I still feel like people havent figured out this internet thing.
If I want to report on a post by say some scrubby Islamic State propagandist I'm going to do it. They can ban me but it will just become part of the reporting. Then give me a few minutes and I'll be back on the site doing my thing again.
Terrible terms of service don't make a private garden. Neither does IP/phone number fingerprinting. I agree with you though, it is not that complicated.
>the trusted setup can only be used to create fake Zcash, not deanonymize transactions.
"I think we can successfully make Zcash too traceable for criminals like WannaCry, but still completely private & fungible"
"I _don't_ mean weakening security (https://z.cash/support/faq.html#backdoor …). I mean that a secure protocol layer is compatible with good law enforcement." -zooko
Not sure how your statements carry water in the face of that comment.
I think the court would have to thread the needle on whether:
(1) the function of the site is like a private club whose secrets are vital to its continued existence,
(1a) the language in the ToS supports (1)
(2) the private news items shared there are in the public interest and likely not reported on otherwise (at least the ones that were disclosed publicly).
No one likes chilled speech but there's plenty of examples of legitimate agreements for non-disclosure. Those agreements provide mutual benefit and could be threatened by a ruling in favor of a claimant against NextDoor.
Their not claiming non disclosure. Just the right to kick you off their service (out of their club) if they don’t like what you do. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” That is, in fact, a legally protected right in the United States. A constitutional right by some arguments.
See, for example, the Boy Scouts vs a long list of gays, atheists, and girls, where this was affirmed numerous times by the Supreme Court.
You interestingly seem to believe your first amendment rights free you from any repercussions.
That is ... not supported by law.
You have strongly confused prior restraint laws (IE what you'd be punished for publishing and what people can prevent you from publishing) and contract law (IE whether they can legally keep you off the site, enjoin you from doing so further, and receive money damages).
No just pointing out you are creating a false narrative.
>There are many thousands of regulations. They don't all make sense. They're not all necessary.
"Soooo many regulations, we couldn't possibly need all of these. Ignore the specific few discussed here lets make it about allllll these redundant regulations."
It's difficult to have these conversations when people are constantly terrified of "what trump wants" instead of what he is actually capable of. I'm amazed at how much power people think the president has.
The President has power over things affected by his executive privilege. Like the State department, for instance, which has experienced massive hemorrhaging of personnel, is barely staffed, and is ensuring that the US has less than the bare minimum of institutional knowledge and capacity to maintain its (good or bad) hegemony over the world's affairs. This could have momentous long term effects.
The President plus Congress plus the Supreme Court has all the power, though. The first two would love to roll back pollution controls, and the last one is teetering. The main thing preventing it right now is that the ruling party has forgotten how to rule.
We ban accounts that use HN primarily for ideological battle. Since you've been doing that, and repeatedly posting uncivilly to boot, I've banned this one.
I'd like a lot more examples. I'd also like a concise description that indicates how the changes will roll the US back to the intense pollution problems that existed 30+ years ago.
The example you reference is modifying rules put in place just a few years ago, so at best it's an obviously mediocre example.
>I'd also like a concise description that indicates how the changes will roll the US back to the intense pollution problems that existed 30+ years ago.
Why would I alter my comment to be in tune with what you want when I was responding to this:
>Exactly what environmental protection is Trump rolling back?
You said you had a lot more examples to provide, you pretended that nobody wanted them. I do. So let's have all those examples.
I asked for a concise description, I didn't ask you to modify your comment. Surely the environmental protection roll-backs will cause pollution problems (even if it's not of the scale that existed 30+ years ago). If it's too much to ask that you explain how your examples will cause meaningful environmental damage, and you don't want to provide such an elaboration, I understand.
>Bitcoin.org is controlled by the same people and should not be taken as any sort of an authority.
Not sure if many people here are aware, but r/Bitcoin mod Theymos and others in the Core/Blockstream circle proposed and supported editing Satoshi's bitcoin whitepaper[1].
They did this under the reasoning that they control the bitcoin.org domain where it has been historical hosted and want to treat it as a living document. Obviously people didn't like this but the issue has not been resolved, it was only put "On Hold."
The consensus for bitcoin is made within the network itself. Not on a mentally unstable person's poll.
Luke-jr, aka the Blockstream coder/troll who has used his pool to maliciously kill other cryptocoins[1], made that poll based on Coinbase KYC info. That polling platform only has use within a tiny segment of Bitcoin users that trust Luke after his abhorrent actions and those that are also on Coinbase with verified accounts.
That is not consensus at all. Bitcoin as it turns out has mechanics for building and signalling consensus but Blockstream & co have been pounding sand trying to subvert it for years now.
Here is an enlightening thread on the type of awful actions Blockstream/Core has been up to regarding 2x and signals to support it among the Bitcoin community. Matt, Drak and the other Blockstream/Core thugs spend their time screaming at people on reddit/twitter while inventing lies[2] that necessitate being called out by their victims[3].
Make me.