Thank you for bringing some sanity to the discussion

They’re a Filipino. Not exactly an infamous source of antisemitists. And ‘88’ may mean something in the west, but here in Asia it generally means nothing more than your birth year.

Are we now accusing others of antisemitism based on nothing more than a few random letters? WTF?

Shame it’s only THEIR children they give a damn about

That’s not sarcasm, that’s satire

That pretty much depends on where in the world you are, FYI. Librarian == professional fucking researcher is not a thing in Asia.

We could discuss all sorts of hypotheticals, including where there’s a secret supervillain base under the library and they’re about to assassinate OP for jacking into their network. It’s pointless because we’re not discussing an event we have any way of obtaining any other information about other than what OP has provided.

Do you trust every one-sided story to be entirely accurate of all details?

No, but for the sake of discussion in this thread, that is the scenario we’re all going by. We’re not rendering a legal judgement here, we’re discussing the situation as described.

In a public library, I would fully expect public-facing ethernet ports, especially in sitting / working areas, to be available for public use. I’m not sure why they would be there otherwise. And if they’re no longer meant for public use, it would be on the library IT staff to have disabled those ports.

what does trust have to do with it?

Because I don’t trust non-IT-savvy people to even properly understand the question. I’ve met way too many people with no technical clue who refuse to admit to any sort of lack of knowledge when it’s extremely obvious.

“Do you have ethernet or wired internet?” is actually a common library question and the response from whoever works the front desk will likely tell you everything you need to know.

Would you trust the reply somebody like the librarian in the OP gave you? Seems like the sort of person who would refuse to admit to any lack of knowledge and just bluster.

Sounds like a her problem.

They’re bats, because they are perfectly comfortable in the dark. It’s the ‘lost’ bit that’s a mystery

Hope she’s doing well, shame what the CCP did to her

Xitter is pretending that this is about free speech and censorship.

It’s not.

Yes it is. Especially considering that Xitter is an American company and this is legal by American law, again, Australia is overstepping its authority. It doesn’t matter that Musk is a PoS. It doesn’t matter that I personally want the video gone myself. What matters is Australia does not have the legal authority to make decisions affecting the entire world.

Your comparison to CSE is disingenuous as CSE is illegal worldwide, or at least in every country that matters. This video is not.

Sure. If the Christchurch group or Aussie govt wants to call them out for not honouring their agreement, shame them, kick them out, whatever, that’s fine. I’m all for that. Fuck Xitter. I fully understand there’s nothing noble about their motives. There is however a difference between that and legally forcing a platform to censor content worldwide. Australia is claiming legal authority over the entire world, how do you not see the issue there?

What point are you trying to make here? I’ve already stated that the content is objectionable, and that ideally Xitter should have taken it down themselves. The problem I, and everybody else here, has is that Australia does not have the authority to unilaterally decide what content the entire world may or may not access. This is regardless of the video content and it would be nice if you could discuss the actual point.

It may be legal and appropriate according to Australian law. That doesn’t mean the rest of us around the world are ok with abiding by their laws and whatever they decide is ‘acceptable’ for us to watch. Especially given Australia’s history of censorship when it comes to media and culture.

Again, they’re not obeying the Christchurch agreement they signed. I agree with you on that point. That was not the point of my comment.

What’s the relevance?

I agree with the Christchurch Call, that platforms, media and govts should avoid disseminating and giving publicity to terrorists and their causes. If Xitter were to take down content for that reason, I’d applaud them. However, that is a voluntary agreement that should be self-enforced by the signatories upon themselves. Nothing there gives Australia the right to determine for the rest of the world what content may or may not be shared online.

Musk is an ass, but this is a complex issue that goes way beyond Australia. Many govts are censoring content on social media within their countries. The last thing they need is precedent allowing them to remove videos from a platform entirely worldwide.

Eh, it’s pretty common in a lot of other countries as well. Those with significant Muslim populations, and even countries like Norway.