skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Getting rid of 3rd party content makes it ... kind of not the web anymore.

This is what the web used to be like, every site hosted it's own content and the only third party content was typically limited to ads. Embedding third party content was considered a dick move at best, illegal at worst and larger sites would frequently block deep linking or being embedded in frames/iframes. Third party hosting only became prevalent when the web became bloated javascript.
Sort of, not exactly how I remember it. 8ch appeared because 4chan’s boards are dedicated to certain topics and some subjects fell through the gaps between boards. I remember 8ch getting popular when incessant gamergate spam was banned from /v/. 8ch also has a “popular” leftypol board which is the left wing counterpart to 4chan’s pol (there’s no good place on 4chan to discuss Bernie Sanders, for example, without getting mobbed). Raids were also banned from 4chan and some other things which brought unwanted attention to the site, I think those people also went to 8ch. A final group of people left to 8ch when Moot (the person who used to run 4chan) scrambled /pol/ for a week (?), making the topic board unusable for regulars. Any other growth of 8ch is beyond my knowledge of the site.
There’s no gun show exemption. There’s a private sale exemption, because the law doesn’t allow private sellers to access the background check system.

Registered FFL holders selling guns at a show have to do the same background checks they’d do anywhere else.
Maybe to avoid build up of toxic dust like around the drying up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea ?

https://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-salton-sea-20151001-st...

Edit: To put it more generally: To avoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_the_earth
At a startup seems like the best place to do this. It's where you can best answer the questions and where you can effect the most change.
Some of their highest profile accounts accounts would get hit, and they wouldn’t be wanting that. It would also make them some powerful enemies.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define....
I was also more of a free speech absolutist when I was younger. Now I’m more on the fence and I struggle to objectively define what is "good" and "bad" speech.
There never was a gunshow exemption. Federally licensed dealers must follow the same process to sell a gun no matter where they do it - at their brick-and-mortar store, at a gunshow, or in a parking lot. Individuals can sell a personally owned firearm to anyone in the same state with no check, and where the sale is made has no relevance.
As a government body actually publishes advice on this, NIST [0], it may well be possible to argue for what is reasonable in a court of law.

[0] https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/hash-functions/nist-policy-on...
The biggest puzzle to me is how a lot of Americans I talk to that equate 2A with 'freedom'. I have seriously had conversations with some people who believe that we are _less_ free here in Australia that them in the US because we do not have the right to bear arms.

I think that definition of 'freedom' has just become so conflated or twisted of late that it really needs to be decoupled from the overall culture and re-examined.

Today I read tweets from pundits and politicians advocating for armed guards to be at every 'peaceful gathering' in order to ensure safety in the US. I grew up in an authoritarian S/E Asian country where there were policemen or soldiers on literally every street corner with an automatic weapon slung around their front and with one hand close to the trigger. This is the very antithesis of 'freedom' to me.
> It’s not the media. It’s not attention-seeking.

It may not be these things alone. But they do contribute. The number of copy-cat crimes is a pretty clear indication of that.
Show HN: TrueCaptcha -Using Deep learning to solve text captchas
Zzz, how many mass murders do you need before you decide there's a structural problem? That's 70 people dead so far this year from people using 8ch as a launching pad for terrorism, and just including the very obvious ones (Christchurch and El Paso). It's rational for Cloudflare to pull the plug and limit their owners' liability.

And no, /pol/ is not the only hive of extremism on 8ch, although it's the best known and although there are many other boards.
Have No Fear of Facial Recognition
I was under the impression that the 1994 ban targeted specific models of firearm and silly features like pistol grips, flash suppressors, and bayonets (I might be confusing this with a california ban). The whole "Assault weapon" thing is considered something of a joke to a lot of firearm enthusiasts. For example, the ruger mini 14 wasn't legally considered an "Assault weapon" (but would be considered one if it had a collapsible stock? might be a myth idk this is what some people claim) despite it being a well regarded semi-automatic rifle which was also used in an infamous shootout with the fbi to devestating effect.
How Effective Is Video Email? A Detailed Analysis
People use twitter all the time to announce crimes, but everyone knows Twitter is a limited medium and tries to police that content.

But I agree with you. After enough incidents of users announcing mass shootings via the website, they should have set up rules and opened moderator/"janitor" applications to police the content. This is exactly what 4chan did when they grew media attention about bad things happening on their site. 8chan didn't do this because it goes against why the site was created in the first place.
> When companies like CloudFlare start banning people for political reasons, they are stepping into the "publishers" market and should be stripped off of the protections from the CDA Section 230.

That's ridiculous. Every single platform, perhaps excluding 8chan, moderates their content. Whatever reasons for that moderation are really dependent on the platform.

What separates a publisher from a platform is authorship; Cloudflare, Facebook, etc claim no authorship over their content. But a newspaper is exactly the opposite, they proudly proclaim their authorship since that's the point.

With cloudflare, it's even less relevant because they aren't moderating content at all -- they're simply choosing their customers -- and that is different again.
It should go without saying, but the Okahoma City bombing wasn't a mass shooting, which is what is being discussed.

And what's your point about traffic deaths? By that logic, heart disease killed more people over that interval, should we stop caring about traffic deaths?
And the grandparent's comment about there being boards for other topics is why the radicalization is such a problem (the same thing applies to Reddit and Youtube's recommended video algorithm). The normal content is what attracts people to the site, but once there, they see the radicalized content mixed in with it. This ends up normalizing the radicalized content making it easier to recruit new members. Very few people will go out of their way to go to the Daily Stormer or some other site dedicated specifically to hate. But it is easier to be lured in when that content is just a part of the site.
Limiting who and how can experiment with anthrax doesn't seem like a limitation on science -- it looks sanity to me.

Since ideas are just as viral and as deadly there is nothing inherently wrong with limiting the spread of some.
I don’t think they are referring to the people on it collectively. The site owners are implicitly supporting it by not moderating that type of content.
> Cloudflare would have been in a better position to actually change 8chan if they had kept them on and pressured them.

So, this was Cloudflare's position as of earlier today: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/04/mass-shoo...

> "It would be the easiest thing in the world and it would feel incredibly good for us to kick 8chan off our network, but I think it would step away from the obligation that we have and cause that community to still exist and be more lawless over time."

> "For us the question is which is the worse evil? Is the worse evil that we kick the can down the road and don’t take responsibility? Or do we get on the phone with people like you and say we need to own up to the fact that the internet is home to many amazing things and many terrible things and we have an absolute moral obligation to deal with that."

So, the question for you and for Matthew Prince-as-of-a-few-hours-ago is, if Cloudflare was in fact in such a better position to actually change 8chan, why didn't they?
You can refuse a serve an Asian person. You just can't refuse to serve Asian people in general.
In the same way that punching someone in the face is "speech", yeah.

In the U.S., at least, one is free to argue any number of ignorant things -- and often does.
They're not being banned or silenced. They're being told "get off my property".
Essentially. Mass shootings have turned into a political spectacle at this point. It is it’s own version of a left versus right blood sport now, where everyone is quick to keep a score.

The media and entertainment industries specifically, since they own the eyes and ears of America, want to desperately pin every shooting on white conservatives. Any iota of evidence, verified or not, will get blasted into the aether as a boastful victory dance. Then they blast it 24/7 and glamorize it, and we get more copycats looking for desperate attention being further fueled by it.

Case in point, look how the media handled the shooter that was a Bernie supporter. Violence, compelled by a difference set of hateful ideas and language, but it was given a day or two and buried. No knee jerk reactions, no 24/7 parade of glorification and filth, just buried.

It’s rather perverse and grotesque.
The US police aren't that organized or technologically advanced. If these shootings keep up though, we may end up building out the infrastructure to catch these people based on their online posts.
CloudFlare is under no obligation to serve 8chan. There is nothing radical about denying service to unprotected classes of people you don't want in or using your business.

I would agree this is a problem if the US Government was trying to suppress speech.
I'm starting to get tired of the culture war. Does the left realize elite hackers are not on their side?
> It's almost as if this "surveillance state" you all imagine doesn't exist.

How do you imagine that billing for EZ Pass and license plate scanners works?
Its in my rational self interest to rob you and steal all your money, If i can ensure i wont be caught.

Can't blame me right?
If reported, Reddit (the company) will usually moderate or shut down subs like those. Recent example being what they just did with /r/T_D.
It gets worse. If you’re flagged with a mental illness, most states will yank your professional license (you lose your job and possible primary income). Our society has an economic incentive to underreport mental illness.
it seems like a marketing message about cloudflare... I'm sure most people don't know what "cloudflare" is, how it relates to a message board like "8chan", and most people don't even know what 8chan is, and some people probably know more about 8chan than cloudflare. It would be like Firestone issuing a report saying they are not going to be selling tires to the guy that drove the car to commit the violence, because if they didnt sell him the tires, he wouldnt be able to drive to the mall to commit the violence... when in reality, this is just a marketing message for Firestone about selling tires.
Requiring a search warrant seems like due process to me, not contempt. In many other cases handing over data to law enforcement without a warrant is seen as surveillance and a breach of privacy.
“Imminent” and “lawless” are the operable terms. I can legally opine to my hearts content about how it could hypothetically be a good idea to rob every bank in New York but if I’m not inciting anyone to actually specifically do so, that’s not legally imminent. Likewise, if I propose a series of constitutional amendments, the net effect is to legalize or legally mandate some sort of atrocity, there’s a case that I’m not even technically advocating for lawless action.

But the primary value of Brandenburg v. Ohio was in rejecting the early 20th century jurisprudence based on the “clear and present danger” status set by Schenck v. United States.

Schenck and the rulings that followed it gave legal cover to imprison people who advocated for draft resistance as well as effectively banning Communist parties (on the theory upheld in Whitney v. California that communism entails the violent overthrow of the US Constitution). Brandenburg and its successor cases effectively overturned that entire line of legal reasoning in favor of an extremely strict standard that only allows the government to prohibit things like inciting mobs or engaging in criminal conspiracies.
The case you cited isn't just a civilian killing a cop at a traffic stop or during a random crime. It's a targeted assassination of two police officers for politicial reasons. It's more terrorism than crime. This makes it very newsworthy.

Equally, if a cop went out purely to kill some black men for reasons of political revenge, that would be newsworthy in a way that a random death at a traffic stop is not.

The status quo, however, is that random traffic stop deaths of white guys are not newsworthy, but random traffic stop deaths of black guys are national news. That racist double standard is what's being called out.
You're complaining about the unfair closing of a bar because drugs were only sold in the toilets area.

That's not how it works anywhere.
> Or if you think Cloudflare's decision was arbitrary and that worries you, you should leave.

I am not entirely sure whether this statement carries moral judgment of those who see it as arbitrary or not. Would you mind clarifying if you intend to pass judgment or not?

Edit: It seems I communicated my point poorly. My last sentence is not intended as a swipe at the parent poster. It's simply a request for clarification. I desired to understand parent's point rather than mischaracterize it.
Some people die from cancer, therefore we shouldn’t do anything about AIDs?
where is the data? you have something that proves causality of online communication and radicalization?

You make it sound it's almost like terrorism didn't exist before the internet.
I don't see this as a culture issue, but really poor professionalism. These are people who don't seem to realize that work small-talk is... at work.

My non-work life is by most measures pretty unusual. But my answer during the Monday standups to "what did you do on the weekend?" is.. "Oh, not much, some housecleaning and laundry".
Guix: A Most Advanced Operating System
> This post repeatedly refers to 8chan as "lawless" and "unmoderated" but it is neither.

I'd encourage anyone who thinks it's plausible that /pol/ is "moderated" and "lawful" to go read that board for a few minutes. Perhaps then they can comment here on whether there's a problem with the moderation, or the policing, of the board.
The 19th century version of clicks is "readership," and newspapers pursue it.
It's the politics. If it helps the narrative of the left, it gets wall-to-wall coverage. If it hurts the narrative of the left, it goes down the memory hole as fast as possible.
Free speech shouldn’t be criminalized.

But, neither does anyone have a right to an audience. And that’s what this is really about. Cloudflare is not depriving 8chan of their freedom of speech; they are just declining to assist 8chan in finding an audience.

I also disagree that speech is the highest form of thought in humans, but that is a sort of a side topic.
> Cloudflare would have been in a better position to actually change 8chan if they had kept them on and pressured them

I call bullshit.

What plan do you have in mind for _Cloudflare_ to create a culture change on _8chan_?

How does this fit into Cloudflare's strategy and competencies as a network provider?

Are you suggesting they have some obligation to provide service and to try and shape the community, or just that they are compelled to provide a commercial service to people who encourage massacres?

You haven't thought through your own suggestion.
What do you think is more likely:

1. News media decides how long to keep a story active in the news cycle in order to push a narrative.

2. News media reacts to the attention a story received and keeps popular stories active longer to sell more ads.
It sounds like they were pretty well-integrated into Quicken engineering, although we'll have to hear from the OP to know for sure.
Radicalization tends to be a function of getting access to a group of like-minded people who agree with your angry/hostile/prejudiced views while simultaneously being socially cut off from moderating influences. The internet is able to connect isolated individuals with that group of like-minded people.

One of the dangers of Internet access to such is people who only know you online may feel more comfortable with encouraging your radicalization than if it was in person because they aren't in immediate danger, nor at high risk of being asked to participate, etc. It can seem inconsequential to agree with extremist statements. People who might hesitate to agree in person may not hesitate to agree on a discussion board.

There are good and bad things that come out of the relative freedom to speak our minds online. Opportunity for radicalization is one of the bad things that comes of it.
> The normal content is what attracts people to the site, but once there, they see the radicalized content mixed in with it.

I don't think this argument holds when the boards are compartmentalized. Otherwise you could generalize it to the internet as a whole, where things are also compartmentalized into sites.
I'm aware of that but nonetheless believe it's a step in the right direction and that they should be congratulated. I don't think this means anyone should give them an easier time as a result.

Countering radicalisation involves the use of both carrot and stick where services like Cloudflare and others are involved.
>treat the authorities with contempt to the point of needing a search warrant

Everyone must comply with lawful orders—that's the point of the law. Respect is not mandatory (so long as it doesn't interfere with lawful orders); it is earned and can be lost.

If this were not true, the right to avoid self-incrimination would be meaningless.
> Native copy–paste

This was a big one for me. Cut/Paste between applications and whatever is running in the terminal with tmux can be a real pain. Not so much with iTerm. And the consistency goes a long ways when you're trying to get stuff done.
What is the healthiest foods in 2019?
"Gun people" might be skeptical of the 85% number because there are already background checks, with which "non-gun people" by definition are unfamiliar. Is there something preventing the existing system from becoming better naturally (I honestly don't know the answer here)? I would hazard to guess the 15% of dissenters to be wary of the survey-takers' motives, the particulars of how background checks might be governmentally instrumented to be better, stuff like that. Consider that the prior administration floated the idea of barring folks on the no-fly list from possessing guns, which seems an awfully bureaucratically unconstitutional thing after even slight consideration.
Those text captcha images make me kind of nostalgic. I spend most of my time clicking on crosswalks and traffic lights these days.
Even if text captchas were prevalent, what is the good that this service would be providing?
> > "But extremism has been central to 8chan identity since it was founded in 2013 by a computer programmer and self-proclaimed eugenicist Fredrick Brennan."

This is highly exaggerated and misleading language, and makes it hard to take the rest of the article seriously.

Mr Brennan has osteogenesis imperfecta, where the bones in his limbs are malformed, and constantly breaking and splintering in his flesh, and it is very painful, and there is no treatment. In a moment of deep frustration, some trolls were able to goad him into venting online about how he regrets being born and how cruel it is for his parents to knowingly bring him into this world.

Calling him a "eugenicist" is ludicrous. That language makes him sound like he is somehow punching down at innocent people. He is suffering in a way most of us could never understand, and has moments where he wishes he were dead.
> Should that mean a power company can cut off your power because they don't like what you've said?

No. Because they are a public utility and that would be a violation of the first amendment.

> Should that mean that a bank can refuse to give you a loan, because you said something bad, even if your credit is more than acceptable?

Yes. Because they are a private institution and not obligated to do business with you.

There are very simple rules at play here...
z.com
What's your prescription for reducing US homicide death to European levels?
And you refuse him based on what? The Axiom of Choice? Because if you refuse him for being Asian and you are consistent you have to refuse all Asians. Because if you refuse 8chan because some killers used the service you will have to refuse Facebook, Twitter, All major Hollywood Studios, the Catholic Church, the GOP, the DP, the Saudi Arabia government and thousands of more organizations which directly or indirectly had a role in many crimes.
Parent of 2 deaf children here. When our first was born, we were handed a very thick packet of information warning us that without intervention (i.e., hearing aids) our child would be at much higher risk of falling behind in school and suicide because of social isolation. So, y’know, respectfully, nah.
Under what definition of freedom does having less right to defend yourself make you more free?

I understand how you might see the tradeoff as worth it - some safety purchased at a cost of freedom. But expanding the list of things that you're not allowed to do doesn't seem like it could possibly be interpreted as expanding freedom. Same argument for drug or alcohol prohibition, religious restrictions, etc.
"Good luck thought policing thousands upon thousands of journalists"

Except you're ignoring the fact that the corporate media already does that. It seems to work well enough, too. It helps that "journalists" are mostly a thing of the past with today's reporters often just doing the minimum to check things when they're not just repeating whatever the current fad is. That's extremely popular, too. Most stories are whatever people in target demographic are either what people want to say yes to or hate on. We're already there.
I just googled how to store passwords in a DB and the first result said I shouldn’t use MD5 or SHA. Reasonable person would do a cursory search for information if they didn’t have the knowledge. I am willing to bet they knew better. When I worked for a company that stored passwords in clear text, we knew it was wrong but never prioritized fixing it. If the execs would have faced jail time, I bet it would have been prioritized.
I’d argue that the effort spent hunting Muslim terrorists at borders, museums, transit hubs etc is not justified when compared to the relative death toll from domestic ultranationalists/white supremacists.