211–220 of 258 posts
Calling body armor "Military Gear" as in "only the military should be able to buy body armor" is pretty sad, even by Buzzfeed extreme-left standards. Body armor can't kill anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's fundamental meant to manipulate people. Manipulation implies that you're lying to people to get them to buy things, but is it easy to make that argument for FB? What would be the leading argument here? And why should we think that automated processes tend towards manipulation (lying) as a strategy in the marketplace?
> Manipulation implies that you're lying to people No it means you are trying to change their behavior, usually in an unscrupulous way. These ads aren't lying. But they are certainly pushing a narrative. Which at best, is normalizing the violent actions taken. And at worst, is recruiting people for that cause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This software is working exactly as it was designed to. Exactly this is why I think micro targeting should simply be banned by governments. I mean: - It's fundamental meant to manipulate people. - It's easy to abuse and not really possible to control. - Discriminatory micro advertisement, weather on a gender, race, religion or similar basis are pretty common for affected people, but at the same time hard to detect…
> It's fundamental meant to manipulate people. Manipulation implies that you're lying to people to get them to buy things, but is it easy to make that argument for FB? What would be the leading argument here? And why should we think that automated processes tend towards manipulation (lying) as a strategy in the marketplace?
You don't need to lie to do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's fundamental meant to manipulate people. Manipulation implies that you're lying to people to get them to buy things, but is it easy to make that argument for FB? What would be the leading argument here? And why should we think that automated processes tend towards manipulation (lying) as a strategy in the marketplace?
How does manipulation imply lying? When you're manipulating someone you're trying to change their behavior from something the might not want to do to something you want them to do. You don't need to lie to do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are the ads illegal? [...] should they be shut down? Probably not, but insurrection is. The ad isn’t the problem here, the context & juxtaposition is the problem. It’s not a call to shut down ads, it’s a call to avoid accidentally (or worse, intentionally) supporting illegal speech and violence.
The site https://www.sofmag.com/ currently shows advertising for gun accessories next to mostly political news and opinion pieces. Does the legality of this advertising depend on whether a person or an algorithm selected the advertising? Questions like these are probably why the bill Josh Hawley wrote is clearly targeted at Facebook and Google, what with the $1.5bil revenue number: https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextra…
I guess this is still somewhat straw man. Ads near politics and opinion on a politically oriented site also isn't what was being called out exactly. I guess that it could be summarized as advertising the ammunition to carry out a violent insurrection next to the call to create a violent insurrection (illegally), on a site that is primarily social, mass market, and supposedly politically neutral, that was the problem being called out. Trying to draw broader lines than that makes any argument specious at best.
> Does the legality of this advertising depend on whether a person or an algorithm selected the advertising?
Currently, no. Currently the advertising is legal regardless. (And note, again, the legality of the ads wasn't the issue being discussed.)
Calling body armor "Military Gear" as in "only the military should be able to buy body armor" is pretty sad, even by Buzzfeed extreme-left standards. Body armor can't kill anyone.
The most baffling thing to me is the fact that body armor, and military grade weapons, are sold in USA... Like, we're discussing ad delivery, not the fact that a country allows companies to sell all kinds of weapons, and equipment to the general public... so I think that accurate ad targeting is the least of the problems.
The scary guns you see on TV just LOOK like military weapons, they don't FUNCTION like them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why the solution is liability: Companies will keep leaving unchecked algorithms responsible for this until they can go to jail for doing so. Adtech is a cancer and it's time to cut it out using every legislative and regulatory option we have. Put Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai behind bars and the problem will correct after that.
Liability for what exactly? How about people who actually commit bad acts are the ones responsible for it? It seems like you haven't really thought about this and are just personally against adtech and those companies. That's not how rights and legislation should be decided.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well if you don't wear bullet-proof armor, their switching over to armor piercing bullets doesn't put you in any more danger. If anything it's probably better than them using ammunition optimized for use against non-armored targets such as yourself.
Armor costs money and it's heavy. If armor piercing rounds become common, it's a total waste. It's pretty ridiculous that we are having this conversation about civilian life. What the heck is happening in this country?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incitement to terrorism isn't something where failing to moderate perfectly should be tolerated. There is already a zero-tolerance approach to numerous extremist groups, regardless of whether they are active on American soil or not. Why should this be treated any differently?
> Why should this be treated any differently? Being as how Twitter isn't shutdown for the same offense, I'm also curious as to why Parler was "treated differently"? Political pressure, period.
Parler's raison d'etre is that it makes no such efforts. From the AWS team's motion to dismiss:
"There is no legal basis in AWS’s customer agreements or otherwise to compel AWS to host content of this nature. AWS notified Parler repeatedly that its content violated the parties’ agreement, requested removal, and reviewed Parler’s plan to address the problem, only to determine that Parler was both unwilling and unable to do so. AWS suspended Parler’s account as a last resort to prevent further access to such content, including plans for violence to disrupt the impending Presidential transition."
From: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Washington_Western_Distric...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you can buy AR15s and other semiautomatic rifles in Portugal. Most of Europe allows sports shooting, for example (from the top of my hear what I know for sure): Finland Sweden Norway Estonia Czech Republic Poland Germany France Italy Switzerland Austria Spain And I haven't even put research into the rest of the countries
You can not buy semiautomatic rifles in Portugal, even if you are a collector I think but for that you might need to have some sort of special requirement. These are the types of licences we have: http://armas.mai-gov.info/obtencao-de-licencas/ Now you can buy weapons of the same caliber, for hunting (but you need hunting licensing). Edit: Ok I need to clarify this. Because we have a different name for specific weapo…
> So yes, you can buy some specific models of semiautomatic rifles (for hunting), but you can't buy military grade semiautomatic rifles
The semi-automatic rifles that you can buy in Portugal include the Remington 700 and the Thompson Performance Center T/C. Both can come chambered in .308 Win or 6.5 Creedmoor. Those cartridges have an immense stopping power and are significantly more powerful than the usual .223/5.56 you see in the AR-15 platform. Looking at hunting stores from Portugal, you can easily see those two rifles with 5 or 10 round magazines, same limits as the AR-15 in California.
The Remington 700 has been widely used by the military all over the world, including the US. The M24 sniper rifle is the Remington 700, but with a heavier barrel (in order to use .300 Win which the US Marine Corps preferred).
So, why is in your opinion the AR-15 platform "military grade", and the hunting rifles available in Portugal not? Knowing that both platforms have been used by the military in combat situations, and knowing the hunting platforms usually have much more powerful cartridges?