The top question you should ask is what browser you use. If you use Chrome, and the parent uses Firefox, that's why. (Not because Firefox is slow, but because Google uses a lot of Chrome-specific hacks.)
When I watch a video from the main youtube page, then hit the back button, the video keeps playing for several seconds while a javascript progress bar at the top of the screen loads to take me to the main page.
I hate it so. much. Usually I'm hitting the back button precisely because the video became annoying to me, or something else is happening where I don't want to hear it any more, and having to wait several seconds while the video still plays is awful.
It's funny because Google has this guy, I think he's called Alex Russel, running around and telling the world which websites are too slow and how to improve web performance.
"Google+ felt slow and bloated performance-wise, despite the design being simple" is what he means.
And yes I agree. Due to the sliding/fading animations and other nonsense, it felt slow and sluggish. By today's standards it would probably feel fast. But for the time, it was the slowest thing Google had created.
Some of it may be inertia from early days of Android - for a long time I still had the Dolphin browser installed because for a time back in the Android 2.x days it was the best option around and IIRC included its own build of Chromium's rendering engine ("Dolphin Jetpack").
UC Browser is likely also available on devices not using Google Play where Chrome may not be an option.
Maybe it was because Alibaba operate a huge payments service network? This would be like PayPal making their own browser and having a load of vulnerabilities in it
I only posted it because it didn't mention Alibaba was the parent company in the article.
Maybe the article author would have had more luck getting a statement from Alibaba since it has a more significant international presence compared to UCWeb Inc.
As a Canadian I would be horrified if they banned all speech related to separatism. Quebec should absolutely be entitled to rant about wanting to separate themselves from the rest of Canada. That's not extremist speech, there is no realistic risk of violence from that speech, it's just a widely held (slightly less so recently) political opinion about how we should organize ourselves into political bodies.
I don't know what issues Spain has with separatism, maybe there are some legitimate ones, but not all separatist groups are inherently bad.
You'll be disappointed here. They are specifically targeting white nationalism/separatism. They specifically exclude other types in the article.
> We didn’t originally apply the same rationale to expressions of white nationalism and separatism because we were thinking about broader concepts of nationalism and separatism – things like American pride and Basque separatism, which are an important part of people’s identity.
So separatism is only bad if it targets non-whites?
So when Basques and Catalans say they want to leave because the rest of the country, especially the south, is full of half-moorish lazy fucks, that is cool.
Guess the same about the two halves of Italy.
I don't care as I don't use Facebook, but it's a double standard.
> So separatism is only bad if it targets non-whites?
I can't speak for Facebook, and I'm not super with-it on the conflicts in Spain, but it seems like they're making the distinction between "we want our own country" and "we want our own country and we want to violently purge everyone else from it".
But they don't say that, and if they did, you certainly wouldn't need any new policies to ban them. There are the 8chan lunatics, but outside that there are a wide range of views on what the white nationalist end-goal is and how to achieve it.
I'm reminded of the Sargon v Richard Spencer debate here. Sargon's line of attack was essentially this: You advocate for an ethnostate, people will not react well to the non-violent policies you publicly advocate to bring this about, thus there will be violence, therefore your rhetoric is violent. Even if you approve this line of reasoning, you have to admit that it can be applied to any separatist movement anywhere in the world.
Nor should they. I helped run a large, active web forum for years. We found general rules and moderator discretion were far more valuable than a list of 800 different "you can't do foo" specific rules, because the bad actors tie up all your time lawyering about the specifics.
As long as you're admitting that there's no general principle being evenly applied here, and it is entirely discretionary on Facebook's part, we have an understanding.
e: But it's not an arbitrary exercise of power when I do it!
"Race" is a de-facto cultural category, at least in the U.S. It's not merely a description of someone's outward appearance; the reason people even care about the construct in the first place is its social aspects, which happen to be rather pervasive. It's not obviously wrong to advocate for separatism on the basis of such things, nor is separatism per se hateful or violent.
Except you can't, which is why for example "Islamophobia" is a thing. Things that should be ideologically separate are inevitably tied back to race/ethnicity, because nobody seems to know how to separate race/ethnicity from ideology in debate. Just listen to how much flak Sam Harris gets on the subject.
That's not how that word is used in practice in Europe now. There are many parties with "socialist" in their names which don't promote giving the means of production to the workers.
Correction, it's not just that word, it's any word, and it's not used in practice anywhere in the world. North Korea is not "democratic", the US PATRIOT act is not "patriotic", etc. Still that doesn't mean we should call N. Korea democratic because they "devalued" the name. It still means what it means even though some might appropriate the name for purposes of propaganda.
Still the distinction between socialism as a centralized authoritarian country and socialism as mean of social welfare is important. various "socialist" parties in europe usually (IMO) tend to favour a view of society where the individual is assured many essential services and a stronger social safety net. this is the modern equivalent of owning the means of production.
Then and now one focus of socialist policy is to make so that the "Bourgeoisie" cannot ruin the life of those near the bottom of society. In the last many decades the economy, the "workers", the bottom of society all changed a lot.
If wordpress by default said on the footer "content licensed under CC", how would it be my fault if I reuse the content, just because the author didn't bother to change that?
