gian

Why not ? Even Linux started as a personal fun project. Let’s see where it will go

And I agree. But it seems that you still don’t understand how dangerous is to go after the platform instead of the authors of the messages.

But let’s suppose that it is correct to go after the platform, so this time the offending content is removed. Fine, good thing.

Next month 174 authors ask to remove everything about the right to have an abortion because they are offended by it and they think that it is wrong (and in some place it is even illegal), what do you think should happen?

If it is illegal then I am sure that a judge should not have any problem to order substack to remove the posts.

You are making a case where there is somenthing illegal going on, if the law do not protect you, it is the law that is wrong, not someone doing something lawful (but morally wrong for other people)

You are arguing that newspapers should discuss NAZI ideals as if they are as valid as any other. No one decent agrees with you.

Nope, I am arguing that if something is not illegal it is not up to the platform to censor it.

If that 200 authors asked a judge to command substack to remove the post, then good.

If you decide that today is good that a platform censor something, (and I agree that nazis are not that nice thing to even consider to discuss) then tomorrow you cannot protest that a platform remove something that you consider good.

Like Meta removing all the pro palestinian post/propaganda: is it acceptable that it is Meta to decide that even if it is not illegal?

Free speech is absolute, and it include even what we hate.

Your analogy is false

And why ? Just because I pointed out a scenario that do not imply a clearly illegal situation like yours ?

but yes if you are pro-forced birth you should not profit from pro-choice groups. Personal integrity is important and while I very much don’t agree with the forced birth crowd I am willing to pretend that some of them are sincere.

You are right from a a personal perspective, I as a person must have personal integrity.
But a platform ? Should not be the duty of a platform to carry both points of view and let the reader to decide what is wrong or what is good ?

Should a newspaper not talk about something because some readers don’t agree with it ? Because that is what you are saying: what I think is true and good while what they think is wrong and bad, and so they need to be removed.

Not that yours is so much better. Imagine replacing “nazis” with “pro-choice”, still sure the platform should remove the contents ?

I don’t said they are on the same level.
I simply said that if you define a platform as “nazi” because they serve a nazi then you can define the same platform as “whatever” because they serve whatever.

They are also knowingly serving many other categories, so ? They are both democrats and republican, nazis and pro-israel and whatever other “category” uses them to publish artices ?

Nope, as far as I know only a couple of countries has explict laws againt Nazi (Germany obviously and Italy to some extend).

But in the end it will be the person to be persecuted if any crime is committed, not the medium.
Nobody in Italy think to punish or boycott a company just because the mafia is using and paying the company’s products or services.

The issue is: Once you serve a Nazi in your bar, you become a Nazi bar.

So if a Nazi buy [a service] then the [service offerer] is a Nazi.

So every [service offerer] in the world is probably Nazi, since probably every [service offerer] in the world has at least a Nazi customer.

Interesting approach, now what we should do about all these Nazi [service offerer] ?

True, but in time they will be able to sell only in the US as their cars will not be allowed anywhere else. So if they will want to compete outside US, they will need two lines of the same products. Then they will realize that it will be less expensive to keep only the one that can sell in more places.
If they have not failed in the meantime.

Ever tried to read the Apple privacy policy ?

You need something to do while you are charging the batteries… ;-P

Apple doesn’t and they take their security seriously. Feds are always crying about how hard it is to break into iphones, telcos are complaining how apple protects it’s users (because telcos have an interest in monetizing those apple users), and the payouts for finding security vulnerabilities for apple products are very high.

This only means that Apple don’t allow anyone else to do it, not that Apple itself does not do it.

Oh well… if you have kids in the back seats and a long travel it would not seems too insane

Every brand isn’t evangelized in the same way the cult of Elon pushed their golden goose.

Maybe, but ask an Alfa Romeo fans about the brand… they are way worse than the Tesla fans… 😉

They’re run of the mill or worse than industry averages.

Look, I can tell way worse things about Renault if I look at how my car came out, so ? And I would concede that Tesla is pretty new to mass producted cars. During the years I found many quality problems also with brand that are even more evangelized and have a way longer history.

Couple this with the ridiculous price point on the vehicles and you have apple cars so to that point I can understand the delusional obsession with the brand and supporting it

In Italy, a couple of models (Y and 3) are pretty much aligned with other brand’s cars of the same category, so they don’t seems to be that expensive. Or the other brands are too expensive.

Which is basically true for every brand, not only Tesla.

You can’t have both privacy and protection from illegal media and communication.

as most of these guys getting arrested are around the age and are registered pedo

I think Australia has also another problem: they are registered pedo, so I suppose they are guilty of at least a past offense, why on earth should they be able to be outside a jail ?

A possible answer is because the creators that have their own sponsors in their videos want the view even if you don’t see the Google ads, so Google on one hand want you to watch their ads while on the other hand cannot afford to really lose you since that would reflects on the creators and then if a creator leave for another platform (a big if, I agree) Google lose all the traffic generated by said creator, both who use an adblocker and who don’t use an adblocker.