Last time I checked, most of the stormfront members and most of the alt-right aren't committing any crimes against people who are coloured, just like how homosexuals don't commit crimes against heterosexual people.
Since you seem to have rejoined Hacker News just to post ideological flamebait, I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
You realize that you are equating Christians with homophobes here and there are a very large number of Christians that would strongly object to that.
Muslim employee in supermarket that refuses to handle bacon: fine, plenty of others to take their place, and it only affects that person.
Bigot in supermarket refusing to bake cake for homosexual: you serve the company customers at the whim of your employer, wear your bigotry for all to see and give the supermarket a bad name and you're in hot water.
See how easy it is to rephrase that and not have a conflict? The problem is that you chose to phrase your example in such a way that you could - narrowly - infer doublethink but all you really managed to do is expose yourself.
The funny thing about hate speech is that no one can make a unanimous conclusion for what hate speech is.
Nowadays hate speech is a euphamism for any idea or opinion someone doesn't like, so the term hate speech has lost its meaning. It now means using gender pronouns to refer to people, using gendered job names, saying that men and women are born with different brains, saying that there's only 2 genders, saying that feminism is cancer, saying there's a link between islam and terrorism, saying that black people underachieve in society due to genetics instead of the evil racist oppressive white male - and much more.
> Would it be a "unanimous" conclusion if it were a conclusion drawn by a singular person or entity?
Which singular person or entity should be responsible for determining what "hate speech" is? According to SJWiki I am a neurosexist for believing that men and women have different brains and that gender is not a social construct. Should SJWiki be trusted? According to the ADL, Gavin McInnes and Mike Cernovich are hate preachers. Should the ADL be trusted?
> Do you have an example of this being identified as hate speech?
Also it's a slippery slope because once the "hate speech" clampdown happens, we'll then be punished for microaggressions, so even if you're not a racist, you'll be seen as racist for asking what race or ethnicity someone is?
I will stop using Gmail and move my email elsewhere as google banned the accounts of Jordan B Peterson and Dennis Cooper, people who do NOT spread hate. Google is a SJW company.
Protonmail is not anonymous. I tried to sign up with Tor and it asked me to validate my phone number. Also if you look at their Transparency Report, you'll see that they do data retention on the government's demand.
What I don't like is how the government demands to wiretap EVERY person's account regardless of there being no suspicion of crime in every account. How can that be justified? To stop future whistleblowers?
It reminds me of the Investigatory Powers Act in Britain which demands ISPs to log everyone's internet browsing history and the end of end-to-end encryption as all encryption will have to have backdoors.
All that will happen, is that anonymous email providers will move to countries which are privacy friendly. It's a game of whack a mole. There's already Sigaint which is an anonymous email provider which is hosted on Tor. I'll be using Sigaint, offshore hosting and I2VPN when I launch my anonymous website.
> What I don't like is how the government demands to wiretap EVERY person's account regardless of there being no suspicion of crime in every account. How can that be justified? To stop future whistleblowers?
The article is giving a one-sided account. The government issued a (presumably valid) warrant to intercept messages on a specific user's account. He had designed the system such that he couldn't provide that access except by providing his keys to everything, and at first attempted to bill the government for building a system that would let him grant access to individual accounts.
Just wondering. Your first comment on this thread claimed the warrant was looking for child porn which was immediately corrected in the reply suggesting you only have a passing acquaintance to the case.
Now in this reply you seem to know much more about the case so why make the false accusation about child porn in the first comment?
I followed the case in detail at the time (back in 2014) but haven't read about it since then. I must have misremembered the child porn aspect (my memory was vague enough that I did say "IIRC", for whatever that's worth). I don't know what you want me to say other than "human memory is fallible".
No. Lavabit could have programmed a backdoor into their web interface using the private keys that allows access to only one account, but the US government wasn't happy with that.
Sorry but that is exactly the opposite of what happened.
From the first paragraphs:
> THE U.S. GOVERNMENT in July obtained a search warrant demanding that Edward Snowden’s e-mail provider, Lavabit, turn over the private SSL keys that protected all web traffic to the site, according to to newly unsealed documents.
> The July 16 order came after Texas-based Lavabit refused to circumvent its own security systems to comply with earlier orders intended to monitor a particular Lavabit user’s metadata, defined as “information about each communication sent or received by the account, including the date and time of the communication, the method of communication, and the source and destination of the communication.”
Someone already replied, but this is exactly opposite what happened as stated. The US government wanted access to only one particular user. The infrastructure did not allow this, and the guy behind Lavabit objected because a single key regulated everything, including server management. He offered to hand over the things that USG requested, which was obviously denied as they could not be sure he was handing over everything. The US government had a valid warrant and was willing to pay for re-keying after they were done. This to me seemed straightforward. He did not have the system setup so that the data was unavailable to him, so why could the government not subpoena the data that existed and was available?
Speculation, but it would probably depend who was leading the government then and also whether all existing European law had been re-implemented into UK law as part of the process to leave.
It's only a sample size of 3 but it seems like the candidate with the most edits is an indicator for who is going to win and if your running mate has more edits than you then it's probably not a good sign. Would like to see how the candidates ranked against each other in 2012.
note that the rankings in that article, as well as this year's rankings, include a month (and a half) after the election occured. I'd imagine a good amount of the edits came after the first tuesday in november.
That would be extremely difficult to do—you could for non-registered editors, as their IPs are recorded, but registered users' IPs are not publicly logged.
