You can't be pardoned for something you didn't do.
Sure you can.
Even ignoring stuff like preemptive pardons, a pardon relinquishes you from the Justice System's punishment. Conviction doesn't mean you did it.. So there exists the potential for a pardon to be issued for someone that was wrongly convicted.
The censorship being referred to here is a legally defined term...
There is no such mention by OP about the legal definition.
Censorship in all the dictionaries I see don't require it to be a government that is censoring for it to be called "censorship".
Someone attempting to hinder someone else's ability to reach certain information is engaging in censorship.
Disappearing messages people!
Security is much more effective and adopted when it is simple. My understanding is that SELinux is not.
This means not only will fewer people use it and more people turn it off if something doesn't work, it means more people are at risk of misconfiguring their system to allow something they didn't intend to.
This is somewhat mitigated from the fact that, from my experience, Linux Security Modules cant ever make you less secure than without it. But it still can provide a false sense of security if you misconfigure it.
Here is a good article showing what I am referring to, and providing a solid security tool: BSD pledge/unveil on Linux.
Depends on the environment surrounding the door, as well as the environment surrounding the computer.
Some people simply care less about their computer security. The debate stops there. Security operates on a foundation of what you want to secure.
By comparing two environments of someone's life you know little about, you are commenting from ignorance.
If you're going to censor something, use an opaque black shape. These half-ass censorship attempts are ridiculous.
True.
Though, you are probably going to have a much easier time implementing a change to your code that is present in a company's published code, than you would trying to reverse-engineer a binary.
Sharing of the code I would consider "giving back" in it of itself.
Its important to highlight the type of don't care.
There is not caring while having a full understanding of the topic, and there is not caring while being ignorant.
Most people fall into the latter camp. Privacy enthusiasts consistently say "Normal people don't care about privacy" but I have yet to see them acknowledge that most people don't know what you know.
Computer privacy? How should I care if I don't even understand how a computer works, privilege levels, the power an operating system has?
Educating people about this is an important step. If we just give up on ignorant people, we are losing out on people who are just not informed.
We have the receipts. We don't need to run the experiment again. We know, unequivocally, that if we ask people to compromise on something that they know is deeply immoral, we will lose.
People have proposed multiple reasons why the Democrats lost. This is one. Them "continuing to play gender politics" is another.
A simple "They kept supporting isreal + they lost = they lost because of supporting isreal" lacks evidence. I believe this is rather complex.
One could make similar statements (and some do), about voting for the democrats over a better farther-left party. The defenders of voting Democrat would likely tell you the same thing: "Its our only chance at winning."
Are you voting for genocide if you compromise and vote for the Democrats? Or are you merely making the best of a broken system?
You decide.
Here is a page for screen lockers.