expecting it to have maps from HL too!

I am not saying that HL invented "noclip", but it's certainly my first experience with that concept, even though I played many other games before that used that name for that concept, and games that implemented the same concept before that name was coined (like "idclip" in the old Doom)

Given that your comment is contrary to what the submitted post says and what all comments here say, some proof would be appropriate. You are using strong words.

It's not like this is their first.

And yes, companies like these have too much political power. That's something we all know. The question is how to fix that.

You have a point, I guess I had never seen it that way.

Looking at those charts, why are libertarians considered right-wing? They may be so economically, but they definitely are to the left (or even the far left) socially.

Giving that this post talks about social stuff, and not economical stuff, I believe that 51%/49% chart to be simply wrong.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a client to use more RAM than a server, having to display a GUI and all. I'm thinking of IRC servers vs. clients. (Certainly not 2 GB, but that's another matter.)

2 GB of RAM for a chat server?!!?

A website cannot tell a browser to "load malware", unless we're talking about a exploit, which should be patched.

(Please don't say "if I send you a malformed png file you have to execute the exploit, otherwise your argument breaks down".)

By default, unless the user has changed his settings, if a website tells a browser to load something, the browser should do so.

>The alternative is what we do now: a select group with tech savvy blocks advertisements, and lets the masses pick up the bill by 'accepting' ads and having their every movement online tracked.

And I like it. I know it's selfish; I'm just speaking my mind.

Soon, there will be so many people blocking ads that many websites will simply become pay-per-view, and that's going to be bad for me.

Do you expect them to get nothing in return?

I think this is a bad idea. Even though I personally block 3rd party trackers by default, breaking the web by default will cause problems.

Also, ad blocking will start being a problem when enough people start doing it. I still remember the days of no websites yelling at you for blocking their ads. Things are going to get much worse.

...and? Don't they have categories for every political leaning?

That's the point of free speech: the state shouldn't put a cost on speaking your mind.

It is not the job of the government to preserve "civilised discourse". It is a government, not the moderator of an Internet forum.

I must be able to say whatever I want, and you must be able to ignore me or openly disagree.

The truth of the matter is that this woman said Mohammed was a paedophile for fucking a 9 year old (which is even correct according to the Quran). She was convicted in Austria for blasphemy. The EU said the conviction was correct.

This should be terrifying to anybody who supports free speech. The ECHR is supposed to be a human rights court but they are allowing member states to convict people for blasphemy.

>Maybe this will revitalize hosting of personal websites where there’s no “platform” to censor your free speech?

In Germany, Austria and Switzerland you are required to disclose your full name, address, telephone number and more if you publish a personal website. This makes it impossible to keep a personal and anonymous website.

That is why having platforms is important.

>Don't frame this as a free speech issue. Freedom of speech is as protected in the EU as it is in the US, possibly more.

Yeah, no. This (blasphemy laws) would be unthinkable in the US:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...