231–240 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you point to one?
live action is one well known one https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Action_(organization)#S...
https://twitter.com/LiveAction
https://www.facebook.com/liveaction
Looking through their feed they have a real bug up their butt about Planned Parenthood.
Well, I guess they were deplatformed a bit:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Beyond hate speech" lol. That's kinda the problem, isn't it? Who gets to define "hate"? And why ban speech that is actually legal (even if highly offensive) anyway? And if it's worthy of banning on a major platform, why not just make it explicitly illegal? These are serious and important questions (among others) that seem to get conveniently glossed over.
lots of democratic countries have come up with workable definitions. I propose to make hate speech illegal, so banning it won't be in any way contradictory. I am not glossing over anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. * Break them up, and keep them small enough so that no one site can do that much damage. * Remove safe harbor provisions on algorithmic content feeds. * Pass a transaction tax on ad auctions to discourage free-for-attention business models.
Could you clarify a bit more on these proposals? > * Break them up... How do you ensure that all companies in a vertical will remain small? What would the legislation look like? The internet certainly enables more 'winner takes all' type markets, so not sure how you consistently keep social networks small when everyone will naturally gravitate to those that have the best UX + network effects (there are surely other v…
2. I'm not going to explain the Safe Harbor provision to you. Look it up. We already have externalities - removing algorithmic feeds would take (e.g. Facebook) back to where it was in the late 2000s, where users were in control of the content they saw. The only negative externality is that Facebook and other companies would make less money of targeted ads.
3. You've never heard of a transaction tax? I find that hard to believe. Why don't you think about other times you've paid tax on a transaction, and then maybe you can come up with answers to the rest of your questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you clarify a bit more on these proposals? > * Break them up... How do you ensure that all companies in a vertical will remain small? What would the legislation look like? The internet certainly enables more 'winner takes all' type markets, so not sure how you consistently keep social networks small when everyone will naturally gravitate to those that have the best UX + network effects (there are surely other v…
1. Not really sure I agree about "winner takes all" - Facebook bought IG, Whatsapp and dozens of other companies. That's not winning based off product superiority - it's winning based off access to financing. There are plenty of ways to stop companies from ever reaching that size - Limit M&A, limit the amount of hot money used to finance growth ahead of revenue, and impose stricter regulations on larger companies - I…
2. I'm familiar with safe harbor provisions, but am asking you for more specifics. Many sites/app personalize content (aka algorithmic content feeds) for the user, based off of what will drive engagement. I understand you dislike Facebook, but if you attack Facebook for personalization, how do you not hurt everybody else that is trying to cater experiences to what their users are likely to want?
3. What's the transaction in your proposal? Who is getting taxed? There are multiple actors in the advertising system, from advertisers to ad networks to publishers to website visitors. Your glib response is a signal to me that perhaps you haven't had much in the weeds exposure to how advertising functions, and may be operating from more of a mainstream mood affiliation perspective. Which is fine, but you answered a question to someone's query for 'good ideas' for regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. I used parler to do such things as follow EWTN. I stopped using Twitter for this sort of thing because I figured that -- with EWTN's stance on the trans issue -- it was only a matter of time before they were banned (there had been talk of banning JK Rowling for similar tweets at the time, so it's a reasonable fear). I joined parler to not have to worry about this. This constant belittling of anyone who does no…
As a counterexample you claim to have joined Parlor because Twitter wouldn't let you hate transsexuals openly? This is supposed to support the premise that Parlor had a use for something other than to amplify hate speech?
That sounds like a really great world you have planned for us. I am so glad my parents fled a third world country where our ethnic group made us be treated like trash to escape to this! This is exactly what they had in mind when they left :)
I guess I just don't really get it. I've accepted that my ideology has lost; all I ask is to be left alone to work, garden, own my home, have my children, raise my children, and let them do the same. I have already unregistered to vote, and have no more interest in politics, other than to complain about it online. Am I allowed to do this? What more must I do to not be considered an evil monster? Honestly, my treatment on Hacker News over the past year has been worse than the combined effect of racism growing up brown in a mostly white neighborhood during 9/11. This is insanity at every level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Not really sure I agree about "winner takes all" - Facebook bought IG, Whatsapp and dozens of other companies. That's not winning based off product superiority - it's winning based off access to financing. There are plenty of ways to stop companies from ever reaching that size - Limit M&A, limit the amount of hot money used to finance growth ahead of revenue, and impose stricter regulations on larger companies - I…
1. Facebook already had 1 billion MAU in 2012, the year it acquired Instagram. How would you limit M&A? Won't that really hurt the startup ecosystem if you use the state to close off one of the paths to an exit? How do you propose limiting 'hot money' to finance growth ahead of revenue? Are you proposing getting rid of venture capital? 2. I'm familiar with safe harbor provisions, but am asking you for more specifics.…
Limit M&A by denying acquisitions that would consolidate markets, like we did for a long time in this country. You don’t have to hurt startups if you have a little bit of creativity. Create different tiers of review, etc.
You cut down on hot money by reinstating the firewall between commercial banking/insurance and investment banking. It’s not getting rid of venture capital, but it does restrict the amount of money that can be levered by them.
2. Im not worried about hurting businesses that focus on algorithmic content. If their algorithms are feeding right wing propaganda to impressionable people I want them to go out of business.
3. An ad auction is no different than any other financial contract that gets sold on an exchange. The buyer sells a contract for placement, which an advertiser buys in exchange for a promise to pay. You levy a tax on this transaction to make the overall cost of doing it more expensive and to offset the cost of externalities created. I’ve thought through it plenty, but since it doesn’t feel like you aren’t asking questions in good faith or doing the least bit of research, I’m not going to bother taking you particularly serious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. I used parler to do such things as follow EWTN. I stopped using Twitter for this sort of thing because I figured that -- with EWTN's stance on the trans issue -- it was only a matter of time before they were banned (there had been talk of banning JK Rowling for similar tweets at the time, so it's a reasonable fear). I joined parler to not have to worry about this. This constant belittling of anyone who does no…
> Although parlor was only used for hate > Right. I used parler to do such things as . I stopped using Twitter for because I figured that ... it was only a matter of time before they were banned (for ) I know you don't think it's hate. I know you think trans rights are a subjective ethical issue. But what if you're wrong? What if it's an objectively human rights issue? Like sexuality, and race? I know there is still…
I still do not believe that racism or incidents of racism, including the ones I described above, are 'objectively' human rights issues. They are clearly quite subjective, since they only really exist in my experience. My religion (which most would also describe as subjective) tells me that these experiences have absolute moral character, but barring my reference to that, I cannot say for sure whether or not such discourse is objectively wrong.
I especially have trouble labeling the discourse as 'objectively' a human rights violation when none of the behavior I described above has come from anyone in any position to have power over my life or my rights.
Honestly, to continue to harp on those individuals that have mistreated me would be incredibly childish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's impossible to believe that Facebook, Twitter, iPhones, and Google weren't in major ways used by the perpetuators and organizers of the assault on the capital to facilitate their criminal conspiracy and actions. Selective enforcement of rules is being used to against political positions and, let's face it, competing platforms. >Although parlor was only used for hate, I don't think that is in evidence.
Site A has a TOS that bans hate speech Site B is just like Site A, but with less reach. However, their TOS allows hate speech as long as it's not tortious So on Site A a comment spamming nig**r will get you banned, and on Site B it is a-ok as long as it doesn't mention anyone's name. - Site B should be expected to have more hate speech. Additionally even if Site A gets hate speech, it's providers are more likely to g…
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200625/16303844790/just-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize trans people are going to go extinct right? It should be clear as day to anyone with even a passing interest in biology. Once we've identified exactly what genes influence transgenderism, and genetic editing of our embryos is commonplace for the populace, no one is going to allow their children to be born with a predilection for being transgender. You'd be literally putting your child at an enormous disad…
Oh good, eugenics. > Look how long its taken for gay people to be accepted by society. Not decades, but centuries. Transgender people don't have that long. You might wanna read up on actual history before winging it. We've been around since time immemorial. Nothing new here, we've been variously celebrated, tolerated, and eradicated by societies throughout history. The last big purge was during the holocaust. Is that…
You're also assuming because I think a thing will happen, that I want it to happen. There are lots of things that I don't want to happen, that I'm almost certain will happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize trans people are going to go extinct right? It should be clear as day to anyone with even a passing interest in biology. Once we've identified exactly what genes influence transgenderism, and genetic editing of our embryos is commonplace for the populace, no one is going to allow their children to be born with a predilection for being transgender. You'd be literally putting your child at an enormous disad…
You vastly underestimate the complexity of the human genome and also assume transsexuality is _all genetics. Ontogenesis, epigenetics, environmental factors, ... there is a lot more on sex variant hardware front than genetics. Sex is bimodal, by definition parents can't define a "right body" in this regard. And anyway, at that point of understanding and manipulating human biology, "people" will likely moved beyond li…
We mapped it out 20+ years ago. We learn more about it each year, but what's more, the extent of our knowledge increases exponentially, not linearly.
> Ontogenesis, epigenetics, environmental factors, ... there is a lot more on sex variant hardware front than genetics.
You act like these are factors that can't be controlled, if not entirely, at least to some degree.
> at that point of understanding and manipulating human biology
We are very nearly at that point. Within anywhere from 20-30 years, maybe even less. If you think "people" will have moved beyond limiting categories in that time, you're not thinking clearly about the past, but what's worse, you're not thinking clearly about humanity.
If you think we'll end up in a Star Trek-like world before we have the ability to successfully manipulate the genome, you can just look to the fictional history of Trek for that... we were supposed to be in the middle of the Eugenics Wars right about now. Turns out they'll come later, I guess.