101–110 of 278 posts
What are some good alternative email accounts to use? I should really start decreasing my dependence on Google.
Fastmail.fm Not free; but you definitely get what you pay for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Above being more than a legal concept, it's also not really about expression, ie. the biggest value to society is not from Alexa O'Brien being able to express her thoughts and feelings, which is a minor benefit to her, but in us being able to read them and then choose the best ideas to adapt/copy/implement. The fact that you can make your (realistically, very tiny) contribution to the culture is much less important t…
The cynical side of me thinks that a society with no control over (certain) information is one which is more vulnerable to control by bad actors. We have more of a filtering problem than an access problem at the moment - there's too much information to support all beliefs so people are more likely to become entrenched in whatever they do believe.
Once upon a Time you could mostly trust the news but these days we have "no spin zones" which are in fact entirely spin. You can no longer sit back and consume news, to get the real facts requires a great deal of effort and attention which is exhausting.
It is sad to see how far they have fallen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't too long ago that we had the McCarthy era, where speech professing communism was effectively targeted by what were basically thought police. Just as then you don't have to advocate free speech because you are a communist, now you don't have to advocate it because you are a Nazi. You advocate it to protect against authoritarianism.
That's why I do it. I hold what is now considered an extreme view on free speech. I don't even have anything politically incorrect to say, really. I just strongly believe in the freedom to express ideas. A survey of young people really disturbs me. Some 40% don't believe we should have the right to free speech. I'll be damned if I know how to fix this. I see the same sentiments expressed by some people here. Credible…
I agree with you. If you dont believe in free speech for those you disagree with, then you don't believe in free speech at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
xoogler here. I would definitely subscribe to occam's razor here. Rather than explicit censorship, this is probably something that just got snagged in the net of Google's semi-automated content moderation process, which is probably overzealous in combating #extremism. Having no human channel to contact doesn't help either.
At this point, I'm no longer comfortable giving them the benefit of doubt. They burned that bridge. If this is a problem with aggressive filtering, they have had ample opportunity to note the problem and provide a solution that applies to all. I really can't trust that they are benevolent or incompetent.
I'm actually not sure what is worse.
Indiscriminately punishing a small number of people for legitimate speech is at least as chilling as going after specific viewpoints -- any speech can get you banned, apparently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally, I'd like to back up my data too. That's where it becomes much harder: I need a second location. (In case my house catches fire, or floods in a hurricane, etc.) AWS and GCE both provide raw disk space, and certainly, an encrypted backup could be uploaded to them. I would like to be able to put a cap on what I spend on service, in case something goes wrong with the system, which AFAIK, neither GCE/AWS provide,…
I have a 512GB SDXC card in my pocket. My laptop backs up to a 4TB USB portable drive, and that SD card. If my bag is stolen with the laptop and hard drive, then I'll still have the SD card.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are comparing a postal service (1:1) with a broadcasting service (1:many). ISPs should be neutral carriers, but websites should be free to offer whatever services and terms they like. Given equal services, supply and demand should kill the ones with the most unfair ToS. The question of liability is more difficult, it might help if users had to register as real persons or companies (i.e. providing ID).
Why do you think that the distinction between 1:1 and 1:many matters? I see no reason why 1:many platforms shouldn't have the same protections as a 1:1 platform.
It is in the public interest to prohibit moderation by 1:1 common carriers. It is not in the public interest to prohibit moderation by '1:many common carriers'. But by virtue of being 'simple' carriers, they should both be free from liability for the content.
Note, however, I don't think it is very good to have these companies moderating themselves, but it's better than nothing at the moment. I'd propose legislating the scope of the moderation according to standards set by some internationally recognized ethics committee (not a government decreed scope, they are likely just as biased as a company).
Alternatively, platforms could offer something like a complex filter system that allows users to implement their own moderation policies. But this would increase the burden (costs) of the provider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest problem with Google isn't that they can delete YouTube videos or your Google+ account, it's that they can virtually erase you from the web through their search domination.
I mean technically yes, but that is pretty much fear mongering. That is like fearing the government because they could delete your social security number. Neither would ever do it, despite it being possible. The ramifications would be absurd.
If Google started censoring certain political ideas or certain people, there is zero recourse. There are zero ramifications, unless I am already someone important and powerful.
A whole lot of our lives is controlled by unaccountable, powerful entities that could legally ruin your life because it is their platform. But apparently nobody cares about that because "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cynical side of me thinks that a society with no control over (certain) information is one which is more vulnerable to control by bad actors. We have more of a filtering problem than an access problem at the moment - there's too much information to support all beliefs so people are more likely to become entrenched in whatever they do believe.
By and large I think people's desire for raw data has grown from a mistrust of the News stemming from the move away from reporting towards commentary and hidden agenda. Once upon a Time you could mostly trust the news but these days we have "no spin zones" which are in fact entirely spin. You can no longer sit back and consume news, to get the real facts requires a great deal of effort and attention which is exhausti…
Could we trust them or did we simply not have the means to fact check them and communicate the errors? Awful current affairs programs were around before the web and they were reporting some pretty dubious "facts" back then. Tabloids have been around for 100 years, maybe more.