verroq

And this is for the FBI, why is Apple acting as the government’s proxy?

Why are you so scared of people being allowed to express their political power? Words and rhetoric is how it’s always been. Are you for censoring all political speech? Given the highly partisan nature of the censorship, difficult to not see it being politically motivated.

Taiwan (Republic of China) maintains a claim to territory currently occupied by the CCP (People’s republic of China). And vice versa for the CCP.

We are not talking about trump. We are talking about Apple, who is forcing other companies to censor their user’s speech and acting as judge and jury on what is acceptable.

This is just the same lame four excuses [0] to justify censorship and mass surveillance. Just replace terrorism with “inciting violence”.

Now the government doesn’t even need to get their hands dirty to censor the internet, private companies enforce it themselves with with impunity.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocal...

A screenshot from ngabbs is supposed to prove what exactly?

Not an argument.

Sure looks anti-competitive when Parler is deleted from all the app stores now doesn’t it? And we have people vocally calling for Cloudflare and AWS to deny them hosting services.

Yes but do you? When Twitter suspends your speech do you have a press office to get your word out? If they dare to do it to the president you think they have any reservations about censoring anyone else?

The relative strengths of the nations help to dictate the terms. Treaty of Nanking was signed after the defeat of the Qing army, you think the terms were favourable to the Qing Emperor?

    > For all the non-TSLA holders on HN (there are many) - is there a price at which you will admit TSLA is successful? And if not, what is the reasoning behind why you will forever see TSLA as unsuccessful? Thank you

China has always been an unequal playing ground for foreign companies. If you want Chinese money, then you get your local Chinese partner company and start the technology transfer.

It’s only fair Chinese companies in America receive some reciprocal treatment.

Then why wasn’t it used? Surely all these governments all have heard of apple/google’s superior solution. Reality undermines this argument.

And it’s a solution looking for a problem. No one wanted this. Not the people and not the government.

It doesn’t solve my problem because I will not use such an app, period.

It doesn’t solve the government’s objective of maximum data collection so they won’t use it.

The very idea of privacy conscious contact tracing is an oxymoron.

We’re trying to tell you that this would have happened anyway and contact tracing itself is just another instrument in the surveillance state.

If they can be forced to change whatever implementation they have by the government then it helps no one. It’s just giving them more information on top of all their existing data they already have on you.

Google and Apple will happily deliver all your information to the government when it becomes their legal obligation.

Are we so naive to believe that if only we adopted their “privacy conscious” solution, there won’t be less privacy focused solutions preferred by the government? Or that their solution won’t be forced to change to meet their legal requirements?

Malnourished people are more susceptible to disease? Shocking.

The local governments downplay anything and everything to not look bad so I don’t think that is a particularly strong claim.

Great way to dismiss the actual actual argument.

You think that people aren’t already hiding their views because of social consequences? And this is progress? You’d rather that people hid what they really think?

Your entire view handicapped by your inability to see past what is and what is not allowed by law. You seem to think that only legal methods, instead of social or cultural changes are the only way to encourage a culture that values the freedom of speech. You are too shortsighted to see that freedom of speech is both a cultural and legal concept. More importantly, by arguing legal semantics, you don’t seem to understand why freedom of speech is necessary at all. Freedom of speech is merely an implementation detail. Has it never occurred to you to ask “what problem is it trying to solve?”

The point is the lessons as a standardised tool work quite well in producing results.

The variation in results is much higher if you go off the well beaten path.

Secondly, if you think learning piano is comparable to programming or art then you are completely mistaken.

Edit- added here since HN doesn’t let you comment anymore if you get downvoted too much.

With programming, the feedback is immediate and accurate. You know if your code does compile. You know if your logic is bugged or if your algorithm is too inefficient. If the code you write doesn’t work, somebody can give you their code to bring you up to speed. This allows you to immediately address your issues.

With piano, (at least in the beginning) you are not qualified to judge if your hand position is right, if your posture won’t give your RSI in the long run, if you are even playing the right notes, if your rhythm is off, if you are reading the sheet music wrong, if your pedal is timing subtly off or if your legato is correct. You can practice for hours on playing the wrong thing. A teacher can help you get this stuff to get fixed. Secondly, unless you started ear training as a child you won’t ever be able to develop absolute pitch. Your ability to discern pitch and listen to the very music you are playing is already at a disadvantage. You’re basically blind and deaf and you have no idea what progress should look like apart from superficial judgments.

Let's not kid ourselves, the chances of any normal person learning by themselves without a teacher to any kind of mastery is zero. Most won't have to the drive to continue even after two weeks. "Starting" doesn't mean anything, anyone can "start". It's trivial to start.

The problem is that if you decide to continue you've already spent a year learning bad habits that could have been easily corrected if you had a teacher with you.

Usually we say vulnerabilities are 0-days instead of 0-day exploits.

I don't think your straw man of my argument is particularly in good faith.

Here's the issue, either you're advocating for something useless, or for the suppression of speech.

Incorrect. I'm pointing out your flawed argument where you somehow believe that "free speech" exists if there are social consequences for speaking. I provide a counter example where severe social consequences, effectively suppress speech.

As pointed out by another commenter on your post, freedom of speech is much more than the letter of the law. It is a much wider concept for exchanging ideas. Your claim that "not free from consequences" by the letter of the law while legally correct, is ironically, the polar opposite of what freedom of speech actually is.

They all begin as a zero day.

Lynching has always been a crime and that’s why nobody was lynched ever. The mob already has protection because their numbers. It is everyone but the mob that needs the protection.

What’s the point of this comment? Plenty of people unironically believe the earth is flat.

Censoring this article will give the anti-vaxx crowd all the ammo they want.