Airgapped thus far. If that's not possible for 2025 tax year, I'll have to look at other options. (Maybe some saintly patriots will get the canceled IRS project into viable self-hosted PDF-generating form in time.)
They will probably charge extra for it. I asked a public school IT person how he was handling FERPA with the new privacy violations on windows 10, and the answer was paying exorbitant fees.
You _can_ buy it, but it's a bit of a quest. You need to register as a company and buy at least five Windows licenses (you don't have to use them), and after that you can get a license for an LTSC version.
It works out to about $700, if you want to go down this route.
Assuming this is not hosted on your home system, since ISPs may block the ports and also most of the dynamic ips allocated are blacklisted, the issue with postfix is that its difficult to have a single set and forget config if you intend to use it on multiple internal machines, like for getting your root email on each system to one mailbox. Ideally you want a single main.cf for all your internal machines and for the outgoing/incoming mailhost to be determined solely by your mx or internal dns alias, but this is next to impossible with a single postfix config without getting mail loops on the system that is the mailhost. Exim and sendmail at least separate out the submit config from the rest of the configuration.
Also you would be insane to try this without fail2ban or something similar. Postfix does a reasonable job of handling attackers but it does so quietly -- so you may not see the activity.
You can forward any ssh traffic based on the domain name with SNI redirection. You can also use that with, lets say the nginx stream module, to run ssh and http server on the same port.
Fox news doesn't have a broadcast license. ABC does.
As with redistricting, democrats are limited because things are already biased in their favor. Broadcast networks are all center-left at this point, if not then show me one major broadcaster that is center right. Democrats basically have nobody to go after.
To your point, The Democrats, when back in power, could extend licensing issues into cableTV, etc... and attempt to fire Fox or Newsmax commentators... I would argue the Biden administration already attempted to do a form of this, as we saw with Facebook, Twitter, et al, the last administration certainly tried influencing the online arena.
I just think both sides do it, although on this forum it seems to trigger mostly the left side.
Fox News doesn’t have a broadcast license but Fox Broadcasting does. If people are doing this sort of extortion, it wouldn’t be a leap to see the whole Fox corporation in the crosshairs. This is all just a terrible precedent for what the future holds.
> would argue the Biden administration already attempted to do a form of this, as we saw with Facebook, Twitter, et al, the last administration certainly tried influencing the online arena
Not comparable. That said, I agree—if this precedent stands, there should be personal liability for Newsmax commenters under a future administration. (And, of course, they should be barred from federal property.)
One would also go after the online streaming companies to delist their content. Google and Meta are constantly under antitrust controlled. TikTok is government owned. And you could start knocking on X with its money-transfer ambitions and Elon’s robotaxi approvals (to say nothing of federal contracts).
FCC aside, how is it any different from ABC canceling Rosanne Barr because of something she said? They may cancel whomever and whatever they want, which in the past has been due to pressure from the outside, justified or not.
> FCC aside, how is it any different from ABC canceling Rosanne Barr because of something she said? They may cancel whomever and whatever they want, which in the past has been due to pressure from the outside, justified or not.
You are trying to draw a conclusion from the information available, and then you ask: What if I ignore the central piece of evidence?
Excuse me? "pressure from the outside" in this case is a government regulator. Furthermore, ABC wants pending mergers approved by this administration. We don't notice the huge, gaping difference?
The first amendment of our Constitution explicitly protects against the government as the censor. The head of the FCC going on Fox to call for it, is an overreach. You do realize the FCC is part of the executive branch, right?
But it’s not just the government even assuming your comment about the first amendment is correct. Sinclair + Nexstar are about 80% of the stations and they both refused to carry it, so there’s a financial component. I believe their affiliates were the first to cancel even before the FCC comments. Why should ABC lose 80% of their income.
There is no real engagement with your core point. What you are going to see is an evolutionary approach to finding which message is the most able to defuse umbrage, and further right leaning interests.
If it’s useful to argue for free speech in one breath, then for censorship in the next, followed by “its just words” - it will be argued in that order.
The utility function is politics, not reason or logic. Getting people to engage, and get tied up in the logic, is a feature not a bug. It wastes energy and creates the impression that this is an issue resolved with words and understanding.
The first amendment protects speech from government repercussion. So aside from the threat of government repercussion, yeah, I also totally don't see how this is a first amendment issue.
'Other than the government pressure, from the head of the agency that has direct oversight and is currently deciding on a huge FCC exemption request and who stated we can do this the hard way or the easy way when it came to punishing Jimmy Kimmel....'
reply