Figures. Having ignored my considered opinion about where that line may be drawn and advising against it, you follow up with the kind of unsubstantiated political speculation that fires up and pisses off gun owners, drives angry postings such as found on arfcom, and leads to replies that push that agenda even further. Apparently I just wasted my time and any minute now, ktog, all these, and many more will simply disappear.Well, while it may indeed be that Arfcom had more than its share of "extremist" folks on there talking crazy shenanigans, and that's the supposed justification for taking it down ... one has to wonder where the line is drawn, and if this is a slippery slope. How long before simply discussing the use of firearms becomes "extremist" behavior. Because, y'know, not EVERYONE owns a gun, much less carries one. Why do we have and carry guns? Are we THAT paranoid? Who's out to get us? What are we afraid of? Why don't we trust that the government has our best interests in mind with everything they do? Are we plotting something? Y'know, only someone that was afraid someone was out to get them and/or they were PLANNING to do stuff would have a gun that holds so many rounds and shoots such a powerful cartridge! If we didn't intend to be waging war, why would we want or need or even talk about weapons of war? Why are we being allowed to have a forum where we can discuss this potentially dangerous stuff? And why do we have private messages? Are we HIDING something? Plotting something, perhaps?
See how the narrative can shift as needed to justify things?
Given, KTOG's policy of avoiding politics in discussions does make for a more welcoming, generally peaceful place to discuss things. But just because we don't discuss politics does not make us immune from OTHERS' politics. Because regardless of where one sits on the political fence, simply owning a firearm and enjoying it as a hobby puts a person solidly in the "THEM" category to certain people. And when those certain people decide that a site hosts something which doesn't suit their needs/wants and they figure there's enough justification and public support that they can get away with doing so, well ... one day you might try to log into KTOG and get this:
![]()
Sad thing is, there's not a whole heckuva lot we can do about it until it happens. And then when it does, there's only so much we can do about it after the fact. Escape to another server host and hope they don't refuse to host or they later shut things down for similar reasons? Get a buncha investors or whatever together to set up an independent server and hope it doesn't get hacked and shut down by denial-of-access methods or poisoning the DNS? Beyond that ... dunno. Not trying to stir the pot, just saying ... this stuff IS going on now in ways we haven't seen before, and this ride is juuuuuuust getting started, given the social climate we're in right now.
Very concerning and more than just a little bit scary to think that this could be a sign of things to come online.
blog.feedspot.com
Is it likely? I don't know, hopefully not. But it's not out of the realm of possibility in the current environment. When it happens - IF it happens - it will be quick.
Exactly why I run my own separate backup servers. And why I run my own cloud. My own picture hosting service. My own media servers. Etc. None in the cloud. All are on servers that I own and control 100%. I would also point out, none on Windows. But that's a different security concern. We're talking about cloud services here, and the ability for their providers to intentionally shut you down in a microsecond. Anything you have in the cloud is not yours and you could lose access to it at any time - accidentally or intentionally. And others have access to it (your cloud provider, and by way of them the government), even when you've been shut out. That's scary to me.
Getting off topic here, but it sounds like you do not work in a healthy organization and you are the tail end of these goals. Things like ISO are continuous in nature. Not sure on your role but lumping QAT in with those other items is probably my biggest red flag on probable org health issues here. The weaker (and larger) the organization, the harder it is to filter these things down and get value out of them. I would advise not exposing these views during an interview
thank god i retired and no longer have to listen to and pretend to believe. 30+ years in IT at 3 fortune 500 high tech companies and what you have espoused is exactly what was said about all of those programs. By the way, have you ever played BS bingo?Getting off topic here, but it sounds like you do not work in a healthy organization and you are the tail end of these goals. Things like ISO are continuous in nature. Not sure on your role but lumping QAT in with those other items is probably my biggest red flag on probable org health issues here. The weaker (and larger) the organization, the harder it is to filter these things down and get value out of them. I would advise not exposing these views during an interview
Source: I have a fancy title, though am still very much hands on keyboard as an implementer. Besides new and experimental product development I also do cross team consulting to help teams get value out of such stuff in practical ways. My organization has no need for non-technical Sr. staff / management. Usually this last bit is why organizations are weak in my opinion; the people that know better are not empowered. Those that are making decisions often don't understand how to implement and comply w/o introducing a bunch of headaches.
Once an organization gets to a certain size you simply can't work without many of these things in an efficient manner. Org structure and composition is also critical, and often overlooked when it come to these things... but now we are way off topic.
Back on topic: I agree cost is the driving factor here. It is simply too quick and easy using 'the cloud' but even that has workarounds with containers. Where you can just ship that container to 3rd party services or your own servers... but even this cost more, a lot more, than what you would think than leveraging some of these cloud APIs that get you vender locked.
Then we are ignoring that even if you have your own hardware, where does that hardware live, and who is providing the pipe? Eventually you are at the mercy of tier 3 backbone providers and if they don't route your traffic... you could create your own? Then what if others don't peer? Self hosting still only gets you so far and is not practical for many use cases.
For what it is worth I’ve 25 years and probably unlike any executive you have encountered. Many of my peers have masters and PHDs and I a high school diploma. I got to my position by doing. I’ve quite the nose for BS and stand against it, not play games when exposed to it. It has been a hard fought 25 year journey and have overwhelmingly positive feedback from my team, peers, and leadership today. My opinions are just that, though developed via empirical means. My metrics and practical results speak for themselves. IT is hard, most places screw it up. Sorry you seem to have never been exposed in your 30+ years to a good organization or fought successfully to fix the ones you where in (how I personally got where I did).
sorry, there were a lot of very bad days(years) made so by bad upper management and financially i just had to take the beatings until i could walk out early. it's been 12 great years since but there are scars...
It's not a constitutional issue unless the government does it. You have no First Amendment rights with a private company. The First Amendment starts out, "Congress shall make no law..." It doesn't say squat about what Amazon or Google or Facebook or Twitter can do.
Soooo you are saying private businesses have the right to do business with who they wish no matter what? Go ahead open a coffee shop and exclude people you want based on Religion or skin color. A small private shop discriminating is a small matter compared to being able to control the public flow of knowledge yet we would be reading about it 24/7 for a month on the net. These organizations are huge, they control the major source of information in these modern times. It would be like the only delivery company refusing to distribute papers that do not promote the official narrative before electronic media. The answers are not simple but issues of a few controlling assets of major need and importance have been addressed before. The control of information is a far more important matter than who supplies or sets the price of your gas or aluminum.
I must admit I've never visited AR15.com but I thought it was a gun site. When I saw this video link with the little arrow thingie blocking the middle I thought it said ARF.com. With the image I thought I'd stumbled onto a canine cosplay something or the other & got confused.
So in layman’s terms google maps removed there street address. The house still exist. You may still get to it. However you had to already know the location.
So Congress can pass a law to regulate de facto monopolies and prevent them from having more practical power then the people and government? 🤔
You are conflating two completely different things, "unconstitutional" and "illegal". I was speaking to the "constitutional issues", as evidenced by my post explicitly saying "It's not a constitutional issue unless the government does it." The Constitution constrains government, not individual businesses. Laws constrain individual businesses. Thus, a business telling you that you can't speak your mind on their premises is not unconstitutional. Many people who don't know the difference scream that their constitutional rights are being violated every time they get offended. This is not true.
