291–300 of 351 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why isn’t it sufficient to not follow Alex Jones? I’ve never seen a tweet by him. Twitter is one of the least pushy platforms in algorithmically pushing content. Just follow people you want to see content from, and unfollow if they tweet things you don’t want to see.
No, it's not enough. Twitter constantly showes me nudes that are liked by some people I follow. I hate this feature. They should be an option to limit your feed only to the people you follow, but it is unlikely we'll see it because it contradicts the platform aim to increase engagement, by hook or by crook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's not enough. Twitter constantly showes me nudes that are liked by some people I follow. I hate this feature. They should be an option to limit your feed only to the people you follow, but it is unlikely we'll see it because it contradicts the platform aim to increase engagement, by hook or by crook.
> They should be an option to limit your feed only to the people you follow You can functionally get the same thing by using the "list" feature instead of following people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They can exist because both of them are going to HAVE to learn how to engage with one another You're assuming good faith from both parties. Harassers and trolls don't act in good faith.
There is a well-known recipe against trolls: do not feed them. Block and ignore them. If you visit a bathroom, you normally don't bloviate about the kind of crap you had just to flush, you rather avoid the topic; the same applies to trolls. Bring zero attention to them. Trolls' game is all about drawing attention, in the form of ire, offense, and and panic. Deprive them this, and they'll cease to bother you much. Thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The old internet with webforums for particular topics, where the moderators knew the posters, was a better model.
It really was, but we've largely abandoned that model. The new model is going to require understanding that there are people who are totally opposed to almost everything you hold dear... and finding a way to interact with them.
Ugh...I have a HN Twitter bot that just tried to post this and it got locked. https://www.twitter.com/hackernewstop10
The reason for the ban is “revealing private information”. It seems to be related to a Dutch soccer player Memphis Depay. https://twitter.com/OL_English/status/1371121328649076744
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already have laws for those things - second, third degree murder; involuntary manslaughter, etc.
So can people out in public without masks on be charged with any of these things?
You don’t charge people with manslaughter violating fire code —- there are separate law for that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure I understand your claim... there are many global-scale companies that do moderate their entire site... Google, Reddit, Amazon. Are you trying to make a more specific claim than your post lets on? Maybe that it’s impossible to moderate without making some concession you don’t prefer? Or it’s impossible to moderate away certain kinds of things?
You're going to use Reddit as an example, where the people least deserving of power are given it, freely, and end up banning people for merely having different opinions? I would not have used that in my list. It doesn't boil down to a "concession I don't prefer". The only thing you moderate are those things deemed illegal by the Federal government, anything else is fair game, which brings us a pretty large umbrella o…
Why?
It is certainly legal in the USA to be a KKK member as long as you aren't participating in the domestic terrorism. Yet I have no interest in conversation with KKK members and would will choose to freely leave websites where they hang out. So many people agree with me that a website owner decides he needs the traffic of anti-KKK people and starts banning legal Klan members.
Why must the website owner keep Klan members who have not broken any laws? Why should everything besides what is deemed illegal by the federal government be fair game?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So can people out in public without masks on be charged with any of these things?
Not wearing masks increase the risk. But as long as they, themselves, are not infected, they are not “killing” You don’t charge people with manslaughter violating fire code —- there are separate law for that