Just finished reading the article and I must say, it's an excellent deep dive into the practical application of Cloudflare Workers and Workers KV.
Kudos to the Kinsta team for sharing their insights!
Well, my original point was the legal precedent. Invading another country without the need for self defense. (Or were there any indications, that Iraq was about to attack the US at all?)
So at no point I said it is the same.
> Well, my original point was the legal precedent. Invading another country without the need for self defense. (Or were there any indications, that Iraq was about to attack the US at all?) So at no point I said it is the same.
This legal precedent stuff is rubbish and just more justification of Russians brutal crimes. Not to mention that Russia was doing this brutal razing and raping of civilian centres far before the US invaded Iraq.
"I didn't but I missed the part where they involved children."
There certainly were also childs (<18) tortured in Iraq. Maybe I feel like digging up some sources.
But right at hand I have boys as sexslaves from afghanistan institutions set up, payed and defended by US forces (and those US soldiers who stood up against it, got problems)
"This legal precedent stuff is rubbish and just more justification of Russians brutal crimes."
And what exactly is rubbish about it? Or do you think international law can (should) get established for everyone minus US?
The problem right now is exactly that russia is NOT isolated enough. They still can trade quite unrestricted. IF there would be a believable international law, the sanctions would work and russia would have to stop the war.
Or in general, do you have actually intentions of being open to discussion, including the hypthetical posibility, that your initial position might be wrong? Because that is kind of the base for a normal debate.
Even the agency reporting the numbers states that the figure isn't meaningful. "OHCHR specified that the real numbers could be considerably higher." You'd also want to account for the millions of displaced and homeless, of course. The destruction of the Kakhovka dam alone will likely cost more than 9,000 people their homes.
But go ahead, Boris, keep carrying water for the worst people on the planet. Be grateful to the US for making your job easier with the Iraq war... which, I might add, many of us protested vociferously without fear of imprisonment or exile. If it hadn't been for Iraq, you'd have to fall back on the "Nazi-aligned country with a Jewish president" excuse.
You know, I did not expect a serious debate from post 1 of you, but I was curious if you would eventually have something to say besides insults. Apparently not much.
Because "considerably higher" than 9000 would still be way below 200 000, right?
Can you acknowledge that?
Because this is not an honest debate otherwise.
And about the insult that I am caring water for Putin. Well, you don't seem to read very well, what I wrote about him. In either case, he is 100% responsible for his actions. At no point did I deny that.
But the reasons enabling him to do his shit, are considerably more complex.
And the demolition of international law is a, or the big factor in my eyes. And if you cannot see the US part in this, then it seems this is, because you do want to see it.
And you know what, this is the same attitude and vibe I get when discussing with prowar russians.
But again, no the US is not on par with russia in terms of human rights abuse. (I never said anything like that.) But the nationalistic, black and white groupthink arguments - they sound pretty similar to me. Alone the fact, that you put me in the pro russia camp, just because I don't share your thinking - is very telling.
So maybe to give you something to think, I can repeat what I wrote elsewhere in this thread. If I would not have little children, I likely would have been in Ukraine as a volunteer.
Is this something a "Boris" would write? And spoiler alert, actually yes, because there are russian militias fighting for Ukraine. So maybe stop with Antirussian comments at some point? All you do with that, is pushing the russian population behind Putin. Because this is his narrative, that the west wants to destroy russia. So blanket antirussian policies and defamation of anything russian, are actually helping him.
So you don't see even the slightest trace of bad faith in comparing a (disputed) figure of 200,000 deaths over 20 years with a figure of 9,000 deaths over 18 months which is acknowledged as an underestimate by the very agency that cites it?
I mean, I have little choice but to believe you when you say you're not on the side of the Russian government here -- and you're certainly right in that #NotAllRussians are to blame. I agree I need to be a bit more careful with language like that. So why are you adopting their propaganda arguments, specifically by dredging up the Iraq war to make an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation somehow less unacceptable? What do you gain from doing that? What point do you imagine you are making?
The Iraq invasion was an atrocity, an outrage that, as I said, many of us protested at the time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with current events in Ukraine. You might as well cite the Trail of Tears or the Tuskegee Experiment. Why even bring it up?
"The Iraq invasion was an atrocity, an outrage that, as I said, many of us protested at the time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with current events in Ukraine. You might as well cite the Trail of Tears or the Tuskegee Experiment. Why even bring it up? "
Because there is so much talk from the US side about how russia has to pay for all their crimes, that they broke international law and Putin has to go to Den Haag, etc.
But to me - and as far as I am aware, actually most of the not NATO world - consider this as hypocrisy, when the USA never had to pay for their crimes and rather still have made it clear, that they consider themself above the international law, with the den hague invasion act.
That an alternative to more escalation would be strengthening international law again and that would have to start with officially acknowledging guilt and accepting international war crime courts also for US personal.
In other words, actually start leading by example of being a beacon of human rights and rule of law for everyone.
If this would happen, then I can assure you, that way more countries would be joining the sanctions and military aid. Up to the point that Russia would be isolated to the point of giving up.
Because yes, quite some of the russian soft power comes from lies, propaganda and manipulation (Putin comes from the KGB after all). But this propaganda only works, if there is truth in it.
And in my opinion there is just way too much truth buried inside the russian propaganda. Remove the base for the propaganda and suddenly there would be no more soft power ammunition and a strong united front against russia and aggressors alike could form. But currently the USA and NATO are simply trusted enough, which is why russia can sell their oil and gas without much problems and continue the war til eternity as it seems. And sure, after 20 years civilian casualties will be way higher. But it does not have to come to this. Even russia can change again - because this is my main grieving point with the situation. Because I was born under russian occupation and I grew up with the russians parting in peace and a general expectation of working things out and trading freely to the west and the east. And some years it was like this. It came different and I certainly don't say or think this is all just western fault. But the west could have indeed done better. And I think this is mainly what we have to do - fixing our shit first and not messing with other peoples and countries affairs. But yes, pragmatically the military aid to Ukraine should also go on. But not as the only solution.
That was my point.
(and I am glad that it seems, that we still managed to get some kind of communication after all)
The Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF), through Justice Alexandre de Moraes, ruled on Tuesday (May 2) that the presidents of the Big Tech companies (Google, Meta, Spotify) must testify before the Federal Police (PF) to clarify why they authorized mechanisms that could contribute to potential disinformation against the Fake News Bill (PL das Fake News).
You and JP Barlow's Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace can have words.
There's 195 nations on this planet. Should every company lower themselves below every nation? Without question? There's far more provinces with some lawmaking capability. How logistically do we even begin to figure out how to obey each & every single local rule?
These nations are on the internet. It's an unplace to connect all places. If your area has stupid beef, it's on you to handle your shit & make it so. The whole world doesn't bend to your local rules, it doesn't alter the rules of the entire internet.
The inevitable result will be the destruction of the internet as we know it today. The international network will fracture into multiple regional networks with heavy filtering at the borders as nations seek to impose their laws on it. Regnet, if you will.
I'm glad I got to experience the true internet. It was great while it lasted. Truly a wonder of humanity.
> There's 195 nations on this planet. Should every company lower themselves below every nation? Without question?
My honest response to this would be: “yes, if they want to do business in said country”. Otherwise we end up where we’ve been, with Facebook being the sole way to access internet in some places. Why should an organization seeking to make a profit hold more sway than the institutions that allow such a profit to be made in the first place (not to mention the protection of their citizens).
To be clear, I realize that in practice, many governments don’t operate in as much good faith as I’d like. But I’d also argue that’s largely due to business holding outsized sway across the globe.
> There's far more provinces with some lawmaking capability. How logistically do we even begin to figure out how to obey each & every single local rule?
There is no inherent right to do business internationally. Requiring that companies adhere to the laws wherever they choose to operate is hardly unreasonable. If they cannot comply — if the logistics are too expensive — then obviously they’re not successful enough to expand into these new countries.
But the idea that companies — where the ultimate goal is profit — should outrank governments — where the ultimate goal is a functioning society — seems ludicrous when stated plainly. The fact that our current society is largely modeled by outsized corporate influence is proof of that.
One can argue that not all governments, or even most, seek a functioning society in the way I’ve described. But even then, one must realize that the governments in question are beholden to corporate interests.
All the way back to the East India Company and beyond, one can demonstrate that globalized corporate influence harms society. So these are hardly ridiculous questions to ask.
To me it's up to nations to determine whether they want to be connected to the rest of the planet. If you want to make a bunch of rules for yourself, you get what we have here, I hope: your country having to shut off that part of the internet.
You phrase it as doing business. But to me, these people in these other places are coming to us. They are connected to us. The onus is not on the rest of the world to adapt ourselves to these pilgrims. That's not what interconnection implies. We cannot flatten ourselves to be a lowest common denominator to all.
The East India Company feels entirely inapplicable here & is a gross & toxic countersuggestion. That was a case of a nation expanding outward. This is the opposite. This is visitors from afar, visiting us across the internet, a system begat of a free & democratic people.
That all said I am interested in some kind of cooperation. But I have a hard time imagining what a usable basic framework would be. It has to start with realizing sovereignty across boundaries is weak, enormously weak, a supplicant. And working from that start.
In your scenario, you’re calling this the opposite of an expansion. But aren’t the companies literally “expanding” into these countries? Otherwise, what’s the issue? Unless you’re saying they should have sway regardless of whether they’re doing business there or not?
And to be clear it is “doing business”. Nobody is forcing companies to ship anywhere they don’t want to. Nobody is forcing them to allow IP connections from countries they do not operate in. The internet connects us all, sure, but to accept payment for any service, that company must have a financial relationship in place within that country — or with another country that’s already doing business with the first.
And I must disagree about the EIC being inapplicable. There is not so great a difference between weaponizing dopamine and transporting opium.
I’m truly not trying to be inflammatory here, fwiw, and I appreciate your perspective and the way you’ve gone about conveying it. I just disagree with your premises on a fundamental level.
If I don't have any servers in your nation, I don't see how you could possibly even begin to regard me as having expanded into your nation. Your people are leaving your nation to come to me. That seems quite factually rooted.
> If I don't have any servers in your nation, I don't see how you could possibly even begin to regard me as having expanded into your nation.
Simple — by making sales and/or servicing customers for profit in my region, your business has “expanded” into my region. Server location is irrelevant — as you’ve pointed out, the internet is everywhere.
You need to disconnect yourself if you are going to have authoritarian stances over every place your people can connect to. Your fake dominion over others will never happen nor should it. What a trash fire impossible facetiously crap un hackable perspective you offer. Complete egocentristic imposition, that those who connect can dictate terms. A joke. Absolutely the hell not.
Do you have even a single token offering to make? Is there any limit whatsoever in any way that anyone connecting from afar should have? Or should theirocal laws immediately apply in full force wherever they connect? That seems to be the stance here.
Gotta say, I think we’re speaking past each other here. I don’t understand what is authoritarian about believing a business entity wishing to sell their goods and services to a region should do such business by the laws of said region. After all, you’re using the region’s public infrastructure to do business.
I’m also a bit disappointed this is where your line of argument has ended up. I have many, many flaws, but a desire for absolute power is not among them.
Indeed, advocating for respecting a diverse range of locales, with a diverse range of laws, would seem to me to provide far more freedom than a system of centralized control under a single, for-profit structure. Isn’t that what free market advocates are always harping about? Competition of the marketplace?
I agree my fake dominion over others will never happen, nor should it! But I remain puzzled as to why you’re so stridently coming after me in defense of a system that prioritizes the right of the ruling class to make money over all other concerns. Historically, such systems tend heavily and inevitably toward the authoritarianism you so eloquently rage against.
I don't understand why voltaireodactyl's comment was downvoted because he or she is pretty much on the right track with respect to the current legal regimes. Those still promoting Barlow's ideas in 2023 are living in a fantasy world.
It's because the legal regimes are absurd wrong & on a crash course for unsustainable conflicting tangles of lawmaking, and don't recognize the international kerfuffle created by letting any nation anywhere apply se I tree rules to any business. Each nation thinks it has the right, but doesn't consider that that implies every other nation also has fiat right to do make up whatever rules it wants against any other company, purely because said company can be reached over the internet. The nations are insane & power drunk.
And voltaireodactyl phrased it as someone doing their shit in the US being an invader & colonizer of other nations, just because other people can so happen to connect to the US. Which is further absurd & unsustainable madness.
I didn't down vote. But down vote to the nations of the earth, who are idiots, making mockery of themselves & the law itself by planting the seeds of tyranny by giving themselves arbitrary power over everywhere on earth. These nations are in the wrong. I agree with you that this resembles the current legal climate, but the legal climate is being actively hostile to humanity, is being absurd, is wrong, and in a number of cases we have gotten right up the brink of nations having to disconnect services to actually have any power, to maintain their laws, and alas the major nations tend generally to keep backing down. This is their only real power, to disconnect, and this untenable situation will lead to more and more breakdowns over time, and I hope we see more disconnects, rather than the constant spread of every random ration having arbitrary power over everyone.
I was around for the DoIoC the first time and while there's a lot to recommend that document, it's also pompous and arrogant in many respects, to the detriment of reasonable discourse since.
If your area has stupid beef, it's on you to handle your shit & make it so
Yeah yeah, nothing is ever our problem, it's always someone else's problem and other people's problems are stupid. Do you not realize how head-up-the-ass that sounds? A lot of regular people hate techies because they celebrate disruption and software 'eating the world' (including many people's livelihood and communities) while shrugging off any kind of collective responsibility.
What about when some group of people have legitimate beef?
If they want to do business in Russia? Absolutely.
Fortunately, nobody is forcing them to do business in Russia. But doing so entails acceptance of whatever local rules there are, including rules the vast majority of people might consider wrong.
I can promise you that Facebook & Co happily hand information on any individual to US law enforcement as long as there is a court order. They don't look at the person in question and then decide based on their own sense of morality whether they "should" supply that information. They simply do it.
Good point, that’s why this conversation has more nuance. In this case, a single judge from one of the Brazilian states has decided to take down an app for the entire country.
Man the judicial systems of the world keep seeming like the new unchecked off their rockers loonies. Definitely feeling like the weekest link in democracy.
Advocacy groups have gotten very good at forum-shopping the most extreme district court judges and convincing them to issue nation-wide injunctions. That practice probably does need to be curtailed. We saw it with the recent abortion pill issue but it was also happening with Trump's immigration restrictions, for example. No matter which side of the aisle it is coming from, some random judge in Hawaii or Texas should not be able to block nation-wide legislation without an exceptionally good reason.
I mean, presumably that reason will be violation of the law?
It's not like the judge just wakes up one day and decides "Hey, I'm going to fuck this up for everyone". There's a case for the judge to hear, and actions based on rulings. Higher courts can decide if they stand up to scrutiny (and there are often ways for effects to be stayed pending the rulings of these higher courts - see for instance Elizabeth Holmes staying out of prison again today).
Personally I think it's great that judges can make rulings that affect the operations of large multinational companies and services - remove that and we're even more in thrall to big money, with even less scope for legal remedy.
Now when law is applied flippantly, corruptly, poorly, with bias etc and the country does nothing to fix it, that's on the country to fix itself and run better, not by removing the power for the 'little guy' to have any influence at all.
OK, now define those things in an unambiguous way such that countries can come together in agreement over what constitutes expression, where the lines are with respect to slander/libel, what constitutes incitement, harassment... is money expression? Are lies in advertising protected?
These simple declarations of what people feel is true and right are ... I dunno, is the right expression "charmingly naive"?
"Every company should implement mass censorship and encourage countries to overstep"
This is a really weak defeatist position.
Brazil's administration is attempting to silence opposition voices, this has nothing to do with Nazis. Much like the EU uses "hate speech" laws to silence mass immigration skeptics, this is a political measure to silence people.
You appear to be implying Brazilian judges are not politicized, which seems laughable given the Supreme Court as well as the message leaks.
Brazilian judges are not even in the same realm of impartiality as some first world countries. This appeal to authority falls flat, as it would if you implied Venezuelan judges were impartial.
Oh yeah, telegram is a nazi company, they "commited a crime". Fuck off. What is your plan to defeat nazism, ban the whole internet? Because, sorry for giving you the bad news, Telegram is far from the only place where there are stupid people.
I've been working with PHP for years, and to this day, I struggle to make xdebug work. I don't think it's a genuinely good debugger, which is something that PHP sorely lacks and is a negative aspect of the language.
At this point it makes the language/platform a complete non-starter for me. var_dump or echo or print is just not proper debugging. Especially once you level up your debugger skills and utilize more of the functionality rather than just setting basic breakpoints.
It is true that governments have always had an influence on how we live our lives, whether through traditional media like newspapers and television, or more modern platforms like social media. This is not a new phenomenon, but rather something that has always existed in society. However, with the proliferation of the internet and social media, it has become easier for governments to monitor and regulate online content, and this has led to increased scrutiny and debate about the role of government in moderating online speech.
The United States has a distorted view of free speech, as some people believe that it should be absolute and without any limitations. However, it is important to recognize that the collective good and well-being of society should always be a priority, and that includes protecting against harmful or extremist ideas that could cause harm to others. While it is important to protect individuals' right to express themselves freely, it is also important to ensure that this freedom is not used to spread hateful or harmful messages. In short, the collective well-being of humanity should always be a top priority, and this includes moderating harmful or extremist content on the internet.
The government should simply have no hand in determining what information is presented or not presented to anyone, except within the bounds of explicit legal mandate to do so.
That this sort of under-the-table cooperation between three letter agencies and information companies has been allowed to exist and develop is completely outrageous. It should not be put into perspective, but stopped, right here, right now.
Once that is done, a discussion can be had about where it makes sense to create legislation to curtail various behaviors and content that are disturbing to social order. The current list of offenses is fairly comprehensive and includes things such as violent threats, child porn and terrorism recruitment, and any addition has to be well-motivated.
But as long as the cooperation with three-letter agencies happens outside a legal framework, the only proper response, as far as I can see, is pure outrage.
>In short, the collective well-being of humanity should always be a top priority, and this includes moderating harmful or extremist content on the internet.
Who defines what is harmful or extremist in the government? Sounds like you either get in the good graces of the "intelligence community" or you are now harmful, as shown pretty clearly with the hordes of "intelligence community" people calling the biden laptop(whatever it had, its content is irrelevant) russian propaganda[0], while even the DOJ and FBI says it isn't[1]. And of course those officials making the stink are contracted by the news agencies to talk about it where journalists will just blindly accept whatever they're given.
The "intelligence community" isn't your friend(neither are the proper agencies but I digress), it never was if you're not an us citizen and it probably stopped being if you are after the patriot act.
> Who defines what is harmful or extremist in the government?
An additional related question: Are they even capable of undertaking this task? Our current government officials and bureaucrats don't understand enough about how the Internet works to effectively police it. And more fundamentally, can a government act quickly enough to outwit how quickly the Internet adapts to roadblocks? Governments need to have policies, procedures, go through chains of command, etc. A lot of Internet culture, on the other hand, is driven by random people doing random things. If a topic is forbidden, instead of policing that topic, the government then has to police the 50 ways to get around the block as well as guess which one will take root.
It's similar to trying to win a war against guerrilla insurgents. The high level of organization of a government to some degree works against them.
> However, it is important to recognize that the collective good and well-being of society should always be a priority, and that includes protecting against harmful or extremist ideas that could cause harm to others.
As an American, I disagree. We are a sovereign country, and people from other countries don't have any say in how we conduct ourselves. It doesn't whether it's online or offline.
American Nazis and Tankies have the first amendment right to spread their dumb ideas. If they want to make their own websites, that's fine with me. The government should mind its own business unless there are actual crimes taking place.
The rest of the world doesn't have to like it. It's just the way it's going to be.
I believe your comment represents speech that puts the well-being of society at serious risk, is harmful, and possibly even extremist.
If I manage to convince 50.1% of the population of the same, should we be permitted to censor your speech, and enforce prior restraint on your future speech under penalty of law?
I'll go one further... if even 1 single person (the person who owns HN), decides that they don't like the content of that comment, then they should be free to delete/censor the comment on HN and ban the person in perpetuity from HN.
Your argument doesn't really make any sense because everybody here is talking about speech in the context of a walled garden owned by a company/person. That is a completely different situation than what you are alluding to. I can just as easily prevent the reverse question: I have a blog with a comment section, and somebody I don't know posts a horrific, rude and distasteful comment that I don't want associated with my blog post. Can the government force me to not delete that due to free speech, or do I have the power to moderate my blog however I want?
>Your argument doesn't really make any sense because everybody here is talking about speech in the context of a walled garden owned by a company/person.
Did you read GP? If they were talking about comapnies and not governments, it certainly was not made clear:
>However, with the proliferation of the internet and social media, it has become easier for governments to monitor and regulate online content, and this has led to increased scrutiny and debate about the role of government in moderating online speech.
>[...]In short, the collective well-being of humanity should always be a top priority, and this includes moderating harmful or extremist content on the internet.
The initial comment says government has always used their influence through "newspapers", "television" and "social media", all of which have historically been non-government entities who take the government's input and decide if they want to follow it or not. There are obviously major historical cases in which private companies have defied what the government wanted them to do (NYT v Sullivan, NYT vs US, etc), but I'm sure there are countless examples throughout Twitter's history of the government asking for something and then not getting it, but I assume that isn't something those instances are not being highlighted that much as they don't fit the narrative.
That's perhaps a fair reading of the initial comment, although reading "regulate" in "it has become easier for governments to monitor and regulate online content" and "moderating" in "the collective well-being of humanity should always be a top priority, and this includes moderating harmful or extremist content on the internet" to both mean simply "government input" is somewhat questionable. See also your own use of the word "moderate" ("Can the government force me to not delete that due to free speech, or do I have the power to moderate my blog however I want?"). Also your point that historically non-government entities can decide whether to follow government input or not needs to be qualified considerably. Contempt of court was not considered free speech until relatively recently. for example see Los Angeles Times contempt of court 1938. Then there is of course the Sedition Act of 1918. In any case this is very far from your claim that "everybody here is talking about speech in the context of a walled garden owned by a company/person." We are most certainly talking about government here. Whether or not the initial comment was refering to government simply "giving input" or outright censoring, we are still talking about government, so your claim is in my view inaccurate even under your own explaination of the comment, which is itself somewhat questionable.
A few years ago, I made the decision to delete my LastPass account. At the time, I wasn't sure if it was the right move, but in light of the recent data leak, I couldn't be happier with my decision.
If you're in the market for a new password manager, I highly recommend giving Bitwarden a try. It's open-source and has a strong focus on security and privacy.
