>Doesn't H.264 (aka MPEG4) which has much wider client support (browsers, hardware decoding, mobile etc) do a good enough job?
I dunno. I've seen x265 encodes of video which come out at under 150MB where the x264 encode is ~1.5GB for the same quality.
That's a huge saving in bandwidth.
As someone who ran a Tor exit node for years, I'm surprised you're not wearing a bright orange t-shirt to prove it.
Nvidia is really starting to piss me off with their proprietary shit like this, Gsync and their 'nVidia hair' bollocks for games.
It's OK, there'll be a fix for that.
The Windows 10 mandatory updates that you won't be able to deny permission for, will take care of it.
I would argue that if the places that exist to be heard are so small that they are barely noticed, that is an effective stifling of free speech.
What you raise, is an often raised response to discussions about free-speech and censorship.
What is often left out of these discussions, however, is the pervasive nature of corporate control over speech in the 'real' world (as well as the virtual). Corporations (and rich individuals) own newspapers (which trumpet *their* voice) TV stations (which do the same). The space for the mass dissemination of people's voices is small, and relegated to small groups, public meetings and protests (often barely tolerated by our democratic representatives).
When it comes to the mass dissemination of individuals voices, the internet is similarly coralled. Get a blog, people scream, on your own website! And there, the footfall is often small in scope. On sites where many people come together, those sites are owned by corporations and businesses, often merely looking for a proft..
The stark fact is, there are no public spaces on the internet. It's all owned by someone.
"In fact, all [the speaker] can say is that the talk is canceled, the ProxyHam source code and documentation will never be made public, and the ProxyHam units developed for Las Vegas have been destroyed. The banner at the top of the Rhino Security website promoting ProxyHam has gone away too. It's almost as if someone were trying to pretend the tool never existed." The CSO article speculates that a government agency killed the project and issued a gag order about it. A post at Hackaday calls this idea absurd and discusses the hardware needed to build a Proxyham. They say using it would be "a violation of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, and using encryption over radio violates FCC regulations. That’s illegal, it will get you a few federal charges — but so will blowing up a mailbox with some firecrackers." They add, "What you’re seeing is just the annual network security circus and it’s nothing but a show."