zeusflight

> This is what people who don't live in a democracy don't understand.

> Again, sorry to disappoint people who don't live in a country with free expression

Oh! Please! Get off your high horse! It's tiring to see you pretending to be in some sort of democratic utopia. You are talking about countries which invaded other nations on very shaky grounds and left them under terrorist rule. And while the Khalistanis were getting a free reign, how much 'free speech' and 'free expression' were the indigenous people there allowed? From relocation of populations, to treatment of those who oppose oil sands mining and deforestation of heritage land, to residential school graves? The government supported cultural and literal genocide - by UN definitions. The freedoms that you are flexing about are applied selectively at best, and often misrepresented in cases like with the Khalistanis.

You're just deluding yourself with a grandeur and misguided western moral superiority complex. You might want to reflect on the humans rights records of your own country before lecturing others about free expression. You wouldn't be flexing here if you were one of those affected populations.

> not a top-down conspiracy theory from "Canada".

Canada is known to neglect very insidious activities due to political biases. In this case, it would have been easy to punish the perpetrators if it weren't for such biases. But again - keep deluding yourself.

> Again, sorry to disappoint people who don't live in a country with free expression, but that is exactly what that is.

Repeating falsehood doesn't make it correct. There is no definition of democracy and 'free expression' that tolerates separatism and violence in another country. Your condescending arguments are in very bad faith.

> I think we would have to first agree on what is the definition of "challenging the sovereignty of another nation", then whether allowing people to demonstrate for it is the same as challenging, then whether internal border/disputes qualify. And even if we agreed the most extreme version of each of these questions (which we wouldn't), I still would like to see a source for this claim. I don't think it's true?

I have given two examples of what is considered unacceptable. But you reject them under your self-defined standards that are not accepted internationally.

Ok then - I guess by your standards, the conspiracy that led to 9-11 in US was just an expression of 'free speech' in their country and that the same applies to Chinese interference in Canada.

> Agreed. And again, permissible under free speech. You don't have to like it.

Your 'free speech' has no limits. Hello! Real world doesn't work like that. It comes with consequences when it crosses a limit - when it affects the safety of others.

> If he was in the US, India would've never had the gall.

US for all its faults is not known to bend their political spine to separatists in another nation. (If you think Khalistanis are not terrorists and should be given full rights, have a look at your own government's list of terrorist entities). Heck! Even India's arch-rival Pakistan shows much more dignity in many of these matters. Canada on the other hand, is soon going to have a nice international label of being an offshore haven for separatists, saboteurs and terrorists. Enjoy your rep.

> You cannot lobby accusations of terrorism at someone, offer weak evidence, carry out no judicial examination,

Keep neglecting what is brewing in your backyard. Trust me, you will feel the consequences soon. At that time, remember all your 'free-speech' arguments here. If there is one thing Canada is well known for, it's for feeding snakes like these that come back later and bite.

>> advocating for basically secession and creation of a new country

> Let's be really precise. What you just said is absolutely something that everyone in a free democracy should be free to do as much as they want to their heart's content.

Let's be really precise. Democracy isn't a free ticket to do anything someone wants. And no democracy in the world tolerates challenges to their sovereignty and integrity. I'm seeing this trend of misrepresenting the meaning of democracy to justify international secessionist and often outright terrorist activities.

Canada has a terrible track record in dealing with Khalistani terrorist activities. The bombing of Air India flight 182 that killed 329 civilians in 1985 was planned and executed from Canada (this is proven). Yet, the perpetrators walked free with practically no conviction or punishment that suits the crime. There was a recent event in Brampton where the Khalistanis put up a pageant reenacting their assassination of a previous Indian prime minister. Despite protests from India, it was downplayed as under 'right to free speech' - simply neglecting the fact that challenging the sovereignty of another nation is considered as a terrorist act and not as free speech in the modern world. At the minimum, it's a challenge to human dignity. Canada has proven time and again that it has scant regards for sovereignty of India or even basic human dignity when it concerns Khalistanis.

> If he was convicted, then he should've been extradited.

That applies only if Canada follows the minimum standard of justice. Do you honestly believe that Canada was going to arrest or prosecute an alleged cinema bomber when it tolerates all the activities I mentioned above?

> I don't have a lot of faith in India's Hindu-Nationalist government's judgement of Sikh separatists.

Then don't. But judging the stance of the Canadian government doesn't require you to depend on the opinions of the Hindu nationalist government. Canada's own actions speak loud enough.

I'm against these sorts of extra-judicial killings. But let's not pretend that Canada is a saint of sorts in this case. Their argument about sovereignty is just plain hypocritical. All this could have been avoided if they had reigned in an activity that's considered evil anywhere in the world.

The legitimacy of an enterprise shouldn't be judged based on where it's allowed to happen - it should be the other way around. The two app stores should be designated as 'slave markets' for allowing this to persist for so long after being alerted. It's especially ironic that these companies are keen on deep invasion of privacy of regular citizens in the name of CSAM and terrorism. This is an exaggerated form of their 'Rules for you, none for me' attitude.

In addition, I object to the 'black market' terminology. Unlike the objections these companies have with 'master' on git - which doesn't have any relationship to slavery, black is an actual term related to a race that's misappropriated with a derogatory connotation.

I don't know what 'free' means for the project, but open source and 'free as in freedom' are not redundant these days. While open source is legally indistinguishable from free software, time has proven that open source software can be designed in non-free ways. Examples:

- Bloating codebase so much that it can't be audited, extended or forked easily

- Tightly controlling the development

- Open shims for opaque blobs

- Hiding documentation and troubleshooting information

Freedom is more about intent than definitions.

Dealing with Google's version of IMAP, CalDAV and CardDAV is with the standard that everyone else follows. Every single program (mbsync, offlineimap, vdirsyncer) needs a special section on how to configure for Google alone. It causes a lot of heartache when you try to migrate.

I have khal (calendar), khard (vcards) and todoman (todo on caldav) installed and use them occasionally. I mostly use my phone and thunderbird to manage contacts and calendars - so they don't find regular use. However, they all are really nice curses/cli tools if you live on the terminal. I don't have any complaints when I do use them. The biggest attraction though is vdirsyncer, a service used to synchronize CalDAV and CardDAV to a directory. Khal and others interface only with this directory and not directly with the server. Vdirsyncer allows you to easily backup and migrate your calendars and contacts between different servers. This is a huge relief if you consider how opaque and locked-in most calendar/contacts services are.

There is nothing in the plain OCSP that prevents the responder server from logging the request along with the originating IP. Any claims that a particular server doesn't do so is either just an assumption or based on trust alone. This is why OCSP-stapling is preferred against plain OCSP in browsers and also why plain OCSP can be disabled. In this particular case, trustd and other system daemons are known to skip VPN and firewall blocks - so it's mandatory information leak.

My understanding is that once the content creator file a counter notice, the hosting platform is off the hook and free to reinstate the content. Any further legal fight will be directly between the claimant and the creator, not involving the host at all. IANAL, so feel free to point out any mistakes in this take.

Now assuming the above to be true, YouTube has rejected a counter notice by the creator. What other reason exists for such a decision, than the commercial relationship between the two companies? This shows that content creators have no priority at all. The host is likely a willing partner in this abuse.

I was referring to attribution, not trademark claims. They can reuse the name (though unethical), but they can't avoid this part of the License:

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Where do you see the original copyright statement in this obvious derivative?

Edit: The FB developer has since replied and has agreed to attribution. I guess this complaint is resolved.

Open source != unpaid, uncredited work. That is just what corporations want it to be. In this case, it's a violation of the open source MIT license to remove the original copyright statement.