> That I can't meaningfully defend someone's ability to discuss their ideas with other willing participants if I don't actually agree with the content of their message?
Not exactly. The implication is that it is all you can do. You have to wrap up all this hateful content and cover it in a blanket of "free speech" so that it is palatable for you to defend. There is no defending the actual content, just the abstract idea that should be allowed to be said.
Forgive me for not making my context clear in the original comment. I believe every human has value, I believe producing hateful content diminishes that value, and is not a productive activity.
I'm not sure what to say about the last bit of your comment. My opinion certainly doesn't matter. The legal rights of the companies' that are being asked to host this content is what matters. In section 2.6.7 and 2.7 of Zayo's Acceptable Use policy, they use open ended language so they can express their right to control what customers they do business with.
It's lovely of you to suggest that I'm "too far gone". That me, or people like me, might actually be the issue here. I suppose it's one of your only options at this point? What are you going to do? Actually defend the "legally discussed" content at the heart of this conversation?
I certainly believe that racist and homophobic content has absolutely zero value, and the people that produce it are diminishing their own self-worth. I believe spending your finite existence to disparage others for things they can't control is not a worthy use of time.
If that is the definition of too far gone, then I'm happy to be here.
The internet is certainly built on "peering" relationships. So when someone finds out that you host a website where you spray your "white replacement theories", or your forum members spend a near decade documenting and mocking the existence of dozens of human beings.
You shouldn't be surprised when people don't want to be in a relationship with you anymore, or do business with you anymore.
Yet another chapter in these pathetic cry-bullies' lives. What a waste of your life to be so dedicated to "defending" a forum to meticulously document and mock the existence of people that they find distasteful.
To pretend this is a crusade for free speech is laughable.
The Shopify CEO is going to be pretty disappointed when he finds out all of those diamonds are actually just npm audit fixes, dramatically out of date packages, and strange platform specific behavior regardless of the "write once, run everywhere" tagline.
This is true, the only reason I noted the LTE was because this gives me access to my entire Apple Music library on the go. Perfect for the indecisive listener like me! :)
My previous watch that I used prior to buying the Apple Watch was a Garmin Vivoactive, which I used for marathons and 2 50K trail runs. It never came close to killing the battery on any individual run that's about ~6 hours of continuous GPS usage.
On top of that during a normal week of milage (~50miles) I would only take it off to charge once after my Saturday long run.
Regardless my point was more that I consider that solar technology to be much more deserving of the title of "innovative" regardless of it's performance (things get better over iteration) than an "always on display" something that all of my Garmin watches I've owned over the last decade have done.
This is a big let down for me. I love endurance sports and currently use a S3+LTE with bluetooth headphones and it's the perfect running companion. I don't have to carry anything to track to run and listen to my music, podcasts, or audiobooks.
But I was really expecting more innovation from the "by innovation only" event. Garmin's flagship watch has a feature that extends the battery life by embedded TWO SOLAR PANELS into the display. That is innovation.