Even though you are listing two things you specifically say that adults should not be allowed to watch
Fraud and threats are a form of expression. They are a form of expression that is appropriately illegal. Here is my quote again: "IMO there's no expression outside of narrow criminal bounds such as fraud and threats that should be banned". If I had been talking about movies, I would have said something like "IMO there's no expression outside of narrow criminal bounds such as movies about fraud and threats that should be banned". I emphasized the difference to make it stand out more. If you still cannot understand the difference I'm afraid I don't know how to make it any clearer.
I love how the press calls them "Frenchmen" or "Americans" as though any of them were named Pierre or Bob.
So one cannot be French unless one has a French name, and cannot be American unless one has an English name? I'm not familiar with French law, they do some kooky things over there, but there are millions of American citizens with non-English names. In fact, you can name yourself or your child absolutely anything you want (except maybe if the government objects based on obscenity or some such), including a completely made up name. If someone is named Muhammed and lives in England because his great-great-grandparents immigrated there, would you say he's not English because he's named Muhammed?
You're coming across as really racist saying things like that. I don't know if you actually are, but that's how it looks.
"About fraud" is not the same as "fraud". "About threats" is not the same as "threats". Just like "about murder" is not the same as "murder". I don't know if you were just trolling or actually didn't understand the difference.
and c) one or more sites with names like d89329f3ab.cloudfront.net(!). Yes, that last looks exactly like the kinds of names sometimes used for malware domains. One assumes it's a cloud storage provider, and whitelisting scripts from it will whitelist the Instagram scripts that you want working and any other scripts that happen to have gotten sorted into the same cloud storage hash bucket. Some of which could well be malicious, and linked from some URL you might one day blunder into.
If you're going to whitelist those, do it temporarily to reduce your risk.
Wh ich is why I stopped going there as well. Used to visit almost every day. The kicker for me was when an editor said something to the effect that a reader who doesn't view ads may as well not even exist as far as they're concerned. In other words, the members of the Ars community are viewed by the staff as just advertisement consumers. I don't want to be a member of such a community.
Well I read the whole thing and I saw a whole lot of stuff that ought to be kept away from children, but nothing that adults shouldn't be allowed to watch*. I mean, are we adults, or not? Seems the British government believes its citizens are children who need to be protected by a parental government. On the other hand, most did not look likely to be good movies.
* IMO there's no expression outside of narrow criminal bounds such as fraud and threats that should be banned
It has a similar looking (to me) right footprint at the same angle, with the stuff around it being different. I would say Barefoot Wine has a reasonable case here, though certainly far from a slam dunk. Not at all the ridiculous trademark abuse implied by the author IMO.