They’re not doctors.

Clinic is even pushing it to me, as they’re in the same space as homeopathy or naturopathy. “Chiropractic office” would be the most clear in my mind.

Whois still has the DNS record but it doesn’t resolve for me either at this point. I can’t resolve it using dns.leonet.it either so presumably the sanctions have taken effect and their internet service has been cut off.

May I ask why FB, Twitter, etc. get protection from liability from 3rd party content under Section 230 of the Communications Act but these folks don’t? They both have a TOS and reserve the right to refuse service.

I’m not downvoting you btw, I know you’re engaging in good faith. Idk who is.

So they have a TOS like Facebook or any other large platform, and reserve the right to refuse service?

Unless they’re knowingly doing business with a known convicted terrorist, I fail to see how this makes them a terrorist support platform.

Anyways in the US Section 230 of whatever law prevents companies and organizations from being liable for content users post to their websites. How is this any different than FB hosting the breeding grounds for Proud Boys et al, other than them not being a US company and them being leftist-aligned?

I’d argue it doesn’t matter. If they offer e2ee email, they can’t be aware of the content of any messages exchanged.

Unless they were informed one of their email accounts belonged to someone convicted of committing an actual act of domestic terror, they would be completely in the dark about who’s using their email services.

Given its this US state department issuing the statement, I wouldn’t believe any accusation leveled at all without proof. I’d need to see evidence that A/I knowingly provided services to a convicted domestic terrorist for me to believe this is anything other than trying to stamp out E2EE.

https://autistici.org/who/manifesto

Seems pretty great to me. MSFT and friends must be unhappy Europe is slowly moving off US software.

I think people here don’t understand that I’m not advocating for capitulation. I’m saying “let the negotiation team manage the negotiations”, including deciding what pressures we’re applying and what we’re not willing to concede.

This is the political equivalent of going to buy a used car or something and bringing your kid along and the kid starts begging to buy the car. Wab and Ford are not party to these negotiations, and should not be undermining federal government’s negotiations.

“It might rain later and ruin my sign I created for the parade later. No one really can predict the rain. I should piss on my sign because it doesn’t really matter anyways.”

A thoughtful approach to foreign policy.

“I’m wrong and proud!” is the most American thing I can think of. Enjoy.

I’m actually losing my mind that you all are allowed to vote. I hope our nation increases our education budget for Canadian civics classes.

Constitution Act: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-4.html

Treaty Obligations

[132] The Parliament and Government of Canada shall have all Powers necessary or proper for performing the Obligations of Canada or of any Province thereof, as Part of the British Empire, towards Foreign Countries, arising under Treaties between the Empire and such Foreign Countries.

Then, when Canada legally became distinct from the Empire, “The Parliament and Government of Canada” referenced here became the new, national government via the Statute of Westminster, and the jurisdiction for international Treaties and trade agreements was inherited by the federal government.

In 1931, under the Statute of Westminster, Canada and a number of other British dominions, acquired full independence(4) and with it authority to act internationally with all the attributes of a sovereign state.  Full power over foreign affairs was thus conferred on Canada and section 132 of the Constitution Act, 1867 became obsolete.

Read about it here: https://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0004-e.htm#A. Authority Respecting International Treaties(txt)

You people are so confidently wrong. Your downvotes mean nothing to me - I’ve seen what you upvote.

Like, have you ever heard of Manitoba (or any other province) setting import tariffs on US/foreign goods? No. When you import a good into Canada, does Manitoba CBSA charge you import fees? Do provinces even have their own CBSA? It is demonstrably false that provinces can set foreign trade policy without federal involvement and frameworks. They cannot tariff, set quotas, or even lower tariffs or import fees. They can buy and sell with foreign entities but only from within the confines of federal agreements like CUSMA, which is negotiated federally. Provinces can direct Crown Crops like liquor commissions to not buy goods made available via CUSMA, but they cannot change the terms of CUSMA to allow new goods, change import tariffs and fees, etc.

Bud, what are you talking about? Per your own link:

The Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) is an intergovernmental trade agreement signed by Canadian ministers representing the federal government and all 13 provinces and territories (PTs). The objective of the CFTA is to reduce and eliminate, to the extent possible, barriers to the free movement of persons, goods, services, and investments within Canada and to establish an open, efficient, and stable domestic market.

This is a trade agreement between provinces and has nothing to do with foreign policy. Per the CFTA, Article 100 (Objective) and Article 101:

Article 100: Objective

The Parties’ objective is to reduce and eliminate, to the extent possible, barriers to the free movement of persons, goods, services, and investments within Canada and to establish an open, efficient, and stable domestic market. The Parties recognize and agree that enhancing trade, investment, and labour mobility within Canada would contribute to the attainment of this goal.

Article 101: Application

This Agreement applies to trade, investment, and labour mobility within Canada.

I’m wondering if you even read your own source? It’s free and online: https://www.cfta-alec.ca/cfta-agreement/chapter-one-initial-provisions

I understand that Trump and the US are highly volatile and unreliable people unlikely to honor any agreement they make. That doesn’t mean we should make our negotiating team’s job harder by intentionally poking the wasp nest.

And no, provinces generally don’t have jurisdiction over foreign policy like trade agreements. That is a federal power, hence why its “CUSMA” (Canada-US-Mexico Agreement) not “BCASM…NFUSMA”. Provinces generally do not set their own foreign policy, and having emotions about Trump, the US, and threats to our sovereignty shouldn’t change that. At best provinces are allowed to make their own deals within the confines of existing frameworks set up by the federal government(s).

There is no concrete win from Wab totally owning MAGAts other than a cheap political stunt for Canadian audiences, and a concrete downside. See: Ford’s infamous Reagan ad and the fallout from that.

Hard agree, as someone who voted for Wab as my MLA. I wish he and Ford would stop fucking around and just let the federal government retain the jurisdiction over foreign affairs. Ford’s Reagan ad was factual and “felt good” for Canadians to see but really stirred the pot.

It’s been a long time since I read into M02 exercise but IIRC Van Riper only won by using “motorcycle messengers” that traveled at the speed of light. IIRC the game’s "DM"s basically ruled against him that their forces were not operating within realistic constraints which is why it was reset and restarted.

It’s not just log files - I was running a bad version of some software and suddenly my VPS was cryptomining and they tried to export common config directories. They got nothing and I cleaned it up but I’m not letting my VPS join a botnet and attack others. If the side effect of that is that Nigerians cannot read my person blog or access my self hosted services with 30 users I think this is ok.

I’ll happily accept your ire as I also wish the internet was generally safer and more open.

Also I’m not selling anything so that EU law wouldn’t apply to my services even if I did host them in the EU or provide services to the EU.

I am not in the US! Nor are my services hosted somewhere where this is relevant.