391–400 of 520 posts
This is absurd. Just stop using Facebook yourself. It's by far the most democratic reaction you can have. Arguing for bringing in the use of government violence against them is unethical to the point of being evil.
[1]: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/20/09/14/2029237/hate-speech...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many of the people that think the virus isn’t real are critical thinkers though (meaning Occam’s razor, the scientific method, etc)? It’s not just education per se that we need, but education in critical thinking, and also history.
What critical thinking is involved in believing the virus is real? Apart from those who made some independent study I would say there is little critical thinking at all... Just faith in the institution of government and press.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mask has real downside (for some people), Name one. -- Not including the rare medical condition where having anything touching your face is incredibly painful.
One. Wearing Mask can be uncomfortable, and it is real downside (at least for me)
I wear a mask 8 hours a day. Surgeons do for longer.
Is it really that much to ask? I honestly don't understand this mindset.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All you really to do to fix that is have the ammendment require the test study material (small book) be provided via mail upon request. Or some other means. If you have an ammendment that requires this, anyone targeted by manipulation can sue for their constitutional rights. Most of the past manipulations are attacks on older laws that were less specific and required judicial interpretation to determine applicability…
Getting the study material in the mail doesn't help if your education system isn't equipped to teach people how to read (much less study the government). You might or might not have noticed, but the politically and economically disenfranchised are not well-known for their access to legal recourse.
Lawyers would love to take a clear cut case on a contingent basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood how the Christchurch Shooting would argue in favor of putting tighter controls on 8chan or abolishing it altogether. The way I understood it, the shooter placed a manifesto there before shooting, that, if anything, could have given the enforcement a way to stop it if they were fast enough — it enhanced their chances of doing so. 8chan allowing anything and everything hardly caused the shooting, and…
The report goes into detail about what his path towards radicalization was. The posting of the manifesto is not what I am talking about here. The argument was that had he not had such easy access to well organized hate communities who would egg each other on to take it further and further that the incident probably wouldn't have occurred to begin with. I don't know if this is not well known in tech circles perhaps bu…
Because tech circles actually visit 8chan and come to the conclusion that the news reports are ludicrous — have you actually visited it? Because I was a frequent visitor on 8chan before it was pulled and the news articles were certainly grossly inaccurate that portrayed it as Stormfront.
In reality, most of the website was about lolcat image macros, cartoons, and dating advice.
> In the exact same way that say law enforcement and intelligence agencies spent the last 15 years trying to ensure that access to jihadi material wasn't freely available online they are now being asked the question of what exactly is the difference because not only are the outcomes very similar but so are many of the steps leading up to it.
Yes, a prime example of how censorship is never done æqually.
Mein Kampf should be illegal; the Qur'ān should be banned; but the Bible, which contains much of the same rhetoric is untouchable, of course, even though it pretty much contains “Hear ye, go out and smite ye to death the male who lieth with another male!”.
But when another Christian killing of a M.S.M. occurs, there are no cries to ban the Bible; there are no cries to shut down the churches that led to this radicalization or the websites where they might gather.
Censorship has never been a practice of fairness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think the problem is a lack of education or understanding? I don't think so, it's something else - being left behind, feeling unheard of, destitute, incapable of changing the situation no matter how you vote. Then people start breaking away from the official story and invent their own explanations, and why would they have solidarity with the mainstream society when it betrayed them? Better to vote in an antagonis…
Honestly, having studied a bunch of official figures that I « was surprised of », I found there were just blatant lies covered by a scientific stamp (actually someone succeeded to pass a paragraph from Mein Kampf into the same journals, after replacing « Jews » by « Men »). The « scientific evidence » we’re governed with is frequently grossly manipulated, and yet it routinely passes peer review, journal publication a…
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair [2] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHyNSlsz449SOhzpo7Cl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, if users didn't like anything they see on Facebook, they'd log off. Facebook optimizes to make money and they can't make money if people leave, so they try to avoid that scenario. But that doesn't mean all content is something people want to see, because Facebook can't make money either if users only consume content that doesn't make Facebook money, so they try to avoid that scenario. The profit-maximizing strate…
This applies to all media though. I love the discovery channel but not all commercials. I love “Life Below Zero” but it’s filmed in a way to maximize the chance you turn to it when channel Surfing, and getting you to watch ads. it’s not optimized for long term viewing.
The big signs include quick cuts of content you had just seen in order to summarize the story till then, previews before commurcial breaks, pre-starting the next episode (starting the next one before a break), and so many more annoying things.
The worst is when you binging it without ads - there's only 15 minutes of new content for the full duration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think it's really ranked newsfeeds. That's .... a kind of ranking. Personalized ranking made by algorithms based on what they want to show you using their own patterns is still ranking. Dynamically adjusting ranking based on new data (or not) is still ranking.
As anyone who has worked with databases probably knows (definitely should know), selection and ordering/ranking are two different things.
And, "as anyone who has worked with software development probably knows (definitely should know), ranking/ordering/sorting can be done in many different ways".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I live in California, and recently had a conversation with a family member in The Hague. She was telling me about her frustrations with Anti-Maskers and Covid-deniers she has been arguing with locally. Apparently these are not just US political issues.
Honest question -- do you think that without Facebook there will be no tensions between anti-maskers and people who insist on wearing masks everywhere? Is FB really to blame here?
I think it’s a huge amplifier of what would otherwise be fringe ideas.
In the absence of FB, there would be tensions, but no battleground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One. Wearing Mask can be uncomfortable, and it is real downside (at least for me)
I'm sorry. Grow up. I wear a mask 8 hours a day. Surgeons do for longer. Is it really that much to ask? I honestly don't understand this mindset.
Not everyone the same.
Whether its too much or not can be different for different people.
Its not hard to understand right?