twentydollars

You can't use Oculus products now without a Facebook account?

The frustration is fair and understandable, but his characterization of Rust is wrong IMO.

Side note, has anyone read a Java textbook? They are notable for not being able to go more than a page without extolling Java's virtues in a way that is repetitive and annoying.

(My experience with Rust textbooks was not like that. They tend to explain the drawbacks of Rust's "radical wager" with the stipulation that for the authors, the payoff is worth it.)

hmmm, this is your desktop or a server?

It was a pun on "What's cracking?"

It was a joke, like "What's cracking?"

> I recognize they have a right to do it, but I have a right to make noise about it and criticize them.

Nobody suggested otherwise, and your statement that "you're not interested in free speech unless you're willing to defend speech you find repugnant" is clearly a sidestep. You can support free speech without supporting the nonexistent (and unrelated) right to post lies on Youtube.

Don't be ridiculous. There are thousands of competing communications providers. If you want to share content that harms society or harms the platforms themselves then you might just have to do it outside of Facebook or Twitter.

> A domain and VPS are simply not a viable substitute for access to mainstream social networks; to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

Nobody is claiming this. That's the whole idea of the "Freedom of reach" thing...

Why should you be entitled to post lies on Youtube?

There are dozens of competing platforms that will let you post these things, you actually don't even have to start your own...

It's not a non sequitur. Freedom of speech is not the same thing as a (nonexistent) right to post whatever you want on a private platform regardless of the consequences for others or for the platform itself.

I never said it's not censorship. You can post links on a number of competing services (or start your own), therefore statements like

“A group of unknown people at a technology corporation should be the ultimate authority on what I’m allowed to say, read, or share with my friends.”

are the real non sequiturs.

So newspapers should be compelled to print every letter they receive?

They're private platforms. You can send those links via many other routes which would be legally protected speech.

They're not banning all allegations of fraud. They're blocking a specific set of claims that have been shown to be false, for instance that Donald Trump won the 2020 US election.

> “A group of unknown people at a technology corporation should be the ultimate authority on what I’m allowed to say, read, or share with my friends.”

Literally nobody is suggesting this.

It's about freedom of Reach, not freedom of speech.

No, you're misinformed. The (Federal) Supreme Court rejected the Pennsylvania case unanimously.