321–330 of 386 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Websites that host user generated content are social media. HN is a social media, your basement server isn’t, hosted content on AWS probably needs some definition workarounds but instinctively shouldn’t be.
What about my PeerTube instance hosted on a NUC in my kitchen? It hosts copies of videos and comments from other instances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Rights” are what other human beings agree to recognize. That’s just the nature of law as a construct. What the federal courts in America have done is set themselves up as a tribunal of elites for deciding moral issues that other countries decide democratically. This unsurprisingly causes a lot of friction. Same sex marriage actually wasn’t one of those areas—US opinion and that in other developed countries wasn’t fa…
You may also be misrepresenting opinion on school prayer (but it may just be a wording issue). From following link, only 41% support teacher-led prayer https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2019/10/04/big-data-studen...
This Pew poll is a bit older. But “teacher led prayer” is also narrower than all the things the Supreme Court has banned.
Also, the court case was from the 1960s, so it’s been contrary to public opinion a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Rights” are what other human beings agree to recognize. That’s just the nature of law as a construct. What the federal courts in America have done is set themselves up as a tribunal of elites for deciding moral issues that other countries decide democratically. This unsurprisingly causes a lot of friction. Same sex marriage actually wasn’t one of those areas—US opinion and that in other developed countries wasn’t fa…
I think you are greatly exaggerating Roe's reach, as many US states restrict abortions much earlier than 24 weeks.
20 weeks is the earliest limit that has gone into effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_.... Earlier limits than that have been blocked by courts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What "the federal courts in America" did is state that the rights of other human beings are not up for a vote.
“Rights” are what other human beings agree to recognize. That’s just the nature of law as a construct. What the federal courts in America have done is set themselves up as a tribunal of elites for deciding moral issues that other countries decide democratically. This unsurprisingly causes a lot of friction. Same sex marriage actually wasn’t one of those areas—US opinion and that in other developed countries wasn’t fa…
This is false, Roe doesn't have “no basis in the Constitutional text”. It is true that the derivation of the understanding of rights articulated in Roe from the text is indirect, but that does not make it absent; it is a judicial understanding built on prior judicial understandings each of which directly or via even more intermediary judicial understandings derive from the text.
> What’s the source of the court’s authority in that context?
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll keep my idealism, thanks. I've seen what censorship does, and I find it to be a far worse monster than any of those spawned by the free exchange of ideas.
Sure, however idealism doesn't mean your opinion is better than actual facts. Its always interesting that I get into these discussion with some people who hold a position so strongly, yet unwilling to do any work to be reliable. Do try though, if you crack it there's genuinely a market for the solution.
What are the facts you refer to? That some forums descend into chaos when left unmoderated?
I don't think that's in dispute. It sounds like you disagree on a value judgement: what to do in the face of that fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think anybody thinks this has good intentions
I think this has good intentions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Simply put, the average person is not prepared for lawyer level rhetorical devices in the wild. Maybe we should figure out how to educate people to prepare them? Can we really build our safety on our ability to keep stupid people ignorant of stupid ideas? I think that's the kind of security through obscurity that is currently failing us so hard. Stupid people are finding stupid ideas anyways, sharing them, building…
People aren't code. Plus you dont see people exposing themselves to prions or the plague. More pertinently, you could argue that we shouldn't worry about sociopaths, and that if they convince or charm someone - that's just bad luck, and it boosts people's immunity. Why did we worry about lootboxes or attention manipulating algorithms? Because when its not a fair fight, the outcome is not fair. If I sent you up agains…
I assert the choice to decide for myself, and question the motives and capability of those that try to take that away.
> Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law. This is kind of insane. So if I offer a free website- a private company operating as I like- I would be forbidden from removing content from my own website that I don't like because the person who wrote it- again, not a paying customer- wants it to be there. Not only…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Rights” are what other human beings agree to recognize. That’s just the nature of law as a construct. What the federal courts in America have done is set themselves up as a tribunal of elites for deciding moral issues that other countries decide democratically. This unsurprisingly causes a lot of friction. Same sex marriage actually wasn’t one of those areas—US opinion and that in other developed countries wasn’t fa…
A difference between us and Europe is that our country was founded on maintaining a separation between the state (which runs the schools we're talking about) and religion, and Germany wasn't. The entire premise of the Constitution --- really of any constitution --- is to insulate those kinds of governing principles from public opinion.
I think the best reading of the Establishment Clause is that it prohibits exactly that, plus Congress also can’t regulate state established churches (which existed at the time). See: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi...
https://startingpointsjournal.com/what-is-the-original-meani...
> House’s final version: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion.”
> The Senate responded with: “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship.”
> The Conference Committee came up with the final version, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The Committee’s addition of “respecting an” was not explained at the time but has been the subject of a great deal of recent commentary. In its own time, however, the clause generated none of the heated arguments that had accompanied church–state issues in the states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't find this dishonest at all. Not everyone in USA agrees with the Great Suspensioning. Why would we expect everyone in Poland to agree with it?
If they don't agree they don't have to use it. It's dishonest because the characterization suggests that sovereign nations are beholden to tech companies, but they aren't.
US tech companies hold almost as much power in these smaller countries as the government does. Facebook could easily sway an election if it tries.
