Can't say I fully understand japanese, most of my knowledge comes from anime and JP games, I need to concentrate a lot on what I hear to understand so if I'm focusing on the subtitles I won't make out what they say

I suggest lowering the audio, it helps me avoid clearly hearing words I know too well

He is mainly concerned with the speech of Russian citizens, especially if they are being critical of himself or the Russian government. If this website became very popular with anti-Putin activists in Russia, maybe he would take issue with it. But even then, he could just block it at the ISP level in Russia rather than try to get it shut down for everyone. That appears to be the main form of online censorship in Russia. https://news.engin.umich.edu/2019/11/how-russias-online-censorship-could-jeopardize-internet-freedom-worldwide/

I don't he think minds it much if people in other countries criticize Russia online. If anything, he might like it when Americans are excessively critical of Russia because that fuels division in the US. Liberals talk a lot about Russia being a threat and Conservatives are sick of hearing "Russia, Russia, Russia".

Russia's preference for instability in the US is part of what makes them a safe host for a mostly English speaking free speech site. They'd be happy if some kind of civil war and/or revolutionary war happens here, so they would be fine with Americans calling for violence against politicians or using racial slurs. That sort of speech is the main kind that has gotten free speech platforms in trouble so far.

Understanding Japanese takes all the fun out of this.

Never will

That is true. I don't think Putin is a fan of free speech though.

Doesn't the first amendment exist?

Yeah, but too many companies are afraid to stand up for it because they don't want to deal with the backlash from a very vocal minority it appears.

From what I've seen of Parler it's just republican talking points and bible quotes. I've seen more vile content on reddit and Facebook.

This really should have been posted on a personal blog.
basically no elaboration on there opinions.
This blog post is so reactionary.

I hate sites that force 2FA. How about I decide whether a site is worth the hassle or whether I don't care for the account.

yea but inciting actual violence defeats the purpose of a peaceful protest

If its voluntary, its not theft. The only problem is that a tax free place doesn't exist anywhere. (Not including some tiny island or 50 acres of land in the dessert)

It only gives Russia more control. Pretty weird. Doesn't the first amendment exist?

And yes, you can access your @your-domain.com webmail over Tor, as well. Still working out some I2P integration kinks, but Tor is good to go right now.

What a fucking waste of tax money.

Who knows, I don't care all that much for what other people do with their time.

I'd like to underscore the positive comments others have made here. (Yeah, that was a dad pun. Look at OP's name.)

Parler doesn't quite look like they're ready for prime time again. Their homepage is a bunch of quotes.

Eh, fair points.

Why would you expect peaceful protests to work in that scenario though?

The point of peaceful protests usually is to say "hey, look at all these people who are going to vote out candidates who don't do what we want and vote in candidates that do what we want". But if voting itself is rigged, then that is not a proper threat.

Trump supporters already had multiple peaceful "stop the steal" type protests prior to the 6th and showed up in large numbers to Trump rallies that happened after election day.

Every peaceful protest has this implicit underlying threat, and it is part of why peaceful protests work. "Look at all of the people who will be pissed off and might cause disruption or do something violent if you don't listen to them".

If the first threat (voting people out) is not a serious threat anymore, then we are only left with the second threat as leverage. Now, there are ways to cause disruption without violence and that is more moral. Examples would be a refusal to work or pay taxes in masse. But it would be very difficult to get enough people to participate. People felt that it was very urgent to save the republic and that is why some were motivated to take more drastic actions.

Keep in mind, most of the people who stormed the capitol were engaging in an act of non-violent civil disobedience. There were people at the front who fought with police but the vast majority of the people who went in just walked in after the police had already stood down or retreated further into the building.

Sounds like better news for the users privacy than US hosting.

Quoted in the article:

Raise your hand if you understand the very significant impact this has on the ability to surveil and target insurrectionists who organize on Parler.

— Chris Vickery (@VickerySec)

I'd rather be spied on by Russia than the US government for sure. Russia has no interest in oppressing me and they're on the other side of the globe. I guess the worst thing Russia might want to do with the info is influence me with targeted political ads or something.

Not sure why they wouldn't just host it in the USA. Certainly there are datacenters or providers operating enough private rack space in one who'd take them on. They'd be a pretty big client and the media and the social just mob will forget about them eventually.

This is the correct answer. Thunderbird has had some hideous CVE over the years, and still has some major problems. Claws-Mail just works.

noice

The ACLU is wrong here. They have been weakening on free speech issues, and the consequence is that they fall for related fallacies.

Suppose the company simply sold an index of where to find face photos for various people. Suppose someone with this list tripped a web archive like archive.is to store each photo. Suppose another person writes a tool that can pull up the face photo and put it on the left of your screen, leaving you free to compare it to a photo on the right. And suppose lastly you've downloaded and installed a free GPL software program that lets you compare the faces according to biometrics and see if they are the same. Who committed the crime?

Now that is NOT to say I want these bastards tracking faces all over the world. But we must first rule out the impossible before we can focus our attention on what is left. If we can't keep a company from compiling faceprints, what can we do??? Like DUH, we can keep people from USING THEM!

Advantages of building the wall there include the millions of people who will be duped or forced into giving "consent" by countless very important organizations, like employers, who aren't "protected" by the censorship-level restriction.

So what am I saying? Well, I'm saying you can't discriminate against a customer or employee for refusing to be faceprinted, or force them to submit to biometric comparisons. They have to make accommodations. It is at the same level as barring businesses from discriminating by race or even handicap. Americans don't like to think of some punk from the government trying to tell Business who they can do Business with, but there it is. A business that surreptitiously looks up faces to give one person a discount over another should be treated exactly the same - legally and emotionally - as a business that charges higher prices if you are black or female.

Pretty cool, wasnt familiar with this software !

elaborate