131–140 of 146 posts
In the interview concerns of government over-control did turn up, but it wasn't well addressed I think. The journalist skipped this part in the published article.
is anyone interested in an hn meetup in taipei? found it hard to like-minded tech focused people, talking English, that dont mind a beer from time to time, and would like to talk about the last google cloud downtime or it's current side project
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would prevent a federal system from working in China?
I believe China does in fact have a federal system. Everything is integrated all the way up to the top but every province does have its own government with some degree of autonomy as far as I know. When I lived in Hunan for example the Hunan government was doing some projects with foreign lawyers to develop laws protecting victims of domestic abuse.
That's not a federal system as generally understood.
Generally, the distinction between a federal system and a unitary state with somewhat-autonomous subdivisions is that in a federal system, the powers of the subnational entities are constitutionally entrenched, whereas in a unitary state, the autonomy of a subnational division is at the will of the national government.
The overwhelming majority of countries have some form of autonomous regional government, because it's impossible to run any sufficiently large country any other way, but the majority of countries are not federations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> making it easy to flag propaganda in apps and then blocking it as she describes is in fact building in a type of censorship That is not what was described, > this will inform the Facebook's algorithm so that it will stop being preferred to show on people's newsfeed, but it's not censorship. If you look specifically for that friend, that post is still there, but they have a warning that says it's already fact-checke…
This gives me some weird feelings. I mean, if you ask a website to turn some content "unpreferred" without user consensus, isn't that also some type of censorship? In fact, many Chinese websites are doing it right now, and it's very effective in terms of censoring contents. However, I support the idea of content flagging, but instead of making them "unpreferred", maybe add a mark saying "Propaganda from XXX" so peopl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never suggested banning anything. I'm merely asking questions. But sure, to play devil's advocate, is there some precedent here? Maybe with cigarettes for example? Nicotine cigarettes benefit tobacco companies enormously (by increasing addiction). They'll never voluntarily give them up, either. Yet we have approaches for dealing with addictive consumables; taxes, health warnings, education, etc. I wonder if similar…
Thanks for the thoughtful response; upvoted. I don't think cigarettes are a relevant precedent. It's not like cigarettes cause cancer in some people and make others healthier. (I guess it can make you thinner? But yet it still increases your likelihood of heart disease.) Algorithmic newsfeeds are a much better experience for many people, who don't want thoughtful discussion and wedding and family photos buried under…
With pure timeline-based views, the ability to reinforce misinformation is diminished -- yes, people can repost and troll news mechanically, but that can be rate-limited. So I don't think we should throw the idea out the window just yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is you have an authority deciding what supposedly is fact and what is not fact.
And who is that problematic authority? The social network defers to the fact-checkers, of whom there are multiple independent ones, and who should be corroborating the government's story not taking it at face value.
How's middle school?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And who is that problematic authority? The social network defers to the fact-checkers, of whom there are multiple independent ones, and who should be corroborating the government's story not taking it at face value.
"of whom there are multiple independent ones, and who should be corroborating the government's story not taking it at face value" How's middle school?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the thoughtful response; upvoted. I don't think cigarettes are a relevant precedent. It's not like cigarettes cause cancer in some people and make others healthier. (I guess it can make you thinner? But yet it still increases your likelihood of heart disease.) Algorithmic newsfeeds are a much better experience for many people, who don't want thoughtful discussion and wedding and family photos buried under…
Other than rate-limiting, I don't know how you can avoid WhatsApp forwards becoming a problem without violating E2E encryption. However, WhatsApp seems to act more as an amplifier than as a net originator of content, so it makes sense to look at places where misinformation is first published. With pure timeline-based views, the ability to reinforce misinformation is diminished -- yes, people can repost and troll news…
You might be right about the reinforcement being diminished, just like misinformation existed before the Internet, but getting rid of the Internet would surely diminish the reinforcement. Like I asked above, so what? There's no going back.