Mmm... well, if you're received what you consider to be toxic interactions on twitter, reddit and even here, but not on 4chan, have you considered that the common factor is perhaps not that all of these platforms are toxic...
...but that your views are considered problematic by quite a lot of people?
Perhaps that could be some cause for self reflection before you universally declare the entire platform here hostile and toxic.
> your views are considered problematic by quite a lot of people
What I consider problematic is the fact these people will organize massive efforts on Twitter to ruin other people's lives because they posted wrongthink. They make the 4chan raids I've seen look amateurish.
Indeed. There is some downright grotesque "malice" in Twitter cancel-culture efforts. It's really strange they are not self-aware and call 4chan (~last bastion of free speech) toxic.
Yeah, 4chan is toxic and savage, but at least they are honest and humane in a candid kind of way.
Yeah. 4chan is supposed to represent people's unfiltered thoughts, what people really think when freed from social consequences. This produces a wider spectrum than what most people are used to seeing, both good and bad.
While 4chan posters occasionally get organized and manage to operate outside their borders, these incredibly malicious activities just aren't something I associate with them. They're the specialty of groups like kiwi farms who are responsible for the suicide of at least one video game console emulator developer. I was shocked when people told me about byuu's suicide here on HN.
People on 4chan will call you slurs and insults but it is never personal, part of it is due to the anonymous nature. People here will be personally vicious and hostile.
> ...but that your views are considered problematic by quite a lot of people?
You do not know what my views are. It's as if you are trying to prove me right honestly. (btw, I am not posting on reddit nor on twitter, nor 4chan for that matter)
Plus the same could be said for the toxic interactions that you had on there.
> Perhaps that could be some cause for self reflection before you universally declare the entire platform here hostile and toxic.
Again, same thing for you. "Perhaps that could be some cause for self reflection before you universally declare the entire platform there hostile and toxic."
There's a difference between vicious mockery of a company and its founders on a single website, and having randos holding knives knocking on people's windows.
This is patently ridiculous. The biggest boards on 4chan, particularly /pol/ have widespread support for the genocide of Jews, black people, Muslims and women. Well maybe not all women, a more common view is instead that they should be enslaved to men. This kind of correction should give an idea of what kind of ideas are popular there.
Of course 4chan is not just /pol/ but it is the biggest board, and together with /b/ contribute to plenty of hateful content as I mentioned. The culture between boards is different but /pol/ refugees in particular have been spreading to other boards for several years now and it's very annoying because even if a small group of them decide to visit a board regularly then they can ruin the culture because of relative sizes between the boards. Reddit and Twitter have their own problems, particularly with echo chambers but the biggest subreddit on reddit isn't spewing anywhere near the same kind of shit as the biggest board on 4chan does.
Go to any board, /lit/, /g/, /fa/ (maybe less so), will all have a thread or two that you will be able to tell are directly influenced by /pol/ posters. Some boards call them out, most don't.
maybe on streamers with less than 50 viewers. every twitch stream i've seen the chat is easily 100x more toxic than any HN thread. ridiculous comparison
> I don't want that when I'm making apps. If I'm making a GTK app then I would expect to get the GTK borders. If I'm making a Qt app then I would expect to get the Qt borders. And so on.
Surely the choice should fall on the user.
> That's a good way to ensure you get conflicting gestures/keybinds, inconsistent theming, and just a general lack of consistency.
Which is why we would like all of these to be configurable.
> The common ground would be drawing your own decorations because that's the way any Wayland server works by default
What if I, as a user of a tiling wm don't want any decorations?
> Xdg-decoration is an optional extension
That everything supports it afaik. (except mutter?)
It does, the user can choose to use GTK or Qt apps.
>Which is why we would like all of these to be configurable.
So making it all configurable is just guaranteeing that the app is broken out of the box and needs to have all this stuff set up before it even works correctly. Not exactly a user-friendly way to ship a program.
>What if I, as a user of a tiling wm don't want any decorations?
You may have to accept that some apps are not built to work in a tiling WM. In my experience, you will have a lot of trouble with some apps for various other reasons too, not just the decorations.
>That everything supports it afaik. (except mutter?)
I'm confused, you said everything supports it, but then immediately listed something that didn't support it.
> It does, the user can choose to use GTK or Qt apps.
That's... not what I meant by it. I find this dangerous as it encourages duplicate work for minor differences.
I would rather not have to make both a GTK and a Qt version of my program just so my users can have the ability to do some basic customization.
> So making it all configurable is just guaranteeing that the app is broken out of the box
Not sure why you think that. You just put the existing choices as the defaults.
> You may have to accept that some apps are not built to work in a tiling WM
What about my apps then? As a programmer I want my programs to be friendly for both tiling and non-tiling WMs. This by itself excludes gtk as an option for me.
As for some apps not built to work in tiling WMs, the changes needed to make them work properly are usually extremely minor. To be honest it feels like the GNOME team is going out of their way to degrade the usability of their apps (and apps using gtk) for tiled WMs.
> In my experience, you will have a lot of trouble with some apps for various other reasons too
Some apps might have some minor issues that can usually be solved without a lot of effort, but even if they are not they don't usually pose any problem.
> I'm confused, you said everything supports it, but then immediately listed something that didn't support it.
Yes? Everything except mutter supports it as far as I know. Is there something difficult to understand here?
Edit: I heard that Enlightenment does not support it either.
>I find this dangerous as it encourages duplicate work for minor differences. I would rather not have to make both a GTK and a Qt version of my program just so my users can have the ability to do some basic customization.
Sure, but this fragmentation isn't exactly new. There have always been multiple toolkits on Linux. I don't know what else to tell you, if you don't like it then you can pick one toolkit for your own apps and just focus on that. I wouldn't exactly call this "basic customization" if it requires you to rewrite your whole app so it's fine to just use one toolkit. I understand maybe you are facing some indecision about toolkits, that's normal, you may want to take some time to research them and find which one suits your app better.
>Not sure why you think that. You just put the existing choices as the defaults.
I already explained it, that will be broken if you use it outside the recommended environment as the HIGs won't match. The defaults only make sense on the target platform.
>What about my apps then? As a programmer I want my programs to be friendly for both tiling and non-tiling WMs. This by itself excludes gtk as an option for me.
Well, no it doesn't. You can disable the decorations in GTK. Most GTK apps don't by convention but you can do it if you really want. And you don't have to use GTK, you could use another toolkit.
>As for some apps not built to work in tiling WMs, the changes needed to make them work properly are usually extremely minor.
>Some apps might have some minor issues that can usually be solved without a lot of effort, but even if they are not they don't usually pose any problem.
I disagree with this entirely, the app needs to be designed in a fully responsive fashion to do that. Most older apps aren't like this.
>To be honest it feels like the GNOME team is going out of their way to degrade the usability of their apps (and apps using gtk) for tiled WMs.
I don't know what you mean by this. GNOME is not a tiling WM, so people who make GNOME apps usually do not target tiling WMs or test there. It would actually be the opposite, supporting the tiling WM would be going out of their way.
>Yes? Everything except mutter supports it as far as I know. Is there something difficult to understand here?
The way you're phrasing is confusing. To me it's like saying "every vehicle has four wheels except bicycles". Well I guess you could say that for some subset of vehicles, but I don't understand what the distinction here is supposed to be, or why that even matters.
> Sure, but this fragmentation isn't exactly new. There have always been multiple toolkits on Linux
I think that we got a little bit sidetracked. "I want my users to be able to be able to select what borders to have" -> "the user can choose to use GTK or Qt apps" -> "it encourages duplicate work for minor differences" -> "fragmentation isn't exactly new"
Fragmentation might not be new but I would really rather not re-write my UI in another toolkit just to offer a second border option.
> that will be broken if you use it outside the recommended environment as the HIGs won't match
Depends on your definition of broken I guess. If you consider the user unbinding C-q from "quit" as broken because "the HIGs won't match" then I would have to say that I disagree. If the user wants to make "breaking" chances to my applications they should be free, especially since I don't believe that any big issues will be caused. If some minor issues are caused at certain configurations then that's fine, after all the user could revert to the default config if they encounter an issue that breaks their use-case or makes the interaction feel inferior to the default one.
> Well, no it doesn't
Thank you for the correction, I take it back. I guess if I go with gtk4 I would have to use a mix of gtk4+libdecor in order to have "native" borders in all WMs, is that correct?
> Most older apps aren't like this.
What do you mean by "older apps"? Motif-era, gtk2-era, or gtk3-era? I do not think that I had a big issue with any of them but I could be forgetting something.
> GNOME is not a tiling WM
Well, yeah, because GNOME is not a WM :p
By "going out of their way" I meant specifically the decision to implement CSD.
In general I think that GNOME should be able to do whatever it wants, I just wish that they would play better with the other players (and well, the users).
> The way you're phrasing is confusing. To me it's like saying "every vehicle has four wheels except bicycles". Well I guess you could say that for some subset of vehicles, but I don't understand what the distinction here is supposed to be, or why that even matters.
More like "all (relevant) C compilers except MSVC support C99 VLAs", or "all mobile phones in the EU except apple's use a standard charger". The point is that while xdg-decoration might be an optional extension in reality it is pretty much standard except in two WMs that require special handling.
>Fragmentation might not be new but I would really rather not re-write my UI in another toolkit just to offer a second border option.
Then don't offer that second option? You can also offer multiple border options within the toolkit.
>If you consider the user unbinding C-q from "quit" as broken because "the HIGs won't match" then I would have to say that I disagree.
That would be one keybind. Complex apps have many keybinds, it's not really feasible to expect every user to change them all to match whatever their setup is. You could provide this as an option if you really wanted but some applications won't bother with this.
>If the user wants to make "breaking" chances to my applications they should be free, especially since I don't believe that any big issues will be caused.
Again you could provide this as an option if you really wanted but this is a sub-par experience for the user to have to mess with this. What I see really complex cross-platform apps doing: they just decide which platforms they support and then provide different sets of keybinds for each of those platforms, no need for the user to have to re-configure hundreds of keybinds to match their setup.
>I guess if I go with gtk4 I would have to use a mix of gtk4+libdecor in order to have "native" borders in all WMs, is that correct?
No, you cannot use libdecor with GTK4 at this time because of technical limitations. GTK4 technically does support the kde server decoration protocol which is an older version of xdg-decoration. So that may already work if you're using a wayland server that supports it. Otherwise you could try to patch GTK4 to support xdg-decoration.
>What do you mean by "older apps"? Motif-era, gtk2-era, or gtk3-era?
I've noticed many apps that are built around the old-style desktop concepts of menus/toolbars/panels/dialogs don't play well with the extremely squashed resolutions that tiling window managers tend to put windows into. This is the same problem with trying to run those "native" apps on a Linux phone like the Librem, they just aren't designed to run at a small resolution.
>Well, yeah, because GNOME is not a WM :p
Sorry, what I mean is that GNOME includes its own WM and shell which is the only thing that it supports, and that is the only thing that GNOME developers usually test with. They have not supported alternate WMs in quite a while, as they have no reason to.
>By "going out of their way" I meant specifically the decision to implement CSD.
You may not agree with these motivations, but they were not done to make you miserable. Please don't assume bad faith.
>I just wish that they would play better with the other players (and well, the users).
I'm not sure what you mean, GNOME is its own platform. If you are not a user of that app platform then I don't see why it would matter to you.
>The point is that while xdg-decoration might be an optional extension in reality it is pretty much standard except in two WMs that require special handling.
There's no special handling, everything that is needed to support xdg-decoration is also needed to support those other WMs. Even with xdg-decoration, you still need to provide a fallback. Also, I believe Weston is another one that does not support it, and the Elementary compositor is likely not going to support it either.
I frankly cannot agree with most of the stuff that you are presenting as fact here. I understand that you use GNOME and are passionate about it, but your insistence on right and wrong answers is absolutely not what drives the Linux community. If there were easy solutions, we would have built a perfect operating system 40 years ago and quit arguing then and there.
> Again you could provide this as an option if you really wanted but this is a sub-par experience for the user to have to mess with this.
Then don't make them. Just do what every other desktop has done since 1992, give people the option to configure things the way they want, and save your "sub-par user experience" argument for setting the defaults. If corner-cutting starts to affect power users, you need to go back to the drawing board and re-think things. Luckily, this is a pretty easy situation: nothing is broken, nothing needs to be fixed. It's along the lines of GNOME deciding the remove your clipboard history because it was gauche and such an old and ugly feature.
> Well that's not true, you can see some of the motivations for using CSD here
Yeah, real motivation going on there. Of the 4 apps they mention needing CSD, only one got it. Is that really what 3 years of progress should look like for that kind of initiative?
> I'm not sure what you mean, GNOME is its own platform. If you are not a user of that app platform then I don't see why it would matter to you.
GNOME is not Linux, and the issue is that the GNOME developers are making too many decisions on behalf of the end user. I didn't have an issue with the mostly hands-off approach that GTK2 and 3 used. I do take issue when I can't use a desktop environment because my preference for handling packages is apparently verboten, and now they've decided to remove features that I liked. It's a regression on the level of dropping the Unity desktop, but even more user-hostile.
And even still, I have a hard time calling GNOME in it's current state much of a platform. It exhibits constant crashing issues on my Haswell devices which means I can't use it on half my devices, and it only truly functions on one or two distros. Not to go "us vs them", but KDE has no problem maintaining a stable, usable desktop even across major releases. I'm utterly dumbfounded by how the current maintainers of GNOME feel so self-righteous in their redesign, especially considering the state of their recent releases.
>I understand that you use GNOME and are passionate about it, but your insistence on right and wrong answers is absolutely not what drives the Linux community.
So your statements here aren't correct. Please avoid accusing me of being a fanboy. If you really want to know my opinion, I'll use any desktop and I'm not passionate about any of them, GNOME is just one of them. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. But if you're asking questions about GNOME and GTK then I'll give you straight answers, they are also part of the "Linux community" and it doesn't help either of us to misrepresent them. There are certain facts about that which it is not helpful for us to disagree on, because they are just that: facts, not opinions.
>Then don't make them. Just do what every other desktop has done since 1992, give people the option to configure things the way they want
Well some users may have no need to configure that. And like I was saying with complex apps, it may be that you don't need to give users a really complicated way to configure every little detail. It may be that what they really want is just a way to swap between "presets" and that will be enough for everyone. You don't know until you actually do the design work and iterate. This of course is a more complex and nuanced topic than just saying "give us an option" or "give us a default" or something like that.
>If corner-cutting starts to affect power users, you need to go back to the drawing board and re-think things.
Well no, in my experience power users are just as likely to be trying to accomplish something specific like that. When you get down to it their usage patterns are not particularly different.
>Yeah, real motivation going on there. Of the 4 apps they mention needing CSD, only one got it. Is that really what 3 years of progress should look like for that kind of initiative?
I really don't know what their progress goals are but there are many other GNOME apps not listed there that use CSD, you should look at them if you're interested to fully understand the progress.
>GNOME is not Linux, and the issue is that the GNOME developers are making too many decisions on behalf of the end user.
Yes I agree that GNOME is not Linux. But GNOME developers are making decisions on behalf of GNOME users. That's what they're supposed to do, those are the end users they support. I don't understand what your issue here is. If you don't use any GNOME software then their decisions won't affect you.
>I do take issue when I can't use a desktop environment because my preference for handling packages is apparently verboten
Which preference is this? Can you elaborate?
>and now they've decided to remove features that I liked. It's a regression on the level of dropping the Unity desktop, but even more user-hostile.
I'm sorry to hear that, but I hope you can understand that every project cannot support infinite features. If it's desired to add a new feature then sometimes an older feature that has some overlap with it will have to be removed. That's just the unfortunate reality, nobody is trying to be hostile to you. And it's not really feasible to ask software developers to stop adding new features, if they did this then everything would stagnate.
>And even still, I have a hard time calling GNOME in it's current state much of a platform. It exhibits constant crashing issues on my Haswell devices which means I can't use it on half my devices, and it only truly functions on one or two distros.
Can you please report these bugs? I've never experienced this. If those are legitimate bugs then I'm sure someone will want to have them fixed. It could possibly be a driver issue that is not strictly related to GNOME.
>Not to go "us vs them", but KDE has no problem maintaining a stable, usable desktop even across major releases. I'm utterly dumbfounded by how the current maintainers of GNOME feel so self-righteous in their redesign, especially considering the state of their recent releases.
Please understand that not every project has the resources to test with every hardware combination, it may just be that you hit some unusual and unfortunate combination of hardware and software that blows up. It's just lucky for you that KDE doesn't hit that.
I'm not discussing this any further, and I'm rather put-off from contributing to any GNOME projects if all the developers are going to feel this self-righteous. In any case, it seems like you've made it clear that neither GNOME nor Flatpak are right for me, so I'll quit wasting both of our time.
I'm not a GNOME developer and I have no idea what you mean by self-righteous. I don't particularly care what the "right" way to do things is, I can only notice areas where there are problems and then give suggestions. And even if I was a developer, it would be incorrect to assume that all other developers act the same way. So please avoid making these vague characterizations about people, they're really not meaningful and they could be perceived as insults.
If you don't want to use GNOME or Flatpak that's perfectly fine, I'm happy for you to choose whatever you want. But some of the statements you've made here are false, including the assumptions you've made about me. That's not being respectful to me or to the project when you do that. Please don't spread misinformation or make decisions based on false information, that damages the community and it also hurts both me and you. If you're not actively using/developing a certain project or in regular contact with the developers then I would suggest not making definitive statements about it or assuming that your experiences are shared by everyone. IMO it's a mistake to quit a discussion based on false information. If you ever change your mind and decide you want to report those bugs, the door is wide open for you.
Can you please show me one of these merge requests that was submitted? If there is any chance of it getting merged, the patch should be against GTK4 master.
I personally don't care as one can use flatpak portals nowadays (qt makes it really easy for non-flatpak applications to use, but I haven't seen how I can do it in non-flatpak gtk applications).
Those are old and obsolete patches for GTK2 and GTK3 that to my knowledge were never submitted upstream, and currently it's too late to do that as GTK2 and 3 are not being developed anymore. If there is an open merge request for GTK4 that I am not aware of, please show it.
One man's criminal is another man's freedom fighter. Snowden is a criminal but his supporters consider him a decent person. I do not believe that the two are mutually exclusive.
The whole point of projects like freenet is to let people communicate data between each other without censorship and without being identified, no matter what that data is. If you disagree with that principle then I believe that freenet is probably not for you.
> That does not really do much to convince me running it is a good thing, you know?
Make sure to block TLS connections on every network that you manage. You don't know what naughty things your users might be doing after all. You would not want to help a criminal, would you?
> Make sure to block TLS connections on every network that you manage. You don't know what naughty things your users might be doing after all. You would not want to help a criminal, would you?
Way not to get the point.
Are you saying the overwhelming majority of users on some network GP manages are using it to do "naughty things"? Yes, then of course GP should shut it down. That's why the question in this sub-thread is "Is this used for other stuff too, or in practice almost exclusively for morally repugnant stuff that I don't want to support?".
If the question can't be answered, that's one thing; then people will have to base their moral judgment of whether to participate or not upon their own more or less educated guess. But most of the proponents here seem not to (want to) even understand the question, and in reply gibber about anything and everything except what was asked. Which makes not only themselves but the very thing they seem to think they're defending come off in a real shitty light.
No need to be so hostile and toxic. I only mentioned it because this is an actual argument against TLS that I have seen being used in the past, even by popular sites such as pornhub for example (before being forced to enable TLS due to google downranking non-https sites). I also mentioned it because one of the points of TLS is to hide what kind of content is being accessed, so just like freenet you will not know whether most of the traffic is used for naughty things even if you want to, you can only assume. Especially since nowadays http has the Host header and services such as cloudflare are popular, so checking whether a user made a request to a "bad" IP address won't be effective.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
You are saying THAT is the "hostile and toxic" response that is not in good faith, but you are fine with "Make sure to block TLS connections on every network that you manage. You don't know what naughty things your users might be doing after all. You would not want to help a criminal, would you?"
You don't explicitly ask that of everyone you reply to in every one of your replies, do you? So asking it specifically of me strongly implies that you didn't think I did.
> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Yeah, well, sorry, but I really couldn't see much of a stronger interpretation.
I mean, hey, was my take all that much more of "a weaker one that's easier to criticize" than:
>>> Make sure to block TLS connections on every network that you manage. You don't know what naughty things your users might be doing after all. You would not want to help a criminal, would you?
ECHR contains the freedom of speech as a human right and so do most EU countries in their own constitutions. "Countless people have been successfully prosecuted for what would be covered under the 1st amendment" (and the ECHR) in the US too. The constitution only has value as long as it's enforced.
Let's talk about Germany, to give one example. In that country, the top court can outright declare political parties illegal, if it believes that they constitute a threat to the democratic order. This was used against the Nazis, of course - but also against the Communist party.
So, ironically, under the current interpretation of 1A, communists have more freedom of speech and association in US than they do in Germany.
> Let's talk about Germany, to give one example. In that country, the top court can outright declare political parties illegal, if it believes that they constitute a threat to the democratic order.
So what? Which country can't declare organisations illegal, if it determines them to be terrorist organisations? I'm pretty sure the USA can. So what does it matter if a terrorist organisation calls itself a "party"? (Didn't the Symbionese Liberation Army try exactly that?)
The USA can't declare a party to be a "terrorist organization" solely on the basis of their political platform. It requires, at the very least, explicit incitement to terrorism. German law allows a party to be banned e.g. because it advocates replacing the Basic Law (via free and fair elections!), with no violence in the picture at all.
In the US, an idea can't be a "terrorist organization". In Germany, it can be. I much prefer the US model of free speech. Free speech only for ideas that the government doesn't consider dangerous isn't free speech at all.
Don't. In addition to the fact that our police are intrusive, our criminal legal system is optimized for tallying high numbers of convictions rather than justice, everything is dependent on your credit score, you get effectively no vacation and very little in the way of labor protection compared to back home, and you're fucked if you get sick or injured without adequate employer health care -- according to various European Hackernews who came here, our food is terrible.
As for how Germany is freer than the USA... it consistently scores higher on various press freedom indices and on Cato's Human Freedom Index. Social mobility and legal protection of privacy are both higher in Germany.
Trump was an asshole and awful public speaker but his policies were good for the country. The current administration is further diving the US and pushing the limits of what’s acceptable. I fear this is only the beginning of much worse policies to come.
The problem with the 1st Amendment is that it protects all speech (in general, and if you quote yelling "fire" in a crowded theater you have not read the case law) no matter how stupid that speech is. The issue is that anything else could be a slippery slope to authoritarianism. Drawing that line is hard. Education is the key here however some people seems to be to stupid to be educated.
...they think THEIR bodily autonomy has no limits -- not even where sane people would see that it has to be limited to not encroach on OTHER PEOPLE'S bodily autonomy.
I'm not so sure about that. Stands to reason, AFAICS, that "MY freedoms (and screw yours)!" ideologically resonates more on the right than the left: The whole left-right dichotomy is one of ~ "my freedoms above all" vs "freedoms for all, balanced with responsibility for all".
I think that this is extremely simplistic. For example it does not account for individualist anarchism or the collectivist "for our country/nation/race" pushed by various fascist governments.
I can't see how "doesn't cover absolutely all corner cases" equals "extremely simplistic". I'm fairly sure that in broad terms, "left / right" covers the political spectrum the absolute majority of people inhabit. Your objection feels like futile quibbling to me.
It has been incredibly interesting how the antivax movement has suddenly become a right wing thing after years of festering on the left (including not so long ago with our own VP). I mean... I used to live in Marin county, one of the bluest in the country and one of the least vaccinated. Then COVID comes around and suddenly everyone's pro-COVID-vax, but anti every other vax. Robert Kennedy JR was also instrumental in the 'normal' anti-vax movement, but now it's suddenly a partisan and 'conservative' thing.
(Actually, I don't think it's 'conservative' at all. Living in Portland now, I know a lot of old hippie liberals that are anti-covid-vax, and I know few conservatives here, but it's certainly more mixed in that crowd than the hippies).
Doesn't all this just go to show that anti-vaxxery[§] is not really a partisan political issue in the first place?
Plain old lunacy in itself is politically neutral. The distribution, some shades at some times being more popular on one side of the political spectrum only to sometimes migrate to the other or spread all over it... That seems to be influenced by fashion, by world events like COVID-19, etc, etc -- but basically, mainly, more or less random.
___
[§]: Like, say, spiritualism, crystal healing, homeopathy, flat-eartherism, past lives, shoving rocks up your vajazzle...
I don't believe anti-vaxxing is a political issue, yes. WHile conservatives are maligned for being anti-vax, in reality, groups like Hispanics and Blacks (not historically conservative or republican in huge amounts) have the highest rates of unvaxxedness.
Its not right or left or conservative its anti-authoritarian it makes perfect sense that "hippies" are now considered anti-vaxer. They want to decide what "drug" they inject and no gov should decide what isn't allowed and also no gov should decide whats mandated to inject. If its voluntary they likely dont care at all. The whole term "antivaxxer" is biased anyway. Most people now pushed in that group are not against vaccines they are against mandating, pushing, incentivizing, shaming etc. people into getting it especially if the gov is behind it.
I love how obvious the narrative on this angle now is, and how even on a very normie place like hn you are seen right through. Blaming individualism is a favorite past time of oligarchs and totalitarians.
> And there is no doubt she would be free in every state in the US.
For this specific action? Sure. For other actions that are protected under the 1st amendment? Depends on whether there is a law against it and if she pissed off someone "important" or enough people. There are various such cases.
edit: will respond to the replies after the rate-limit expires
I'm fine with that but its non the less the hard truth there is nothing like the 1st amendment in any other place.
>For other actions that are protected under the 1st amendment? Depends....
To be in the right doesn't mean you win the court case that's true but in the EU you dont have the 1st amendment, you dont have the right to free speech. If the court system does its job correct you go to jail not when the system fails because of "important" people and corruption. You go to jail because what you said is actually a crime to say.
Needless to say that the list of "crime speech" only gets longer and longer over time.
> in the EU you dont have the 1st amendment, you dont have the right to free speech.
Most EU countries have some rather close analogue of the US First Amendment in their law or constitution. Sure, pretty much all of them have various exceptions, so there's no absolute free speech -- but then the US has such exceptions too, and thus also lacks absolute free speech.
On the whole, IMO your comment is much more wrong than right.
Name a single place and the law that is remotely comparable to the 1st amendment.
It doesn't exist. There are some analogue yes but they all have exceptions like the one mentioned above where arbitrary the holocaust is excluded or certain other topic are excluded. Or the free speech only applies if your speech is considered satire or has some arctic value. etc. etc.
>but then the US has such exceptions too, and thus also lacks absolute free speech.
No, it does not the fist amendment is very clear and short enough to not have any loopholes in there.
People just intentionally misinterpret it and then come around and say you can scream "bomb" in an airplane in US airspace therefore you dont have free speech in the US.
This just shows the lack of understand what free speech means. Its not about having the right to make audible noises of any kind at any time and place.
Similarly if you order a person to kill someone and do so with your voice trough the act of speaking, you are committing a crime.
> You go to jail because what you said is actually a crime to say
Sounds like the US. Just look at all these people who went to jail for crimes related to illegal numbers (eg. piracy). Or people like Mildred Gillars. Or the various whistleblowers.
Complete nonsense. If you voluntarily agree to not leak secrets and do so anyway its not protected under free speech. You also dont get jailed for speech but for the act of breaching some agreement or other law.
> Just look at all these people who went to jail for crimes related to illegal numbers (eg. piracy). Or people like Mildred Gillars. Or the various whistleblowers.
