MLS teams are walking billboards. Ads subsidize the world, especially live sports events. Enjoy your 2000% base ticket price increases.
Are the base ticket prices based on cost, or on supply and demand?
Does it matter? The point isn't that tickets will become unaffordable, the point is that the sports leagues themselves will disappear.
Sports isn't something people need. Some sports leagues cost a lot of resources to run. If these sports leagues become less profitable, then some of the investment will move into other entertainment and your sports professional league will slowly disappear.
At least it will take away the incentive from the all-powerful tech companies to stop pushing and optimizing political messages with their core-business interest. If they can't make money off of it, I'm sure these botnets will get more attention from their anti-abuse teams.
Active user totals and engagement numbers are still a big driver in valuations so the incentives still align with not cracking down too hard (as long as legitimate users aren't pushed away by the inauthentic content).
This aspect has puzzled me deeply.
I imagine the following scenario: I'm the CEO of a social network trying to raise a new round of funding. I go to investors and say that we have 100M users on the platform and growing by 10M users per month. The investors like these numbers and decide to invest. A few years later, the investors find out that when I said 100M users, I actually meant 50M real human users and 50M bot users. When I said growing by 10M users per month, I actually meant by 5M real human users and 5M bot users per month.
From what I recall Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez questioned Zuckerberg, she questioned along the anecdote of: If I purchase ads on Facebook saying Republicans support the Green New Deal (but they don't), will Facebook take the ads down? I often see these clean, easily provable anecdotes from those who support some kind of suppression of speech. I worry though: often the truthfulness of real world statements are difficu…
How about ... freedom of speech? Quit trying to micro manage everyone. Accept payment to publish messages on a competitive platform - and let readers, being mostly competent adults, figure content out themselves.
I’d take it a step further and limit who is allowed to vote. You mention competent adults; an adult in 1800 was probably competent around 16 years of age. An adult today is similarly competent at a later age.
Regardless of competency, there should be some eligibility requirements to vote. Holding a job should be one. Proof of citizenship should be another.
> Only one country has the first amendment Do you think other countries don't have freedom of speech or freedom of the press?
I wonder about this point. The universal declaration of human rights even mentions this in article 19, but few countries seem to actually uphold that value.
Many trees constitute a forest. A single tree does not. At some point, a group of trees becomes large enough to be considered a forest. There is no way to provide any non-arbitrary rule where that point is. Does this render the concept of a "forest" meaningless?
If you promise to chop down all forests but are fine with trees, yes.
Does this follow?
I run a site. I want to get rid of all fraudulent spam but allow legitimate commercial product advertisements. I train a model to tell the difference (or maybe I just make a human judgment call). It is better than guessing but worse than perfect: false positives and false negatives exist and expose me to criticism from interested parties.
Your position is that this renders the concept of spam meaningless because I promised to get rid of spam and allow non-spam content.
From what I recall Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez questioned Zuckerberg, she questioned along the anecdote of: If I purchase ads on Facebook saying Republicans support the Green New Deal (but they don't), will Facebook take the ads down? I often see these clean, easily provable anecdotes from those who support some kind of suppression of speech. I worry though: often the truthfulness of real world statements are difficu…
How about ... freedom of speech? Quit trying to micro manage everyone. Accept payment to publish messages on a competitive platform - and let readers, being mostly competent adults, figure content out themselves.
The entire point is that more money doesn’t lead to disproportionately more speech.
And if readers were ‘mostly competent’, and able to decipher the truth, we wouldn’t even be having this convo
Is this when we now start to wonder what will count as a political ad? Social movements that have a political connection / associated with a particular party or candidate?
Most social networks already have to decide what counts as "adult" content, which has just as much gray area as what counts as "political".
Yes, but making a mistake on what is and isn't adult content or people seeing it when they shouldn't or vice versa doesn't have much negative impact on society. A private company that lets political gray area ads slip through from one side, but not the other, will likely have an impact on society.
From what I recall Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez questioned Zuckerberg, she questioned along the anecdote of: If I purchase ads on Facebook saying Republicans support the Green New Deal (but they don't), will Facebook take the ads down? I often see these clean, easily provable anecdotes from those who support some kind of suppression of speech. I worry though: often the truthfulness of real world statements are difficu…
There will never be a successful community without some level of moderation. It is better for us to define the levels of moderation than have a organization start adjudicating truth.
That depends on what we mean by "successful." The early chans were very moderation free -- 4chan initially didn't censor, then they started censoring furry content but not pedo content, then the furry ban got removed, then the pedo ban finally kicked in, and they've had more censorship since... but the initial seed was practically not moderated, and most of the moderation that has been put in place since seems like a result of legal fears (the brief furry ban being an obvious exception). The bitmessage chans are still moderation free, and will be as long as the bitmessage network has nodes, but of course that can't scale (for anyone unfamiliar, every bitmessage node tries to decrypt every message -- this means that there is no need for metadata concerning where a message was sent to, and since packets are forwarded across the network you'd have to be running multiple nodes to even guess where a message is coming from, but there's no way that everybody could recieve and try to decrypt everybody else's messages if the whole world used such a system). I'm not arguing that I want a system without moderation, just that such communities have existed, have grown, and do exist. My ideal would be a community with opt-in/opt-out moderation, but I also don't wish every community to reflect my ideals.
How about ... freedom of speech? Quit trying to micro manage everyone. Accept payment to publish messages on a competitive platform - and let readers, being mostly competent adults, figure content out themselves.
I’d take it a step further and limit who is allowed to vote. You mention competent adults; an adult in 1800 was probably competent around 16 years of age. An adult today is similarly competent at a later age. Regardless of competency, there should be some eligibility requirements to vote. Holding a job should be one. Proof of citizenship should be another.
I very rarely downvote comments here as a matter of principle but yours here is almost comically absurd.
1. Do you have any evidence that people were more competent at a younger age in 1800? In fact I would think that the opposite is probably true - but again this seems impossible to prove so I'm simply asking you if you have any reason to believe what you're saying is true other than your feelings.
2. People without jobs have just as many rights as those with jobs. Do you also think people without land should not vote? Perhaps not women? Maybe black votes should have less of an impact? I'm curious if you're not American- maybe this would explain a cultural difference I am missing?