There goes the neighborhood

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/google-will-survive-sesta-your-startup-might-not
Think of the children!

the free market will fix it

>>2
No such thing.

>>3
Commie detected.

>>4
I think your detector's broke.

>>5
Lol even commies have realized that markets are a good thing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90%E1%BB%95i_M%E1%BB%9Bi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Belarus
So your fellow delusionalists even disagree with you.

>>6
Believing there's too much cronyism for laissez faire to ever truly exist does not make me a commie.

>>7
True, but markets with cronyism tend to fair better than non-market fully state-controlled economies with their own form of cronyism. We have neoliberalism which is pretty close to near hands off free market, though I would support a hybrid between ordoliberalism as practiced in West Germany and neoliberalism. I'm not a free market fundamentalist, but relatively free markets work best. As for Google, if they continue this censorship crusade of theirs, it's not going to end well and enough people will eventually get fed up and jump ship completely.

You fucking retards. Did you even read the article? If Sesta becomes an actual piece of legislature, all US social media sites (and don't think for a second if this gets passed it won't infect the rest of the West, you smug Eurocucks) are going to be legally responsible for the content that third parties post on their site. And if content isn't moderated perfectly, social media sites can be seriously punished. For the stuff that third parties post. The point of this article was to point out that automated moderation is never 100% effective and requires the supplement of actual human beings. Not everyone can afford to monitor their site 24/7, especially at a huge quantity of content, as with 4chan. In fact, just think of all the CP spam that's suffocating 4-ch right now. Gone. 4-ch would be gone in an instant, because the culture is such that BPS and Squeeks and whoever the fuck else could never possibly have anticipated a malicious attack like that.

>>9
And? If worst case scenario it gets passed, it can be declared unconstitutional by the courts since it can be demonstrated that it violates the First Amendment by the government regulating people's speech by proxy.

>>10

Don't worry about it, the Supreme Court will definitely declare it unconstitutional. Don't worry! Nothing will ever happen. It's not like constitutional rights have been stripped away from US citizens on the pretense of a greater good before, so just enjoy your free Netflix like a good goy!

>>11
First, whomst'd've'ly'yaint'nt'ed'ies's'y'es are you quoting? Second, the Supreme Court has been pretty damn pro-First Amendment for many decades whether it was majority liberal or majority conservative. For example, earlier this year, you had Matal v. Tam in which the court upheld that hate speech is protected speech under the First Amendment, I doubt legislation that interferes (even if by proxy) users' speech on social media will hold up in the courts. "Congress shall make no law..." remember?

>>9
I did not read the article.

Will every startup have the resources to police its users’ activity with the level of scrutiny that the new law would demand of them?

Is the police incompetent?
(By the way I am quoting the article)

>>14
What do you mean by police?

>>12
No net-neutrality will make it way easier to censor things indirectly. Don't actually have to censor, just demonetize, reduce bandwidth quotas, degrade Quality of Service, deprioritize traffic, use cheaper routing/hosting.

>>16
That's already happening now, no need for additional legislation.

I'm more worried about W3C accepting DRM into Web standards. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-controversy-w3c-greenlights-drm-web

>>18
A little late to the party, huh? Use a browser that doesn't accept proprietary blobs into it.

>>19
Why should I have to do that because the W3C has become a kiked institution? And what mainline Web browser development doesn't contain sneaky proprietary crap?

>>20
try Brave

>>21
Brave is good, but still uses the enemy's Web engine (Blink).

>>20
For teh record, I don't think there's any GNU/Linux distros that ship Firefox with EME by default. In Gentoo, at least, you have to specify that flag. Also, that's the point. There is no alternative, and that's something you should be bothered by. All the more incentive to support smaller projects. Preferably something that doesn't perpetuate the webkit monoculture.

>>23

I don't think there's any GNU/Linux distros that ship Firefox with EME by default.

That's good, if true. But for how long will that last? After the systemd debacle, I don't trust any of these cocksuckers.

In Gentoo, at least, you have to specify that flag.

Nice. Is OpenRC still the default init in Gentoo? Or have they also fell to systemd?

Also, that's the point. There is no alternative, and that's something you should be bothered by. All the more incentive to support smaller projects. Preferably something that doesn't perpetuate the webkit monoculture.

The only Web browsers that I know of that use their own Web engines and none of the major engines out there are NetSurf and Dillo. I'll support them with donations when I can.