Also they're just not offering help in rising the funds, instead of blocking access to funds.

I don't see.

I really see some restriction of free speech on the first case. Rightful or a precedent opening for further step reductions should be debated.

Now, fund raising isn't freedom of speech and isn't a necessity for adequate legal representation. These platforms aren't also near monopolies that control the monetary flow around the world.

Basically, just well done bashing...

After many years of Netscape, Mozilla and Firefox, this year was the last nail in the coffin for me. At some update Firefox simply would run for some time (maybe a couple of minutes, mas a few hours) and silently drop any network access. I was already disappointed with many and frequent crashes, lot of websites that didn't work and so on... but really it got to an all-time low on quality and usability.
And it's on my work machine, where I don't go to anywhere "strange"...

"This is a slippery slope. Once a website gets removed like this, people will expect the same thing to happen again under similar but perhaps a little less egregious circumstances. Public outrage isn't based on logic and reason, but on emotion and knee-jerk reactions. It's very inconsistent, as well."

This is what I tried to point. And it usually goes in small steps from cases where it is clearly seen as correct to only one view is accepted.

The point is more that this same argument can be used with many other reasonings.

There's nothing dangerous about recognizing that allowing voice to political dissidents and showing improper information about the Tienanmen square will promote violence and extremism.
Except this case we applaud google for not taking this instance.

This may be an absurd hyperbole, but should illustrate the point.

It has been many times on history, it can come back.
The choice of capitalism and communism was merely to get any two completely opposite views that had been considered crime in some country/culture. Could very well have been any other choices, like condemning pro-jews, pro-muslins, pro-christian, pro-atheist, whatever.
I really see as problematic censoring even this F-tard, specially by a company with the power this one has...
On the other hand, his speech is inciting hate and crime...

Google or any sufficiently big corporation controlling data flow can be even more dangerous than the government.

It shoudn't be questioned that neo nazi speech is bad, they're the enemy.
It shoudn't be questioned that capitalist speech is bad, they're the enemy.
It shoudn't be questioned that comunis speech is bad, they're the enemy.

We're entering dangerous ground...

or here...

http://g1.globo.com/pernambuco...

It solves things like vote copying (carbon copy of the ballot to "prove" who you voted for), counting fraud, vote "interpretation" and some other similar variants, which were common at least here in Brazil before the electronic voting system. Other venues were open with the system used in Brazil, which is very fragile in my humble opinion.
There are many ways to validate the vote afterwards, but the system must be planned for that. I sincerely hope to never vote on paper again, but our system here needs urgently to the upgraded. Voting machines are overly complex, code isn't open, no way of independent verification of the binary code on the machine during the election, no independent second copy of voting (paper trail, for example).
I think that the system stands simply because the risk of being outed for compromising it (by someone in the system) is too high.

Compromise someone in charge of programming the firmware on the machines... Just need the injection in the correct place on the supply chain and one single person compromised.

Electronic voting is very good, efficient and solves a lot of other fraud possibilities. Also the financial/power gain for compromising the system is extremely high and that should be accounted for in the design phase. A lot of things could be done, but there seems to be lack of interest. Paper trail, independent code memory checksum displayed on machine, proper cryptography on data, open source code.... the list goes on...

"We know a lot about electric cars, but there are always going to be cases where something unexpected happens," Boer said. "There are going to be educational moments."

They may have procedures in place, but are still uncertain. Also certainly not that many accidents with electric cars take place yet for the procedures to be really known by heart.

Therefore some new training and updated procedures will be needed...

Ops, batt power don't shut down...
Some new training and updated procedures will be needed...

From a Brazilian news, the order was to offer a backdoor to the encrypted messages and/or to redirect the messages to the authorities before encryption.
http://tecnologia.uol.com.br/n...

I would consider something similar. You would expect the diver to hit the brake. If the brake stays at 0 and the accelerator goes to 100%, likely user fault. If the brakes are not at 0%, certainly sensor fault.