sasasassy

I'd think that timber planted for that purpose would not be counted as deforestation. Just like paper is made from Eucalypti which is rare to grow naturally or with other species.

It's your own Facebook feed.

You are implying there is an actual industry of producing child porn and filling in quotas and receiving payment in some form, I don't think that's the case. In any case, people that watch (many) speeches of Hitler are also the target market of many businesses, and yet there is a correlation between doing so and being radicalized/extremist/dangerous, and yet it is perfectly legal.

No I don't. When I share a book on how to teach people to make bombs like the Anarchy Cookbook, I don't have to consider intent at all. Why is CP different?

CP, violent and hateful content are shared for a myriad of reasons, some for profit, like the documentary on the Bataclan attack on Netflix, some for sharing with fellow pedophiles. I don't see why I can't see 9/11 footage because someone else might feel different about it.

Ones and zeroes in my own property are not influencing anything in the "real world". If I use them and they are a virus and damage computer systems, that is a crime. If I made the virus just to learn about hacking, that should be perfectly fine.

Childrens' safety is not a digital thing in a computer, and AFAIK nothing suggests childrens' safety is more at risk right now than from other forms of violence that seem to be perfectly tolerated and celebrated in books, movies, music.

If I'm trying to make a business out of child porn, sure try to prosecute me. I believe selling other peoples' pictures without consent should be illegal in any case, specially if in demeaning circumstances. If I'm just sharing it, though disgusting it may be, the law should not stick it's nose in it. Just like it's legal to share books on how to make bombs and poison people.

Yes but it shouldn't. Sharing some bad videos is considered bad, like child porn or NZ shooting. Sharing others is fine, like beheadings, other terror attacks, war footage. Making violent videogames is fine (see most FPS), but if they are a little more out of the norm they're bad (see a game called "Postal"). I'd like to know who decides on these arbitrary things.

Acquiring child porn doesn't have to be any more difficult than acquiring videos of beheadings and other vile acts. It was only made difficult to acquire out of puritanism, there's nothing intrinsic about it that suggests you have to commit further crimes to find it.

And if the idea is that the public is too dumb and easy to influence and therefore cannot be shown child porn or killings in New Zeland etc then it doesn't make sense at the same time for me to be advertised violent movies in the cinema.

Yes. You should not go to jail just for having some specific sequences of ones and zeroes on a magnetic device on your home.

You should go to jail if you do actual crimes, you know, with real victims. Not imaginary victims that don't know when you see a video in the first place.

A quick google search reveals they apparently have their own SWIFT now.¹ It is ran side by side with SWIFT, not as a competitor, so the claim that it is from fear of sanctions or other actions from the US seems accurate.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/russias-central-bank-governo...

Yes please. All monopolies are damaging to consumers, capitalism and democracy. Please do away with as many as possible. The only notable exceptions are business areas where the physical constraints force a single company to operate, like sanitation and sewage.

And yet now every media outlet and pundit blames everything on the proliferation of fake news made possible because of easy access to sharing ideas. History does repeat itself.

In these cases I'm always reminded of an Obama speech he made shortly after the beginning of the Edward Snowden disclosures, where he guaranteed in national television that the US did not spy on national citizens.

Imagine that, not being a national citizen, but from an allied country, and being told point blank that you are a-okay for spying without any kind of shame.

AFAIK China does not intercept all of my country's communications, which the US has been doing for decades.

Sigh, it's just a bad choice between sleazy US or dictatorial China. At least there are some other 5G choices available.

In some countries being gay is punishable by death. It doesn't mean your walled garden app store having an app to find and punish gay people is OK.

I personally feel many things in AWS are purposely made in order to hide the real costs from you.

For instance how you are charged for S3 traffic your buckets receive even if you don't have any files there. Or how traffic between zones that is outside of your control is still charged. Or how things like AZ replication cost a ton and you have no metric to show if it even makes sense to enable them. Heck, even usage alerts cost money.

Chromecast didn't even need a Google account a while back. Now (last few years) it forces it on you for no discernible reason. Supposedly now you can use their Google Home app to search for apps to install that work with Chromecast, which is already possible in the Play Store. The easy solution is to use an old version.

This breaks so much stuff. So many websites use #something for a myriad of purposes. And it's their discretion, their website. I've never even seen #arg=val used in URIs ever, so nothing would be expecting that. Or #arg1=val1&arg2=val2.

This feels just like when I discovered that one day Chrome just decided to use the canonical address of a page instead of the actual address, when sharing it, telling no one. These people are a plague on this world.

Don't the Polgár sisters contradict the author?