Facebook Bans Sites That Host Blueprints of 3D-Printed Guns (cbsnews.com) 214
Yesterday, Facebook said it's banning websites that host and share blueprints of 3D-printed guns. "Sharing instructions on how to print firearms using 3D printers is not allowed under our Community Standards," said a spokesperson in an email statement. "In line with our policies, we are removing this content from Facebook." BuzzFeed was first to report the news: The move comes amid a rush by states to block these instructions from being posted. A July settlement between the State Department and Defense Distributed, an open-source organization that created the first completely 3D-printed gun, cleared the way for the group to publish the gun code. However, that was stalled when a federal judge on July 31 granted a temporary nationwide injunction that prevented Defense Distributed from uploading the plans. The injunction prevents Defense Distributed from publishing the plans. But the instructions are widely available online, on sites such as CodeIsFreeSpeech.com -- which hosts plans for parts of an AR-15, a Beretta, and Defense Distributed's Liberator. Attempts to post the site on a user's News Feed, through Facebook's Messenger app, or on Instagram (which Facebook owns) produce a variety of error messages. Other sites that host the files can still be posted through Facebook. Specifically, Facebook says that 3D-printed guns violate the regulated goods section of the social giant's community standards, which limits gun sales and exchanges to licensed dealers.
Yawn. (Score:2, Informative)
Pound your shovels into swords (Score:2)
Armilite pattern rifles are fine, but I'd rather just make an AK pattern out of a shovel blade hammered flat and cut into a receiver. Throw on a parts kit and you've got a working rifle. http://militaryhumor.net/homem... [militaryhumor.net]
Rifle is fine!
Fuck you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still, you're not the Arbiter of Truth for the country. There's a lot of places that don't count as downtown SF/LA/NYC.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you. Have you ever thought that they don't want to contribute to violence?
No.
If there's a possibility that one asshole won't get their hands on a gun, it's a good thing. It's called making the world a better place.
They're doing nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the police, who have repeatedly demonstrated their inability to handle the responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
These people don't want to get rid of guns. They just want only government to have guns.
What an amazingly stupid idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
And for all that, the murder rate in the USA is about half what it was 50 years ago....
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Informative)
And for all that, the murder rate in the USA is about half what it was 50 years ago....
The murder rate is irrelevant. Gun control is about culture, not "saving lives".
In many ways, gun control is the mirror image of abortion. Liberals are often perplexed when conservatives dismiss their argument that we could save way more babies by sex education, access to contraceptives, better prenatal care, nutrition supplements for pregnant women, and streamlined adoptions, than by banning abortions. That is all true, but is missing the point. It is not about "saving babies" but about a culture of people behaving irresponsibly and then flushing the consequences down the toilet.
Similarly, gun violence dramatically declined over the past few decades mostly because of a big reduction in environmental lead pollution. There is much more we could do: black children still have twice the blood lead levels of white children, and prison inmates have three times the average level. Yet there is WAY more passion about closing the "gun show loophole", something that would have a negligible effect, than about not poisoning kids, which would likely save thousands of lives annually. Likewise, gun control advocates focus on school shootings and "assault weapons", not because these represent a lot of deaths (school shootings are less than 0.05% of gun deaths, and handguns kill a thousand times as many people as assault rifles), but because they represent "gun culture".
Re: (Score:2)
That is all true, but is missing the point. It is not about "saving babies" but about a culture of people behaving irresponsibly and then flushing the consequences down the toilet.
Which is bizarre because by opposing better sex education and access to contraception they are opposing efforts to make people more responsible.
It's like trying to prevent car accidents by removing the airbags and not telling people about safe following distances, and then also banning the emergency services from attending accidents because that will surely make people take responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
No we're not.
It is not about "saving babies" but about a culture of people behaving irresponsibly and then flushing the consequences down the toilet
Bullshit. It's about using the law enforcing religion by the back dor. This is why I'm not perplexed. Conservative "christians"[*] want to enforce the laws of their spiteful desert god on the world. Oddly they seem less interested in what Jesus had to say most of the time.
[*] It baffles me how anyone conservative can call themselves a Christian. Have they ever a
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. It's about using the law enforcing religion by the back dor.
Saying it is not culture, but religion, is silly. Religion is culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying it is not culture, but religion, is silly
Good job I didn't say that then. If you randomly delete 50% of the words from my sentances then you can make it say that, but that sure isn't what I wrote.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember reading a thread about Venezuela's crime rate going down by a factor of 1000 when they enacted a global ban on private, non police/military gun ownership.
Then something is seriously wrong with either your memory or your critical thinking skills. This never happened, and is so completely implausible that only a fool would believe it.
Re: Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA is the only developed nation that has a firearm crime rate equivalent to third world nations or war zones.
But what are the TOTAL crime rates? I keep hearing about "gun crime" but I don't care if people are getting shot, clubbed, stabbed, or throttled to death.
Here's another problem with comparing murder rates in the USA with other nations, the USA is a federation. Like the European Union the USA is a collection of independent states. Each state has their own rules on guns. The USA does have some terrible murder rates, but you can't blame the laws in Utah for crimes in New York. Putting all the states in the same umbrella as an example of "gun crime" is about as sensible as blaming Spain for crime in Germany. Also remember the scale of this, there are more people in US states that a lot of people around the world don't even think about, like North Carolina, than in some European nations, like Sweden. If you want to compare apples to apples then you need to compare individual states within the US to other nations.
The murder rate in New Hampshire is 1/10th that of Louisiana. Go compare the gun laws in both those states. Here's a hint, one state requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and the other does not.
Gun laws have very little to do with crime rates. Look at Missouri, very lax in gun laws and lots of crime. Vermont also has very lax gun laws, but yet 1/4 the murder rate of Missouri. It's almost as if there is no correlation between gun laws and crime rates.
Here's an idea, if you want to stop crime then put criminals in prison. That seems to be working for a lot of places. If gun restrictions stopped murders then Venezuela would be the safest place on Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Vermont also has very lax gun laws, but yet 1/4 the murder rate of Missouri.
Maybe having to walk 40 miles in the snow just to murder someone is a disincentive?
Re: (Score:2)
Uphill - both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an idea, if you want to stop crime then put criminals in prison. That seems to be working for a lot of places.
No it really isn't. You're already putting more criminals in prison than anywhere else on earth. And you don't have the lowest crime rate. More incarceration in "the land of the free" a.k.a. "the most heavily incarcerated country on the planet" is not the solution.
Re: (Score:3)
No it really isn't. You're already putting more criminals in prison than anywhere else on earth.
That is caused by criminalizing victimless interactions, especially drug-related offenses which are in fact not offenses against anyone. Since no one is harmed in them, there is no legal justification to making them crimes at all, especially not felonies.
More incarceration in "the land of the free" a.k.a. "the most heavily incarcerated country on the planet" is not the solution.
That's true. It's not about incarcerating more people, it's about incarcerating the correct people. But that alone won't solve the problem, because prison also has to be rehabilitative instead of a rape factory.
Re: (Score:2)
Prison rehabilitated me to the point that I would have to be in a really desperate situation to repeat my crime, or really any crime that could put me in prison again. Because fuck prison, and its really not the rape factory its portrayed to be in the movies, well most aren't. There are a few, and even in those you're more likely to get murdered than raped.
Re: (Score:2)
Prison rehabilitated me to the point that I would have to be in a really desperate situation to repeat my crime
And now you want to pay it down by "rehabilitating" some burly bearded dudes until they use the ladies toilets, like this dude [wordpress.com]. I think you're pretty weird, TBH. (btw, no I won't let up until you recant your absurd philosophy)
Anyway the actual point is that regardless of your personal anecdotes, the statistics show that the US is crap at rehabilitation and the reoffending rate is much higher than
Re: (Score:2)
Prison rehabilitated me to the point that I would have to be in a really desperate situation to repeat my crime, or really any crime that could put me in prison again.
Prison makes people more likely to be in desperate situations, not least because it makes it harder to get a job.
Re: (Score:2)
lmao, thank you for the morning laugh. youre a deranged cunt, but im sure you know that.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't saying it works for everybody, but it does work for some. I have a lot of friends that ended up right back there. In my opinion parole is what causes repeat offenders. Also, here in Las Vegas. We have this thing called "drug court" where instead of going to prison they put you through a multi step recovery program. Step 1, you cant have a job because for 6 hours a day during normal working hours they make you run around sitting in rooms waiting in line and at court in line waiting for your daily bu
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one who wants men in women't bathrooms. You've repeatedly refused to give a choerent reason why. The only logical conclusion is you want cover so you can go in. You're not deranged, just really, really creepy.
Re: (Score:3)
You've repeatedly refused to give a choerent reason why.
That's what's known as "a lie". I have given reasons repeatedly. I don't want this guy in the ladies toilets:
https://www.gaystarnews.com/wp... [gaystarnews.com]
The question is why do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Fair points.
Re: (Score:2)
That is absolutely FALSE.
You have to have a carry concealed license in the state of Louisiana to legally carry a concealed firearm.
The thugs committing most of the gun crimes in LA, are in the gangs, mostly in the project areas or immediately surrounding areas, at least here in New Orleans.
And those low
Re: (Score:2)
Chainsaw? Not much of a fighting chance then.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. That would probably give me the biggest chance of them all. People aren't very good at chasing others while carrying heavy powertools.
Re: (Score:2)
crazy people that are going to chase you with a chainsaw will probably have no issue with this or they would have chosen another weapon. like a gun.. O.o
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, which is why guns should be hard to get. Go for the chainsaw man!
Re: (Score:2)
Because guns are fun. I enjoy shooting guns, and I enjoy all things guns. plus a chainsaw is too damn messy. why the hell do I want to end up covered in the attackers bodily fluids.
Re: (Score:2)
So do I. I just don't need to own any to enjoy using them. Unless I feel like going on a murder spree.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we don't listen to any one person on what their "needs" are, and force that onto others.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I know, land on the free[1]
[1] To get mass murdered due to National Rifle Addiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you want to remove the free part because of a few bad actors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We could save six times as many innocent lives banning alcohol, or three times as many including suicides, yet you seem to not give a shit. 40% of all violent crime has an alcohol component. The majority of domestic violence, assault, battery, DWI, and rapes are attributable to the presence of alcohol. Yet you seem to not care.
This was never about saving lives.
Re: (Score:3)
We could save six times as many innocent lives banning alcohol
We tried banning alcohol, and deaths went up, not down.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, if your "culture" is dependent on schoolchildren being massacred and gang-bangers spraying bullets, you've got a fucked-up culture.
You are missing the point. The culture of urban gang-bangers and rural gun owners couldn't be more different. Gun control advocates are mostly opposed to the latter culture, not the first. Rural whites join the NRA, and are politically active on gun rights. Urban gang-bangers are not.
Do you seriously believe that closing the "gun show loophole" will make a non-negligible difference? Yet it gets way more attention than urban handgun shootings.
It wasn't always thus. You might want to read up on the history on the gun control movement in America. In the 1980s, there was a strong advocacy movement for restrictions on handguns (responsible for 75% of gun homicides and even more gun suicides), and HCI and the Brady Campaign made it clear that they were not after "long guns" used for hunting. Their proposals were sensible. Their influence was growing.
That came to an abrupt end on the morning of January 17th, 1989, when Patrick Purdy walked onto a school playground in Stockton, California, opened fire with an SKS semi-automatic rifle, killing five children and wounding 32 more. The advocates took advantage of the publicity and outrage to completely abandon their assurances of focusing on handguns, and called for bans on "automatic rifles" (already illegal), and "AK-47s" (also already illegal). They got their "assault weapons" ban, but alienated millions of hunters and others that had supported them. The backlash swept dozens of gun control advocates from public office in the 1994 Republican mid-term landslide. The ban expired. NRA membership ballooned. Trust was gone. Willingness to compromise was gone. Any sort of new restriction on gun ownership is unthinkable in today's political climate.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, because most of those "rural whites" own rifles the next makeup is what are affectionately known as "granny pistols", and most gangbangers are using illegally modified semi-automatic to automatics, or guns that have been illegally trafficked to Mexico and reslushed through gangs in the US. Hey remember that gun-running scheme by Holder, you know the guy who was Obama's DA? Remember how one of the weapons ended up in fucking France, mowing down a bunch of people? Yeah, lots of people still d
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, "illegal" is pretty much by definition criminal, so no question about that :-p
Of course what is really being said is that they are more likely to commit criminal acts /other/ than just being here illegally.
(Also IMO certainly true since the statement doesn't control for language barriers, economic status, etc.)
Once you start pulling those factors out, I don't know if it is still accurate or not. Be interesting if someone has stats that take such things into account.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow..where do you live where you have a 3-5 day waiting period to buy a lower or fully functioning firearm?
I walk in the store, show ID, fill out paperwork, they do the instant check on me and in abou
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Informative)
it's a METAL BLANK that is where the serial number would go on the "legal" firearm you described. It omits that serial #.
It's perfectly legal to make yourself a firearm and there is no legal requirement for a serial number to be applied nor registered. As long as the firearm you manufacture would be legal for you to posses otherwise (not a restricted type like fully-automatic/select-fire, sawed-off shotgun under 18 inches in barrel length,, etc) you are free to make one for personal use without serial numbers or registration of any kind, only rules about who may legally possess apply as long as you don't sell/trade it to another party.
TPTB over the decades have worked to chip away at our educational systems, our mental health systems, our criminal justice system, and our common shared beliefs using propaganda involving the pushing of identity politics and intersectionality that has it's roots in Post-Modernism. This has naturally eventually resulted in a dumbed-down, fractured/divided., frustrated, and angry population. Then TPTB step in to "solve" the problem *they created* by removing liberty and personal freedom.
Don't be their willing tool of your own enslavement.
Strat
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Interesting)
The problems you mentioned are all, every one, simply results and follow-on consequences of the issues I listed.
All you're discussing is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. But yeah, sure, *I'm* the moron, here.
Stop being part of the problem.
Right back at you. Those problems you mention will never be fixed until the cultural and societal problems I talked about are effectively addressed. Until that happens there simply will not be enough informed & educated people who care enough pushing to correct those problems to force a change.
And please, if you don't have any respect for me, at least have enough respect for yourself to refrain from infantile name-calling. It doesn't help your arguments.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is Facebook and social media a public neutral forum or are they a publisher of their opinion?
Either they are exercising their right to speak or enabling others their right. In one case they are responsible for the content on their site and the other they are not. FB wants it both ways which is not acceptable. Recent events with social media has demonstrated monopolistic collusion and too many damned fools and useful idiots are willing to promote and defend a culture of censorship and authoritarians. Anyone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You planning to water the tree of liberty with the blood of more schoolchildren? I hear that's all the rage with the well-regulated militia these days.
The "well regulated militia" was intended to be a guard against the spilling of children's blood. What we got instead was a ban on good people being armed on school grounds. Now we see children getting murdered unopposed while "the people that keep us safe" cower outside. I don't want armed guards in schools, they cost money and history shows they are not effective. I want armed parents in schools. It costs nothing to do, just tell the parents they have to pay for all the training and background checks
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And yet, look at what it's become. You're very close to an epiphany here.
You really don't understand what your insistence on unregulated gun ownership is going to cost all of us, do you? You think government can't get more tyrannical? It can, and it will be because people d
Re: (Score:2)
You really don't understand what your insistence on unregulated gun ownership is going to cost all of us, do you?
Do you understand the cost? We now are seeing the government and private companies so scared of unregistered guns that they are willing to violate the most basic rights of the freedom to speak, communicate, and express ourselves. We have TSA agents denying people to board a plane because they have a t-shirt with a picture of a gun on it.
There are laws against certain kinds of people from having guns. People like those with a felony record, illegal aliens, those dishonorably discharged from the military,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, you DO understand what your fetishistic "gun culture" is costing all of us? And it's only just begun. It's only going to get worse.
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm now convinced that you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with some construct of your imagination. I already agreed with you that the right of self defense does not mean people can murder without punishment. I'm trying to make it clear to you that gun control in the USA has gone one step too far with these recent blocking of sharing 3D printer files. That's not 2nd Amendment territory any more, this is infringement on the 1st Amendment.
Here's another thing, I'd like to see where you get this idea of an overwhelming dislike of the NRA. I saw a recent fundraiser for a march against the NRA. Go have a look on how much money they raised for the protest.
https://www.gofundme.com/natio... [gofundme.com]
A whole $70 on a national fundraiser. The NRA likely makes more money on a single order of overpriced t-shirts and "tactical" pants on their website.
I don't care what you say, the National Rifle Association is not the bad guy here. Perhaps you could start understanding this by reading some of the things that the NRA has written. This might be a good place to start:
https://www.nraila.org/article... [nraila.org]
Many anti-gun politicians and members of the media have wrongly claimed that 3-D printing technology will allow for the production and widespread proliferation of undetectable plastic firearms. Regardless of what a person may be able to publish on the Internet, undetectable plastic guns have been illegal for 30 years. Federal law passed in 1988, crafted with the NRAâ(TM)s support, makes it unlawful to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive an undetectable firearm.
The NRA supports laws barring people from producing undetectable firearms. It's already illegal to make an undetectable firearm. It's illegal for felons, drug dealers, illegal aliens, and others law breakers like them, to possess any firearm. It's illegal to murder people. It's illegal to threaten people with a firearm. It's illegal to carry a firearm into a school. I don't know what you want because it seems that what so many claim we need in laws restricting gun ownership and use already exists. What I don't want to see is a law barring the posting of drawings on the internet, that's simply a step too far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You act like the NRA is some sort of boogy man out there operating against the will of the US public.
The NRA is made up of and funded BY a great many of the US public, the ones that appreciate the 2nd amendment and enjoy safe, legal firearms ownership and use.
The NRA is their lobbying committee, amongst other growing gun's right organizations.
The NRA is simply representing that massive number of legal and responsible gun owners out there IN the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The NRA represents fewer than 1 in 10 gun owners.
Is that a "massive number" compared to the general population?
Re: (Score:2)
But it doesn't negate that they are a lobby group made up of and FOR the rights of all gun owners.
Re: (Score:2)
Now hold on, are you saying that organizations can claim to represent people that don't belong to the organization? So, does Patriot Prayer represent you? They claim to represent all decent white folks. Is that you?
Especially the Russian ones, apparently. Be real. The NRA represents the gun industry. Period. Whatever makes gun sales go up, they're for. It'
Re: (Score:2)
The NRA represents fewer than 1 in 10 gun owners.
There are over 300 million people in the USA and about 1/3rd of them own guns.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15... [cnn.com]
That's 100 million gun owners. If 1/10th of them are NRA members than that's 10 million NRA members. Recent polling suggests it's closer to 6 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Is that a "massive number" compared to the general population?
The margin of votes between President Trump and Secretary Clinton in 2016 was less than 4 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, yes, that is a "massive number" compared to the general population.
Re: (Score:2)
Then put good guys with guns inside the school before the bad guys with guns get there
I'm all for this... In Texas. Get more guns into your schools and let's see what happens, it might just be crazy enough to work.
But you red states need to put your children's lives where your mouths are and I don't think you will.
Re: (Score:2)
You pay lip service to your "guns don't kill people" BS, but you have no actual faith in it. I dare you to prove me wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Several states just finished passing laws to allow teachers to have guns in their classroom if they're concealed, and the carrier has a concealed-carry permit. You seem to be very much out-of-step with what's been happening the last couple of years.
Oh yeah! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is that 90 years ago in the US, that homebrew beer recipe you used probably would have been considered to be more dangerous than the homebrew gun recipe that we’re talking about now.
I can only imagine what the controls of Social Media would look like in a modern country with Prohibition today... it would probably make this story look like a nothingburger in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, even the equipment is different. Sure, if you want to go pro, you can do the traditional three-vessel approach and can make it as complica [blichmanne...series.com]
Re: (Score:2)
50 years ago we saw the Gun Control Act of 1968 get passed into law. Many of the reasons for it passing were because of the Black Panther Party being formed in California a few years earlier. This was spreading quickly and there were bands of armed Black men patrolling the streets to maintain order because the police were not keeping people safe. The police could not arrest someone for carrying a weapon, and they could not stop anyone from buying one, since there was no law against it.
What had been estab
Re: (Score:2)
I approve! Though I have homebrewed IPA instead of tequila.
A great alternative. Prosit!
Facebook does not have 'Sites' it can Ban (Score:1)
Facebook does not have 'sites' that it can ban. They might host 'pages' that people are foolish enough to consider their 'sites.'
If you want a host a site, rent a server or a spot on a server and host your site. Facebook has no say in what you host on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is actually banning any reference or link to their independently hosted site. It's the Facebook equivalent of nuking them from orbit. People can't even discuss anything about the site, because references to it, including non links and non URL looking text references cause people's posts to get deleted or shadowed. So yeah, this doesn't have anything with third party hosting.
these guys are morons. however... (Score:4, Insightful)
all of us libtards who were up in arms over DeCSS, free speech flag, 'illegal prime numbers', wtc, we have to realize that essentially, a 3d printed gun file is simply a number. in other words, its just another kind of illegal number, along with the Playstation encryption keys or decss code or whatever. at some point we have to face the fact that information in pure form can be deadly , thats what a virus is basically, just DNA inside of a dumb casing. like the flu pandemic that killed tens of millions of people... thats technically just a number, not a very big one, GATCTCTAGC etc etc. its not enough to decry gun nuts as moron wackjobs. we have to deal with the fact that our society has evolved to a point, our species, where it could more easily wipe itself out than ever before. solving nuclear weapons proliferation was not the end. it was the beginning. we have no idea what we are doing and no idea what will happen next.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks to me the pot is calling the kettle black!
.
And you think you're any different, using a user ID which is obviously not your real name ?
Thanks for the laughs, you imbecile.
Are you demented? I posted as AC because I had modded the topic and still had mod points left. Then, after my mod points were done, when I commented, I used my real account. And I don't even know what you're arguing with. What I said as AC has nothing to do with your reply.
Only Children Censor (Score:2, Troll)
The fact that they are censoring certain sites and not others shows a couple of things:
* They are a bunch of children who think they have the moral right to be the thought police. What gives them the right to decide what is acceptable or not?
* There are FAR worse sites that are allowed to be linked -- why aren't THOSE also removed?
Since corporations are ...
* legal entities
* have the same free speech rights as individuals (2010 ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission with a 5-4 decision)
* a
Re: (Score:3)
It's scummy, anti-American, and highly partisan, but Facebook is a private entity and can do what it pleases with its platform. This is not a First Amendment issue.
Of course, you are also entitled to take your business elsewhere, which I highly recommend.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It is quickly becoming a first amendment issue because if they censor then it means they are publishing their opinion and that means they are liable for any illegal activity on their site. If they are a public neutral forum then they are not liable.
Even if this wasn't a first amendment issue the entire culture surrounding censorship in SV is disturbing considering how much they can influence our elections because they are the de facto town square of public discourse online. In some instances they have
Re: (Score:2)
They are not the "town hall" for anything. They are a private sideshow.
The right to speak freely is a function of natural law, not the constitution. The actual text says "congress shall make no law", which mean it is a prohibition on the government- not that it "permits" an individual from speaking. So in that sense, you are correct.
Congress has made no law abridging the freedom of speech, therefore, not a first amendment issue.
Some of the co
Re: (Score:2)
It's scummy, anti-American,
A massive, powerful, incredbly rich American company is about the most American thing you can get.
There goes net neutrality (Score:2)
Goodbyeeee
Re: (Score:2)
Is Facebook a "common carrier" or not when they have become a de facto Common / Town Square?
Assumes facts not in evidence. When was it determined that Facebook is a de facto Town Square? Who made that determination?
So, no. Facebook is not a common carrier.
* Facebook.com and its 100 or so associated domains are blocked on my network.
Re: (Score:2)
* They are a bunch of children who think they have the moral right to be the thought police. What gives them the right to decide what is acceptable or not?
No, they are a bunch of adults who run their own website and can choose what can and can't be put on there.
So owning Facebook is what gives them the right.
No, because they're not blocking others' free speech rights, any more than I would be blocking your free speech rights by making you leave my house if you started pontificating on the finer points of Kirk vs. Picard.
Is communication on FaceBook's platform considered to be on "private property"?
Yes.
Is Facebook a "common carrier" or not when they have become a de facto Common / Town Square?
No.
If they acted like adults, why can't they allow the link but ALSO put up a banner saying "We believe this link to be irresponsible" .. and then let the user decide if the link is worth clicking or not?
Because they don't want to, and there is no onus on them to do otherwise. Someone else can do that if they want to.
The fact that they are censoring communication that they (politically) disagree with just proves that they are immature and scared and operating under the modus operandi of "CYA".
Would you say the s
Re: (Score:2)
You or another AC have already posted this "argument", doing it repeatedly is spamming/fishing for responses.
Your argument is idiotic, that's why you don't get the responses you want. So please stop.
There's still some good news (Score:2)
The good news is that you can still see photos of your friends' new babies every day ad nauseum.
I'll wait for the 4D Printed guns (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Noes! (Score:2)
Steganography (Score:2)
You do know that these are being distributed* embedded in plain old graphics files? Better block all those cute kitten pics right now!
*Just to prove a point. The gun plans have been out there for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose Facebook had better start searching every uploaded image and every linked image for possible steganographic information. And then reject everything that looks like it might contain 3D printing instructions for guns. 3D instructions for chess pieces (for example) are OK, so these must be allowed to pass.
Answer (Score:2)
We should probably try to create more of those URL shortener redirect thingamajigs. It will really throw a wrench into attempting to censor certain sites/URLs from being shared.
Stop the Moral Panic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It may be legal to make your own guns, but it is illegal to make guns out of non-ferrous materials, because of metal detectors.
Re: (Score:2)
The gun needs to be detectable, not made of metal. A fully functional Liberator can be made entirely from plastic, but to keep it legal an utterly non-functional metal plate is epoxied into a slot on the frame. The metal has enough mass to trigger the metal detector.
Re: (Score:2)
EDIT: The Liberator can't quite be entirely made of plastic; it needs a nail for a firing pin. But the nail is too small to make the gun legally detectable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The four ounce chunk of metal doesn't matter - the entire gun will show up on the x-ray. This article [blogspot.com] specifically shows the infamous "invisible" Glock 7 in a conventional x-ray; this page [teledyneicm.com] shows how to detect metal, plastic, and organic (e.g., explosives) items in a color coded airport x-ray device.
[Other sources do indicate that it is possible to crank the power up and/or modify the sensitivity enough to ignore plastics, but did not supply comparison images. Also, the minimal detection law specifically r
Re: (Score:2)
Your points are accurate but I think the greater concern is proliferation of weapons that can get past metal detectors
A gun without metallic ammo is simply going to explode. No ifs ands or buts about it.
Re: (Score:2)
A gun without metallic ammo is simply going to explode. No ifs ands or buts about it.
Hate to tell you this, but a decade ago military's were worried that china was about to start selling ceramic ammo knock-offs of existing ceramic ammo that are already in use. You really want to read up on it? Look up the hearings on X-SAPI which had a large over-discussion/panic because of it.