Does DDG still have the same upward trend that they used to before Brave caught on?

Why you said makes me think the number of votes is wholly irrelevent.

What is interesting or helpful is entirely subjective, it’s personal opinion. What is considered misinformation is entirely subjective. That makes me believe the voting count on a post means nothing for indicating the quality.

Considering how any majority of people typically react emotionally rather than have humility and respond with consistant logic, it seems personal opinion on a mass scale is an unreliable gage for quality of material.

If AMD wanted to get real serious real fast about rapidly improving drivers, could releasing Radeon driver source code under AGPLv3 help get mass development and fixes for drivers, while at the same time due to the license make the code untouchable for nVidia?

If Proton cared about privacy for VPN for clients, they would remove the login requirement and make ProtonVPN an anonymous services.

If there are concerns about abuse for the network, that’s way the login, how could they figure that out without seeing people’s traffic.

I use RiseupVPN and CalyxVPN for being open source and anonymous.

Until ProtonVPN removes login in their free client, it is not an option.

Under no circumstances will I remove any person for expressing antisemetic views and opinions, correct, I won’t censor them. Antisementic beliefs can speak freely without repercussions. It’s up to each individual how they choose to handle it, but I refuse to remove antisemetic statements from my forum on Judaism. Words can ever cause injuries.

FreeTube, Invidious, or Rumble.

You’re taking a one dimensional position, viewing it from an emotional perspective vs. what the letter of the law actual says and what isthe standard to cross that threshold. Being high strung you can not make something a criminal offense that you deeply resent.

If there were no threats or direct intimidation, police don’t respond when it’s only bad words.

It speaks to the broader context of personal character and how stunted someone is because they react emotionally, not able to control their words, have self control, and trying to win, not having dialogue.

For example, resorting to mocking, sarcasm, or insults proves an intellectual defect.

It can show how under developed their character is or reveal a personal weakness.

How do you handle it when you are out in public and someone insults you, do you fight them or do you go somewhere else?

I’m getting direct insults but I’m not complaining, that’s how life goes.

That’s a short sided simplified view of what I said. I was talking about either comments on a public platform or in a long form format.

Respectful of what?

You live your life based on what other people says, you are looking for acknowledgement and permission from others.

If someone hates that you are alive, it causes you no harm and has no relevance to your life as long as that person is not restraining you or physically blocking your movements. If someone condems you, by you reacting to that you are giving them power over you.

Have you heard the phrase “Allowing someone to live in your head rent free”?

There is no such thing as suffering damage from a belief. Only physical action causes damage.

Only the weak minded get outraged over a statement or belief. Nobody can offend you unless you give them the permission and power to offend you. If want protection from reading or hearing things you don’t like, it shows how under developed you are.

As soon as you go outside, a person can insult you and there’s nothing you can do about it. If you physically attack someone for simply insulting you or mocking you, you are the criminal and it proves you have no self control, you are a delusional narcissist.

You have solidified that you are a weak and gutless person and you are the very type of person you claim to hate. You are awful for society.

Yes, some people move the goalposts when their statements get defeated, I am talking about, or asking, why do people need protection and silencing from some who makes a statement those goes against what they believe in?

There’s no reason to react so strongly. Simply don’t engage, ignore it, and continue on with life.

Beliefs and opinions have never hurt anyone, only action hurts someone. A person can only offend you if you allowthem and give them the power to offend. If you think someone’s statement is repulsive and forget about what you read, they can’t do anything to bother you.

In a true debate, I expect humility and dignity, and anything less than that is only them trying to win, it’s not a conservational debate to challege each other so iron can sharpen iron.

That means you do want censorship and silencing of others at a certain point, even though what a person believes cause no harm to others, it’s only when they act on it than it can be damaging.

It’s better for people to speak freely without consequences so you know what a person truly believes so you know who to avoid. With censorship or silencing, you will never know who someone truly because they won’t discuss, and that person could turn against you when they have an opportunity to hurt you because they had to stay silent about what they truly throught all along but you never knew because they were avoiding any consequences for what they believe in.

Trolls are everywhere, all a person can do is ignore them and leave. When someone is clearly trolling in the sense of being insulting, any reaction only freeds

What I am referancing is when someone states a personal view that does invoke a reaction, there’s no intellectual curiousity to see where that comes from, it’s easier to ban them or try to get them suspended, which only proves how weak they are as a person because because it shows that they need to be protected from any belief they can’t defend against.

What is your issue with libertarians, and what type of libertarian are you talking about? There are libertarians that I am strongly for, and libertarians that I despise everything they believe, but each ofthose are different types. It would be a misnomer or a mistake to simply lump all of them as being libertarian.

For example I believe left libertarians can cause damage because they want zero social restrictions, and right libertarians understand better about self control or self restraint and humility.

I strongly agree and support everything you said.

For example, I’m religious, and strict at that, but when I talk to an athiest, their atheism has no affect on my religious devotion. I can still talk to them about music groups, shows, current events, games, internet things, and leave God out of the conversation so we can connect as 2 people, show care for each other, and avoid mentioning subjects that we are on opposite ends.