Perhaps I wasn’t clear. What kind of instrumentation and alerting, if any, did you employ to keep an eye on it?
13,903 karma · joined February 21, 2007
Nothing I say should be construed as legal advice. I encourage you to seek licensed counsel in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/otterley; my proof: https://keybase.io/otterley/sigs/ciQxqIniqjt0qP_lKGryssgeBpYEjANIzawbvj_1Yt4 ]
The words of a license are what the license is.
Both fakecloud and its website look sloppily vibe-coded, and its “authors” are anonymous. It’s going to take a while for it to earn trust. I’d treat it with suspicion. (Curl-to-shell pipe to install? Ugh.)
If you’d like to have a serious intellectual debate, I welcome it.
My experience is that when people don't want to answer them, it's because they either 1/don't actually know the answers, or 2/are afraid of what their honest answers will reveal about them.
What is the practical difference between propaganda from the inside and that from the outside? Internal propaganda is often much more dangerous than external propaganda because it has a patina of legitimacy. President Trump, as you may recall, gave Rush Limbaugh a Presidential Medal of Freedom for, among other things, legitimizing the racism and sexism and a fairy-tale version of America that eventually set the stage for his election.
I'd contend we should worry a lot less about what others are saying than what we are saying to each other. Yet it still doesn't mean we should censor speech.
> Very little is more existential to even the idea of a nation than the national identity, the in-group, out-group, etc. and that is what it is used for.
Who is the in-group? Who is the out-group? Who shouldn't be in? Are you sure they're not in already? Should a nation evolve or be the same as when they were founded? What evolution is ok? What's not ok?
Besides, the Constitution is designed to sustain our nation not just against speech, but even if our most sacred buildings are destroyed and our president is killed. That’s the beauty of it. It’s a clever design by the most brilliant minds of our time. Thus, I’ve never understood some people’s obsession with security. Such people are focused on current office holders and icons they deem important, not the health of the system, and not the ideals and principles enshrined by it. Paranoia and vengeance does not befit us.
Also, it pains me to have to remind self-identified Christians—the ones typically most obsessed with national security—that to “turn the other cheek” is one of the fundamental pillars of the faith, straight out of Jesus’ mouth. (Matthew 5:38–39)
Why shouldn't the same principles we apply to our own people apply to foreign people? Isn't freedom of speech a universal principle? If not, what makes outsiders' speech substantively different from ours that we should censor it?
Moreover, people in the U.S. are free to say the exact same things that foreigners might say. Why does it matter that it's coming from outside the country as opposed to inside it?
> Supreme Court precedent heavily uses phrases like ‘the constitution is not a death pact’
1/It was "suicide pact." 2/That was dicta from Justice Jackson in a dissent in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), not law.
> and ‘yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not protected speech’.
That was from an early free speech case in 1919 (Schenck v. U.S.) when speech restrictions were more broadly upheld--and it was not the question in the case (it was just an example). Freedom of speech has been significantly liberalized since then. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) overruled Schenck: "[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
> Unregistered foreign agents tend to be locked up, deported, or hung.
It sounds to me like you're just an unapologetic xenophobe.
What does "survival as a civilization" mean to you, exactly, and how might speech from other countries threaten this?
Despite the fact that they don't approve of our speaking to their people, we do it anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
The U.S. is a democracy. We hold freedom of speech as sacrosanct. We let people make up their own minds as to how to evaluate competing viewpoints. I see no reason why the viewpoints of other countries--even those very different from ours--shouldn't be considered.
I have no problem with labeling speech's origin so that people can take it into account, but that's not the same as censoring it.
(Mine pays me about 3% APR which isn’t nothing.)
That has been often accused, but not proved (at least in the US).
Unfortunately it doesn't work out that way. Consider banks, for example. As a relatively wealthy person, I don't pay fees for practically anything. On the contrary, banks pay me in the form of new-account signup bonuses, interest-bearing checking accounts, ATM fee reimbursements, etc.
Poorer bank customers, on the other hand, are continuously getting nickeled-and-dimed by banks in the form of monthly account fees, foreign ATM fees, NSF charges, etc.