You have Section 230 precisely backwards. This is not unusual. Most people are confused by it.

The purpose, and effect, of Section 230 was to ALLOW platforms to moderate content WITHOUT losing the status that you call "common carrier."

The Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy decision left platforms in a position in which they had to choose between "common carrier" protection and "publisher" liability. It held that by moderating some content, Prodigy became liable for all content.

Section 230 made it possible for platforms to clean up ugly messes without inheriting responsibility for the actions taken by the third parties who made them.

The failure of Facebook and Twitter to take action against abusers is not a consequence of Section 230. It's a consequence of laziness and greed.

When do we get to hit back?

Guy writing for free on a free blogging site says you shouldn't trust free software.

Most of you kids aren't old enough to know what Rasmus was talking about.

In 1994 there was no guarantee of Perl being installed on a server. There weren't a thousand ISPs with point-and-click credit card interfaces to spin up a webserver. If you had a webserver, it probably was running Solaris or AIX or Sys V. It almost certainly had a C compiler csh, ksh or (if you were really lucky) bash. So you downloaded and compiled Steven Grimm's uncgi tool:
http://www.midwinter.com/~kore...

It grabbed CGI args, cooked them nicely and stuck them in the environment. Suddenly any Unix tool could be used to crunch and spit out HTML.

I wrote half a dozen tools as shell scripts -- a microblogging tool (before blogs existed) for weathercaster Paul Douglas, a photo caption contest, various other data-submission microtools.

Yeah, it probably wasn't secure by modern standards, but the 1995 Internet wasn't totally infested with assholes.

PHP everywhere was a blessing, and it enabled the explosive growth of the Internet.

Because it's much better to have bespoke security holes?

So, if Amazon isn't doing anything illegal by paying low/no taxes, are they not then also "smart"? Wouldn't they be "dumb" to pay taxes that aren't required of them?

... for you kids who were born too late. A brilliant take on Microsoft's branding genius. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Apparently you're not a T-Mobile customer, or you wouldn't be posting about "india based call centers."

That 1 BTC that costs $5,000 to mine is worth $13,000 USD at today's exchange rate. Good luck convincing anyone that that's a stupid investment, especially if they've already dumped the capital into mining gear.

Maybe a bit dishonest on the first one, but the second one seems like OP nailed the gist of the law. It's a little sketchy on the details, as BMI isn't measured in percentage, so a BMI of 18 isn't the same as 18% body fat, but the source link in OPs supplied article states BMI of 18, so we'll go with that. My gf, who is 5'8" and weighs 110 lbs has a BMI of 17ish, and she doesn't have an eating disorder, she's just naturally on the thin side and is far from looking anorexic or sickly. BMI is pretty much universally shunned as a horrible measurement of health (many athletes will find their BMI claiming that they're overweight as muscle weighs heavier than fat). So issues with this law (as it's explained in the links) would be 1) some healthy people will be denied employment in France based on a terrible measure of health, and 2) where is the max BMI range? Being overweight is *at least* as unhealthy as being underweight, so why aren't we worried about foisting that imagery unto impressionable children as well?

As to the first law, while it doesn't make it "illegal for a man to talk to women", it does seem to be saying that the law only applies to men catcalling women. What about men catcalling other men? What about women as the purveyors of harassment? This seems like a law designed for being targeted at people whom some people might want to slander and harass, rather than a law designed to solve actual problems in a fair way.

many men, both straight and gay, as well as many other individuals across the gender spectrum, like the colour pink; for her to suggest this is aimed at women is sexist and insensitive.

Uninstall Windows.

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Uh did you say ‘yutes’? Vinny Gambini: Yeah, two yutes. Judge Chamberlain Haller: What is a yute? Vinny Gambini: Oh, excuse me, your honor https://youtu.be/K6qGwmXZtsE?t...

All he can see is that yesterday we had access a SIGINT resource, which stopped a non-zero number of plots

citation needed

If a drone can fly in wirecutters they can fly in a gun, a knife, who knows what else.

If a drone can fly in any of those things, there's a real good chance that a human on the outside of the fence could simply throw those things over said fence. Or cut through the fence from the outside. This really isn't a drone problem, it's a lack of guards who care, or perhaps a lack of security cameras and staff to monitor them.