Sure, it doesn't violate the constitution but it still is a serious issue.

I can just hear it now... what's the big deal the Canada Post is under no obligation to do business with you.

No. For a place of discourse to become major requires a large amount of people to be actively involved. I can't just "form my own" because for it to be major other people have to get involved. If I were to form a new place of discourse due to being banned, it would most likely become an echo chamber of other people that have been banned not a major place of discourse.

What's wrong with that? If you hold bad opinions that most people dislike, you're not guaranteed an audience. If you have white nationalist opinions, the rest of us don't have to be held hostage to your views.

Unless they are harassing you about it (in which case first step is to block them), I don't see how this is a problem.

Does being aware of other's opinions and/or reading about them hurt you somehow?

"Censorship" just forces people underground to talk amongst other people with the same opinions. While it has some kind of measurable effect on preventing impressionable people from being exposed to their opinions, it also prevents people from discussing alternative views with the ones who were "censored". This is a large part of the reason why everyone was blindsided by Trump, the trump supporters were largely either not speaking up due to social penalties for doing so or only talking on-line in forums where other people agreed with them.

If the goal is to "defeat" the alt-right movement, then I don't think it is necessarily obvious that banning them is the right move. As I said though, maybe it is since it does limit exposure to their views which in theory limits their membership.

Note: Scare quoted censorship due to it not being government run which is what people usually mean when they say censorship.

Every site in the world, if they don't want to be a cesspool full of trolls and baiters, will have to moderate.

You can say something hateful, disrespectful, and even threatening to/about a white person(or people) and twitter doesn't care even if you are reported.

However if you say the same thing about/to a black person (or people) [literally the same sentence with only those words switched out] then when reported you will be banned.

If twitter(and others) would actually apply their rules fairly, a lot of people would be a lot less upset.

I don't hang out at r/all nor subscribe to subreddit I don't care about.

you just called other peoples views a cesspool of garbage, and youre advocating respect.

I am more concerned about a person's behavior more so than their opinion. I look down on baiting, trolling, harassment, etc.

This is the key takeaway IMO

> Like the mod said in his own words, they are not interested in public policy, they are focused on white nationalist racial discussion. To continue on that course without steering into hate speech is impossible.

Strongly disagree with your implication here and the rest of your comment, though I agree with the literal text you wrote in this sentence.

FOSS is superior for the end user because it can help avoid vendor lock-in (someone else can always take the code and run their own service/app that the user can then switch to) and allows the user themselves to pay someone to fix issues/maintain the software if it becomes unmaintained.

You are quite correct in your point that FOSS is not necessarily more featureful, more secure, or easier to use than proprietary solutions though.

FOSS is not superior to the end user because by no means it helps with the vendor lock-in. Remember that the vendor in FOSS is the developer and when they decide to ditch the product it does not mean that someone automatically will step in to take the job. Therefore, the customer is locked in anyway. You are assuming that the customer will support the product but they may not have the technical know-how nor the interest to do it. What is the difference between a dead closed-source product and a dead open-source product?

In fact, more often than not you see the opposite happening - someone creates an open-source alternative of an already established closed-source products or services to piggyback on the established success.

I am dissing FOSS. :)I am only only trying to present a balanced view that at the end of the day all software is equal as long as it does the job for the time it is used.

The difference is that with an open source product you can always choose to pay someone to maintain it, even if just for long enough to move away from it. With a closed source product you are SOL and may not even be allowed to use it anymore after the company goes under depending on the details.

> The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.

The JSON license is not considered a free software license due to this violation of freedom 0(not to mention all the problems with definition including the fact that many things could rightly be considered neither in Good or Evil and the license actually explicitly says it must be used for Good).

Which reveals what a farce the 'no evil' clause is, since IBM has in the past sold typewriters to the Nazis, and probably has no qualms to do business with more modern evils either.

I do agree that when people use the term though they just mean "I can code in a backend and a frontend language".

That seems like an impossible definition to fulfill by most humans today, though. I mean, how "deep" do you take it? Pre-processed code? Assembly code? Object/Machine code?

Computers today (especially server-based systems) are so massively complex that I don't see anyone possessing working knowledge of "literally" the entire stack.

And then there's the question of the depth of one's knowledge. I'd argue that the more you spread it out, the thinner it gets at each level of the stack, just by virtue of the fact that one has only so much time to spend on learning, practicing and keeping their skills up-to-date.

There is a lot of dumb jargon, misleading labels, and wrong analogies borrowed from other fields that are popular in tech right now. You can call yourself whatever you want, but if you have never used gdb and call yourself "full-stack," you are being pretentious.

I literally have enough breadth of knowledge to figure out a problem at any level of the stack from top to bottom with some help from google/books. And no, I don't mean finding it on stackoverflow/stackexchange and copying an answer :). This is what I define as working knowledge, that I know enough to be able to debug issues in the subject with help from resources which I also know how to access. Depending on my familiarity with the particular piece of technology and the difficulty of the problem this may take me anywhere from seconds to weeks. I don't just say this either, I have actively debugged issues at most "levels" of the linux application/OS stack throughout my relatively short career so far.

Basically, you give me a problem and I have the tools I need to figure out the solution or root cause without help from any other team members(though help can certainly speed things along). The only question is going to be time.

> And then there's the question of the depth of one's knowledge. I'd argue that the more you spread it out, the thinner it gets at each level of the stack, just by virtue of the fact that one has only so much time to spend on learning, practicing and keeping their skills up-to-date.

My depth of knowledge in each area shrinks and grows as I need to use it. As said above though, I have just enough depth in every area to "be dangerous" as they say. I certainly have more breadth than depth in most things but I match or beat my peers in depth on the technologies I deal with daily.

I might be wrong, I don't have any direct experience with boot camps, but stripping dev skills down to just the minimal, core, practical skills needed to build a working prototype in the language-of-the-month seems like just the latest version of the same short-sightedness that has been plaguing businesses for years. Low-risk, long-term success will always come from building on experience, not "hacks" and short cuts. There will be exceptions/outliers, but they're just lucky, not a model to be copied.

Well no. The people voted in Clinton, and the Electoral College upweighted some votes and downweighted others in a way that favors Trump. The EC once had a distinct purpose, but right now just seems to give Republicans a structural advantage, to the ultimate detriment of Democrats and Democrat-leaners in small or rural states.

I agree that it is not healthy that ~10-12 states have higher importance in the presidential election, but it would be rather similar in a straight popular election.

An intermediate step would be to increase the size of the House of Representatives.