nisuni

Merry Christmas to you! :)

And that’s why I was happier when basic research was mostly being carried out in public institutions.

So, what would be the viable alternative? Selling user data?

Genuine question: are there business that are not viable unless you sell user data?

> Only when I went to college in a college town did people largely seem to want to live and let live.

Well, live and let live sounds pretty ideal, given that in several places across California conservative opinions are not tolerated.

Maybe we agree that a college town in Texas it's a place where opposing viewpoints can still coexist?

DKIM might have non-repudiation as unintended side effect, but I am totally fine with it!

Is this enough to explain not a single woman in the top 100?

Independently of who said what, look at the facts and make up your mind.

What's the current status of Tor? I remember seeing in the past many de-anonymizing attacks against it.

I never said it’s OK for the government to control speech undemocratically like happens in China, maybe I didn’t explain myself well.

My point is: I would prefer the government decides democratically what can and cannot be told. And I am fine with a very liberal standard, in which almost everything can be told.

I am pretty much a free speech absolutist. Everything can be said in my opinion.

But, if limits are imposed by a democratic government they will at least follow some democratic standard. Limits imposed by private companies will only follow the money!

But a country’s policy is decided by the citizens, if you live in a democracy.

Facebook’s policy is decided by its CEO and few others. Citizens/users have no saying.

There’s a big danger in shifting most of the public discourse to private platforms. We already have many example, YouTube banning anti-Erdogan keywords is just the first popping to my mind.

Friendly reminder that when what can and cannot be said is chosen by a private company, they will always choose what’s better for their business.

The only way of having some moral (rather than commercial) principles guiding the choice, is to regulate it at government level.

> The reason you should leave your political views at the door because you're trying to pass them off as facts.

Never tried to do so, you must be mistaken.

> That is simply not supported by evidence.

It is.

I never said that the article says that it’s fraud.

I said, taking full responsibility for it, that vote-by-mail is more prone to fraud.

Why should I leave my political views at the door? Is because they don’t align with yours?

I know everyone in certain social circles is pressured into saying that vote-by-mail is the best thing ever, because the Orange Man said that vote-by-mail is bad and you must be on the other side.

However, it’s time to admit that vote-by-mail has huge problems and it’s more prone to fraud.