Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you are obligated to host a platform so shitty people can use it to share shitty ideals. It simply means that you won't get arrested on a federal level.

Websites can do whatever they want, including deciding that they don't want to be a platform for hate speech. If people are seeking a place for this conversation genre to happen, and they want it enough, they can run their own website.

Imagine if you invited a friend of a friend over, and they were sharing nasty ideals at your Christmas party. And they brought their friends. Are you just going to sit there and let them turn your dinner into a political rally? No, you're going to kick them out. It's your dinner, like it is your website. If you don't kick them out, then at some level, you're aligning with them.

He was directly involved with putting together a team to create a false certificate that said he won the 2020 presidential election.

Saved you a click.

Whatever happens on my browser is client side, which is hardware and software I own. I can make what I own do what I want. It's a right.

It's like Google saying that I can't skim a magazine in my home, and that I must read the ads. Google can do what they want server-side, and I'll do what I want client-side.

I honestly think that he doesn't have to face consequences like normal people because he has enough money to make problems go away. He can be an awful person in interviews, and mean his words too, then even bankrupt his company, and you know what? He will continue being excessively rich.

His money could be used to fix so many issues en masse. It's disgusting that he chooses not to do so every day.

Wouldn't it be neat if YouTube had reasonable competition? You know, so when YouTube adds a five-second delay as a strange style of punishment, a different platform would look more attractive?

Hey look, freedom!

“When a defendant honestly believes he can’t possibly get a fair trial from the judge, one of the tactics is to antagonize the judge to a point of causing reversible errors,” Dershowitz says. “That is what happened in the Chicago 7 case, and I was one of the lawyers on the appeal in that case. Abbie Hoffman provoked Judge Hoffman to such a degree that the judge made mistake after mistake. And courts of appeal often reverse convictions or verdicts when the judge has made serious errors.”

What a dick. This does not sound like the legal process at work at all. Besides, innocent people would never do this.

It's a shame how obvious they're working their corporate bullying cards simply because of money. Imagine if I created a product called Google and tried to sue Google for it. That would be ridiculous, right? Well, that's what Facebook is doing, just with money.

Here is the uBlock Origin issue tracking YouTube's anti-adblock attempts: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/19976

For your feedback to be seen and addressed, please post there, too. They're not watching this Lemmy thread, and there won't be any action items to come from feedback here alone.

It's mostly opinionated. systemd is written in C, uses a consistent config, is documented well, has a lot of good developers behind it, is very fast and light, and does what it's doing very well. Since systemd also is split up into multiple parts, it still follows the "do one thing, do it right" philosophy.

There are some people that believe that systemd "took over" the init systems and configuration demons of their distro, and does "too much." It really does quite a lot: it can replace GRUB (by choice), handle networking config, all the init stuff of course, and much more.

However, I have lived through the fragmented and one-off scripts that glued distros together. Some distros used completely custom scripts for init and networking, so you had to learn "the distro" instead of "learn Linux." They were often slower, had worse error handling, had their own bugs, were written in various scripting languages like tcl, Perl, Bash, POSIX shell, etc. It was a mess.

The somewhat common agreed-upon init system was System V, which is ancient. It used runlevels, nested configuration (remember /etc/rc.d?), and generally, it was mostly used because it was battle tested and did the job. However, it is arguably esoteric by modern standards, and the init philosophy was revised to more modern needs with systemd.

You can probably tell my bias, here. If you have to ask, then you probably don't have a "stance" on systemd, and in my opinion, I would stick with systemd. There were dozens of custom scripts running everywhere and constantly changing, and systemd is such an excellent purpose-built replacement. There's a reason why a lot of distros switched to it!

If you want to experience what other init systems were like, I encourage you to experiment with distros like the one you mentioned. You might even play with virtual machines of old Linux versions to see how we did things a while back. Of course, you probably wouldn't want to run an old version of Linux for daily use.

It should also be mentioned that init systems are fairly integral to distros. For example, if you install Apache httpd, you might get a few systemd .service files. Most distros won't include init files for various init systems. You can write them yourself, but that's quite a lot of work, and lots of packages need specific options when starting them as a service. For this reason, if you decide you want to use a different init system, a distro like the one you mentioned would be the best route.

Great question, and good luck! 👍

Predatory pricing catching up with them.

Saved you a click.