Posts by Old Englishman 21 publicly visible posts • joined 7 Apr 2016
Not sure that a charity like the bible society exactly has £100k just lying around unused. It's quite hard on a small charity.
There will be more of this sort of thing. Every organisation has to be on the web; but the web is inherently insecure. Making things secure is impossible; or at least, very expensive. Charities don't have the resources to do this; so they get fined for the web being insecure by design.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I can't help feeling something is amiss.
It's always fun to see a self-styled "subversive" like The Register act as a mouthpiece for the Deep State. This article, and others like it, is merely an attempt to pressure left-leaning corporations like Twitter and Facebook and Google into censoring opinion on matters of politics and religion.
Shame on you, El Reg.
"Hate speech" has very broad definitions - intentionally so, it seems - so usually means "Right wing". I would have thought Gab have Google bang to rights. I gather that US courts tend to reflect the views of those in power; but on the other hand, the US left has refused to recognise the election of Trump. So it's anybody's guess how this will play out.
That Google is becoming an oppressive monopoly is certainly true; and their cashiering of staff on ideological grounds puts them in a weak position to argue that this was neutral.
We need an internet that is not under the control of a handful of corporations with very strong links to one small segment of the political spectrum.
And, as we all know, anybody the political left doesn't like is a "fascist". Pretty awful to consider that some people are basically demanding censorship of everyone right of Trotsky. Oh and creating the tools to ensure no privacy, no right of expression, total state control of everything. Just imagine what the next Mrs Thatcher will do with all that infrastructure of control. Will all the little haters here get arrested? I suspect they will...
<blockquote>
In the USA, the First Amendment to the Constitution gives you the right to say what you want.
It doesn't, however, give you the right to be shielded from the consequences.
</blockquote>
I believe Nazi Germany operated on the same principle: say anything you like, and be shot if someone with power didn't like you. You happy to get treated like that?
Sounds like Google wants to be broken up. After all, Republicans control Congress, the Senate and the Presidency; and they have just announced that no republican can hold a job at Google.
You want more Trump? More Populism? Well, this is how you get it. The longer this sort of hate and arrogance goes on - towards at least half the country! - the more violent the backlash will be.
Google is anyway far too large and dominant. This is, remember, the company that doesn't really bother to pay tax in the UK while siphoning off our money in all sorts of ways. I hope that the US government sends it the way of the old Bell company monopoly.
It is extraordinary that we are asked to vote, and then told our vote is conditional upon whether some lawyers - read the establishment - decide that it counts.
The reason that we have votes as a way of changing things is that, in a oligarchy, things change only by violence. I would suggest that the mad remainders consider whether they really want tyranny tempered by assassination as a form of government.
Fascinating to see all the Remainer astroturf. After all, what normal person wants the elite to ignore the votes of ordinary people? And I note the lying claims of an "advisory" referendum - anyone remember that?! - being trotted out. Mr Editor, you might want to block some of this fake "comment".
It doesn't matter what the outcome of any vote was, so much as that the vote is respected. Have we realty reached the point at which we're abandoning democracy? Is Mugabe-style elections the future of Britain? If so, then violence is inevitable.
I wonder who is paying the legal bills for this Labour councillor - isn't it odd how chippy the tribunes of the plebs are? - to pursue his online vendetta. I'm not sure whether I am sympathetic or not; the slanders are horrible, but I'd rather not have online censorship. And surely it's rather risky for this bloke to try all this against someone who might, for all he knows, be inclined to violence.
Sorry, my friend, but this article is just too self-serving for words. You didn't give a damn - indeed encouraged activists to sneer at, target, and harass ordinary people - when BNP membership details were published. But now it's a lefty organisation... oh dear oh dear!!!
He who lives by the leak, dies by it.
FWIW, I don't give a fig for either group. But enough hypocrisy please/
Leaving aside the sheer lying by the brownshirts ... the fact is that these same brownshirts have been making an utter nuisance of themselves. The state has moved to prevent them harassing others with lawsuits designed solely to force those they hate into endorsing their views, allowing weird men to force their way into girls' toilets, etc - surely common sense. In response the brownshirts shriek abuse.
If the brownshirts win, you, my friends, will be next. The thing about this sort of thing is that no concession is ever enough.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
