A meta article on how to change prompt visibility and delete your prompts. https://www.meta.com/help/arti...

Every child, in the class I referred to, is indeed being handed a chrome book. Don't let your lack of knowledge about a specific class make you think you know that there are exceptions in that specific class. I caveated my comment, you did not.

Who care about the cell phones when the school is the one handing every kid a Chromebook and then refusing to supervise their use when in classrooms. I hate when a teacher asks me to help keep my kid from being distracted on their Chromebook. I always just flatly say, take it away from them - I don't want them to have it in class anyways. This is 100% a problem of their making. Yes, they have net nannies, but their software doesn't adapt as quickly as these kids do.
joe.

If you invite one of these into city, say goodbye to what's left of your night sky.

https://gizmodo.com/your-phone...
https://arstechnica.com/gadget...
Yeah, turns out these articles were wrong and Apple was having you gaslight everyone.

This is the last version signed by the original developer. Download it while you can and keep it safe.

https://www.macbartender.com/B... 5.dmg

"I don't see his home address, I see a photo of him in his back garden." Good luck fighting no one.
Joseph Elwell.

I am 100% with you on this. I disagree with doxxing as a principle - not because of who is right or left. I think the proper outcome (although I'm not sure I'd like it) would be for politicians to enact laws to curtail speech. Although honestly, I'm sure the Supreme Court has already ruled (at some point) that this kind of speech is not protected - it's just no law enforcement wants to get involved.
Joseph Elwell.

You did not read the article closely enough. I'm not going to point out the obvious doxxing they did as then I will be participating.

Also, it's been years since I posted on Slashdot. Is this kind of gutter talk the dialogue I can expect here? Is "drinkypoo" a serious username and are their comments to be taken seriously if they're just swearing at people? wow.

"your mind"?
You don't know me. I said nothing of the right doxxing. Doxxing is bad across the board.

While I agree with almost everything you say: freedom of association is a good thing.

This is some grade A trolling. You didn't bother to read the article and find his private information and you're asking me to participate in the doxxing by spelling it out to you. No thanks.
Joseph Elwell.

So we're just doxxing tech support now? If you read the article you'll find that this started because of a doxxing campaign by Guilmette. A self described liberal whose main tool is to use peer pressure on businesses to shut down speech he doesn't like.

Joseph Elwell.

I use Groupme. It supports app, web and/or SMS only. The SMS support is great for users that don't understand apps. Security is not a concern for my use case.

If legislation changes it so that corporations like Twitter are responsible for content posted by their users there will be MORE bans not less. People inciting violence on Twitter will mean Twitter will be held responsible for that violence. Twitter isn't currently responsible for violence that Trump encourages people to do. They choose to censor just because they don't like it, not because they will get in trouble with the law. That will change if new legislation goes into affect.

The First amendment is essentially written into the constitution. What a weird thing to say. I did not mention the gay wedding cake ruling. Not sure why you did nor how it would apply here since I didn't read that ruling.

Yeah, so... If the legislation you mention goes into affect, they'll BAN a whole lot more people. Look at what happened to Pornhub recently. Only verified uploads. Facebook and Twitter won't be any different if they are held to the standard that Mastercard and Visa recently chose to hold Pornhub to.

I don't see both sides of the aisle agreeing to extend immunity for content even if they are actively censoring users. Why? Because bots, that's why. No one wants Facebook and Twitter to be as saturated with garbage as email is. Maybe there is a middle ground in there somewhere, but these platforms need to have the ability to ban users indiscriminately. Facebook doesn't (currently) allow porn. If we write legislation taking away Facebooks' immunity if they are censoring their users then Facebook is going to become the new Pornhub. Because they won't be able to remove content without giving up immunity. And they can't censor fast enough to ensure that they don't need immunity. If you read Facebook's report, they've had more authenticated child pornography on their site than Pornhub... Facebook NEEDS that immunity.

Merkel: "can be interfered with, but by law and within the framework defined by the legislature -- not according to a corporate decision."

Yeah, in GERMANY, you can infringe on people's speech using law and legislative power. But not in the United States. Someone needs a refresher in the American Constitution before trying to push their legal system onto America.

Is it any surprise that a government that uses laws to reign in free speech doesn't want competition with corporations? Of course Germany doesn't want corporations to be in control of speech - they want a monopoly on that control. But, it doesn't work this way in the United States of America. Here private individuals can reign in speech and the government is supposed to stay out of the way.