sh1989

Everything he describes is testing.

But it's somewhat cross-purposes talking.

When people typically talk about automating the testing, they're talking about taking rote-based manual checks and automating them. Absolutely fine, no complaints from me.

But that's not automating "the" testing. It might be automated their testing, and those two things are different.

You can easily tell by whether they're doing it to get rid of the testers (cost-saving), or freeing up manual testers to do what they're good at: context-driven exploration of the problem space.

I wrote a proper response to this, then deleted it.

Because seriously, you're asking why a clear demonstration of how someone doesn't understand/is ignorant of power dynamics isn't a sign that person shouldn't be anywhere near positions of power and influence?

And maybe the explaining that needs to be done is yourself.

They were quite literally seconds away from something incredibly more serious happening.

Just because they botched the implementation doesn't lessen the intent.

You're describing a very specific form of coup, a military coup.

But they did have some kind of force. Enough to storm the capitol. With a noose, zip ties and cries to hang people in the line of succession.

While the President agitated them and then watched on monitors.

The thing is, this doesn't actually matter. This service wasn't being used to "freely assemble" (as outlined in your source), it was being used as a tool to facilitate insurrection.

This clear and present danger was obvious, and places the imperative on supporting services to question whether they want to aid and abet sedition.

They built a noose, went in with zipties and were chanting "hang pence". That it was botched doesn't make it any less of a coup. And there was a clear and present threat from the services that have been closed down.

But sure, ignore all the stuff that contradicts your argument to minimise the impact of an assault on democratic institutions.

If anything, this is a classic example of "we're going to build our own platform, with blackjack hookers and insurrection", and seeing how far that gets you.

There's a line where continued operation becomes aiding and abetting, and it's also clear the content of that site represented a clear and present danger in the short term.

This isn't a theoretical discussion. This is a direct consequence of an attempted coup.

I have no obligation to listen to what you say, nor do I have an obligation to build you a platform to spread it.

Nobody has an obligation to facilitate your free speech.

Good riddance

Not really. If you take a look at some of the publications that Vote Leave put out during the 2016 referendum, some of them actually had nothing to do with the campaign! They put out advertisements about seemingly unrelated subjects, purely to build, collate and triangulate a distribution list for the main material. There was no sign these were from a political organisation.

In my opinion the regulation and reporting of political campaigning and advertisments is absolutely necessary. The ground has shifted below the regulators so much and it's perfectly reasonable to keep regulation up to date.

The status bar temporarily appears when hovering over a URL, so at least that's still there.