I never said that non-government censorship was illegal. And I don't support attempts to make private party censorship illegal. Even rsilvergun got the reasons pretty much correct, that to do so you are infringing on the rights of those who own the platforms being used. (Stopped clock being right twice a day, I suppose.)

Now, the implications of censorship are bad. Of course they are, since censorship is an attempt to control how people communicate, and it pretty much never has positive results. Which is why rsilvergun and his gaggle of nitwit followers are so dead set on trying to redefine the word, because they know censorship is bad, and they want to censor speech anyway.

Uh ... no, I'm not. You seem to have lost the thread of the conversation.

You made a claim that it's only "censorship" if the government does it, which is completely false -- you're trying to redefine the word censorship to mean what you want it to mean (since you don't want to admit that you are pro-censorship). That's all I pointed out.

https://www.merriam-webster.co...">Wrong. It might be legal censorship, but it's still censorship if a private party does it.

Why do you need to have an opinion for or against it? Formation of a union should be the business of the employees involved, and nobody else.

Given who you're talking to, the answer is presumably "people who think like rsilvergun."

They probably can't; after all, if the charger is useless, then buyers won't be willing to pay more for a phone+charger than they were for the phone. And presumably Apple is already charging what they think the market will bear for an iPhone in Brazil.

It is very puzzling how many people think that allowing somebody else to install non-Apple-approved software on their iPhone somehow causes your iPhone to be magically hacked.

Not too surprising that it's somebody with a 7-digit user ID who thinks that "just buy a new computer!" is a sensible solution to the problem of a webmail application that performs badly.

Why not just daydream that your uncle is going to win and give you a bunch of his winnings? The chance is the same, and you get to save yourself a few bucks.

The "ads disabled" checkbox has disappeared for me (not exactly sure when, I just noticed it when those huge "Jobbio" ads showed up.)

Just for fun, I tried diabling uBlock to see how many ads show up on a slashdot page. Spoiler: it's insane. On the comment page for this story, I get two banner ads above the article summary, two more below the summary, as well as the big Jobbio block of ads. In the sidebar there's an ad that changes every few seconds, and then a "sponsored links" block with four different ads. In the lower corner of the screen there's a popup with an ad that changes every few seconds. Then at the bottom of the page below the comments, there's another block for "sponsored links" (6 of them), half a screen of full-width banners for Jobbio (5 of them), another generic banner ad, and then a slashdot deals block (6 of them).

I have no idea how anyone browses the web without an adblocker enabled.

The problem is in how you're storing your food. Bread can be frozen easily with very little loss in quality. Most sorts of fruits and vegetables can be stored for more than 3 days without going bad.

Have you been to the motor vehicle bureau? Eighty percent sounds about right.

Why should they shut up? It's certainly the employer's prerogative to make policies including telecommuting rules, but at the same time it's certainly they employee's right to express their opinions on those policies.

You say you don't care, but then you're telling people to shut up about it, so you obviously care at least a bit. Maybe because you're afraid that the employees that chose to speak up instead of shut up might end up getting a better deal than you did when you took a less-lucrative job?

So ... "works flawlessly, as long as you and everyone you communicate with stay in Apple's walled garden, when consumers are all supposed to be"?

Only if (1) you trust the messaging software to do as it says -- which you can't, since you can't audit the source code or verify what the "phone app" you got from Google/Apple actually contains -- and (2) you trust that the AI "black box" that is scanning for CSAM hasn't been altered to scan for anything else -- which you can't, because most of these "AI models" can't be understood through any conventional analysis.

The first is always going to be a problem with the current model of software distribution on phones, but letting the government inject some AI model that will allow it to capture an unencrypted message whenever they detect something is going to be too tempting an opportunity for them to ignore. They'll just add other training data to detect messages related to any crime that they'll particularly interested in, CSAM or not.