That’s not what will happen, because the US is by far the most lucrative market for advertising, and serving ads to users in the US means that they will have to adhere to US laws, even if they’re not physically located there, just as Twitter is forced to censor content according to the laws of every other country where it does business (e.g. censoring Nazi material in Germany)
1. As he explains, YouTube's rules don't actually instruct creators to censor these types of outbursts, and he can site numerous examples of content by more well-known creators that are much more explicit than the 3-second clip.
2. After reversing their decision, Youtube has re-restricted the video because they now claim it contains nudity/sexual content. How does that tie into your argument, exactly?
If they would accept the video with bleeps, why don't they just offer to bleep it. Then they could give uncensored versions to signed in adults who choose it?
As I said, they already falsely banned it again, this time for nudity even though there is no nudity. Is that enough to just admit that the system is completely broken?
As he explained, he would have been more than happy to bleep those 3 seconds in the first place if that was the policy. But as he pointed out, the policy only gives more severe examples than what was contained in his video. The point is that there should have been a realistic way for him to know it would break policy.
In this case, the damage is done. He slaved away for months on this video only to have lost thousands of dollars in ad revenue that can’t be recovered.
Because this viewpoint isn’t consistent with his actions; he has a long history of retaliating against anyone who criticizes him, including attacking journalists and threatening them with lawsuits as well as firing employees who raise issues within his companies.
Your comment is baffling. You ask, 'How is "retaliating against criticism" contradictory to free speech?', then spend the rest of your comment explaining why it's good to not retaliate against criticism.
Did you mean to ask and answer your own question? If that was your intent it sure wasn't clear. Do you not know what "retaliate" means, even with the context clue of threatening lawsuits against journalists? Is your first paragraph meant to be entirely causally disconnected from the rest? If so I kind of have to respect it, but it would sure help to give us some clues because that is not a conventional writing structure. What, in short, are you trying to say?
Retaliation with the intent to silence critics is acting to undermine free speech. He could, for example, welcome the criticism and respond with facts.
Which is full of honestly ridiculous examples like "he told an analyst to shut up and stop asking boneheaded questions." Or "he told his followers to edit his wikipedia page" ...?
The "best" examples are of workers are are currently in litigation.
Everything else, I see no reason why one couldn't support free speech on a social platform while also requiring beta testers to sign NDAs.
>welcome the criticism and respond with facts
Do you have examples of where/when this could have been done?
At the end of the day, I feel like a lot of this just comes from the fact that when one supports free speech, it comes with a *. It's easier to say "I support free speech" vs "I support the idea people should be able to post their opinions online without being banned (this doesn't mean anyone can post live execution videos or organize crime, etc)."
I thought IPinfo was just sourced from Maxmind, am I wrong? Is there any way to know who are the original sources of info in this space and who are reselling?
When it happens to you and this is the only way you can get access to some urgently-needed account, you'll be thankful HN didn't create a special category to push these down and make them less visible.
The original/first proof of work proposal, Hashcash, was in fact designed to solve email spam. It obviously served as the inspiration for Bitcoin’s proof of work component.
There’s a difference between credit scoring and credit reporting.
Credit scoring refers to the act of reducing the entirety of one’s credit history to a single number using an algorithm.
Few people are opposed to credit histories being available to potential lenders. However many find the scoring system to be unnecessary and flawed. Lenders could just look at the actual credit history to make a decision.
I'll agree we need a system of credit histories, but what we've got now is terrible. The current vendors have no serious liability for breaches, and are pretty lax in how they do things. I'm opposed to the way they do it now.
Things could be much improved, and transparency brought into the process. Make vendors accountable for privacy and accuracy.
I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but this is something congress can fix, but they just don't have the will to.
The article basically states that the reason the government banned it was because Chinese actors were using VideoLAN products (VLC) to deploy malware loaders onto citizens' devices.
I don't understand why they banned videolan.org though. It's a French website, and I'd assume the Chinese actors were bundling malware when VLC was installed from another website and not videolan.org.
Videolan.org is EXACTLY where VLC should be downloaded from to ensure the software you download is malware free - ironically, I'd expect banning the VLC website to increase VLC downloads from alternative sources, and thus increasing the possibility of the user downloading malware.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith
The person's core argument was obviously that "airlines do what they can to keep people safe rather than financially benefiting from criminal activity" which distinguishes Tornado from airlines and web browser developers.
As an aside, it was less important to prevent hijacking before 2001 because the end result of most hijackings before then was that nobody got hurt if pilots complied, so there would be no reason to place a cockpit door. That strategy obviously changed after 9/11.
Ironically, I find your interpretation of the parent comment uncharitable, because I never would have framed the core argument the way you did.
I don't think the behavior and results of airplane hijackings pre 9/11 fall into common knowledge, even on hacker news. That's a pretty niche, specific collection of 20+ year old historical facts.
