I personally know fifteen women who've been sexually harassed by you. Shame on hackernews dot com for giving you a platform, shame on your employer, shame on everyone around you.
>Two world wars later and we've decided that maybe Nationalism isn't such a great thing
The states that brought Germany down in both world wars were just as nationalistic at the time. Even the commies brought it back when they needed it the most - and it worked.
Also, since the country in question here is India - without nationalism, they would still be a colony.
This is exactly what's going to happen, not just with PWAs but with all websites. The mechanism ("Google Safe Browsing") is in place, precedents are being set, the number of hysterical ideologues who will support that is growing.
But on the bright side, I think if it was Mozilla with 90% of the browser market and not Google, this would've happened already.
Trying to wave away this debate by just shouting “RACIST! NAZI!” contributes nothing meaningful to a debate that is sorely missing from society.
Edit: why is this controversial and the post I'm replying to not? We both advocate the exact same thing: to abolish a founding principle of western civilization because sometimes people die. Hell, there's even a quite large disparity between the number of deaths caused by those two principles - my argument has way more merit.
I'd really love to see why these two cases are totally different and incomparable. Three paragraphs of mental gymnastics or less though, please!
I wholeheartedly agree. Private companies should be free of regulation and be free to do whatever they want, like refusing service to whoever they want - nazis, flat-earthers, homosexuals, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, blacks, etc.
I'm wondering if you're implying that there's something wrong with having such a preference though. You have provided some interesting statistics, would you mind if I did so as well?
Oh reeeeeeeeeeally? You didn't think it was "needed"?
>Hate speech in the United States is not regulated due to the robust right to free speech found in the American Constitution.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.
>The only slippery slope to be considered here is 'what is considered hate speech?'
And who exactly gets to decide what is considered racism? It is an open secret that current definition used by the people in the media, academia and those who decide the policy of social media and other platforms, does not apply equally to all people.
Enter reddit's new content policy, that was as far as I know the only time those unwritten rules got written:
>"While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate."
This bit got okayed by a lot of people before it was published. And after it was, and have received A LOT of backlash, this rule went back to being unwritten. But rest assured that it is still there, and on every other major social media platform too. Because if it wasn't, the hordes of rabid identarians that thrive on reddit and twitter would have to be acknowledged.
EDIT: this comment, like the other two that brought this up, will end up [dead] within minutes.
It is a very widely accepted notion (among everyone who matters) that ethnostates have no place in the modern world. Hell, it is nearly as universally accepted that the very concept of "ethnicity" is problematic.
So why should it not be applied in these cases? Why do some groups deserve their own land, but others don't? Either we all do or nobody does.
I suppose you have similar concerns about men occupying the overwhelming majority of physically taxing and hazardous jobs, correct? Obviously, we both know there are no intrinsic differences between men and women, so this is a great injustice that women's representation among miners, construction workers, metalworkers, truckers, heavy machinery operators, fishermen, foresters, waster disposal workers, and so on, is virtually nonexistent.
And of course you find it outrageous that in the entirety of Asia, Africa and Middle East, white people constitute nonexistent percentage of the population, and there are virtually no white men in the positions of power there.
If you think very carefully about Mozilla, you'll realize that they're controlled opposition on a short leash, with almost the entirety of their revenue coming from Google. Guess nobody should be working there either, huh?
>If you don’t believe that “social justice” is good
I don't believe your definition of "justice" is good, and I don't believe that the people who had attempted to implement your ideology in practice brought any good to the people they've promised that justice to.
- suggesting that Amazon is passing over better qualified minorities in favor of less qualified white men?
- bemoaning that Amazon is passing over less qualified minorities in favor of better qualified white men?
I mean, I already know the answer, as does everyone else who is paying any attention to the shift in the narrative, but I just want you to remind everyone else that meritocracy is fascism and people should be judged - accepted into universities, hired, and promoted, not by the content of their character, but by the color of their skin.
'Amazon' is an _English_ translation of a _Greek_ name given to an _Eurasian_ tribe. What claim do _South American_ nations have for it?
I loathe to defend Amazon and ICANN of all the fucking things, but come on now. There are plenty of reasons to shit on these two, but not this nonsense. 'Illegal', lmao.