Very interesting. How resistant would this be for hosting legal but controversial stuff? And what's to stop the peergos.me from dropping the said controversial subdomain?
Especially the part about "Rule of Thumb for Running Mail Server on a New IP Address
When you run a mail server on a new IP address, you should not use this IP address to send newsletters (aka marketing emails) right away. Instead, you should use this IP address to send transactional emails for a period of time to improve the reputation.
You may also want to use SMTP relay to send emails for a few days because SMTP relay services have a high IP reputation. After that, send emails directly to the familiar recipients."
> After that, pricing starts at $25 per month for up to 15,000 requests.
This is very expensive for any decent usage. I have used tools like metascraper for this purpose and it worked pretty well. Setup just requires throwing a tiny nodejs app on a raspberry pi or $5 server and that can handle tons of requests.
CTH is one place which never puts out any info without hard evidence to the documents which prove their case. Somehow that's not acceptable now a days. And despite this, there will still be people who will claim there's no censorship of conservative voices.
Are there any examples when big tech has "made a mistake" or "banned" someone on the lefty leaning side by mistake? I have countless examples of right leaning views get banned and censored "by mistake". When mistakes always happen to one side, the right loses faith in the system.
Simply pointing out a couple executives being republican doesn't have anything of value. This isn't about democrat vs republican. This is about democrats + RINOs vs Trump supporters. Having people like Mitt Romney or John McCain type republicans is of no value. Vast majority of Trump supporters dislike them.
I will give a couple examples - the Biden campaign keeps tweeting the same lie again and again about Trump not condemning white nationalists at the Charlottesville incident. This is an easily verifiable lie. Yet twitter nor Facebook ever marks this as "debunked".
Another example - In October 2016 and October 2020, NYTimes put out articles claiming to have the tax data for Trump. They didn't disclose any sources, nor was it verified. And if the data they had was correct, they obtained it illegally. Yet Twitter nor Facebook banned this on their platform.
Another example - last week, media ran stories with secretly recorded audio of Melania Trump. This wasn't banned either.
Here's an example from a few hour ago where FB deleted a post and restricted monetization by BabylonBee (satire) for "violating our Community Standards.":
Yet these platforms are now claiming the NYPost story cannot be allowed because it's "hacked" data. It's not hacked data plus even if it was, they don't apply the same standard to news which might hurt Trump.
As for not being able to comment on the same thread, if that's the case, then this is a very poor UX. Not being able to interact at all (I wasn't able to for at least a day) on a topic you are passionate about makes the site pointless.
EDIT:
It's strange how someone seems to be monitoring this 3 day old post on HN and flagging and downvoting my comments instantly.
It goes much before that. Isikoff met Steele on Sept 22, 2016, and published a story about Carter Page the next day. He didn’t verify a thing. All he did was get an anon government official to say FBI had the dossier. And that kind of journalism happens all the time and never gets called out. The double standards are amazing.
EDIT: dang, I understand my political views don't align with vast majority of HN but me replying to correct false info keeps giving me this error on HN:
"You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks."
I think HN keeps turning into an echo chamber and any opposing view point on a specific political topic gets censored/throttled here too. How can you expect me to have a proper discussion when I am not even allowed to reply?
----
96% of the donations from Big Tech went to Democrats. This is a verifiable fact.
The first censorship of this story came from Facebook and the statement from them was this by Andy Stone, FB communications. Andy Stone is a former DCCC (DCCC: Committed to electing Democrats to the U.S. House of Representatives)
What gives you the impression that this is the case? Hunter Biden's receipts from the computer repair shop are public for this too. I think bias might be clouding your judgement.
EDIT: Because HN isn't even allowing me to reply to the comment by user heartbreak, I will just edit this here:
He was NOT impeached for bribing Ukraine into fabricating exactly this sort of story. He was impeached because the democrats didn't want Biden's crimes exposed. “When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime you’re being ruled by criminals” - Edward Snowden
The emails came from Hunter Biden’s laptop that he dropped off to get fixed. He never came back to get it therefore it became property of the shop. They spent money fixing it, waited for him to pick it up, he didn’t so by the terms of the agreement the shop owned it. All Hunter had to do is pay $85 and pick up his laptop. The NYT published illegally obtained tax returns of Trump. Why weren’t they censored?
It's not random YouTube videos. The videos are from 3 highly credentialed lawyers. Catherine Herridge is also a credentialed journalist for CBS News. Even NPR has reported this. Yet you call everything which doesn't fit your political narrative "conspiracy theory".
Her wikipedia literally states her occupation as "Independent journalist". You would rather believe a journalist who I have clearly exposed as lying and biased with proof. Good luck.
Using a random twitter account's narrative to "debunk" a well established lawyer for a 35 year military general and DOJ's declassified statements is not how things work in the judicial system.
That twitter account is blatantly lying and the replies seem to be coming from an echo chamber.
For example here's a couple statements easily verifiably wrong. The twitter account says:
> Stuff that was already public (tho she didn't admit that)
This is so easily probably wrong. The interview of the FBI agent Barnett by USAO Jeff Jenson is from September 17, 2020 which was declassified yesterday. How this twitter account claims "already public"??
> Stuff that proves Peter Strzok didn't have it in for Flynn
This is also so easily provable wrong. The FBI agent Barnett (who was one of the agents specifically assigned to the Special Counsel's team) specifically says in his interview:
"“Barnett believed the prosecution of Flynn by SCO was used as a means to ‘get TRUMP,'” the report of his interview concluded."
The source of the Steele Dossier was literally a Russian agent and was investigated from 2009-2011 until he fled from the country. FBI knew about it in December 2016 as revealed yesterday.
Clearly that twitter account is spreading misinformation for political reasons and the echo chamber members are buying it because it fits the political narrative.
So now you are justifying FBI's actions of threatening someone's son to coerce a guilty plea? Coercion into pleading guilty is what we all should be complaining about but seems like people are totally okay with it as long as it's against their political opponents which is disgusting.
I really don't think you are actually aware of the facts in this case (probably because you haven't read anything outside what the main stream media reports). I don't have the time to educate you on all the facts of such a long case. If you are really interested and in good faith, watch this playlist:
> "...the new disclosures demonstrate that Mueller’s prosecutors not only pressured Flynn with the possibility of indicting his son; they also secretly assured Flynn’s former counsel... that Flynn’s son would not be prosecuted if Flynn pleaded guilty. "
This is also more than a month old and a lot more facts have been released since then. Media simply not reporting them because it doesn't fit the narrative doesn't mean the facts aren't important.