But I find attacking the people and company that made you a billionaire, and went to an unprecedented extent to shield and accommodate you for years, low-class. It's actually a whole new standard of low-class.

Seems like a perfect match for Facebook corporate culture.

Yeah, it's just now the rest of the world is laughing at you.

"Now"? You are a bit unfamiliar with history, it seems. Politicians and intellectuals in the rest of the world have been laughing at the US since it was founded. It's not something Americans care about or should care about. Ordinary people (like myself) have voted with our feet.

If it's such a clown gathering why would he even show up?

The UN may be a disreputable organization composed of mostly disreputable nations, but like it or not, we have to deal with the rest of the world, unpleasant as that may be.

b) The Kaspersky software would not let him run that generator because it considered it harmful

c) He disabled Kaspersky, ran the key generator and got his PC infected

I'm glad to see that the NSA is hiring "the best and the brightest" when it comes to computer security!

Which part of "I'm not passing judgment on whether it should or shouldn't be done," was too hard to understand?

I don't care. Really. It's not my continent. It's not my backyard.

What I care about is not getting blamed for the consequences, no matter what Africans, governments, and NGOs decide to do.

To think that the elimination of mosquitoes would somehow spell calamity for the human race is pearl clutching at it's finest.

Well, lucky for me then that I didn't claim that it "spells calamity for the human race". In fact, as I was saying, it will cause African human populations to grow massively and wreak much more ecological destruction on the African continent. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing is for you to decide (personally, I don't really care either way). But it's not something that the US and Europe should be held responsible for.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai Is Headed To Washington This Week To Promote Google Censorship Technologies to US politicians and to Lobby for China

There, FTFY

The mosquitoes were created in the hopes of using them as a potent new weapon in the long, frustrating fight against malaria. Malaria remains one of the world's deadliest diseases, killing more than 400,000 people every year, mostly children younger than 5 years old.

All other unintended ecological consequences aside, mosquitoes and malaria are the main factor that makes wide areas of Africa effectively uninhabitable. Controlling them will lead to widespread deforestation, massive population growth, and probably result in famine and political upheavals. I'm not passing judgment on whether it should or shouldn't be done, but this is another example of Western technology radically altering developing nations, and I'm afraid the West will get blamed for the consequences again.

"Criminalizing", in case you didn't know, means that a prosecutor can put you in jail for saying or publishing things that the government doesn't like.

I recognized after writing this that you may not understand hyperbole, so let me put this in plain English:

"Criminalizing", in case you didn't know, means that government can define categories of speech that allow a government prosecutor to charge you, and a court of law to impose jail time on you, merely for what you say.

Because? Oh, right. Because you want to punish entities that you disfavor regardless of whether it violates what you claim to be your principled stance in favor of free speech and against European-style regulation of speech via those same platforms.

Europe criminalizes speech. "Criminalizing", in case you didn't know, means that a prosecutor can put you in jail for saying or publishing things that the government doesn't like.

I'm saying that private publishers in the US should lose their protection from civil liability when they exercise editorial control based on political views. Civil lawsuits require actual damages, require a private party to initiate, and don't result in jail time.

Ask a competent lawyer to explain the difference to you if that is still too difficult for you to follow.

And those protections are a special exemption from civil liability; since free speech is already guaranteed by the 1A, these special protections obviously don't protect free speech; what they protect is the ability of companies like Google to grow very, very big and not worry about certain lawsuits.

47 U.S.C. 230(c) [cornell.edu] gives them legal protection from civil liability even if they exorcise editorial control.

That applies to "private blocking and screening of offensive material", not to politically motivated blocking.

Idiot

Your signature.

Individuals cannot operate under private contracts that absolves them of financial and legal responsibility, and allows them to act as a single financial entity. A government has to do that.

You haven't thought that through. In any case, as I was saying, I agree with you that "we should just get rid of the government-created idea of a corporation". We'll just have to agree to disagree on what the consequences would be.

Editorial control does not mean removing spam postings, it means selecting human-generated content based on viewpoint. So, if you bother to take the time to remove postings containing false statements about Hillary, people expect that you also remove postings containing false statements about your neighbor or your competitors.

And I'm not proposing changing the law, I'm saying that the laws that already apply to the small websites you are worried about should equally apply to Google, Facebook, and Twitter, sites that currently get exemptions.

See, the "accusation of bigotry" language would refer to an earlier instance where you'd called someone a bigot.

Well, and in the case of Jourova, there was no need to point out that my statement represented my opinion. In responding to you, I highlighted that neither of our statements about each other is a statement that represents an objective truth, something you seem to have forgotten.

Try again.

Given your comments, it's clear that your claims of being a lawyer are either a lie or that you are a incompetent. I think there is nothing more to say.