> It doesn't matter in practice if the content is still accessible when the browser tells people that accessing it is dangerous.
It certainly does matter. There's a fundamental different between people being discouraged from accessing a website, and said website being completely inaccessible.
I was referring specifically to the author's claim that deprecating HTTP and displaying a warning to users is the equivalent of "rendering large parts of the web inaccessible" and "massive book burning".
> As of now, text rendering methods are missing and for security reasons you cannot read back pixels from the canvas.
Does anyone have an idea as to what those reasons might be? I've heard of JavaScript access to certain CSS features being limited (e.g. getComputedStyle()), but I'm not sure what the benefit is here. Is there any way that user information could be leaked through a paint worklet context?
The idea behind my script is that the URL is encoding the unix time of the first visit to that URL. By starting at the current time and working backwards, the first HTTP 200 you come across should be the current page.
> Look, things like murder or pedophilia are unabigiously evil
If by 'murder' you mean 'unjustified killing', then that's trivially true. If, on the other hand, you just mean 'killing', then it's far from obvious that killing is 'unambiguously evil' (self-defense comes to mind).
> I feel like society, at least a larger portion of it, understood this in the past. Your creating taboos. Things we don't dare talk about or explore because we fear having our lives destroyed by twitter lynch mobs and the like.
Harassment on social media is certainly an issue, but it's ridiculous to describe 'people criticizing me on the Internet for what I say' to 'censorship'.
> But what you actually want to do is knowing as "mobbing" in Europe and it's generally illegal (at least in some countries)
No, what I 'actually want to do' is allow people to chose which companies to purchase from, and to allow them to advocate for others doing the same. What exactly do you mean by 'mobbing'?
> If your paper was critical of the Fuhrer brown shirts would storm in, trash the place and assualt people
Are you really going to compare online speech to physical violence?
> Live and let live. There are people out there with different views than you. Some of those views might be down right offensive if you really thought about it.
How do you determine which of those are 'unambiguously evil'?
> You don't find it bad that a bunch of people, based on their own non-objective oppinion
What is an 'objective opinion'?
> get to ruin someones business and/or career?
Are you saying that it's a bad idea for people to boycott businesses, or that boycotting businesses shouldn't be allowed? If it's the former, how do you distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' reasons to refrain from purchasing from a business? If it's the latter, what would that even mean? Should people be forced to buy from a particular company?
> I feel like I'm talking to a Hitler youth right now
If calling someone unethical is "shutting down a conversation", what is comparing someone to the Hitler youth?
> Which is not what we're talking about. Only in your own mind. But here is the issue again, as soon as you decide, on your own, that something is "harmful" for however you decide that, now you get to do whatever you want.
As opposed to (objectively?) determining if something is 'objectively unethical'?
> I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco. I didn’t feel completely comfortable—this was China, after all—just more comfortable than at home.
> Restricting speech leads to restricting ideas and therefore restricted innovation—the most successful societies have generally been the most open ones
There's quite a difference between 'I feel uncomfortable discussing topic X in location Y' and 'location Y is restricting speech'. The only concrete example in the article of the former is a 'toxic reaction' to work in 'intelligence augmentation, genetic engineering, and radical life extension'.
What exactly does a 'toxic reaction' mean? Is there a meaningful distinction between it and 'strenuous debate about ideas'?
Based on the examples given, this article seems to hold 'mainstream' and 'heterodox' ideas to different standards. Criticism of mainstream ideas is (rightly) described as 'necessary to get the really good ideas', 'what drives the world forward', etc. Criticism of heterodox ideas, on the other hand, is a 'restriction of speech' and a 'toxic reaction'.
I wish that Altman had provided more a single example (the reaction to 'intelligence augmentation, genetic engineering, and radical life extension') instead of vague references to 'controversial ideas', 'casting the people behind the ideas as heretics', and 'heresy.
> R3.1.1.
Must Only Be Used for Critical Service Notifications
> Additional Background: The system must only provide critical notifications, rather than trivial notifications. An example of a critical, non-trivial notification, which is also the primary motivation of this system, is to advise the user that their computer is infected with malware, that their security is at severe risk and/or has already been compromised, and that it is recommended that they take immediate, corrective action NOW.
Not only is Comcast trying to justify this awful practice, they picked one of the worst possible examples to do so. There is no set of circumstances under which a 'You have malware!' popup should be taken seriously.
What exactly is this referring to?