(Cue Monty Python theme)

Oh noes! Someone did a politick I didn't like. He most evidently aligns himself with the doctrines of Benito Mussolini!

https://ruffle.rs/ this might do it for you.

It's unlikely I'd pay 1 BTC to visit the DNA Lounge, unless they've somehow booked Elvis.

The comparison makes sense. I've had regexes blow up in my face more than once.

Now this just takes the mickey. If they've any sense they'll reverse it. I'd rather we not lose YouTube, it will be a shame to lose 1.6 decades of videos on every subject imaginable. Often times I still find pleasant surprises, disturbing animations, windows to the past.

But I haven't high hopes the course will reverse. It has been a consistent decline since they removed the customisable user pages, removed 5* ratings and integrated Google+.

Now you're just being cruel. I'd far rather have Windows ME on my computer than any version of Windows post 7.

Wile it removed the ability to boot to DOS, at least it came with Movie Maker, and some really trippy media player themes. And it didn't need to record everything I did on the system to 'improve my experience' or some shite.

Please take me back....

Hah, we've words for that too. Obfuscation, sophistry, gaslighting. Of course the powers that be will have elaborate justifications for how they harm you, that's how they maintain their power over you. With regards to taxation, all that differs is the person carrying out the acts, not the action itself.

We can have transactions without making our children debt slaves (which is a necessity under this current system you love) and watching the value of our currency dwindle under inflation. Wouldn't you want that gone? There are better ways for meeting human wants than the violent system of the state.

If we had a truly free society, no one would argue for a state again. Someday we will outgrow it just as we've outgrown slavery, which was as vehemently defended as necessary for meeting wants in just the same way you and many others defend the state. As it happened, once slavery was abolished many better solutions emerged that raised the conditions of everyone.

A lot of assumptions there, but you're asserting that the use of violence is moral if it achieves alleged benefits. I do not consider that moral.

There are better ways of helping the poor than handouts acquired at gunpoint. Would you like it if a roving gang arrived at your house and demanded regular contributions 'for the poor'? You have as much sway over what that roving gang does with confiscated property as any of us do over the government's spending decisions (mostly wars and rewarding their donors).

If Mr Bezos sincerely wishes to contribute more to the government budget he can write a personal cheque. He can persuade the board of his company to write a bigger cheque in addition. I'm very sure the treasuries of most nations wouldn't refuse a voluntary contribution.

Instead, rather curiously, he is asking an authority to extract wealth with threats for non-compliance. It would be much easier and much more ethical to lead by example and create social pressure for others to do likewise (if he believes the act of taxation is moral). Since he doesn't enact this supposedly high value, these comments can be discarded as mere PR.

How, exactly? Who cares who the creator was. It's decentralised with unfathomable levels of wealth and interests staked into it. Maybe he's holding because he expects the value to rise again. We don't know and it doesn't matter because the blockchain is something bigger than its creator now and it is here to stay.

Believe me, I hate bs too. But the only way we can decide what is and what isn't is with free speech and open debate. Bad ideas can eventually be refuted that way. When there is control over what is said and when, it takes much longer for that to happen. If ever.

Point in case, we're having this discussion now and I think it is very edifying. You chose to participate. Imagine if you couldn't.

Or because we know that governments and power-humpers have been using pretexts since the dawn of time as well. Introducing censorship and killing the most free medium of communication ever created, as you seem to be proposing, will not make the world safer. It will not stop dangerous people. It will make life worse because now there are powers deciding what's right and wrong, and we've now ideas being made illegal, not actions. That's a much worse danger than shitposting.

Example, I don't care if the kid next door has a communist phase (even though the communist manifesto would label me 'bourgeois' and mandate my death). I wouldn't call for his arrest due to his beliefs. Would you?

I 'm not worried because the law against murder is already a legal protection from communists killing 'bourgeois'. Even though laws against murder do not prevent murder, they only make it undesirable. But these are laws against communication, the exchange of ideas, which is a different class entirely. They'll be much easier to enforce, and heavily destructive of human thought.

Government and political classes love getting more power and are loth to give it back once acquired. They'll just say anyone criticising them is 'harmful' because they believe they are good and their cause just (no matter what they're doing to you, the populace). That's how government by lies and gulags developed in every post-war Communist nation.

Notably absent from your examples is any of the damage done by Antifa and BLM, who were just as destructive and very revolutionary in their goals.

We've had insane people do insane things since the dawn of time. Censorship won't stop them, just like how banning violent video games won't stop violence. If you're the type of person who walks into pizza shops armed, you're going to flip out eventually anyway with such a diluted sense of reality. Censorship won't save anyone from crazy people, the reasons they exist and act as they do are much more complicated than 'misinformation'.

But no, trust the powers. Let's censor everything that brings the government discomfort. You can't see how that's a threat as well? I wish you luck with your righteous overlords.

Two of those are provable and so should be discussed in the realm of debate, which is only possible to do openly and honestly without censorship. One is an emotion which I'm not sure any authority should be in the business regulating.

If someone believes 'lies' or 'hate speech', be it from Marxists, Fascists, Islamists or your local band of football hooligans, and chooses to act on it by harming people or property, we've already laws to deal with that, The consequences of these actions are already known to the perpetrators.

But someone speaking nonsense on the internet? That's not the government's business. We've much more to fear from those who wish to control speech than we do from those with nasty things to say. What kind of person, a would-be censor, presumes so much of himself? How many people do you know who you'd trust with such vast power? We won't be much safer from danger, and we'll be far less safe from the state (an entity much harder to escape).

It is unsettling to read someone argue for his own enslavement. But here we are.