511–520 of 596 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was tried (recording the oval office for historical purposes). Then it was immediately weaponised by the political opponents and the recording system promptly removed.
Are you just adding some historical context and additional information? Or are you saying that to dismiss my idea/suggestion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And at the same time, private companies cannot force you to use their services, or threaten you with violence or imprisonment if you refuse to follow their rules.
This is getting blurry as well, and though you are technically correct, one might have to sue or suffer damages for not following their rules: My children’s schools requires the use of Microsoft Teams From home (and associated TOS) for them to attend class. There is also a parent WhatsApp group for urgent messages to parents. And as of the pandemic, there is also mandatory Zoom classes. This is a public school. If I…
The companies which seem to benefit the most from the government's power are the ones which would suffer the most from losing the government's current favor. They must bend over backwards to stay in the government's good graces, not the other way around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is getting blurry as well, and though you are technically correct, one might have to sue or suffer damages for not following their rules: My children’s schools requires the use of Microsoft Teams From home (and associated TOS) for them to attend class. There is also a parent WhatsApp group for urgent messages to parents. And as of the pandemic, there is also mandatory Zoom classes. This is a public school. If I…
That's the government coercing you, not microsoft. I'm sure microsoft doesn't mind a captive market, but if the government decides to use slack or whatever instead, you're going to switch over to slack regardless of any protest from microsoft. The companies which seem to benefit the most from the government's power are the ones which would suffer the most from losing the government's current favor. They must bend ove…
I'm sure courts can properly resolve this, after a few months, if it did happen ....
It's the government coercing me to comply with Microsoft's TOS that's the problem.
> They must bend over backwards to stay in the government's good graces, not the other way around.
Of course, but they pay for the government's good graces by e.g. giving them free access to all hosted data -- not by making sure the users are well taken care of..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you're just arguing for others to adopt your own boundaries of what's acceptable By virtue of operating under the principle of respecting free speech you are making a value judgement and asserting a set of values. There is no panacea or pure criteria you can use besides no content moderation at all. I give the example of spam posted by bots as what I think is an obvious and non-controversial example of content that…
You are correct, I don’t understand what you’re saying. I agree that there is no panacea or set of pure criteria other than not moderating at all. But there is also no singular principle of free speech beyond that, either — just different sets of tradeoffs that try to cultivate discourse that the moderator thinks is valuable. My issue is that people tend to present their own preferred set of tradeoffs as the One True…
It really comes down to whether or not you believe in objective morality. If you do then there is a sensical notion of free speech (or any other principle) even if no one person has a complete picture or understanding of what it is right now (although I would argue that we have a much better understanding of free speech than we do 6000 years ago). It is something we can strive for and recognize since it is an objective thing.
To reiterate my example, I would say a reasonable person living in 2020 would say that removing bot spam from a comment section is a content moderation decision that is in keeping with the idea of free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Getting banned by Google/Facebook and losing all your data in the cloud is just the modern equivalent of losing everything when your hard drive dies. The way to mitigate this danger is the same. No it's not. A HDD failing or getting lost? That can be guarded against with backups. With getting banned by Google or Facebook? When all your accounts, your identity is tied to that address/account and you get banned, you…
> No it's not. A HDD failing or getting lost? That can be guarded against with backups. Exactly. Back up your cloud data. > With getting banned by Google or Facebook? When all your accounts, your identity is tied to that address/account and you get banned, you cannot be reached anymore by people who don't know that you got screwed over. I thought the fact that I consider this perspective to be absurd was kind of obvi…
No recourse, no one to talk to; my solution was to switch from a small but reputable ISP I had used for 17 years (and which never had a single spam complaint or blacklist entry in any list I can read) to fastmail for that domain; because Google decided they didn't like something about that setup; already spent a couple of work days no one was paying for to troubleshoot and eventually gave up.
Google+Microsoft+FastMail likely cover 95% of your recipients. If they don't like you, you're going to have a very hard time reaching people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is getting blurry as well, and though you are technically correct, one might have to sue or suffer damages for not following their rules: My children’s schools requires the use of Microsoft Teams From home (and associated TOS) for them to attend class. There is also a parent WhatsApp group for urgent messages to parents. And as of the pandemic, there is also mandatory Zoom classes. This is a public school. If I…
It's still fundamentally government that made that choice to force you into one service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you just adding some historical context and additional information? Or are you saying that to dismiss my idea/suggestion?
False dichotomy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you just adding some historical context and additional information? Or are you saying that to dismiss my idea/suggestion?
Well, I think it will result into the same consequences. It would be immediately weaponised by the political opposition and would be retired almost as soon as it was introduced.
In my mind, the constructive way to proceed would be, and I'd hope that you or others would indulge me on this: How can we have a tamper-proof evidentiary record of all the conversations that politicians engage in whilst minimizing the potential of it being regularly abused/weaponized and compromising the privacy of the individuals involved?
Many are confusing "censorship" with "content moderation". The difference is very important. Censorship is when you are prevented from publishing on your own platform. Content moderation is when a platform owner choses what can be published on theirs. Twitter decided they did not want their platform used to spread what they considered to be Russian disinformation and propaganda, but they in no way prevented the NY Po…
I am always impressed when people make these kinds of absolute statements about the primacy of private property rights. Now, let's consider: * Alice should be able to choose without restriction to whom she is going to rent * Bob should be able to choose without restriction who's allowed to play golf at his club * Carlos should be able to choose without restriction to whom his bank is going to lend money etc. I am not…