741–750 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among the first few pages in many of my books are recommendations for other similar books from the same publisher, and not infrequently the author himself cites related works.
Are you saying that references to other books is the equivalent to an algorithm designed to get more clicks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The beauty (and horror) of a lot of Trump's incitement is he always does it implicitly as opposed to explicitly. It's not about quotes and verbage as much as meaning and intent. That being said, his incitement Wednesday was actually pretty explicit. From the Times: Trump said "If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore" before urging supporters to go to the capital. Sounds like a pretty…
Urging supporters to go to the capital “peacefully” using that explicit qualifier. You still have a point, but be transparent about it.
I wasn't intentionally leaving anything out though, I took that quote directly from the Times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But crucially, it also makes it much more difficult for unwitting people to start discovering it. The point is to slow the spread, not to reach the people who are already there.
The idea that the only way to protect unwitting people from falling into some undesirable line of thinking is to limit what they see to the desirable line of thinking seems doomed to fail. Either discourse works and you expect people can be made to come to their own sensible conclusions or discourse doesn't work and every change from the norm must be subversive. I.e. tucking it away doesn't guarantee it ends up less…
The obvious question in this analogy is if there's anything akin to a vaccine. Well, when it comes to bigotry, I think having people you care about in your life that are in tribes or groups being demonized by bigots is just that. And a society of liberal norms of the free exchange of ideas and democracies acts similar to a culture of hand washing and cleanliness in a society where people are free to interact with the sick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is "cancel culture" defined as being anti-Nazi or something? "Cancelling" is absolutely an expression of free speech.
Creating a cancel culture is exactly what the Nazis did to push their agenda. I can be anti-Nazi and pro-free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say this after the president of the United States has incited a seditious, violet mob to attack the Capitol because he's a sore loser. There are many examples you can pick if you want to point out bias in media, day before yesterday was not one. For reference, conservative subreddits remain active, Donald Trump is the one that's banned.
“I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be when people realize that this is a policy that they defend" - Nancy Pelosi
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like hearing someone at a bank saying they were scared a masked robber was going to murder them, and responding “were you scared of the customer who came in before them murdering you too?” The terrorists who stormed the capital on Wednesday have a history of violence and connections to various far right extremist and terrorist groups. They came carrying weapons, zip ties and bombs. Don’t pretend there’s no di…
Let's play paraphrase and switch sides! The terrorists who have been rioting all across America for the last 6 months have a history of violence and connections to various far-left extremist and terrorist groups. They have roamed the cities carrying out attacks with bricks, molotov cocktails, blinding lasers, pepper spray, and other weapons. They have planted bombs and carried firearms. They have been endorsed wholeh…
If everyone is going to knowingly twist facts like your post does, there is no point in even trying to debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you do?
Leave it alone. Reddit did the right thing early on by minimizing /r/td spam on the front page. Aside from that I'm convinced there were no problems posed by /r/td or /r/donaldtrump aside from those invented by the small, vocal minority of pearl-clutchers complaining that someone somewhere on Reddit was posting things they disagreed with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no evidence for election fraud due to a combination of officials and media intentionally not searching for it, and events that make it difficult or impossible to determine that fraud actually ocurred. As an example of the latter: Georgia election officials intentionally deceived journalists and (Republican) observers into leaving a vote-counting event by lying to them and telling them that they were done for…
All of the alleged "fraud" is easy to debunk with a bit of google searching. You refuse to do so, so I question your agenda. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/facebook-p...
The article you linked says that the ballots were processed "legally". I explicitly said that they were probably processed legally, but intentionally deceitfully.
The article says that a claim that was debunked was that the ballots were kept in "suitcases". I never claimed that they were - nor does my argument rest on that claim.
The article says that an Richard Barron claims that "No announcement was ever made to leave, for anyone to leave", which was not a sworn statement, and is directly contradicted by the sources I already linked: two sworn statements, and (at least) two articles by independent news stations, including 11Alive, which is one of the stations mentioned in the article you linked, and ABC News[1] - meaning that the Fulton County elections director straight-up lied - at which point, why should we trust anything else coming from the Fulton County elections team?
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pipe-bursts-atlanta-arena-ca...
I've been having this argument more and more lately. People keep coming around to "surely, we must prevent *THIS* content?" and every time the answer is no. Somehow, we seem to be forgetting how free speech benefits us all , but only when it is categorically FREE and there are not exceptions "just this one time" Why just the other day, I had friends blow up on me for daring to suggest that a particular type of bigote…
But on other side of free exchange of ideas we have this idea of cancellation, which results from freedom of speech + freedom of association. As part of freedom of speech, we can also use that speech to narrate moral perspectives of whether some speech is good or bad.
Some people have made laws outlawing discrimination based on some of those characteristics. This is a kludge, with all kinds of annoying implications.
The classic argument in favor of unconditional freedom of association is, "If some companies are refusing to deal with some group of people for stupid reasons, then they will get outcompeted by other companies who don't have such prejudices and can therefore hire cheaper workers or charge higher prices."
This argument works less well when certain extremely valuable services (some would call them "essential") are provided by a small group of huge companies, and entry by new competitors is very difficult.
The solution I would favor is reducing those barriers to entry. Ideally by repealing laws that I think are unjustified in the first place.
In particular, for these social networks with their network effects, but also have something that sucks (be it "they use dark patterns", "they ban people for bad reasons", "their 'feed' algorithm is bad"), why can't someone create a "better network" that acts as a new interface to the old network, but also has better features or has additional members that aren't part of the old network?
My impression is that it would be "against the site's terms of service", and there may also be allegations of copyright violation, and that anyone who made such a thing would eventually get sued. Well, could we change the law so that the site would have no standing to get sued?
I think that, fundamentally, the principle would be, "If users can use a site through the site's interface, then they can also use it through someone else's interface. The site is free to try to detect the difference and block people who do this, but cannot get the law to punish anyone." So the site can either play cat-and-mouse with those developing better interfaces, or they can improve their own interface enough to keep their customers; in terms of banning people, they could either fix their banning practices, or just gamble that those who care enough to use the alternate interface are a sufficiently small group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you build a system that is so technologically perfect that it extinguishes violence from the public space, then you have created a system of slavery. I intuitively get the point you are trying to make (sovereignty, "government has a monopoly on violence," yadda yadda), but I don't think it reflects the real, both contemporary and historical, systems of slavery. Chattel slavery in the antebellum South's relied on…
> Modern slavery most often occurs in areas with widespread, violent conflict. This is completely wrong, China and India top the list with 8 million and 3.8 million slaves respectively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century#St...
From the linked source:
North Korea has the world's highest rate of slavery, with about one in 10 people enslaved, followed by Eritrea (9.3%) Burundi (4%), Central African Republic (2.2%), Afghanistan (2.2%), Mauritania (2.1%), South Sudan (2%), Pakistan (1.7%), Cambodia (1.7%) and Iran (1.6%).
In retrospect, I should've said "violent conflict OR extreme poverty"