SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We've had multiple submissions on the confrontation in Charlottesville, Virginia between white supremacists and counter-protesters. We lead off with a submission about the altercation which culminated with a car driven into a crowd which left 1 person dead and 19 injured. Then we continue with GoDaddy informing dailystormer.com — a white supremacist web site which called for the rally — that they had 24 hours to find another registrar for their site. They signed up with Google's domain registration service. Now there are reports that Google, too, has dropped the registration.
This story could very well cause a lot of heat, but it is my hope we can look beyond the details of this particular situation and focus discussion on the overriding questions of freedom of speech/publication raised by one of the submitters and the implications it may lead to. This saying comes to mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Terrorism in Charlottesville: 1 Dead, 19 Injured
ProPublica reports:
Police Stood By As Mayhem Mounted in Charlottesville, Virginia
At about 10 a.m. [August 12], at one of countless such confrontations, an angry mob of white supremacists formed a battle line across from a group of counter-protesters, many of them older and gray-haired, who had gathered near a church parking lot. On command from their leader, the young men charged and pummeled their ideological foes with abandon. One woman was hurled to the pavement, and the blood from her bruised head was instantly visible.
Standing nearby, an assortment of Virginia State Police troopers and Charlottesville police wearing protective gear watched silently from behind an array of metal barricades--and did nothing.
[...] the white supremacists who flooded into the city's Emancipation Park--a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee sits in the center of the park--had spent months openly planning for war. The Daily Stormer, a popular neo-Nazi website, encouraged rally attendees to bring shields, pepper spray, and fascist flags and flagpoles. A prominent racist podcast told its listeners to come carrying guns.
[...] the white supremacists who showed up in Charlottesville did indeed come prepared for violence. Many wore helmets and carried clubs, medieval-looking round wooden shields, and rectangular plexiglass shields, similar to those used by riot police.
[...] The police did little to stop the bloodshed. Several times, a group of assault-rifle-toting militia members from New York State, wearing body armor and desert camo, played a more active role in breaking up fights.
[...] The skirmishes culminated in what appears to have been an act of domestic terrorism, with a driver ramming his car into a crowd of anti-racist activists on a busy downtown street, killing one and injuring 19 according to the latest information from city officials. Charlottesville authorities tonight reported that a 20-year-old Ohio man had been arrested and had been charged with murder.
[...] A good strategy, [said Miriam Krinsky, a former federal prosecutor who has worked on police reform efforts in Los Angeles], is to make clashes less likely by separating the two sides physically, with officers forming a barrier between them. "Create a human barrier so the flash points are reduced as quickly as possible."
GoDaddy Stomps 'Daily Stormer' -- Site Moves to Google
The Washington Post reports GoDaddy bans neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer for disparaging woman killed at Charlottesville rally:
After months of criticism that GoDaddy was providing a platform for hate speech, the Web hosting company announced late Sunday that it will no longer house the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that promotes white supremacist and white nationalist ideas.
[...] We informed The Daily Stormer that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service.
— GoDaddy (@GoDaddy) August 14, 2017
[...] In the Daily Stormer post[1], [Andrew] Angelin characterized [victim Heather] Heyer as dying in a "road rage incident." He said she was a "drain on society" and disparaged her appearance. "Most people are glad she is dead," he wrote.
"@GoDaddy you host The Daily Stormer — they posted this on their site," Twitter user Amy Siskind said in an appeal to the Web hosting company. "Please retweet if you think this hate should be taken down & banned."
[...] GoDaddy has previously said that the content, however "tasteless" and "ignorant," is protected by the First Amendment. The company told the Daily Beast in July that a Daily Stormer article threatening to "track down" the family members of CNN staffers did not violate Domains by Proxy's terms of service.
After the incidents in Charlottesville it seems GoDaddy have decided, one can gather from and after a massive amount of pressure, to no longer provide Domain name access to the Daily Stormer. While a private company is free to do whatever they like, I wonder if there will or might be further implications. I think the interesting question here isn't what happened in Charlottesville or what kind of stories they provide over at the Daily Stormer -- they might be or are a complete shitfest filled with neo-nazi-news for all I know. The interesting aspect is if companies should now monitor their customers, which it seems the Daily Stormer has been one for years, and ban or block customers that no longer align with company beliefs or that other customers find offensive. It seems the Daily Stormer has previously posted "tasteless" and "ignorant" stories that one can only assume have not aligned with GoDaddy policy or Terms of Service, but this one was somehow over the line and the straw that broke the camel's back?
I'm fairly sure the Daily Stormer won't be knocked offline or anything, there will always be someone willing to host them somewhere. So today they try to knock a neo-nazi site offline, I doubt many people will lose any sleep over that, but who is going to be next? Is this part of the ramping up of the current online-twitter-socialweb-culture? Is there a slippery slope here?
Google Domains, GoDaddy blacklist white supremacist site Daily Stormer
Ars Technica is reporting that Google Domains and GoDaddy have blacklisted white supremacist site Daily Stormer:
The article prompted a response from the site's domain registrar, GoDaddy. "We informed The Daily Stormer that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service," GoDaddy wrote in a tweet late Sunday night.
On Monday, the Daily Stormer switched its registration to Google's domain service. Within hours, Google announced a cancellation of its own. "We are cancelling Daily Stormer's registration with Google Domains for violating our terms of service," the company wrote in an statement emailed to Ars.
[...] A lot of outlets covering this controversy described GoDaddy, somewhat misleadingly, as the Daily Stormer's hosting provider. But GoDaddy wasn't storing or distributing the content on the Daily Stormer website. It was the Daily Stormer's registrar, which is the company that handles registration of "dailystormer.com" in the domain name system, the global database that connects domain names like "arstechnica.com" to numeric IP addresses.
GoDaddy has faced pressure for months from anti-racist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League to drop the Daily Stormer as a customer. But until this weekend, GoDaddy resisted that pressure.
"GoDaddy doesn't host The Daily Stormer's content on its servers," the investigative site Reveal reported in May. "Because it provides only the domain name, the company says it has a higher standard for terminating service."
"We need to evaluate what level of effect we can actually have on the abuse that's actually going on," said Ben Butler, director of GoDaddy's digital crimes unit, in a May interview with Reveal. "As a domain name registrar, if we take the domain name down, that domain name stops working. But the content is still out there, live on a server connected to the Internet that can be reached via an IP address or forwarded from another domain name. The actual content is not something we can touch by turning on or off the domain name service."
But GoDaddy abruptly changed its stance on Sunday evening. What changed GoDaddy's mind? In a statement to Techcrunch, GoDaddy said: "given this latest article comes on the immediate heels of a violent act, we believe this type of article could incite additional violence, which violates our terms of service."
Reading GoDaddy's terms of service, this seems to support their stance that they could suspend the domain registration:
9. RESTRICTION OF SERVICES; RIGHT OF REFUSAL
[...] You agree that GoDaddy, in its sole discretion and without liability to you, may refuse to accept the registration of any domain name. GoDaddy also may in its sole discretion and without liability to you delete the registration of any domain name during the first thirty (30) days after registration has taken place. GoDaddy may also cancel the registration of a domain name, after thirty (30) days, if that name is being used, as determined by GoDaddy in its sole discretion, in association with spam or morally objectionable activities. Morally objectionable activities will include, but not be limited to:
- Activities prohibited by the laws of the United States and/or foreign territories in which you conduct business;
- Activities designed to encourage unlawful behavior by others, such as hate crimes, terrorism and child pornography; and
- Activities designed to harm or use unethically minors in any way.
As of the time of this being written, it appears that the Daily Stormer domain (dailystormer.com) is still being hosted by Google:
Domain Name: dailystormer.com
Registry Domain ID: 1787753602_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.google.com
Registrar URL: https://domains.google.com
Updated Date: 2017-08-14T14:51:45Z
Creation Date: 2013-03-20T22:43:18Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2020-03-20T22:43:18Z
Registrar: Google Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 895
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8772376466
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @11:06PM (101 children)
The obvious answer is SoylentNews, if this is the best the eds can do in response to violence by the enemies of the United States and Western Civilization. "Many sides"? False equivalency is not helpful in times like this. Instead, everyone needs to identify and prosecute these traitors who are aiding and abetting the ideology of the enemy, the Fascist Axis Powers. http://www.npr.org/2017/08/14/543418271/on-the-internet-everyone-knows-you-re-a-racist-twitter-account-ids-marchers [npr.org] https://twitter.com/hashtag/GoodNightAltRight?src=hash [twitter.com]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday August 14 2017, @11:46PM (74 children)
The problem is, who is right?
I agree: they are beyond my idea of free speech. I don't support their promoting death, etc, but define the line?
Is it wrong to promote science over religion (no, in my opinion)?
Silence 'mens rights'?
Silence 'womens rights'?
Bomb North Korea because the US military/media say they are evil, like they said Iraq had WMD?
Whos lies do you believe?
Who is right? Who is wrong?
Who has the right to SAY Who is right and who is wrong?
Half of me says the dailystormer site is crap and needs to be shut down, but again, where is the line? Where does it stop?
It's such a fine, fucked up line, but try to define the line. (For me, probably promotion of death/murder, but should I be the one to define it?)
(That said, their site is sad, funny and sickening: half horrible and half gay).
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday August 14 2017, @11:56PM (3 children)
I agree, but where do you define "beyond my idea"?
Google seems to be in the same tarpit at the moment.
That said, I hope the asshole that killed that woman never again sees the light of day. The clinching factor is when he put it in reverse and floored it, nevermind the people behind him. We're lucky only 1 person was killed.
Fuck this guy. Fuck him for the rest of his life. Don't rehabilitate him, don't even try. Just try to extend his life as long as possible, and make sure he knows he will never again get out of prison.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:33AM (2 children)
Let's assume for the briefest of moments that the car attack was actually a nonmalicious mistake (I don't believe that, but roll with me): if the driver had stayed put after crashing, there would almost certainly be at least one more person killed: the driver.
Attacks on car drivers - even absent any wrongdoing, is becoming common when mobs are involved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:03AM (1 child)
Well, I hope so. But not quickly. Maybe they could have put the Dodge in reverse, and backed over him a few times. No death is too bad or too slow for a racist. My apologies to his mother.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:08PM
Thank you for proving the grandparent's [soylentnews.org] point.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday August 14 2017, @11:57PM (39 children)
Everyone in the US has a right to say basically whatever they want (though of course direct incitement to violence can be prosecuted, etc.).
But no one has a *right* to force someone *else* to give them a podium to say it on.
If you want to spew a bunch of bullshit, you're always able to get yourself a soapbox and go stand on the street and rant and rave. Have fun with that. But no private company or entity has any responsibility to give you a place to spew your bile.
Half of me says the dailystormer site is crap and needs to be shut down
No one is "shutting down" this site. The domain registrar they used however has decided to cancel their service as it violates their ToS. The registrar has every right to refuse to do business with them. This is a basic tenet of free association: barring real evidence that a company is discriminating against a protected class, it has every right to refuse service to a potential customer. If I owned a domain registrar company, I wouldn't do business with these clowns either: I don't want my company's good name to be associated with them. But if they want to go to a completely public space and walk around with a sign saying the crap they put on their website, it's their right; the Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for such things.
Who is right? Who is wrong?
Who has the right to SAY Who is right and who is wrong?
It doesn't matter: it's completely irrelevant. This is a simple case of a business refusing to do business with a customer. Businesses have that right. If they wanted to deny service to someone because their personal website claimed that the Earth was spherical and not flat, and debunked flat-Earth claims, they have that right, even though only a complete retard would claim the Earth is flat; the business is allowed to be wrong, and to deny service to people who are objectively right. Domain registrars are not monopolies; there's absolutely no shortage of them out there, nor web hosting companies. (With ISPs, it gets to be a more complicated argument because they really are monopolies in many places.)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:11AM (5 children)
Registrars are private companies but their powers and rules are handed down to them by a quasi-governmental agency. That does make a difference in whether the governmental prohibitions come in to play. Ask any cop if he can pay a civilian to go perform an illegal search of someone's house and use the evidence in court.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:33AM (4 children)
It's true, as an industry subject to certain government regulation, there could be limits in how much they can pick and choose their customers. IANAL and definitely don't know anything about the rules that domain registrars operate under, so it's possible GoDaddy acted improperly here, but I kinda doubt it (they're a pretty sizeable company and I would think would know full well the legalities involved). But remember again, domain registrars are a dime a dozen; there's tons of them out there. Changing from one to another should only take a few minutes; it's not even like web hosting, where you need to copy all the data off before moving it to another provider. Domain registrars just put your website's name into the DNS system.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:46AM (3 children)
Yup. If I were wanting to host a US Nazi site, I'd register the domain name with an entirely different country's registrars and host it outside the borders as well. I think there's probably a market for a free speech registrar in the US though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:59AM (2 children)
Have you tried, . . . Germany? On the other hand, it seems all the trendy white supremacist these days are Russian (Trump!), which is strange since the Slavs are, after all, an inferior race.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:29AM (1 child)
Germany, unlike the US, is allowed to restrict political speech, and specifically bans Nazi symbols and pro-Nazi speeches. So they definitely would not have luck going to Germany.
There are plenty of totalitarian governments that would be happy to have money coming in from American Neo-Nazis though.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:26AM
No, it doesn't. It just has a much narrower definition of what constitutes "political speech". Two examples that differ between the US and Germany: nazism is classified as hate speech, and money is classified as tender.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:32AM (1 child)
No, I get this in theory and support it: freedom... Businesses/people have the freedom to say "I don't support this: you're gone!"
But just make sure freedom is supported.
"Linux is a cancer"
" People who use encryption are terrorists"
"If you're not with us, you're again' us"
There are too many stupid people in the world, with power to make decisions. If Bill Gates became President, would encryption and open source be a target to silence because TERRORISTS!!!!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:28AM
Don't forget here that GoDaddy is not even approaching monopoly status as a domain registrar. There's a zillion registrars out there, and lots outside the US too.
As for BillG, encryption is *already* a target to silence; haven't you seen what's going on in the UK with encryption? It was a big target here too during the Clinton years, with that whole Clipper Chip fiasco. (Given how close the 2000 election was, and the fact that it was the height of the dot-com boom, I wonder if Clinton's strong push for Clipper had any substantial effect in helping Gore lose.)
Anyway, I really don't get your point. Preventing internet businesses from refusing to do business with various undesirable groups or people isn't going to prevent a bad president from targeting open source and encryption.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:57AM (30 children)
"discriminating against a protected class"
Oh yeah - reverse discrimination is all good. There ARE protected classes, aren't there? Got it. So, racism is a monstrous offense against humanity if the racist is white, but racism is not racism if the racist is nonwhite. On and on it goes.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:10AM (5 children)
Truly you are an idiot Runaway. Tell us more about how you are "oppressed" because you are a White Protestant Male Cracker.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:23AM (3 children)
Pardon me, oh great all-knowing, and supremely wise pedarast, but surely the failure is your own. If you were half as smart as you seem to think that you are, you could explain to Runaway why he is an idiot, is such a manner that convinces him to change his ways.
In short, you're the fucking idiot.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:35AM (2 children)
Lord knows I've tried, as have many others! I have had students like this before, they are incapable of being educated, because they already know everything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:36AM (1 child)
... and failed. And given up while still flapping your noise hole equivalent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:10AM
I have it on confidential, that Runaway is a regular at the Turkish Bath in Texarkana! Can't say who told me, or what he does there, but just to let everyone know, Runaway is not what he presents himself to be. He is a two-faced, yellow-bellied, sap-sucking, Trump supporting by default, lying, Neo-confederate hornswaggler of the worst order, and a homosexual. Particularly with male goats. Sick! And Sad!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:57PM
I think you just demonstrated it with that comment.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:23AM (23 children)
You show yourself to be an idiot here. According to federal law, race is a protected class, and there's no exceptions: discriminating against someone solely because they're white is just as illegal as if they're black.
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:48AM (22 children)
You'd think so, wouldn't you? SCOTUS has said otherwise every time it's legalized Affirmative Action though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:52AM (21 children)
Nuance is lost on you... I wonder if Affirmative Action ever/does have any expiration clauses.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:56AM (20 children)
Nuance my ass. Affirmative Action is racial discrimination and racial discrimination is wrong. There are no good forms of racism.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:32AM (1 child)
Affirmative action is sold as encouraging diversity. I'm not sure how much to buy into that, but I did work somewhere once where more than half the employees were from a certain country and liked to speak their language together. That was pretty annoying to everyone else, and the problem was actually a lack of diversity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:21AM
Fucking Brits! Sus madres olían a bayas de saúco! And, they are racists, mostly.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:46AM (17 children)
AA is an aspirin for a tumor. One would rather have the aspirin if the only other choice is nothing, but AA is perilously close to being vacuous virtue-signalling.
And why is this? Because the problems start a hell of a lot earlier than college. I would, and do, argue that someone who is seriously interested in erasing racial disparities and working towards equality of opportunity (*not* outcome, which is by definition physically impossible) would fix the infrastructure and healthcare issues first.
Expecting people who grew up drinking lead-contaminated water and eating substandard food in dangerous neighborhoods with shit schools surrounded by violence with unstable family lives to prosper in college just because getting into it is made easier is somewhere between tone-deaf and rabidly delusional. Doubly so since college is somewhere between useless and a liability these days.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:39AM (10 children)
Affirmative Action is an aspirin for a tumor, the tumor is racism, of which AA also is. So AA is actually cancer cells for more cancer cells. See the problem with that approach?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:07AM (9 children)
False equivalence. AA is an attempt, however misguided, to fight fire with reverse-polarity fire. This never works, *cannot* work, but if you think AA is the same thing as the Klan burning crosses on someone's lawn you're either too dumb to go outside without a leash or being deliberately and willfully wrong.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:21AM (6 children)
Did you just refer seriously to "reverse racism"? Why yes, I do believe you just did! Quick, drag your credibility to the Emergency Room before it finishes bleeding out!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:00PM
They are busy trying to save your brain, outlook grim.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:34PM (4 children)
No. No I did not. Fucking read closer. If you want that in clearer terms, it's something like "this is an attempt to fight the harms of discrimination with a kind of equal-but-opposite reaction, not itself racism but using too many of its criteria."
I understand the motivation behind it, and it's better to have AA than have nothing, but if we as a nation are serious about fixing racial disparities the effort needs to be focused 18-20 years earlier than college. Prenatal care, safe water, nutritious food, safe neighborhoods, good schools, etc.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:14PM (3 children)
You're just doubling down on "racism is bad, so we need MORE racism to solve racism".
Lest you think I think everything would be fine and dandy without Affirmative Action, I recognize that the US government has been warring against US minorities - particularly black families - for generations now. If something is a problem (racism, government) the solution to said problem is not more of the same!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:21PM (2 children)
I think we're agreeing with one another violently here, honestly. The difference is, you want essentially "repeal and don't replace" and i want "repeal and replace, immediately, with something that actually solves the problem."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @01:23AM (1 child)
We may agree that there is a problem consisting of a mix of government and skin-color prejudice (colloquially: racism). However, if by "repeal and replace, immediately", you mean to replace problems (enforced racism) with something which caused the problem in the first place (government - how else was the keeping of slaves "legal"), we are still very much in disagreement and one of us is still very, very wrong.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 16 2017, @02:09AM
Ah, you're one of those. I really should have suspected. I'm tempted to ask what *your* solution would be, but the answer will probably not be amusing or novel enough to be worth the photons.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:58AM
Oh, it works! Just look at all these "white supremacy" submarginal types that are all upset about the unfairness of racial discrimination! Do you thing this is nothing? It will only take a slight switch before they make the connection. "Oh, if reverse discrimination is wrong, since it applies to my white ass, maybe it is wrong everywhere?" Well, we can hope, against all empirical evidence.
But you know, they are not wrong about this, it is just that they are still white supremacists who think that they should be in before Flint, that we have to stick together, us, um, Aryans? So, no Poles, No dogs or Irish, No Catholics! NO Serbo-Croats! And especially, no Vietnamese, no Cubans, no Afghans who were translators for American troops, because you know, they still are Muslins! And no Calicos!
And most especially, and this hurts me, because these are my kin: no Scots-Irish! They are not actually Irish, they are Lowland Scots, used by the British Monarchy to occupy Northern Ireland, and who were spread to the American colonies, often as prisoners in exile, to prison colonies like Georgia, and then became the racist core of the South, because, by God, if they were not English, there had to be someone below them, since then they would not be that! White trash, we call them today, people who are upset about Affirmative Action, because, as a Scottish professor once told me, those Scots-Irish in Northern Ireland are too stupid to realize that they are being used by the Brits!
And for those who do not know: The Burning Cross. Goes back to the time when the Celts were fighting those bloody white supremacists, the Romans. When the Romans attacked, riders were sent out along the borders of the Clans, carrying burning crosses, to signify that until the common enemy was repulsed, there were to be no attacks or cattle-raids between the Clans. How this got th be a "thing" amoungst a bunch of mongrel Americans who had no clan but only a (dubious) skin color, is beyond me. But Azuma's point sticks.
I think we need the equivalent of the burning cross for these Nazi and Neo-confederate types. Richard Spencer was saying they could have kill the counter protesters with their bare hands [rawstory.com]. Charming. But the point is that the internet can kill each one of these hate-filled bastards with social media! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy-SiZSlmhI [youtube.com] Don't watch that video, it's violent, and may scare alt-right types. But we need to scare them, scare them straight. Let them speak, so we know who they are. Let them march, so we have pics and video. Let them be recognized everywhere they go, and be shunned by all decent people everywhere. Nazis had to flea to Argentina, where can the alt-right go?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:20AM
accept it can be proven that racial representation in many of these magical job fields has didly fucking squat to do with white supremecy, racism, or nazism whatever the fuck you want to call your imaginary boogie man today. So being actually racist against white people is just uncalled for and wrong. Riddle me this, what is the per capita representation of Asians in tech? or Jews in law? Yeah go fuck yourself woth "mah racism" bullshit.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:15PM (5 children)
Right now AA is the worst racism tumor out there. After all, the hunt for racism moved on to "unconscious" racism and microaggressions because there was no serious racism left to oppose. The war has been won and they're mopping up survivors at this point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:47PM
Yeah, so true, e.g. white supremacy is only a joke kind of racism; even more is not a left racism, it's a right one, so a left kind needed to be invented.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:39PM (3 children)
You're white, aren't you? No racial minority could ever say something that completely fucking ignorant about the modern USA. Racism is *not* gone just because you can only get away with a lynching if you're an LEO, Mr. Hallow.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 16 2017, @04:29AM (2 children)
Who isn't a racial minority these days?
That does mean it's vastly better than it was. What I think is complete bullshit here is speaking of racism as if it were still as bad as when tens or hundreds of thousands of Africans were kidnapped and sold to the New World. Or to speak of pollution as if it were still as bad as when rivers were catching on fire.
But one has to pretend that a mostly solved problem is as bad as it ever was in order to rationalize the crap such as affirmative action. A rational society would never have implemented affirmative action between it's more of the same venom as the original racism it is alleged to fight, and leads to the current situation where various special interests have become dependent on it and will fight to continue it no matter what.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:28AM (1 child)
I never thought, until this topic came up, that you were not just a right-wing libertarian Mises-loving idiot, but also a complete right-wing racist nut-job, khallow. I am sorry for you. AA generates no venom amongst normal white people. We take it as a normal part of the path to a race-free society. It is only pathetic racist losers like yourselves hiding in your momma's basements or in the trailer-court that see it this way. You do not not have a job because of Affirmative Action, you do not have a job because you are not capable of getting one and holding one down. Possibly because you cannot keep your darn mouth shut about your waco political opinions?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 16 2017, @08:13PM
Why do you think a race-free society is desirable? Obviously, if there's no concept of ethnicity or race, then you can't have conflict based on ethnicity or race. But humans are naturally divisive as the rest of your post indicates. My bet is that humanity would in a race-free situation find some other reason for having and displaying bigotry as you did. At that point, it's just bigotry about something else, like where people have the right opinions, live in trailer parks, or have jobs.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 14 2017, @11:59PM (27 children)
It's really not that fine. Incitement to commit a crime is already itself a crime and doesn't need any further study. Let them stew in their hate, so long as they do so non-violently and otherwise legally.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:25AM (23 children)
Incitement. What is that? Does it compel or provoke involuntary action? If not, why should it be illegal? People should be prosecuted for their choice to act. All this Nazi shit doesn't provoke me. Does it provoke anybody here to start running people down? 'Incitement' is a bullshit pretext. Or maybe free will is only a theory?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:30AM (3 children)
I haven't given enough thought to say whether it should or not. It is however.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:07AM (2 children)
Yes it is, many things that shouldn't be are illegal, but now is as good as any time to conduct the thought experiment and ask the question since censorship is frequently discussed here. Do we have free will, or not? Do bad words have the power to compel one to act?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:29AM
Offhand, I'm inclined to say yes, it should be illegal. For example, you should not be able to just walk away if you were the ringleader of a lynching just because you never touched the guy who got lynched or even the rope. Free will is something I'm extremely big on but mobs seem to be immune to free will as a general rule.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 16 2017, @12:11PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:33AM
I was once prosecuted for threatening to "beat to death with my bare hands" a police officer.
The prosecution moved to dismiss the case, but had it not been I would have been doing time in Walla Walla.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:34AM (1 child)
It's the dipshit celebs threatening politicians, not realising that if someone does what they say and the link can be proven, then they'll be prosecuted too.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:59AM
The link doesn't exist. Personal choice is all that matters. And all choices are personal.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:46AM (3 children)
Humans often look to authority for guidance or absolution. That way they can commit horrible acts as part of something larger than themselves. If the pope ordered every Christian to murder non-believers then there you have incitement to commit murder. There is a reason we have lawyers, judges, written laws, case precedent, a whole sector of humanity devoted to working these details out. Maybe your line about free will is a little too grand for this worldly story.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:22AM (2 children)
Humans often look to authority for guidance or absolution. That way they can commit horrible acts as part of something larger than themselves.
Yes, it is a convenient way to pass blame. That would explain a lot.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:54AM (1 child)
It is convenient, which is why incitement to violence is one instance where freedom of speech is curtailed. Conspiring to cause a murder is a crime.
That supposed to be a dig?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:31AM
That supposed to be a dig?
Yes, because 'incitement' is a bullshit pretext to justify censorship. People must be held responsible for their personal choices, regardless what the pope says.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:25PM (3 children)
How much of that Nazi shit actually is incitement to commit crime? Doesn't sound like their public speech does that for the most part.
And incitement is IMHO a thing that should be illegal. Because it prevents a lot of bullshit such as public figures with a following from coordinating criminal attacks via the media.
Who called for their side to ram people on the other side with cars? Not much point talking about speech that didn't happen.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:54PM (2 children)
How much of that Nazi shit actually is incitement to commit crime?...Who called for their side to ram people on the other side with cars? Not much point talking about speech that didn't happen.
Regardless, would you follow? Choosing to follow is a personal choice. Nobody forced them. The followers are the danger, not the leader. "Incitement" is a pretext, a convenient way divert blame from bad actors. It's no different than saying "The devil made me do it". It's the Nuremberg defense all over again. "Orders are Orders". It's a denial of free will. It's also a denial of the power of turning your back on these on people.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:40PM (1 child)
I think you have it exactly opposite. Without a leader, they're just grumpy people. And police aren't equipped to deal with the crime waves that a really popular leader could incite.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:14PM
I'm ready to admit we're nothing but a swarm of monkeys if you are. But if people are uncontrollably 'incited', then temporary insanity is a valid defense against all charges.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:57PM (7 children)
The incitement laws have been around for at least a century. The basic idea is that if you are standing on a podium shouting into a microphone "Let's all go kill _______!", and then the crowd gathered around you goes and kills the people you told them to kill, you ought to be legally responsible for the deaths in some way even if you didn't actually kill anyone yourself. This is considered not a violation of the First Amendment due to the "clear and present danger" exception a la shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
They certainly have been misused: For instance, incitement laws were routinely used as the excuse for arresting union organizers.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:59PM (6 children)
The incitement laws have been around for at least a century.
So has prohibition (Ok, almost a century), doesn't make it right. And no, it not like shouting "Fire!" in the proverbial crowded theater. The followers are the only ones that responsible for their actions. Or, free will does not exist. Which is it?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 16 2017, @04:44AM (5 children)
I think it's C) the question is an excluded middle fallacy. The followers and the leader are both culpable. And this doesn't mean that free will somehow doesn't exist.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday August 16 2017, @06:15AM (4 children)
The followers and the leader are both culpable.
Simply saying so does not make it true. You need a reason why the leader is culpable. All the power is in the followers.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 16 2017, @11:44AM (3 children)
Because crowd criminal activity frequently would not happen otherwise without both the incitement and the action of those who choose followed the incitement. That's why inciting others to criminal activities is itself a crime. Because crimes often do not happen without it.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday August 16 2017, @05:49PM (2 children)
Again, that externalizes a personal choice, the choice to walk away is still there. Losing your 'agency' to the crowd is a weakness in character. And maybe that's why people point to something else, outside the self.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 17 2017, @01:17AM (1 child)
The same goes for the inciter.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday August 17 2017, @03:32AM
Sorry, the burden is on the act, not the words.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:11AM (2 children)
If we used incitement to commit a crime as the test, we would all be on the side of King George and definitely thinking every one of the founding fathers should have done time for publishing incitement to revolt.
I think the test should be much simpler -- does the speech literally and directly cause physical injury to another person. Examples would include using loudspeakers blasting at 100 dB because that is injurious to hearing. Using non-verbal speech such as a car to hit people would be another example as would shooting someone, hitting them, stabbing them, etc. Short of that, as vile as it may be, it's just words.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:36PM (1 child)
Sorry, I don't get what the reasoning is supposed to be here. In a tyranny, rebellion is illegal and yet we for the most part are just ok with the Revolutionary War. In other words, we're just fine with breaking laws in order to fight tyranny. So why would we care in that situation if incitement to commit a crime is a crime?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:41PM
So, khallow, do you want to hang with the Neo-nazis, or separately?
Benjamin Franklin
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:59AM (1 child)
It's entirely possible for all sides to be in the wrong to some degree, which implies that no one is right. This seems like one of those times to me.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:02PM
This. So much this.
Everyone thinks things are so black and white and that their side is 100% correct and the other side is 100% wrong. Few can see the infinite range of grays in between. Both sides being at least partially wrong fuels many conflicts.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 14 2017, @11:53PM (25 children)
I really doubt it.
After 3 days, I was really wondering if this story(ies) will ever get from the submission queue to the front page - I really don't think the involved parties would appreciate the lag.
And, after it, by the very editor's admission, it happened only because...
Before I start assuming things (it needed a death to occur for the police to intervene properly is no longer news worthy for S/N, it just happens every day in US, it's just a statistic), can the editors explain what it took so long for the story to hit the front page?
---
(If TMB feels the compulsion to "defend his editors" again... before he does, can he please answer to the following question: does a story need to get the "free speech" slant for it to get editorial approval?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:06AM (13 children)
They ain't "my" editors any moreso than they're yours. I got zero power over anyone else on staff except through rational discourse.
Now I dunno why they held the story past the weekend. Possibly to let more information accumulate. Possibly because the earliest submissions were shit. Possibly because they queued the entire weekend up with stories beforehand and didn't know anything about it until today. Possibly because they knew what a fun, fun pile of partisan shit the discussion would turn into and didn't think it worth running at all. Ask them yourself if you like.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:18AM (9 children)
(I'll save this link. The previous one, with you assuming the monopoly of abusing editors, is quite hard for me to find now).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:33AM (8 children)
Oh I remember saying it. Talking shit is something I do. I just prefer that people know when I'm talking shit or it comes off as tyrannical instead of funny. Thus me being informative up above.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:51AM (7 children)
"Rational discourse" is a way to shape opinions and actions. So what ideals do you hold? Did you want to keep the story off until the free speech / tech angle with godaddy came up?
Combining the stories certainly does muddy the discussion and will certainly cause emotional reactions to cross through the topics.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:58AM
See above. I don't make editorial decisions or even think about them unless they make one I disagree with enough to actually make my give-a-shit meter move.
As for this story, I don't care. Everyone at that rally (Nazis, BLM, Antifa) could have been hit by a random meteor strike and I wouldn't have shed a single tear.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:05AM (5 children)
I'll be as nice as I know how to be, and explain this very slowly, so you can keep up. TMB is not an editor. I typed really, really slow there - were you able to keep up? Let me try it again, to be sure.
T
M
B
i
s
n
o
t
a
n
e
d
i
t
o
r
.
TMB makes things work. He's the background guy. He changes oil in the servers, filters the electricity for impurities, keeps the fusion plant running, and shit like that. TMB doesn't edit. You got that now?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:12AM (4 children)
Speaking of, you lot should be using the shiny, new Gentoo load balancer by now. The DNS change propagation should be worldwide aside from seriously long caching servers. Let me know if you see any problems (that didn't already exist last week).
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:09AM (3 children)
Why choose Gentoo?
I am a long time Gentoo user, still systemd-free (MATE desktop). I have used Gentoo on servers, but I don't know that I would choose to do that now.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:57AM (2 children)
Let the girl who started Linux with Gentoo 13 years ago answer that! :D
Control. Gentoo (and Funtoo and its other derivatives) are source-based, and allow you to include only those features in your packages you wish to. Emerge/Portage is basically a dependency-tracking frontend to good ol' configure/make/make install, and the USE flags are essentially global (or per package in /etc/portage/package.use) directives to always enable/disable certain options at compile time.
This is useful because it decreases the size and attack surface of certain binaries you produce. If web-facing $PACKAGE has $FEATURE that is an attack vector, and you don't use $FEATURE anyway, you can choose not to compile it in, and there will be no chance of that exploit affecting you. You might say "well why not just disable $FEATURE then?" but 1) sometimes you *can't* and 2) even if you do, disabling it may still leave you vulnerable depending on the nature of the exploit.
Source compilation does speed up your machine slightly if you can take advantage of things like AVX codepaths, but speed isn't the main reason to use Gentoo and family anymore. Though it certainly doesn't hurt. One nice use case is compiling a custom kernel for ONLY your hardware without module support, which can obviate a whole host of potential vulnerabilities. Basically Gentoo and friends appeal to the OCD and the control freaks and the correctness fiends, and I admit to being all three.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:15AM
I know that I have been using Gentoo for over 13 years, but I don't know exactly how long.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:43PM
On top of all that, the uniqueness of your system seems like some protection against exploits by itself, depending on how many of the knobs you actually bother to twiddle.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:40AM (2 children)
I start to be a bit worried that my question to the editors (in italic, asking "why took it so long", ending just before the '---') isn't visible.
Can you please confirm that at least you can read it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:01AM (1 child)
I see it just fine. They may be avoiding the story though on the grounds of knowing it's gonna be a bunch of partisan sniping. Their IRC channel hasn't had a word in it in the last two hours though, so they may be eating dinner or doing family stuff or whatever as well.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:17AM
Cool thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Informative) by martyb on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:14PM (10 children)
I cannot, and am not, speaking for the other editors — these are only my views.
Preface: Like most of you, I have a full-time job and have to buy groceries, do laundry, and all of the other things of life. In what limited free time I have, I have chosen to volunteer at this site. None of the staff are paid in any way for their efforts. I worked Friday and Saturday with only 4 hours' sleep between shifts. Sunday marked the start of my summer vacation and I was absolutely knackered, exhausted, wiped out. Oh, and we are understaffed atm because we have two editors who are on leave.
Posting a story when the first hint of a breathless "there are reports that...", "we are seeking confirmation...", "we have identified the victim as..." leads, in my experience, to a lot of noise around a very limited signal.
When politics started inserting themselves into otherwise non-political articles, mostly during the 2016 US Presidential campaign, a decision was made to create a Politics nexus with the intention that we would try to limit it to one story per day. The idea being that some people were going to discuss these topics anyway; it would be best to put them in one area so that those who are not interested can choose in their preferences to avoid them. The basic goal being a desire to provide a site where people could discuss things technical, nerdy, science-related, etc.
The first submission concerning this story was submitted on 2017.08.13 5:50 UTC, and the second on 2017.08.14 11:08 UTC. I ran the story on 2017.08.14 18:51 UTC. By my calculations that is 1 day 13 hours from the time of submission of the first story to its appearing on the site. That is, based on my experience, better turnaround than the norm. Merging the stories, doing background investigation on the links, updating the story to include breaking news that GoDaddy dropped DNS support, that it went to Google, and that Google was aiming to drop them, too... I easily spent two hours at that task.
I anticipated ("This story could very well cause a lot of heat,") that this story would likely generate a large number of comments. It has already made it into the top 10 commented stories ever posted to the site [soylentnews.org] AND that the comments would likely be very spirited and likely even acrimonious.
tl;dr: I correctly suspected this story would generate a firestorm of comments. I did not want to post anything until I could get some rest, gather my thoughts, and put out a story that was not just fire and noise. You, the community, deserve that.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:15PM (9 children)
Thanks for the explanation.
I think the time is ripe to propose the "voting/commenting on submissions" functionality as a way to orient the editors, correct the links and submit additional info.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 16 2017, @12:52PM (8 children)
If the queue is running dry, then the stories advanced may simply be ones that are well-formed summaries that need very little editorial input at all. Check the links, set the time, go! Next one...
If there's been a high density of contentious stories, then there will be a tendency to pick some more throwaway, or simple stories, in order to cool things down a bit.
If there's been a run of stories not likely to get much discussion - some CPU/GPU announcement, or some fun trivial news, then most editors will try to find a more heated issue, so that there's something for the masses to get their teeth into. It might be worded pro- the editor's personal stance, but could equally be worded anti- that stance. It matters not to me, I'm as happy to oppose as to support the motion when it comes to commenting time, I presume others are similar.
So whilst in theory voting on a submission or editor's selection seems like a good idea, it's not, as much of what is being done is for practical reasons rather than personal agenda.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 16 2017, @01:37PM
Look mate, the presses and TV in Australia were running this story for 3 days before it transitioned to the front page on S/N.
I was really dying to hear what the soylenters in US (and not only [soylentnews.org]) think about it, can you get my frustration?
If I'm not able to use S/N for this, then I might start thinking maybe my expectations and the S/N reality are not in a good enough fit for me to worth dwelling here.
Besides, I really don't get it. I reckon most of us are able to find news on internet by themselves, so the benefit of S/N stays somewhere else (than as a primary source of information). Perhaps this "else" is in the discussions and exchange of info/opinions?
And yet, you have quite frequent stories with under 10 comments - how's that serving the (non-monetary) interest of soylenters, how do you keep us interested?
(if I'm mistaken believing this, why/where am I wrong?)
Ok, I understand that this story lagging the queue wasn't because of a certain bias of the editors, but you have to admit there's too little info available for the editors to gauge the potential interest of a story in the queue. This is where a voting on the stories in the queue can help - a practical purpose IMHO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 16 2017, @02:05PM (6 children)
Ok, this is 3 years old [soylentnews.org], with many comments saying that would be a good idea to vote on submission and many comments saying "I'm here for comments, not for the news".
Are we better in these respects than 3 years ago?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 17 2017, @07:13AM (5 children)
Are you volunteering to assist?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 17 2017, @09:56AM (3 children)
As an editor or a coder to implement "submission pre-editing" - as much as I'd like to, my other obligations do NOT allow me to make commitments (I have fragment of times quite irregularly).
As a "Mechanical Non-Turkish Soylenter" on a supposedly already implemented "submission pre-editing" page?
Sure. I can write a comment on the line of: "This is big Down Under, push it sooner" or "Dupe, here's the dupped" or "Correct link seems to be <linky>" or "Additional info on <linky>: here's an excerpt", in the random fragments of time I have.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:02PM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:31PM (1 child)
Thanks, I should be able to manage that (even if I was anti-social media long before social media was a thing - that is to say, socializing on chat was something I did very seldom when IRC was raging, even much less nowadays).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 17 2017, @10:20PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 17 2017, @10:19AM
As an example of others wanting to assist and not getting through:
https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=21825¬e=&title=Nanotube+spider+silk+article+is+a+dupe+from+2015. [soylentnews.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford