This is a good point, but how would this cause Google's business branch (advertising) from collapsing? Businesses want to advertise, and their service here is reputable.
535 karma · joined July 31, 2017
And I think you're point is on point: people would buy these and not be happy with them, because they want a real monitor. There's also a group of people who want them just to be able to ready articles and write articles (and code, etc) outside, and without charging a battery as often, and would be happy with lo-fi graphics.
Their low-power daylight-friendly monitors are only available on eBay as far as I've found.
EDIT. Actually, the Soundcloud its from has a ton: https://soundcloud.com/ostinatorecords
I will look at those, thanks.
I get that he's proposing all devices can access the web by accessing each other (each device a port), but where are the websites located then? Where are the videos stored?
A concern is the "industrialization" of war. Another is that these weapons are so fast ("faster than humans can comprehend") when they get used as terrorist weapons or rogue, it could be pretty harmful.
This would mean that if a country starts building them, they could be monitored, sanctioned, and preemptively dealt with.
I can see there would be a big difference though in yelping a word in that situation and being directly responsible for the harm it caused (mischief maybe?) and expressing a person's ideas and beliefs.
The analogy you put doesn't work out, unfortunately, because ANY idea can result in human oppression and death. For example, the speech that civil rights leaders spoke and wrote that in a roundabout way caused injuries and deaths at protests motivated by them, the speech that fired up the American Revolution and other revolutions.
Can you? If you can, I will give a fair effort to CMV.
How can their ideas/speech be more dangerous than limitations of speech on the web?
Does anyone have a link to this site?
I heard it had moved to Russia.
(The article begins) For the last two years, a team of engineers and researchers has quietly been working to develop new technology for Internet freedom.
Today, we are pleased to share results from the first large-scale field trial of refraction networking, a fundamentally new way to help people around the world learn and communicate online in the face of censorship. We served more than 50,000 users, for more than a week, by deploying refraction networking at partner ISPs.
The project utilizes Google Cloud Natural Language API to scrape the prior six months of Google News for stories on hate crimes, biases, or related abuses and creates a visual tool that makes the information easier for reporters to use.
But I wonder where on the internet unpopular speech will be hosted?
Even if the UN (and nations) declare internet a human right, where will content be hosted? Will the UN be able to force nations to change their laws to not persecute unpopular speech?
Treason is only possible if a country is at war (ie has an "enemy"). The speech would be protected as it is now (that wouldn't be the crime they break), but they could be found guilty of committing treason by the same (speech in this case) act.
(Related to the law you mentioned, in Germany they also have laws that are reactions to WWII, and they arrested some Chinese tourists for making Nazi salutes for tourist photos outside a government building last week.)
France, hey? I've actually heard France is competitive with US when it comes to internet and free speech. Do you think that's true? I wonder which country most protects speech on the internet?
...
(CNN)The Daily Stormer, a white supremacist and neo-Nazi website, needs to find another domain name provider after GoDaddy gave it the boot following a derogatory story about the woman killed at the Charlottesville, Virginia, rally.
The site, which calls itself "The World's Most Genocidal Republican Website," registered its name with GoDaddy -- but GoDaddy doesn't host the Daily Stormer's content.
...
(Guardian)A message purportedly posted by hackers has appeared on the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website, saying the site has been taken over in response to an article criticising a woman who died during violence at far-right rally in Virginia over the weekend.
...
What I'm curious about is Google. Are they providing hosting and domain serving for anybody (even unpopular speech)? Where does content go when companies refuse to work with publishers?
I'm still not sure where to draw the line between Google, its managers, larger society, and general ethics, in this case, or how to distinguish 'collective altruistic punishment' from 'selfish punishment to forcefully protect interests against challenges'.
One thing I'll note is that the case at hand would be the same if it weren't collective, but was only one (probably relatively powerful) person trying to protect themselves from a challenge. A second thing: that the article was a different object when it was widely circulated (not just the same object treated by a large group versus an earlier smaller group).
Second, do you have some jumping off point for learning about 'collective altruistic punishment'? After seeing you use that term I want to learn more about it, but Google search doesn't show results that relate to the type of situation we're talking about here (blind punishment of a wellmeaning member who actually doesn't do anything wrong other than put the majority in a position they don't want to be in and possibly confront their own 'wrongthinking' or 'wrongdoing'). I really want to learn more about the concept if you have a link or some?