Making a UGC revenge porn site doesn't need to be defended by anyone. I feel like your comment is a troll. I shouldn't be arguing with a troll and I expect HN to not have them. I'll stop at that.

I doubt anyone reading this comment would condone the operation of such a nasty site or have much sympathy for someone who ran one. Nevertheless, it is important to be clear about why we feel such behaviour is morally wrong and should be penalised. What principle(s) are being violated here? Our legal systems in the West tend to depend heavily on precedents, so the reasoning behind a judgement is in a very practical sense as important as the decision itself.

Personally, I think much of this issue could be dealt with very clearly. I believe stronger privacy laws are long overdue in many contexts, and as one example, criminalising the collection or distribution of intimate imagery of another person without their explicit consent is appropriate. Combine that with the well-established legal concepts of attempting to commit a crime, being an accomplice, and incitement, and situations like revenge porn sites are black and white criminal offences as far as the original uploaders are concerned, and the usual legal means should be available to investigate sources and track down the offenders.

There is a second issue here, which is more what I think sillysaurus2 was going after: should a site that hosts user-supplied content have any responsibility for the nature of that content? I don't think the answer to this is "pretty clearly no" in the way the GP post described, because one could certainly make a reasonable, logical argument for an alternative model where if you're going to publish potentially damaging information to a wide audience then you have some sort of due diligence obligation first.

However, I don't personally think that would be the best model, because it would impose severe and possibly prohibitive burdens on many beneficial activities. I prefer a "common carrier" model, where merely conveying someone else's information does not in itself incur any liability if the service doing it has no knowledge of or control over that information. However, the rules about aiding and abetting/incitement should also apply, so if you run a site promoting illegal behaviour or you knowingly allow your site to be used for illegal activities without taking reasonable steps to try to prevent it, you're on the hook as well. Again, this makes operating a dedicated revenge porn site a black and white offence (actually, many black and white offences, for which the penalty should IMHO be correspondingly severe) but without necessarily imposing burdens on modern communications networks that would be harmful to the generally valuable function they serve.

When it's editorially uploaded, as it is here? Sure should.

OP isn't specifically defending revenge porn sites in general, but rather pondering the ramifications of user generated content in general (which, to me, seems off-base as the fact the content came from centrally organized hacking seems to be the key issue).

Try very slowly typing the word, pretty, in the textbox box. If you are like me it turns into the word, president, on the Chrome browser on Mac.

If I type quickly enough it usually works perfectly.

My guess is that you are using the speed of the typing to decide if I want to accept an autocomplete.

My proposed solution: I'd use the right arrow character to accept the autocomplete and advancing to the end of the word, rather than speed change. The problem with using the space char is that then we'd never be able to type the word pre.

Great job! I think it's almost perfect and pretty :)

Definitely the most punch I've seen per line of code.

You can use javascript functions in your excel formulas. In a 30 line of code program this is a feature.

= alert("I love it.");

excel_like_expression ::= "=" javascript_expression

In the meanwhile, I am perfectly healthy and will look both ways before crossing streets.

I can imagine many handy reasons to have a lisp interpreter in PHP.

Also, for your information, I've written code in many languages. I've written thousands of lines in lisp. Typically, if I'm aggravated at a project, it's because of the project itself, and not the language. It's odd to me when people find the language to be so significant for a language that is fairly mature.

I would not want to defend all of the fed's actions, though.

1) redlining a contract too much can destroy deals. Some lawyers do this instinctively but you should talk to your lawyer and review the changes and make sure all are important to you.

2) when you are starting off in business you can take more risks. but, i think that when you are established, it pays to be more cautious.

[1] http://www.phpsh.org/

EDIT: It does not expose a REPL though, which I suppose is what you meant?

The archive.org team does follow robots.txt and I believe they remove content retroactively meaning if you update your site with a robots.txt it will delete the old content (which I think sucks).

Indeed, especially since most domain parking garbage sites seem to have robots.txt files for some crazy reason.

Presumably to avoid being plagued (in terms of load and bandwidth costs) by the numerous crawling bots looking to update their caches of pages that no longer exist on those domains.

I've seen a CMS brought almost to its knees because the previous owner of that IP had a site that had lots of distinct pages on it. Since every page in the CMS was stored in a DB it took a DB lookup to find out whether the incoming URL existed or not. Caching/varnish wouldn't help as there were hundreds of thousands of different incoming URLs and none will be in the cache because they don't exist.

About 20% of the hits to one site I look after are 404 because they're from the previous site hosted on that IP address. Luckily the vast majority of URLs have a specific prefix so it's a simple rule in the apache config to 404 them without having to got to disk to check for the existence of any files. It still counts against my bandwidth utilisation too (both incoming request and outgoing 404).

Every time the "Change Facebook back to the way it was!" brigade came out, I would link to the wayback machine's copy of facebook.com from 2005 and say "Is this what you want??". Now I can't do that anymore because of stupid robots.txt.