foiboitoi

Funny how you're getting downvoted for stating the obvious.

I've found that you can absolutely chalk up "online death threats" to idiots vying for attention.

Impersonal (distant) threats are not created equal to in person threats.

Edit: The harm is subjective. The whole point of such a message is it's designed entirely to shock or offend. To give the pests actual power over you is the greatest part of the problem.

Not saying it should be ignored either. Instead of being melodramatic, we should be pragmatic like we were with email spam. The next step is to create tools giving greater power to the users to pro-actively prevent such nonsense.

Honesty I'd be more conservative/concerned as a parent with the chemicals in the plastic that they're holding. Behaviour is intuitively easier to regulate and understand than substance exposure.

Don't appeal to "common sense."

Red meat being bad for you was common sense. Fatty foods being bad for you was common sense. Asbestos being safe was common sense. Hell I saw a guy eat it to prove it was such.

Bright colored Snakes being dangerous is common sense. Something like this isn't common sense. It's parenting by government via criminalization. That's crazy. And we're not even talking about real child abuse.

"Rather than focusing on education and knowledge they resorted to insults and mockery."

I just wanted to point how that comedy is as if not more effective than education. Education through comedy is even more-so. This is likely a healthier outlet than what they could be doing (given mockery was their first choice of action). Possibly the most peaceful option for this type of community... Is vandalism, assault or other crimes now further up on the to-do list? I suppose we might find out now since censorship has created the opportunity.

I don't understand why they thought it was a good idea to resort to a foreign word to describe freedom. It might make sense in America but not the rest of the English speaking world. I think freedom & liberty are immediately comprehensible in the context of software.

Hah world peace.

I'm curious to why people thought I deserved downvoting. I think it's a reasonable question. When ever I hear "Free Software" said to the layman, it's ALWAYS followed up by "free as in freedom." Then they describe what that "freedom" means to them.

It'd be easier to have just one step of clarification than multiple.

Why hasn't "Free as in Freedom" Software been shortened to just Freedom Software? Or Liberal or Liberty Software? This seems like a simple problem to solve honestly.

Given that this issue is still happening after decades... I think it deserves to be addressed.

Ya know you can just do !g right? Also you can get google results by using startpage. I default ddg then fall back to !sp (startpage) if I don't get what I want.

Why would they need to be "free?" Not everyone needs personal internet to benefit from a free (as in freedom) internet being available in their area. Unfiltered information spreading in a community is almost guaranteed if it exists.

How on earth are we going to get them innovative/affordable internet solutions if no one can compete to get there?

Wouldn't it prevent people interested in creating an ISP in any area that has "free" facebooknet? Especially if the services provided by facebooknet is most of which people would want with an ISP anyway?

So not only does it prevent competitor websites, but it stops competitive ISPs, too. It's especially bad if this coporate network is censoring information. No opportunity to even discover non-filtered information outside the info bubble. This triple whammy is the consequence for those involved or not.