Manpower. The limitation should be on population and area.

Or what? What are you going to do?

The Black Panthers had the only answer. The only thing that can stop a bad cop with a gun is a good citizen with a gun.

So, this is a voluntary thing, doesn't involve any certification, has no actual enforcement, and only exist in about half the US states or slightly less.

You're confusing certification with the status of a benefit corporation. Certification has no legal enforcement power other than revoking certification; OTOH, under the model legislation it just takes 2% of stockholders to initiate a benefit enforcement proceeding against a benefit corporation and have court enforce the public benefit provisions of its charter. (Your state may vary -- it looks like in NJ any stockholder can bring such action.)

So long as it exists in the state where Ello is incorporated (which is apparently does), it doesn't matter that not all states yet have benefit corporation legislation.

Yes, benefit corporations are new. If I was going to bet my life on questions of how courts will treat them I might be wary. But as a general matter they seem like they could be a useful way to reign in privacy violations by tech companies by providing a legally enforceable guarantee of behavior.

Well, you've not given a meaningful link since it's the same slashdot article we're all reading right now.

My bad on the HTML. I meant this.

Business programmers who don't have a choice and must use what the IT department gives them.

Your analogy is bad (obligatory "and you should feel bad", but not really).

If speech were expressed with paint on canvas, cruel speech would be painting goatse or the like.

Harassment would be following someone around with your painting of goatse. Or any painting of anything they object to. It's the "following them around" part that makes it harassing.

The verbal analogue of throwing paint on someone would be yelling at them through a megaphone set at painfully high volume.

Every instance of speech is also an action and every action is also an instance of speech, and the distinction between a speech-act as speech and a speech-act as action is whether you're talking about the information content (the speech part) or the physical method of delivering that content (the action part).

Throwing paint or blaring painfully loudly through a megaphone are harmful actions, assault and battery in fact, regardless of the color of the paint you throw or the noises you make through the megaphone.

Following someone around and exposing them to images or sounds they don't like is harassment, regardless of the images or sounds; it's the following-them-around part that makes it harassing.

Images or sounds themselves, presented in a way that is not physically harmful to anyone (the way that loud sounds or a face full of paint would be), in a way that anyone can walk away from, are just speech, cannot harm anyone regardless of their content, and thus should not be regulated in any way regardless of their content.

It sounds good in principle, but is it really legally binding in any sense?

Yes. A corporation's charter is legally binding on it, and "benefit corporations" are a distinct type of legal entity.

In a Pew Research Center survey of 2,849 Internet users, one out of every four women between 18 years old and 24 years old reports having been stalked or sexually harassed online.

But if one actually follows the link, one reads that "Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats." [emphasis added]

That blows are rather large hole in the thesis which the poster and many others seem to be implying, that internet harassment is primarily rooted in misogyny.

This is not to in any way justify the harassment of women. But if you want to know why there's a backlash, part of the cause (not a justification, a cause) may be the ongoing distortion of the facts about violence and harassment.

Because what the world truly needs is you telling women how they are and are not allowed to dress.

GP poster did not say anything about restricting how women are allowed to dress. He spoke about looking at women.

How about this: women (and men) get to wear whatever they like. And men (and women) are allowed to look at each other (in public, not talking about peeping toms here) as much as they like. It's your body, you get to put what you want on it. They're my eyeballs, I get to point them whatever direction I want. Autonomy and agency for all, hurrah.

If you think that the way a random woman is dressing in public means she wants to have sex with you, you're an idiot. If you think the way a random man is pointing his eyeballs in public means he wants to rape you, you're an idiot.

Gonads in the LIGHTNING! IN THE LIGHTNING! In the rain...

Gonads and strife, gonads and strife, gonads and strife...

I think the idea is that "xxx" is supposed to be someone that the clickbaitee probably feels is exploiting them for money somehow, and that by learning the trick this one guy came up with to screw over those people, YOU can join in on telling the people exploiting you for money to fuck off too!

"23 hot singles waiting to meet up with you in GEOSTATIONARY ORBIT." -- ads seen by astronauts

On a related note, a person I know who lives in a town with a tiny two-digit population once saw an ad like that claiming there were more hot single women in that town looking to meet up with him than there were people in that town total.

You gain no privacy or right-mindedness by not letting mail "stay" on their servers.

The law disagrees. Stored e-mail is different than e-mail that passes through a server.

I think they picked the Czar they did for his marketing skills, not his medical skills.

You need a larger C: drive.

Windows doesn't have enough space for your temp directory for the code base you are working on.