I've met Godwin and he'd be horrified that you are trying to shield Trump by invoking his name. The world doesn't need an automatic method to suppress discussion of atrocities, and Mike never meant what he said to be one. In fact, this is a quote of Mike directly:
If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.
There's also Google's Project Shield, which is free for journalists.
That's a really good point. This service sure isn't going to throw someone off for being attacked too much. I'll ask someone at Google to expedite the process.
Your next move, should you choose to make it, is to decry that if we actually had standards for citizenship (like every other goddamn country on Earth) we'd have to kick out all existing citizens that don't meet those standards, which is ludicrous. No one handles birthright citizenship the same way they handle citizenship through naturalization, and the lack of options for stateless citizens makes that idea cruel and untenable.
With all due respect, you're talking to yourself now. I wasn't thinking of this point at all.
The actual statement is "support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States". Now, obviously, you personally do not approve of every law, nor could anyone even know them all. If you swear "true faith and allegiance" to them you are swearing to follow and uphold the law, not to refrain from opposing it in a peaceful political manner as is supported by that very text. The only way as a citizen that you could actually break the first amendment would be if you were in a government position, because it's directed toward congress rather than the people. So, the typical prospective citizen can swear allegiance to that amendment with complete confidence that they will never be in a position for that to matter.
Some people call that "democracy.
Yes, but democracy doesn't mean that you have a right not to be criticized, shunned, fired, boycotted, and abused in any other lawful manner for your speech. However, this wasn't speech. It was deliberate spreading of falsehood and cheating the moderation system. Who in their right mind would not deplore such corruption?
Two senior Democratic lawmakers with access to classified intelligence on Thursday accused Russia of "making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U.S. election,"
Two senior Democratic lawmakers (because all the Republican ones were "out to lunch") with access to classified intelligence (which they shouldn't have revealed even the existence of, if they're really and truly classified) on Thursday (the best day for reporting viral news) said that the people (who were actually aliens wearing face-masks) who came to them (without providing any concrete verifiable proof of their credentials) put some bits of paper in front of them (without any way for those lawmakers to verify the authenticity of the documents) which had some words in it *claiming* to "accuse Russia of making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U.S. election,"
what a complete crock. over how many pairs of eyes do these people *really* think that this can be pulled? oh wait.... they've probably run the numbers, and they only need to make it look like *DEMOCRAT* Lawmakers are incompetent, so that a large enough percentage will vote for Republican.... and the rest they can swing by manipulating the numbers using that new-fangled "percentage" adjustment they added into the backdoors after the last time some of the vote totals went NEGATIVE. i wonder if they remembered to do rounding to integers? we'll find out soon enough, if the number of votes comes out to "25012.79" won't we!
Anyone remember when Mitt Romney called out Obama for not paying enough attention to Russia, and Obama laughed it off with "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back becausethe Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”
y'know... skype used to have this feature, y'know? it wasn't completely undetectable, but it *used* to have the ability to disguise itself as pretty much anything, so that it would "just work" in the face of badly-configured firewalls, DNS servers, idiot companies that blocked *all* incoming and outgoing traffic stone-dead including ICMP (including BGP and other absolutely crucial traffic) with the statement "you've got unrestricted access to port 80, that's the 'internet' isn't it, what the hell are you complaining about yer lame-techie-wannabe-tuck-fard??"
it also had the ability to create any kind of tunneling over pretty much any port and any protocol (TCP, UDP, you name it, it could do it) such that it was pretty much impossible to shut it down.
AND THEN.... for no good reason WHATSOEVER , skype changed hands not once but THREE TIMES in succession. now it's under the "control" of microsoft, and anyone considering installing it now is a fool. it's been turned into a "cloud is all" protocol. there's no peer-to-peer capability. that leaves it vulnerable to being mass-IP-range blocked. anyone can work out what the IP range(s) are of the various "cloud" servers used by microsoft are... and just block them (regardless of consequences).
so i *would* have said "just tell them to install skype". except we can logically deduce that it was SOME FUCKWIT IN THE U.S. GOVERMNENT who caused skype, in its current release, to lose its inherent firewall-busting capabilities to be COMPLETELY REMOVED.
and with skype being proprietary, and the "startup" (bootstrap) nodes no longer being run or "supported", we cannot even run older versions of skype any more because the older versions have been shut down. oh, and it's proprietary, so it would be man-decades before it is properly reverse-engineered. oh, and the original creators are likely to have been asked (or threatened) to enter into some serrrrious non-compete contract which, even if it wasn't legally enforceable, they probably understood the full implications were that if they wanted to keep all their body parts, they'd better like, y'know, not even *think* about writing a replacement / competitor, y'ken. they did try setting up a company called "joost", but interestingly, it "failed". i don't wonder why, not any more.
so, this appears to be a golden opportunity for software libre and proprietary software writers alike, but honestly it's a poisoned chalice. one department in the U.S. does *NOT* want such software to even *EXIST*... another is offering money to anyone willing to CREATE such software.... it's either a case of "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing", or it's just plain entrapment: the NSA wants to know if you have the CAPABILITY to write such software (and you're going to tell them who you are for god's sake!)
bottom line is, there's a phrase which covers this scenario in the security world - it's called "a honey pot". my advice to anyone who reads this: stay the FUCK away from this "offer" unless you're such a huge software libre team (over 100 people would do it) that it would be clearly obvious if one or more people suddenly "went missing", or "received sudden lucrative job offers" or "went on holiday" or "won the lottery" or "had an accident". what would *really* do it is if EVERYBODY who is capable of collaborating on this (including people from proprietary software companies) joined *ONE* single software libre team (with a single person allocated as the front-man), where everybody else used anonymous two-way communications with that front-man), and through them proposed one single entry for the "competition". 100, 200, 300 people, the more the better. if the application *requires* that every single person on the "team" be named individually and separately (either before or after the application), then you can logically deduce that it's extremely likely to be a honeypot. if the application's mysteriously "denied" when there's only the one entry, you can logically deduce that it's extremely likely that the exercise was a honeypot.
 when you see 3 companies in a row throwing of the order of magnitude of a billion dollars at a single company for a single piece of software with such a limited use-case (chat, voice, video), you cannot possibly expect anyone to believe that they're each doing so because it's "financially justified". the logical conclusion is that there was some other factor involved... such as HEY WE'RE THE NSA, WE'LL GIVE YOU LOTS OF EXTRA BUSINESS IF YOU GET THAT SOURCE CODE AND GIVE US A COPY. remember: the original creators of skype were extremely clever, and utterly paranoid: they let NOBODY see the source code. back when it was initially created, the core library was ONLY made available in BINARY form EVEN to the GUI front-end developers(!) and it had a "protection" mechanism where it could detect that it was running under a Virtual Machine, detect if it was being "debugged" (single-stepped), and it would self-destruct and shut down automatically. the NSA even offered a million dollars to anyone who was willing to "break skype". yes, really, that's a matter of public record! nobody managed it. all the "social engineering" tricks and presumably various trojans that are normally successfully used to perform industrial espionage presumably failed... so they had to go to the drastic lengths of actually inducing some lame-fool company to buy the ENTIRE company. for a billion dollars. well done the founders of skype is all i can say!
If I understand this correctly, Akamai threw Krebs out because Akamai could not handle the DDS. This means I'm never sending any business to Akamai because they can't handle it properly. But it doesn't mean Krebs is off the air for long.
For example, I bet Cloudflare would take him on. They've differentiated themselves on the ability to handle DDS.
You are starting with the concept that everyone has a right to their own political opinion, and extending that to "nobody should take any action due to to offense over anyone else's political opinion". The second does not follow from the first. Folks who take offense and act upon it are not hypocrites, those who see the offense and refuse to act could be cowards.
That's self-contradictory. The first amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
By the very text of that amendment we could not do what you are proposing.
The end of labor is to gain leisure.