jfindper

You can have the book at school, but the school library won't have it.

False.

The books on this list are not considered banned because of decisions made by a librarian figuring out how to fill their limited space.

Even if the librarian (or in some cases, even if the school district) wants to place the book on the shelves, they are not allowed to.

The school won't kick you out for having the book, but they won't buy it.

You keep saying this all over this thread, can you please tell me how you are reaching this conclusion?

I have linked you to at least one entire state (covering 40+ school districts) where what you are saying is completely false.

Typically, if a school bans something, it also means that the children are not allowed to bring the banned thing onto the school premises.

You can have it with you, but it won't be available in the school library.

No, they are "prohibited in the school setting". You cannot bring it with you.

Yeah this is a strange way to define "banned books".

Pen clearly defines what they consider a ban. Hustler would not meet the definition (hint: it's not because its a magazine).

We're talking about an article titled "The Most Banned Books _in U.S. Schools_", I thought the "in U.S. schools" part provided the context, but I suppose not.

There's state-level law saying it's illegal to own or read some books on this list?

Sorry, I'll edit my comment to be more clear. It is illegal for school libraries to stock it, even if they (teachers, the district, the parents, etc.) want it to be carried.

As a reminder for readers, the title of the article contains "in U.S. schools". It is probably a safe assumption to use that context for the comments in this thread.

Which books and which law?

The one I was referring to:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2024/08/02/utah-book-b...

"The law, which went into effect July 1, requires that a book be removed from all public schools in the state if at least three school districts (or at least two school districts and five charter schools) determine it amounts to “objective sensitive material”"

It seems like there may be more similar laws, per sibling comment.

Aren't there other books that are banned for legitimate reasons like hate speech and racial hate that aren't included here?

I don't know, and I'm not sure how it is related to my comment. I did not create the list in the article and I don't maintain any other list of banned books.

I find the dishonesty really off-putting. None of these books are "banned". School libraries don't stock them, they might be removed from curricula, but they are not "banned"

You can look into it, if you're curious! Some of these books are indeed banned from schools (even if they want to stock it!), by state-level law no less! It's not a curation choice.

A ‘banned book’ is one that you are not allowed to own by the State.

Your school not stocking books you want is not a ban. It’s the prerogative of the institution to choose how it shapes minds.

At least some of these books are banned from schools by state-level law, not because the school district chose to not stock it.

There is a part of me seriously considering making a bookshelf dedicated to all of these banned books.

My local bookstore proudly features a table of "banned books" right at the entrance. It's a pretty good advertisement!

The fun thing about the computer fraud and abuse act is that just about anything can be made into a federal crime with it!

You say your mornings are sacred now; before you made the change did you treat your nights as sacred? Do you think you were always a "morning person", but didn't/couldn't realize it?

Not specific to your comment here, but speaking more generally: I always found it sort of interesting how "morning people" are typically thought of as more productive, less lazy, etc. than "night people". If you say you wake up every morning at 5am people are impressed and assume you are highly motivated, but if you tell people you go to bed at 3am every day people assume you're lazy and maybe depressed. Yet everyone has roughly the same amount of waking hours -- the only thing that should matter is what you're doing with them, not when you have them.

I'm just pointing out that it's weird to say you changed it for length reasons if you make the new title the same length.

Super weird to call me out and make a strawman of my comment in a place I'm less likely to see it.

wanted to have a more positive framing showing the original post really did make decent points

I didn't even criticize this article! I made a meta-comment on the overall discussion, across several platforms, where I said _some_ of the conversation is hyperbolic.

The thing is, you can do the same statistics without including the user's email address or otherwise directly linking a data point to a specific person.

They may need to retain certain information for laws, but they aren't obligated by law to also share that information with their analytics partners.

Both for length reasons

The original title is 75 characters. Your title is 74 characters. If it was edited for length reasons, I'm not sure saving 1 character is worth it.

tomhow is the other one, and evidently the one who changed the title. apparently for "clickbait" and "length".

ShinyHunters

I had an inkling! They've been on a roll this past year or so.

This data includes a PornHub Premium member's email address, activity type, location, video URL, video name, keywords associated with the video, and the time the event occurred.

Well, that's pretty fucking wild! Email address & time and location sent to a 3rd party, nice! Absolutely no reason for that, of course. Especially considering these are paying customers!

I guess somewhat notably is Mixpanel denying that it's coming from their November breach. They have less incentive to lie in this case, given that they've already admitted to being breached, and (presumably) their systems & logs have been gone over with a fine-toothed comb to identify all affected parties:

"The data was last accessed by a legitimate employee account at Pornhub’s parent company in 2023. If this data is in the hands of an unauthorized party, we do not believe that is the result of a security incident at Mixpanel."

No, it's a calculated marketing, not them being honest.

It's obviously marketing. But their marketing strategy appears to be being unashamed about ripping off content and creating bot farms.

What are you suggesting they are lying about? They're actually doing it for the good of the world and just pretending they're a bot farm for hire?

Same, but it wasn't made in reply to my comment for some reason, so I want to be sure!

Attempts to characterize the above as hyperbolic probably stem from a mismatch in culture.

Before I respond, can I confirm whether this supposed to be addressed at my comment?

"never pay a human again."

"Take proven content and spawn variation."

It's almost refreshing how unashamed they are. I hate it, obviously, but I kind of like it better than companies that say something dressed up in marketing speak but actually mean what this site just says outright.

Genuinely, it's nice that Mozilla's user base is so passionate! There's three multi-hundred-comment submissions in the top 50 posts of HN in just the last 24 hours.

I just wish some of the conversation wasn't so hyperbolic. For anyone not as passionate who may have been on the fence about Firefox before reading all of the blogs, news articles, comments, tweets, etc., they sure as hell aren't going to make the switch now. Ironically, the death knell for Firefox might not be from the new CEO, but from the users convincing everyone to stay on Chrome.

I don’t need a media literacy class to recognize that he didn’t say the thing that you said he did.

If your first comment wasn’t a lie, and instead talked about how you think that he’s putting out feelers, I wouldn’t have commented. But instead, you made stuff up and that’s weird.

But I don't understand the huge backlash in all the comments yesterday.

Well, it was an excuse to get the pitchforks out! We love to do that around here. Especially if I can say "AI", "slop", "crypto", "MBA", etc.

[...] said in an interview that he'd consider blocking uBlock Origin [...]

God, people are so weird. Why make stuff up?

No, in fact, he said the opposite. He said he doesn't want to do that because it feels "off-mission".

Whether he changes his tune in the future or not is up for debate, but come on. Lets not skip right to the pitchfork stage just yet.

Thanks for sharing, that's something I can probably draw some inspiration from. I never really thought about how often I reach to youtube to kill time, including putting something on when heading to sleep.

What are some examples of thin desires you've removed?

Don't need to be rational all the time for your whole life. Sometimes you just want an extra sandwich.

Many of my most memorable moments stem from from a bout of irrationality.