I didn't actually see any evidence of Facebook censoring content because it's insulting to Ataturk on the linked page. The "evidence" appears to be a document that doesn't mention Facebook anywhere, but, let's take it as read that this really is a list of Facebook content abuse standards.

Even with that assumption, things related to Turkey are not listed as always banned. They are under a section labelled "escalate", meaning, if it gets hot, send it to management.

It may well be that Facebook has decided to enforce Turkish laws about this in order to get themselves unbanned there. But it may also be that upper management just wants more precise control over this hot potato. Once I see a clear message from Facebook saying a group was suspended for violating Turkish censorship laws, then I'll agree.

Microsoft had a pretty large number of developers on board, in part to incentives they were handing out left and right...

The problem is even with that support, it did not matter because people were just not buying the phones.

Between the giants of Google and Apple, already well established, it's pretty hard to make other people know you exist much less buy your phone... even if you are Microsoft (or Blackberry).

How is it censorship if a person wants to have information about themselves not be in search results?

I didn't mean to imply that wanting something could possibly be censorship. Censorship is something you might do in order to get want: do you rebut the false information (or pollute/dilute the true information) or do you point a gun at someone's face?

And escalating to violence is not always necessarily the dumbest move. Like I said, "loose lips sink ships." But c'mon, own up to censorship label whenever you do it, and understand the sword-beats-pen outlook that you're helping to re-popularize.

But more importantly: think about whether or not a policy of forceful response can work or if it really is expedient. Go through the thought experiments, where someone says something you don't like and you respond by whacking a few moles. (Or in this case, whacking an unrelated mole who is pointing at another mole.) Does this lead to a winning scenario, Ms Streisand?

If swords-over-pens still completely loses, then yes: I do think "suck it up and take it" is a superior strategy, since it's no worse for the person being maligned and has significantly less collateral damage. That doesn't mean it's the only option, but if we're going to pretend that we have only a mere two options, then it's the better of the two.

Military service is a viable (though by no means sole) path to manhood. I commend it to you.

And then you go all Krustyfrackwench on me.

In fact, as a developer, Firefox OS is much more closed to me than Android or iOS are.

Yup.

The problem with FirefoxOS can be summed up in one word: web. The Mozilla guys have NEVER accepted that the web is a shitty platform. The closest they ever came to that was inventing XUL and XBL, but I read that they have been trying to move away from them for a long time in favour of (gah) HTML 5.

Android and iOS utterly spank FirefoxOS because the engineers who built them have no starry-eyed ideological driven illusions about web technologies. Android manages to be open through the clever trick of .... wait for it .... being open source. Not marriage to a more or less randomly evolved technology stack. iOS simply doesn't care: it's an explicit non-goal for them.

Mozilla will continue to waste effort on ridiculous projects like this until they accept the fundamental truth that Javascript is not the worlds best language, HTML is not a particularly great layout language and CSS is not a great styling language. And the combination of all of them is less than the sum of its parts.

YouTube uses various forms of DRM. You aren't supposed to just write arbitrary new frontends for it, even though people do ... but Google has both the right and the ability to crack down on that any time they like.

Sexist 'Stat? Well, how 'bout that?
The boss is a Cro-Magnon most shaggy.
But with a blade, a pen, and some CNN
You can get something mildly faggy
Burma Shave

Were you going to react to the substance of the Greenspan quote above, or just heap the cheap ad hominem?

Leaders. It's a shame we require a government, but, if we must, let them not be the evil sort who cheerfully perpetuate your debt plantation with the velvet entitlement handcuffs.

No, he sounds rational, and has demonstrated courage in the Army.

No, because he's a no-talent rodeo clown (as demonstrated by his record) defended by putzes such as yourself.

Oh, that there is one sick burn. Owie.

You're pretty much a Greek in all but character encoding, as far as I can tell from your oral attachment to the public nipple.
And let me stipulate that I think that's perfectly acceptable as a choice. My chief gripe is the way MY tax dollars are taken to pour down the same little endless circular holes for the $18 trillionth time, while you are all on your high-horse about it.

The man is sane. Apparently this terrifies you, and you have to play some "appeal to authority" card.
That you have precisely zero (0) of substance to say on the man's actual words shouts the impotence of your argument.

Nice try but the NSA has to verify the communications (which they were of course monitoring) were with a real terrorist.

So either (A) you get no money, or they believe you an (B) whisk your friend off to an"unsafe house" for questioning.

You try to find out later what happened to him and you get to visit him in person!

Nah, I'm just repeating what I had in economics class. You've become markedly more caustic in the last couple of weeks. Can we explore why?