Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: I Rebuilt MySpace from 2007

spacehey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 307 posts

Re: Show HN: I Rebuilt MySpace from 2007

#201

Post by dragonwriter »

FactolSarin wrote: post #185
alacombe wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're forgetting a aspect: the Constitutional clause has been superseded by the 14th Amendment. So in this case, an originalist would rule based on the Amendment, not the just Constitution's original text. And this display a crucial point, there is a legal process to amend the Constitution not relying on a few scholars re-re-re-interpretation. I'm all for a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, as long as it's the W…

There's two ways to interpret the constitution: the honest way, and the way where you pretend that not only were the Founders of one mind on what the Constitution meant, but also that you can read that mind two and a half centuries later.

So, you are saying that textualist originalism, like Scalias, is the honest way, whereas intentionalist originalism is dishonest?

(And, yeah, there's actually more than two ways to interpret the Constituion.)

Re: Show HN: I Rebuilt MySpace from 2007

#203

Post by 495636483 »

logicalmonster wrote: post #142
jldl805 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live and breathe on the internet and have never been moderated once, even freely expressing myself, insulting people who deserve it, etc. My point here is that if you think the current social media options have "heavy handed" moderation, you're probably the problem, not them.

Maybe you don’t have any out of the box ideas that goes against the ideals of corporate America, but I’m certainly glad that other people do. Imagine if current Twitter was around in Galileo’s time. * Independent Fact Checkers have confirmed the consensus that the Earth is the center of the Universe, just as God willed it. Or what if George Washington was relying on social media during the formation of our country? *…

That's an immature picture you are drawing there. You pretty much always trust some authority with what's a fact and what's not and twitter isn't taking that away from you. Have you verified every evidence yourself, for the things you take as premises?! I doubt it.

So let's not get all trolly problem here, alright.

(1) What's something specific you get moderated for? What's the thing you wish to express but can't in today's social media landscape? Can those things be falsified and the condition for accepting evidence?

(2) I say, there _are social networks for _every niche and kink; the only reason you would feel limited in expression and participation would be you trying to expose people to your ideas not likeminded. You have no right to be heard in every community, all the time, no right win people over everywhere, with everything. People can chose against you and your words. That's their right. A community implicitly or explicitly choosing a moderator or moderation guideline, isn't that a very democratic dynamic, too?

(3) We all know the internet changed the assumptions on independent thinking, and ignorant opinions can triumph over facts easily, if they are simpler, more convenient, more stimulating, more viral. Do you really want to be heard or do you want to win?

(4) Do you speak up, when a comment here gets downvoted to void, because the boys took offense? Have you ever fought for visibility of an argument or opinion totally against your world view, in the name of unconditional free speech?

Re: Show HN: I Rebuilt MySpace from 2007

#204

Post by aerovistae »

dragonwriter wrote: post #200
aerovistae wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that originalism relies on the idea that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form with a couple adjustments, where in reality it was a deeply, deeply flawed document that has been patched repeatedly to a workable state but still has serious shortcomings.

> The point is that originalism relies on the idea that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form No, it doesn't. It is simply the idea that the legal impact of an enactment is set by the meaning (for the textualist form or originalism) or intent (for the intentionalist form of originalism) of the law when passed (whether you are referring to a statute or the Constitution o…

And you would only take that approach as a judge in the United States if you believed that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form.

Why else? Point me at someone who believes the Constitution is deeply, deeply flawed and in serious need of major revisions yet takes an originalist approach in their jurisprudence.

Re: Show HN: I Rebuilt MySpace from 2007

#205

Post by matt_kantor »

endgame wrote: post #183
PicassoCTs wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I miss that refugee camp of misfits, outcast from society, before that which haunted us came back with a vengeance. There should be a non-cooperate sector of the web. Where all is GPL and this taint on the world could be removed.

Ironically, meekmockmook's sibling comment to mine is [dead] for no discernible reason: > A world without newsfeeds and algorithmically/SEO driven culture wars? A world without our social lives being manipulated by shady Big Tech firms and VCs, free of corporate surveillance? A man can dream.

FYI you can vouch for [dead] comments (click the direct link to that comment, then click "vouch" at the top). I just did so this one is no longer dead.

Re: Show HN: I Rebuilt MySpace from 2007

#207

Post by dragonwriter »

aerovistae wrote: post #204
dragonwriter wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is that originalism relies on the idea that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form No, it doesn't. It is simply the idea that the legal impact of an enactment is set by the meaning (for the textualist form or originalism) or intent (for the intentionalist form of originalism) of the law when passed (whether you are referring to a statute or the Constitution o…

And you would only take that approach as a judge in the United States if you believed that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form. Why else? Point me at someone who believes the Constitution is deeply, deeply flawed and in serious need of major revisions yet takes an originalist approach in their jurisprudence.

> And you would only take that approach as a judge in the United States if you believed that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form.

Given that, despite the cases that get the most public attention at the highest levels, most judicial interpretation isn’t of the Constitution, that doesn't make sense; it also doesn't make sense otherwise, since the Constitution has had extensive (either from a textualist or an intentionalist perspective) radical changes within the perspective of originalism, so originalism is in no way incompatible with believing the 1789 Constitution needed major revision, even if one assumes that an originalist must be operating ends-first and looking to rationalize their desired end-state of Constitutional law, rather than honestly.

Re: Show HN: I Rebuilt MySpace from 2007

#208

Post by mch82 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #194
nindalf wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> originalist You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? Yeah I imagine they have it rough.

> You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? No, an originalist doesn't treat the unamended text as sacred, they (in principal) treat the original meaning (textualist) or intent (intentionalist) of the current, amended text as controlling. Also, you don't understand the 3/5 compromised which has nothing to do with the worth of a black person. It had to do with how much voting power…

Have you found people apply this logic consistently, or do you find people cherry pick?

Re: Show HN: I Rebuilt MySpace from 2007

#209

Post by [deleted] »

alacombe wrote: post #143
nindalf wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> originalist You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? Yeah I imagine they have it rough.

You're forgetting a aspect: the Constitutional clause has been superseded by the 14th Amendment. So in this case, an originalist would rule based on the Amendment, not the just Constitution's original text. And this display a crucial point, there is a legal process to amend the Constitution not relying on a few scholars re-re-re-interpretation. I'm all for a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, as long as it's the W…

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: I Rebuilt MySpace from 2007

#210

Post by mch82 »

logicalmonster wrote: post #27

Good idea. I think there’s a lot of room for some kind of internet social network that gives you a space for a custom profile, chatting with friends about anything, no algorithms dictating what you see, no heavy handed moderation, etc. wish you success

Why don’t people use email or Signal/WhatsApp/iMessage for this?
Post reply on HN