The court denied this motion suggesting that because the hard drive failed, there was no evidence to destroy in the first place.

Okay I skimmed the article, but I couldn't find a comment suggesting that.

It seems more that there's no evidence that the defendant wilfully destroyed evidence. The plaintiff wanted the court to assume that there was harmful evidence on the hard drive, simply because the defendant had thrown it out. The defendant on the other hand threw it out simply because it was dying, and had no idea that it might be relevant in the litigation.

Well, I was using floppies well into the 90's. CD-ROMs were nice for large chunks of data but until I had broadband, sneakernet+floppies was usually a lot more efficient. Really the modern replacement is USB sticks, although they're not quite cheap enough to give away as floppies were.

Do you need that? Seems very specific. I was generally referring to those groups that are opposed to the likes of 4chan and 8chan. I guess I can use google to find some harassment by anti-gamergaters if you really want it.

Milo Yiannopoulos receives a dead animal,
Threatening phone calls
One person claims to have been fired, and another had someone complain to their boss
Threats against a gamergater's family

Quite honestly I find the whole thing depressing. #Gamergate has a lot of people talking about corruption in the games industry, but way too many of its members fixated on loud, pointless people. Anti-gamergate has this bizarre conspiracy theory that somehow 4chan, 8chan, and a large number of female and ethnic minority gamers, journalists and even a few outspoken feminists are working together in the cause of "misogyny", for its own sake.

People with a political agenda have grabbed both sides of the debate and made it about unrelated political issues.

Calling someone's mom and telling them their son has been making rape threats and harassing women on the internet is not doxxing.

No. This is fine. If any of them did only do that I wouldn't have posted, but it seems that this was not the case for any of them. Alanah Pearce seems to be pretty sensible with her reaction. Telling their parents means that we can reasonably assume that things are going to be kept in control.

Doxxing involves potentially setting off an online mob, or in some cases, interfering in their lives.

There's a reason doxxing is mainly associated with 4chan, 8chan and other pedophile websites.

Jezebel writer doxxes autistic kid.
Rebecca Watson promotes Doxxing.
Reddits ShitRedditSays subreddit digging up names of gamergaters.
A tumblr related website all about doxxing

Something about throwing stones in glass houses springs to mind here.

I don't think the great-grandparent grasps the degree of specialization the various sub-components of and individuals in the services have.

It's more that I don't see how the Army can have the level of generalisation enough to have an air corps, and an engineering corps, but somehow running their own A-10 division is suddenly out of scope. The division seems arbitrary.

Given the variety of types of equipment and roles needed by the modern armed forces, I wonder if it makes sense to have different services rather than a combined armed forces. When a plausible mission is a sea launched ground attack with tactical air support I have to wonder why we're trying to get three services, each with historical antagonism towards the other, to work together rather than simply have a force with ships, planes and armoured cars.

No, they are not. Every ISP is required to offer this service

There's no law requiring them to. Only the largest ISPs offer this. The smaller ones don't. And if you don't want filtering then you can choose "No thanks", therefore the customer is not forced into doing anything except clicking "No thanks".

if one of the major ISPs tried that Cameron would be closing that loophole pretty quickly.

How? There's no law! Currently an ISP can just say "no" and if pressured tell people they can use a different ISP. It's unlikely that the government could even get this law through. The ISPs would actually be obliged to fight it and since the Lib-Dems mostly oppose laws to force this, it wouldn't become law unless Labour felt particularly puritanical.

Maybe we should limit it to those joystick waggling games from the 80's, and Dance Dance revolution.

Incorrect. Threatening companies into doing immoral things is immoral, unjust, and undemocratic.

What's immoral about offering your users more choice?

If I can't access content without making a choice, then as far as I'm concerned, it's default on.

So that means any setup screen is censorship.

It's not about Hollywood! It's about freedom of speech.

It's a very important principle, especially in the US that speech is protected. Not just by the first amendment, but as one of the fundamental principles on which your country is based.

You do not silence yourself because the government tells you, or because a criminal tells you and certainly not because some foreign unelected dictatorship tells you. If that happens then you should not just speak, but shout!

Yes, torture is a problem. Would we know about it if people didn't tell us about it?

Do you actually care about the human rights violations in North Korea? You seem to. Raise awareness! Tell the world! You can, because your freedom of speech is protected. If North Korea threatens you people will fight and some will even die to protect your right to speak out against it.

Maybe not to companies looking to secure their bottom line, but it is a big deal when the government can just make threats as it pleases to subvert the democratic process and get companies to do whatever they want them to.

They were being threatened with the democratic process! The free press was promoting the idea. The Prime Minister suggested that the democratically elected government might legislate if they didn't roll over.

A default on filter is simply intolerable.

It's not default on! It's active choice! That's what the article is about. People are seeing the screen that asks if they want to enable the filters. They can literally do nothing else without making a choice.

It's easily worthwhile. You don't need to go after everyone. Even if something is indeed popular, that doesn't mean it isn't a social taboo.

If over 90% of the population do something it's not a social taboo!

We're not talking about cleanfeed. We're talking about the ISP's parental filters.

You want to talk about cleanfeed? I agree with you. It's terrible.

You are presented with a screen asking you whether you want to enable filters or not. You have no choice but to see this screen. To opt out you click "no thanks". To opt-in, you click "yes please". If you can't work out what the two options do then I suspect that using a computer is beyond your abilities.

You don't think it's a big deal when worthless government thugs coerce companies into implementing filters they didn't want to implement in the first place?

If they just roll over then it was never a big issue in the first place.

You don't think it's a big deal that they have all the names of the account holders who opt out of this nonsensical filter

That's over 90% of their customer base. It's hardly worthwhile information.

I demand that all religious websites be filtered, because I find them harmful.

Seems fair. Get onto your ISP. Request a "religion" filter.