I do sympathize and empathize with the pain of their loss. But you mixing things up here. I do not care that they feel bad after hearing what someone else has to say about their situation.
I hope your confusion here isn’t deliberate - as in an attempt to smear me.
According to you it doesn’t matter whether I’m trying to smear you or not because nobody is forced to listen to me - ergo it doesn’t matter what i say. That to me is nonsense because…
If you have a megaphone (paid for by wealthy powerful person who wants your views amplified) and I don’t, that’s de facto censorship because people can only hear you.
EDIT: is you asking if I’m trying to smear you an attempt to smear me? Just kidding, because I think it’s pretty below the belt unless you generally think that’s how I behave. 
The burning question is not whether anyone has the right to listen to Alex Jones, it’s what motivates someone to continue to listen to him.
To me the burning question is who gets to decide what is considered “violent/offensive” speech? For some no speech is offensive for others calling someone by the wrong pronoun is. So who decides what is and isn’t offensive to warrant bans and possibly even arrest if you live in England?
There is also another more or less famous Alex Jones, but I assume she is less controversial to listen to.
I also wonder if a SAFE nodes could become a DVPN, like
Could self authenticating NRS or distributed key generation (DKG) replace certificate authorities (ssl/tls) 
this is so over my head that at this point I don’t know anymore…
Ideally not a politician and especially not the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, but that’s where we are headed in UK.
Maybe censorship should mainly be opt in. I think some level of state censorship is justified, and is certainly supported by the general public (extremist content, CSA are obvious examples but I’m sure there are more). But in UK and elsewhere we’re headed towards something far more censorious than this.
Where there is disagreement, perhaps that should be left to individuals and parents, to opt out of defaults and opt in to other censorship managers which could be commercial or community based, as well as our own censorship through selection choices (eg who we follow on Twitter is a kind of self-selective censorship).
I don’t think the best response to too much censorship is no censorship.
In bad things happening to code news:
I agree with what you are saying but i don’t think I got my point across as well as I should. Who decides if a post, meme or tweet has caused anxiety/offence? If someone is offended let them be offended and delete, unfollow or turn their screen off. We need to stop pandering to the easily offended.
I agree with that but the question then is what is “acceptably offensive”, and what is harmful. So the need is for a way to decide what is ok to leave to self-censorship and what is beyond the pale. Who? My response covers that I think.
We have it now, but I think there’s a move to go further and the debate is about how to do that, and how far to go. The current UK proposals are, frankly stupid, but that’s not going to stop them happening.
I think there is a good solution to this, maybe along the lines in my reply, but it ain’t going to happen under a far right government that really doesn’t care about the consequences for the majority, for human rights, or for democracy.
The latest from one prospective Prime Minister is to prosecute people who “hate Britain”, which of course poses the question of how you decide if somebody hates Britain. Obviously it puts people who are critical of things you as PM don’t like in fear of persecution.
Now why would a right wing billionaire suggest something as oppressive as that? 
Those who think free speech is an absolute good and defend Alex Jones on this basis might want to read this thread (and the replies). I’m still trying to take it in.
Update. being shown to have perjured yourself (and your lawyers being found not to have complied with court orders) can have a dramatic affect on your publicly expressed views:
Some will feel sorry for Alex Jones at this point, for being found out and during the coursework of his despicable actions 
|
Hmmm
Blimey, this is the trial you want televised. In the film, who would play this attorney, Cruise or Carey?
elon has expressed an opinion about it, right extensive laws that describe what is illegal and everything else or if in doubt let it be
the when in doubt could be managed by community or coorporate means
What is acceptably offensive is different to every single person so how a selected group can decide for us is beyond me.
This is my point. How does an external group decide what is offensive to an individual. No one can tell you what is offensive to you. Only you can decide.
I think you’re missing my point. I’m using that term to define the line between where material, such as child porn is deemed unacceptably offensive, and other material is handled by other means such as self-administered censorship.
If you don’t stop that, then you’re potentially arguing that nothing should be censored by default and I’m pretty sure that the general public finds that unacceptable. They don’t want to be confronted with child porn for example, without them having to say so.
Can you think of any other subject apart from child porn that is universally accepted by humanity as unacceptably offensive? I think this will be better for me to articulate in person so will put it on the back burner with all of our other “discussions” for if we ever meet in person 
Extreme violence (beheading videos for example), torture, bestiality, snuff videos? I’m not sure why you ask me. Even if it is just child porn, the point is that “unacceptably offensive” material is a thing and somebody has to decide what qualifies.
New Bulgarian crypto cartoon:
Privacy. Security. Freedom
Did nobody ever look at the logs and think, hmmm that looks like a seed phrase?! 
