nceqs3

50% of the Harvard class are not legacy. It's nowhere close to that number.

Of course Harvard (one of the best universities in the world) deserves USG grants.

So only rich people who can afford to run their own servers and have the technical knowledge to put one together should be allowed to share content?

Straw-man. The grandparent is pointing out that services like Google, Instagram and YouTube would be behind paywalls without ads. There is no free internet without ads.

You are thinking of https://www.legistorm.com/.

>Back Market, Doctolib, Ornikar, HelloFresh, GitPod, N26, Yubikey, Revolut have plenty of impact and innovation as startups.

lol. I have heard of like two of these and even those are tiny companies.

>My understanding is there is legislation being enacted which strips power from elected or appointed groups and places that power with the executive.

Who elected the Supreme Court in Israel? Nobody. The power will now lie in the hands of the legislature, which is the definition of democracy.

Searching is the key word there. Without ads, Google would be behind a paywall. Without ads, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, etc. would also be behind paywalls.

Without targeted ads, everything will be behind a paywall.

>Some could say it is one of the things that turned the election of 2016 to Trump. Zuckerberg had no problem with this.

This is just patently false. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

Also CA wasn't really Facebook's fault. A third party broke FB's TOS and committed perjury once FB caught them. Both parties have FAR more sophisticated ad targeting companies.

While I agree with them, it's important to note that the EFF is very pro-big tech and is largely funded by them.

HN is not America (thank god)

Private companies catching child predators is actually pretty popular.

1) Iran? did you forget about sanctions? Apple does not operate at all in Iran. No offices, no employees, no data centers. Nothing. Apple doesn't care what Iran tells them to do lol.

2) I mean they search for spam, malware, copyrighted material (as required by the DMCA), etc.

> It's proportionate to give partisan governments fond of the nastiest behaviors the ability to read every word that you type to anyone?

This argument is so absurdly dumb. Today, every tech company will give EVERY single message, text, IP address, photo, email etc. to law enforcement. Yet you rarely see misuse of this system. Why would that change under the proposed rules?

As of today every tech platform scans every message, photo, email, etc. for CSAM, yet there isn't misuse of the system. Why would that change under the proposed change?

>You are missing the third option: no scanning anywhere.

What a take. Thankfully the vast majority of Americans don't agree with you in the slightest. Also private companies can do whatever they please.

This is HN. The facts are not relevant.

Wild the FTC isn't suing the NYTimes, WSJ, or every other paid news outlet for far more egregious cancellation process practices. Almost as if the FTC is a political weapon.

Is this really an article? It's just pointing to the FT piece.

You seem to be misunderstanding the First Amendment. CSMA, classified information, defamation, copyright, etc. are all not permitted under the first amendment. Not to mention that gag orders are approved by a court and can be appealed.

Same here. Works really well.

Piracy is wrong. The amount of coping people will do to justify it is incredible to watch.

>because of public records laws, means the data becomes public

This is absolutely not how public records laws work. Look up the Privacy Act.

lol

Okay, so he can make his case in court then. Honestly he has a pretty good chance of being found not-guilty. I hate the guy, but he is certainly incredibly charismatic and will an have all star legal defense.

If you think Equifax had bad cybersecurity, imagine a government run one.

>The existence of warrantless wiretapping

If only FISA required warrants, ohh wait!

Why do people comment so confidently on industries they don't understand?

It would be 2.5 a year. Non competes are 2y across all of finance.

How dare quants get paid $5m to sit on their couches for two years after leaving their firms! Congress must act!

Because the German's laughed at him at the UN general assembly when he called this out.