Seems like I'm being attacked for something I didn't say. My statement was purely a very minor thing, about how the issue is enforcement, not the actual law. And I certainly did not imply anything with it, but it seems a lot is being read into those few words that were not at all intended
wahming
joined 1 year ago
? The law has been around a century, current controversy is that it's not being applied equally
What about my statement is brutal? It's not the law at fault, the law is impartial about all religious symbols. The problem is the lack of equal enforcement. Which is essentially what you're saying in different words
That's a problem with enforcement, not the law.
Not sure why you're citing US law when we're discussing foreign govts. Also the obvious thing signal can do, that most complainants would probably expect as a minimum, is banning their accounts and closing the group.
I've never felt the urge to explore new genders until I read this...
I don't get what you're trying to say at all. If a party is in a group chat and reports it, they can provide their credentials to Signal to enable Signal to view the contents of the chat.
Yes, they're a carrier that does not know the content of what they carry. But once they are made aware, the legal system considers them to now bear responsibility if they don't take action. Whether or not that's fair is a pretty large topic, though I'm inclined to think so myself.
Current prices are meaningless. It's not mass production or retail pricing. I doubt the components actually cost more than a few hundred dollars. It's an extremely limited niche market and prices are based on what will get them the most return on their R&D budget, not anything resembling production cost.
Put it this way - does it seem like cats and dogs have any trouble navigating our environment?
Most ebooks are available in unencrypted form, via open formats like epub and mobi. There's no reason they wouldn't be usable in 30 years.
Funny how the .ml admins are so opposed to free speech on their own server, then.
Why would we discuss changing the law, rather than ensuring that it is applied indiscriminately? ANY law and punishment can be used to discriminate, and many are. By your logic if the police started prosecuting murderers in a biased manner, we should remove the law against murder.