We punish people for saying the truth. In Germany we fined a man for calling a fat politician fat. Which she definitely is, morbidly so. Stuff like that.
A bigger issue than the fine (which Much didn't have to pay because he won in court) is that the police thought it was a swell idea to search his house.
The fine was wrong, too, and the amount (6000€!) was absurd.
She should have challenged him to a duel instead. That would have been a lot more fair than mobilizing the state to fight battles that should never have been fought AND it would have put the risk where it should have been, namely on her shoulders (and stomach and thighs) instead of on his.
The German police thought it was within its rights to demand that a foreign social media platform hand over identifying information on a user that apparently called her "well-rounded" in a less polite manner.
I don't think the German police should search citizen's houses or demand identifying information about people who say things that aren't nice (but true).
I should be able to disagree publicly with the authorities on most issues without fear of prosecution or having my views suppressed online. That is a basic principle of democracy.
We also shouldn't have to use personal ID to get online, but that is all being emplaced as we speak.
I'm more interested in how moderators react to such accounts. There are a couple accounts that do stuff like that, but somehow they are always "just on the line" somehow without crossing it (in the eyes of moderators). Essentially saying "kill all {insert race}" is bannable, but what this person is doing (continuously) is all good.
I think that the difference may be whether the comment portrays the person as the cat or the mouse, or an ally to either.
For instance: the recent thread on student protests in Iran which last I checked (before the discussion propelled the actual submission off of the front page) was teeming with tacit appeals for foreign intervention, plausibly by the most vocal critics of the most likely interventionists.
Maybe not the best example for you. But I think it’s a matter of context. A comment is censurable on HN according to how it appears in relation to its more dominate and/or more well-received siblings.
It also may help to consider submissions here as belonging to something like a decentralized subreddits; drawing crowds all familiar with an approved narratives to convene around, for or against respectively. The trick may be to strategically posit your offensive remarks where they’re least likely to be received as such.
I can’t help but feel like you’re drawing this freedom along arbitrary limits. If something is subject to whether it’s popular shouldn’t there be forces who influence that?
>I can’t help but feel like you’re drawing this freedom along arbitrary limits
I'm not. Saying that freedom of speech is for unpopular opinions doesn't imply it only protects unpopular opinions, any more than saying that wheelchair ramps are for wheelchairs doesn't imply only wheelchair people can use it.
If we’re discussing wheelchair ramps we are going to default to matters related to people in wheelchairs first because they are who the ramps are for.
Whether a person is in a wheelchair and the access that wheelchair ramps are meant to provide them is seldom arbitrary. Is it not? For example, there are comprehensive laws in the US that regulate them.
You said freedom of speech is exactly what unpopular opinions are for. What do you mean? If popularity isn’t subject to the arbitrary whims of people then how is it determined?
Can popularity be regulated like wheelchair accessibility? If so then how is it anything but inevitable that someone’s freedom of speech will be restricted depending on the nature of the law.
>Whether a person is in a wheelchair and the access that wheelchair ramps are meant to provide them is seldom arbitrary. Is it not? For example, there are comprehensive laws in the US that regulate them.
There's also comprehensive case law on what is first amendment protected speech, but how "comprehensive" the relevant regulations are is irrelevant to my point. Despite regulations clearly intending wheelchair ramps to be used by people in wheelchairs, anyone can use them. We don't ask "how is a wheelchair user determined" or whatever.
> We don't ask "how is a wheelchair user determined" or whatever.
Because it’s obvious who’s in a wheelchair and who isn’t.
Why does it appear difficult for you to explain un/popularity with regard to free speech though?
If you want to make the point that popularity could be determined by case law then that sounds fair, I mean it’s an idea I would look into myself at least. But you’ve already deemed that to be irrelevant to your own point. It’s like you shot yourself in the foot. I appreciate the assistance though.
It's pretty bloated and slow compared to alternatives. This may improve if WasmGC gets integrated instead of part of the payload, but it's still not a great solution, especially on constrained devices. The flip side, is running in server mode means the laggy round trip actions that feel somewhat painful in contrast, reminding me of ASP.Net WebForms and how painful that was in practice.
Maybe replacing containers...I had a better developer experience and a better overall quality of life when I deployed war files into a servelet container (tomcat). I wasn't patching operating system vulnerabilities across a jagged sea of micro service images or patching vendor supplied images either (literally had to do that with Kafka). I deployed a fucking war file. That's it. And I'd also imagine that a WASM module\app would have a much snappier start time without having to lug around the overhead of a container...And "Alpine Linux" can go ahead and kiss my ass (no offense).
Civil engineering in general is more advanced in Europe. The oil crisis in the 1970 and the subsequent use of thermal insulation made "Bauphysik" (building physics) an integral part of the planing process. In the US you just rely on more heating/cooling power instead.
Just as an example: >=16cm thermal insulation + heat pump or solar thermal energy + double or triple pane windows have been standard for new single family homes since at least 2005 in Austria.
I'm a German speaker and even though I understand the difference, the word makes me struggle each time and I have to figure out whether en-shittification or de-shittification is meant.
reply