Upload a nude selfie to complete registration

>upload a nude selfie to complete registration

>register with your fingerprint and phone number to use our juicer

Fuck you, Juicero.

>Sup Forums has issues with biometry being used for authentication
>Sup Forums has no issues with personal preference being data mined and sold to highest bidding advertiser
Really makes you think

>send in a strand of your pubic hair to buy a japanese iTunes gift card

>tie this cowbell around your neck to purchase 1 bitcoin

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

>t.retarded burger

>Having something to hide.

>upload a recording of your gf saying the words "I love you " to submit this post

>upload a nude selfie with timestamp to complete registration

It's just neo-Sup Forums that uses spyware like Windows 10, Chrome, Android and Spotify and then defends it fiercely.

...

I actually prefer my devices using biometry for authentication/decryption, it ensures that even if some random nignog steals my laptop on the bus, he at least can't access my data.

Only those with extreme opinions, such as hate speech, cry about "free speech" though. Look at Sup Forums, they all whine about "free speech" when they learn that calling someone a "fucking nigger" to their face in real life actually has consequences.

free speech is dumb too

>using public transport
found your problem

>his country allows niggers to ride in the same cart as him

Face it, you use biometric authentication because of convenience.
If you think that it's impossible to unlock your phone (or laptop?) because you used fingerprint lock. Then you're delusional neo/g/

Insert idildo in your anus for DNA verification :'v

>Sup Forums os whole world to me
Go back then. This is no place for retards.

>not having any dark secrets

>calling someone a "fucking nigger" to their face
This is verbal abuse, not free speech.

why not? i have nothing to hide

>Face it, you use biometric authentication because of convenience.
I actually don't. I use it because it is required by my job.

>If you think that it's impossible to unlock your phone (or laptop?) because you used fingerprint lock
The FBI can't do it.

>verbal abuse
Not according to Sup Forums

The problem with hate speech is that it is hard to define in a way that banning it would be beneficial to anyone.
The first time I personally heard of the term was when the middle east lost their shit over a cartoon and wanted my government to censor a newspaper about a year after it was published.
I personally don't know anyone that gets offended enough by words to want to limit what people can say so I can only assume idiots feel this way.

Mythbusters did it. :-DD

Sup Forums doesn't understand that free speech literally means that you won't get your ass busted by the gov no matter what stupid bullshit you spew.

fucking normie

They're just retarded. At this point I'm not sure if this is a "burger syndrome" or just idiots got lost from their containment boards.

mheeeeeeeeee

Why not both?

>free speech literally means that you won't get your ass busted by the gov
By this definition, all western countries have free speech so it's not an issue.

nah some western countries have laws against denying the existence of specific genocides and Ireland has a blasphemy law

>be eurofag
>say hitler did nothing wrong
>get fined and publicly humiliated

>be iranian
>say that government is corrupt and unjustifiably imprisoning dissidents and torturing them
>get killed

>implying western countries don't have free speech
Yeah, racist fuckwits truly experience difficulties...

>verbal
>abuse

neither is free speech
one being a more severe violation of personal freedom doesn't justify a less sever violation of ones personal freedom

It's bit like psychological abuse you know?

sticks and stones
next you're going to say something like verbal "violence"

however, if you call someone a nigger and you get beat, I have no sympathy for stupid

>won't get your ass busted by the gov no matter what stupid bullshit you spew

but this has happened.

>freedom aint free
>muh freedom to enslave others
Saying that western countries don't have true free speech because you can't go around and harass and threaten people is a hyperbole and you know it.

If I threaten you to submission, by threats of violence, how is that not abuse? Note, I didn't actually use any violence, only threatening to use it.

never once did I support slavery or violent threats
fucking nigger is an insult not a threat of violence
threatening violence is still incitement

verbal "violence" however still does not exist

>tfw tits or gtfo becomes a real policy

>fucking nigger is an insult not a threat of violence
Imagine it being said by a KKK member with a bat in his hand.

shouldn't be regulated legally anyway, it's a moral problem and you can't make a law that satisfies everybody. Civil society should handle it.
free market will fix this

>threatening people or encouraging criminal activities should be legal as it is a moral problem and free market will fix it
Absolute free speech was a mistake.

In this scenario, saying "fucking nigger" is still an insult. The threat of violence is the bat (if it's being brandished, that is.)

what's the alternative to Spotify though?
their service is just comfier than hunting songs os Soulseekqt(which could be a spyware/exploit also).

So if a kid gets bullied in school it's okay as long as nobody actually hits him?

I think you are replying to the wrong person.

Why, buying DRM-free music of course.

>violent threats
Threats of violence is not the same as violent threats. A violent threat would be me breaking your arm and saying that next time I'm going to kill you. A threat of violence is just me saying that I'm going to kill you.

This made my skin crawl

Whoops sorry. Was meant to

CRAAAAWLING IN MY SKIIIIIIIN
THEEEESE WOOOORDS THEY DOOOO NOT MAAAATTTEEEER

>"I'm going to fucking kill you" isn't the same as "someone is going to kill you" :^)

Wow great logic I'm glad you can find a distinction without a difference

Or, you could just pirate DRM-free music, like we did in the olden days. It's just staggering that you're okay with paying for renting music but not okay with paying to own it.

>"I'm going to fucking kill you" isn't the same as "someone is going to kill you" :^)
That's not what I wrote you god damned illiterate cow.

Scenario 1: Being violent and giving you a verbal threat of more violence
Scenario 2: Only a verbal threat

It's easy to defend hate speech, because anything can be defined as hate speech.

Criticism towards Apple? Haye speech.

Imagine mansplaining becoming hate speech.

kids are different than adults and have different rules regarding speech

No one considers that the definition of either. Violent threats are the same as threatening violence. Your first example is just assault and battery. You want to draw a distinction out of two of the same material because you think there's a difference when there isn't.

>no your honor I didn't violently threaten him I just said I was gonna kill him lmao

>calling someone a nigger is can by definition be the same as saying "this iphone is shit"
This is your brain on Sup Forums

Leftist ideologies cannot work without heavy censorship, so the left is really hell bent on categorizing everything inconvenient to them as hate speech and then banning it.

Making it illegal to call someone a nigger would affect black people way more than white people.

>that one fag that derails a thread because he can't shutup about another board
abs. cancer

>hate speech
Literally requires intent though.

But fascism is quite inconvenient, user.

*tips fedora*

>please provide semen sample before continuing

Literally how chinese girls apply for uni loans hilariously enough

Name one website that does this

>upload a webm of your penis going inside your gf to register

facebook does it now

It's almost like you're deliberately being a fool.

>shouldn't be regulated legally anyway, it's a moral problem
So much this.
Try telling the left that though. Soon though the right will have the same issue.

So the speech itself is fine?
Only the thought or intent behind is bad?

Better sedate him then.

>But fascism is quite inconvenient, user.
There's no good ideology user.

You're in hell.

>be in boy scouts a decade ago
>we go to a police station for a merit badge
>finger printing
>take our prints and then we leave
why did i do it lads i was only 12

Keep believing the EU isn't tracking you goy

>free market
D R O P P E D
R
O
P
P
E
D

So a Jojo fan is a normalfag?
>normie
okay,

normies on the internet are to blame
2007 was the point of no return

Hate crime, which includes hate speech, require both action and intent.

>On a technology board
>Anti-free market
Without capitalism, you'd still be playing with sticks.

Shill harder, Intel jew

Why?

By far the Sup Forums is against free speech.

My hand is my gf.

In a covenant...among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.

>calls it "libertarian social order"
>describes literal fascism
kek

Surely proved him wrong with buzzwords and memes.

"Moo"

>The FBI can't do it.
yea but the CIAniggers can

>if some guy owns a bat i am no longer a nigger

>not caring about privacy and data mining
Business major here. Corporations love you faggots that don't care about avoiding telemetry and other data collection methods. :^)

>Implying most denizens of the EU and Britain don't think like this as well

If I actually built a web service that did this would I get in trouble?

The law isn't about being moral though, it just states what rights you have. The bully CAN say rude things to a child but he SHOULDN'T and honestly an adult ought to teach a child like that to sort himself out. But in the legal sense, he's doing nothing wrong if he's not hitting the other child.