Like, there's a difference between removing material that's actually illegal and removing material that they just don't agree with as a company. I think the difference is important.
Right, I think the problem then is that we only use one word for both, while at least in the "western" world I imagine a lot of people are ok with the former but not the latter. And saying something like "you can only censor material which is explicitly illegal" is not helping either, because like you said - that's still censorship.
You've implied two separate false equivalences, here:
• That "censorship" necessarily and only means "removing obvious child pornography", AND
• that in order to "take accountability", a company must "hire a ton of people".
You haven't established why either of those equivalences are a reasonable interpretation of the parent statement. And to this casual observer, it would appear as though you are deliberately conflating extremes in a rather disingenuous fashion.
No, the poster is not implying that "'censorship' necessarily and only means 'removing obvious child pornography'". They're implying that removing child pornography is one form that censorship might take, and that entirely removing the ability to censor would remove the ability to censor child pornography. You might have valid objections to this, but it's not the same as what you've written.
As to the second point, either an organization has the manpower to defend itself from content that it is "accountable" for, or it will be unable to defend itself when necessary. It seems pretty clear to me that only organizations with decent resources would be able to moderate content in the "if you censor, you're accountable" regime.
> Which countries have something competing with Amazon?
Amazon have tried to enter the Swedish market and it has been a complete train wreck. The other businesses who were initially worried ended up just confused over how they could screw up as bad as they did.
Of course. With the extreme level of incompetence they have shown so far I do wonder if people in other markets have very low standards. Of course you can provide a crappy service if there are few competitors.
My point is that the developers of the device may not believe that anyone needs such a "permission" either and thus the whole AI/computer program is merely there to fulfil some legal obligation - they don't actually care whether it's good or not.
The thing we are talking about is verifying that the person is in a mental shape to take the decision to end his life. The word "permission" is an odd choice here.
like the sibling comment said, web apps are written in Symfony/Laravel, but the framework abstractions with web apps might not paint you a clear picture of how the core language has improved. it will give you a good idea what it's like to build applications.
my favorite part of modern PHP is how nice writing libraries is. so it might not be what you're looking for, but I remember being pretty impressed with the code quality of the Amp PHP library recently. the v3 branch is 8.x only and (I believe) is targeting the Fibers feature just introduced in 8.1
one of the best things to come with PHP are the community standardizations around things like interfaces for HTTP requests, logging, DI containers, and even code style standards. it makes for a very consistent experience when developing (at least when you're in the "new world"), since most newer libraries are all written in a similar style using common interfaces
It is because of the cookie banner. It makes the rest of the page grayer to highlight the banner. Once you close it, it is black on light-gray, which is actually the most palatable combination for me (reasonable contrast between text and background).
Yet another reason why cookie banners suck. I'd say this site's cookie banner is less sucky than others, actually.
I get you and mostly agree, but using GA on its gov.uk websites is probably the least intrusive surveillance the UK does. GCHQ were pretty heavily involved in those Snowden leaks, and I don’t imagine they’ve backed off at all since then.
> I'd say this site's cookie banner is less sucky than others, actually.
So a cookie banner which makes the entire page unreadable without showing, you know, a cookie banner is less sucky than others?
I had no idea there was a cookie banner. Was the unreadable text supposed to give it away? Most cookie banners show some text which lets me approve or reject cookies.
