sergioj97

The op talks about what the "next step" will be. And as it hasn't already been, it's clearly speculation and in no way "stating what happens".

Well there are certainly many freedoms that we restrict or completely deny just because of the potential to misuse them (e.g. freedom to own a gun).

I don't think this is the case though, and I agree with all of your second paragraph. But I do think (and it seems that) potential to misuse a freedom is sometimes enough to restrict it, even completely.

Just wanted to note that while in your county the deaths from covid haven't exceeded (yet) 1% of infected, the article you link to states that in Italy, 8% of the infected have died (even though it acknowledges that this is higher than in other countries).

I think some of those countries are usually referred to as Central America.

From Wikipedia's article on Central America:

"Central America consists of seven countries: Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama."

EU stands for European Union.

> I certainly don't agree with it but it makes a great conversation.

Does it though? It seems like a fallacious comparation for reasons that other comments have already explained. And as such, it makes a confuse, meaningless conversation.

If you read the tweets, you're in for a big surprise!

I personally found that the things the article's author argues that Zuckerberg doesn't understand are being acknowledged and discussed by Zuckerberg itself in the leaked comments.

> there's no way to "point fingers" and say "Look at what this company is doing!"

What do you mean? The fact that different people may see different things in their feeds doesn't mean you can't point out differences in (for example) social network's policies (sometimes this is more of an unwritten policy) on media that depicts children's bodies.

I personally don't have TikTok but I have never found a single video of half naked children dancing on YouTube, Facebook or IG that wasn't a reposted TikTok video (I have read about videos like that being on YouTube, though). And I don't think it has much to do with the fact that I don't like to see this kind of videos in my feed. It also makes sense given the demographics of TikTok app.

I don't have any serious citations to give, this is of course anectodical as it's my personal experience and I don't even have TikTok, but anyway I don't think one can dismiss worries like this just by blaming the algorithm. Most of the time that content shouldn't be there for the algorithm to recommend it in the first place.

Do you have citations for that? I'm interested and couldn't find convincing sources

I think right to be forgotten doesn't include public figures.

Seems like a rant to me. What exactly are you criticizing about the way Google decides which results to show first, in this particular case?

I think he commented that only because the OP said "even if it may not be the behavior we expect from our elected leaders".

Having an intelligent strategy does not mean you are intelligent, specially in politics. Probably none of this was his idea, but some adviser's.

Selam G wrote that Stallman considered that Minsky's victim was actually willing.

That's not "planting evidence" in a legal sense because sure, that's not evidence at all. Mainly because it isn't true and it's easily verifiable. But in this context, by these people, it has been taken as actual evidence against Stallman. I guess that's the rationale behind the analogy.

I don't understand how what you've answered changes the fact that Stallman openly implied with his opinion that absence of consent (rape) makes a sexual relation unethical and bad. Stallman is against rape, and arguing that criticizing the ambiguous use of a term in a certain context (sexual assault) makes he somehow pro-rape seems unreasonable (but I'm open to explanations I didn't consider, if you wish to try).

In general, if you have any sources for your claims feel free to share them (I can't find any sources quoting stallman saying anything that vaguely resembles a pro-rape argument, and I've gone through most comments in the section).

More specifically, Stallman didn't ever say that raping children doesn't harm them, if your definition of rape is sex without consent (that's the legal definition in my country). He said that if you have consensual sex with a minor then that may not be harmful for him/her (the fact that this is not "raping children" follows from the very definition of rape).

I'm trying to leave my feelings aside but you really seem to be misquoting Stallman to try to make a point. I really hope I'm wrong about this so I'm genuinely curious about what did you mean when you said he stated that "raping children doesn't harm them".

> Do you realize how many people -- not just men -- in CS, physics, mathematics are autistic, especially in places like MIT?

Do you have any citations for that (for the fact that there's a significant proportion of autistic people who study/work at the MIT)? It's come up a few times in the comment section of this article, and I can't find sources for that claim.

Honestly the first time I read it I dismissed it as an exaggeration, but you (and others) seem convinced enough to use it to back some of your opinions on this topic. Before this, I would've thought that thoughts like that were merely stereotypes result of ignorance.

He stated that the absence of consent is what makes it harmful. He is against rape, independently of the victims age.

You didn't just give an example of a leader who doesn't challenge things. You literally stated that if a follower disagrees with the leader, then "by definition" he/she is not a good leader. You are implying that the definition of "leader" includes that you can't challenge things people may not find ok (disagree with).

Reading your link, I don't find anything troubling. He says the term is too ambiguous and it makes it easy to (potentially maliciously) misrepresent someone's acts.

If you find anything else he's said troubling please provide me some references as I'm trying to read anything that may help me to understand this episode. (I've already read about his former and present opinions on paedophilia)

Stallman isn't pro-paedophilia. He stated years ago that he didn't see enough evidence to believe sexual relations with children are harmful for them if they are consensual. That's _not_ believing sexual relations with children can be ok if they are consensual, that's believing you don't have enough evidence to believe the opposite.

And why are you arguing he is pro-rape?

Keeping things in perspective, do you really believe what is happening now isn't going to ruin Stallman's life?

At this point of the conversation, your rejectal to accept that "Paedophilia is sometimes not harmful to children" effectively means "Paedophilia isn't always wrong" or "Paedophilia is sometimes fine/ok" (understanding that what could be wrong about Paedophilia is precisely the possible harmful effects for the children involved) is starting to look malicious.

Just to be clear, I agree with everything that's being said in this article. I can't understand how some people read Stallman's words and understand the exact opposite of what he is saying. But I find equally incomprehensible how can you read that quote and still need an explanation on how one thing implies the other.

It would be technically correct if what he meant was that the problem would be solved in constant time.

I bet it wasn't.

I think there are health and quality issues unrelated to taste.

If privileged people go down like this even without enough proof or contradictory claims (I don't think this is the case, but the user you are replying to seems to believe that), then you certainly should worry about it. It may well happen to anyone else, privileged or not. It's not only a problem for the privileged.

> You apparently don't know a lot about homosexuality.

What in the parent comment makes you think this way (besides being an awful way to introduce an opinion)? He's just stating that someone with homophobic parents will probably be discouraged to explore, accept, or even recognize his sexual orientation. More broadly, that environmental factors will play a role.

And yes, I guess it's not more malleable than any other sexual orientation. It could happen to heterosexual children in an heterophobic society, too.

I'm pretty sure there is a lot of people who is interested to know if this is someone's fault, and I don't think it has anything to do with how media covers this issues. I think it's a good thing, in fact.

This failure may be within acceptable parameters and it may be simply meaningless to try to find someone truly responsible for it. But you seem to be unreasonably reluctant to believe that maybe it's not.

I understand that it's interesting to analyze what happened from a more technical perspective, but of course a proper investigation has to be conducted to find the responsible if there happens to be one (or more).

In order to use Messages, you need to have an iPhone (which you need to buy from the same vendor who wants you to use and owns Messages). WhatsApp is just an app.

I'm unsure of what do you mean when you say you see the same "vendor lock-in" in both cases.

I had a similar experience being 13, but luckily for me it only involved my own highschool website and data. I found a blind sql injection and got access to the credentials of any user. I wasn't a particularly mature 13 y/o so I started messing around.

My highschool reported the incidents and I got caught in a few weeks. I almost went to trial, my hard drive with my StarCraftII campaign almost finished was confiscated (I haven't seen it again since that moment) and it was overall an instructing episode. It didn't go any further because my parents had good relations with the highschool's direction and they withdrawed the report as soon as they knew it was me.

In the following years I kept in contact with the webmaster and I remember feeling very encouraged to report any other flaw I could find to him. I found a few more things over the years, but most importantly learned a lot.

Every time I read news like this I remember how grateful I felt when my highschool not only forgave me but also helped me keep learning. I believe it can make a difference, and even more so when dealing with younger kids.