Briefly, once you have say 256 random bits it is trivial to use AES and CTR mode and turn that into 2^71 random bits until you need to rekey. If you cannot get more entropy in the time it takes to use up all of those numbers something is completely broken. The only problem you can have is not having enough entropy to bootstrap (such as VMs or needing to generate a key at poweron on an embedded device), but this paper gives little more than lipservice to it.
Murray claims that a clause about "reverse-isms" is a cornerstone of a CoC and yet three out of the four resources she mentions as being acceptable do not have one. The only one that does is a community explicitly designed to be a safe space[0] for marginalized groups with a shared ideology. That requirement is perfectly in line with their communities goals. That does not mean it is appropriate for all groups or even all groups that are trying to promote inclusiveness. The argument about "tone policing" and other supposed deficiencies is exactly the same.
The rest of Murray's article is not actually about the actual CoC or any flaws with it.
They did hastly accept the supposed "problems" (that is, it was not a 1:1 copy of the geekfeminism CoC) and tried to fix them. People then complained because they do not believe that things specifically designed for one specific community and are not recommended by most of the experts are appropriate for a general CoC to be used for myriad different communities with far different goals than one specific wiki. TODO then decides that maybe they should actually take some time to think about things instead of circling the wagon around their kneejerk changes.
Garrett then argues that they released something broken and should have consulted the experts and that was one page document is of the same complexity as a 1,000,000 loc kernel. Well, it wasn't broken and it is in line with what most experts suggest, or at least it has not been cogently argued that it was not.
Aaron Swartz's last interview is really apropos. [1] He discusses how speech has changed and why we should be concerned over private companies' suppressive actions now rather than just governments.
Also, those arguing that governmental assertions of free speech rights only apply to government actions are not familiar with the relevant case law in the US. [2]
Similarly, those claiming that censorship can only be done by state actors are using an incredibly idiosyncratic definition that basically anyone other than a hardcore libertarian would disagree with. [3][4][5] Say it is the 1980s and a college newspaper prints something that upsets someone. They then steal and destroy all copies of that issue once they are printed. How is this action by a non-state actor different enough to be put in another category?
Scott Alexander also has a good read on these issues. [6]
> Also, those arguing that governmental assertions of free speech rights only apply to government actions are not familiar with the relevant case law in the US.
Note that that ruling does not establish that the first amendment provides the protection of free speech from a private company. It ruled that the California constitution did so, and was in fact allowed to expand upon the rights provided by the US constitution.
They think it is a world first, there there was an Xbox one ad[0] that was doing this over a year ago. They could have easily found it just googling "voice command ad" or similar.
https://popehat.com/2015/10/08/bad-reporting-on-matthew-keys...