591–600 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn't do it productively, he made it into a rant about political parties; you can't get useful discussion on such a loaded topic like that. That's another part of this...you can't just say whatever you want and expect there not to be consequences.
It was no more of a rant than yours. But you disagree so you downvote and flag.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we leave the one network our friend is on we lose all digital connection with that friend, lose the view we'd get of them interacting with others. Ever since I started using the Fediverse, I haven't had this problem. Sure, most of my friends aren't there, but I'm happy to IM or email them instead.
yeah i actually like seeing my friends talking with each other & being able to join in the various conversations they're having. if you're fine just leaving the online social circles your friends are in good for you. but i hope you can see how very very very very very short an answer & how rude is comes across to most people. and i'm sorry your friends are so boring.
Yes, censorship is bad, but which is worse: admitting a little bit of censorship, or Nazis? Because uh, right now, we have Nazis. In Germany, if you express Nazi views you will be arrested and thrown in prison. Germany is, according to many metrics, freer than the USA. Perhaps because of its laws that put Nazis in prison.
Big tech censorship will not solved without addressing the other half of a problem with two sides. Without systems that promote quality, non-ideological, nuanced, original, tolerant dialogue we will keep running into the false dilemma of unmoderated cess pools or heavy handed moderation. If we are to avoid this dilemma we need systems that organically promote constructive, tolerant and inclusive communication, and or…
> Without systems that promote quality, non-ideological, nuanced, original, tolerant dialogue we will keep running into the false dilemma of unmoderated cess pools or heavy handed moderation. I disagree tying big tech censorship to this. Yes what you describe is nice and what the audience here (including me) prefer, that's why we're here. Such places with such rules are paradises. However, I for one accept the risk o…
The problem isn't created simply by allowing people the freedom to express themselves. It's created by highly manipulative middlemen choosing what to promote and what to suppress (in a relative not absolute sense) via algorithms designed to maximize attention to ads.
That is nothing like a simple free speech situation.
I have no problem with free speech, and free speech forums, even if they do sometimes become cess pools.
I have a real problem with the most widely used glorified scrapbook sharing software (Facebook), biasing all our feeds toward content that is likely to pull us into comment flame wars or using provoked anger and tribal identity reinforcement as a user addiction strategies.
Note that Facebook didn't start behaving this way until after the network effect of their social graph had created tremendous lock-in/switching-costs for their users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That particular statement is in fact neither known to be true nor false for some definitions of the Muslim God, since there is no secular evidence for the existence nor non-existence of God for those definitions of the Muslim God. But I agree with the point you are trying to make, that many people have false beliefs crucial to a societal institutions that cannot realistically be suppressed by heavy-handed censorship…
> However, you are arguing against a strawman, since OP never claimed to have a solution, nor even that censorship was the appropriate response, not do I claim that either. OP strongly implied that it's easy to distinguish which claims should be censored and which claims should not be censored. This is complete fantasy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are confusing the identification of certain statements as false (which is easy for some things), with the enforcement of censorship (which OP does not claim to have).
Ok. Allow me to rephrase: can you point to a single example where an entity was given power to decide which statements are false (for censorship-related purposes) and subsequently did a good job? To be specific, I mean doing a good job of identifying which statements are false and which statements are true.
> Is censorship the best way to deal with it? Probably not. But we do need to recognise this as a problem as well as getting het up about giant internet platforms deplatforming people.
> make no claims to be one of the group of enlightened ubermensch who should be able to decide for the rest. Neither do I argue that such people exist or are necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most people strongly favor the convenience of existing SaaS services If it was more convenient to roll your own, then I contend that many people would, and many more would have accounts on friends' servers. The difficulty shouldn't be any higher than the cost of a Pi server and spending an hour setting it up -- all of which is perfectly possible to achieve technocally.
I believe that you are completely misguided on why people choose to not self host. I don’t think it’s about convenience, they just don’t care about the same things you care about. There is a ton of easy to use self hosted software out there, some of which I run. Compared to their SaaS alternatives though they are extremely unpopular. For a lot of people “buy a raspberry pi” will always be too complex, too expensive (…
Some people do. The c. 1 million people who use mastodon or other fediverse services care.
> For a lot of people “buy a raspberry pi” will always be too complex, too expensive (you’re competing against free), and too much long term hassle.
This is true; it is also irrelevant. I'm immagining a world where maybe 1 internet user in 100 will have a Pi on their home internet connection, and maybe half the people on the internet will have accounts on other people's Pi servers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When Lee Kuan Yew, who made Singapore rich in a generation, talks about development, he doesn’t talk about academic theories. He focuses on the culture of the ordinary people. He (and most national leaders, elected or otherwise) works at too high a level to talk about academic theories in general conversation. You don't think he and the people working in his government studied economics, history, and politics? They…
> He (and most national leaders, elected or otherwise) works at too high a level to talk about academic theories in general conversation. You don't think he and the people working in his government studied economics, history, and politics? They just made Singapore prosperous by getting everyone to work harder and study more? There is a difference between people with judgment governing with the advice of academics, an…
We went from "academics can't build nations" to "academics can't lead nations". Then to "America became great because farmers, lawyers, and soldiers were in charge" (while ignoring failed nations that also had farmers, lawyers, and soldiers in charge). Finally landing upon Lee Kuan Yew and national character building (no idea how that's related).
There were no actual examples of an academic taking charge of a country and that country failing due to them being an academic (vs just being corrupt, despotic, insane, or plain incompetent). On the other hand, I provided lots of examples that showed academics have made modern society and the economy possible.
I'd argue that most academics don't have any interest in politics or leadership, which causes them to be relatively underrepresented in the arena. Regardless, I'm not biased against people due to their profession, as you appear to be.
Some stuff should be regulated. Especially post of FB/Twitter/ect that are actually provably false and whose diffusion are nothing but a carefully crafted op from a foreign country.
you could be concerned about over-regulation, but currently we are at the opposite side of the spectrum.
Asking FB/Twitter - or any company - to do the right thing and go against its own interest is simply naive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are waging political warfare on HN, and violating the guidelines of "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity." It is important to never demonize your opponents too much, if you are going to try and remain civil with them. >* Pro-life Christians >* Gun owners >* Right-leaning libertarians >* "Selfish"/anti-tax rich people >* The alt-right / neo-Nazi / Q culti…
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. I didn't attack any particular ideology. I politely described my opinion on a specific organization that attempted to overthrow my country's government, first via a soft coup and then by force, as it related to the current discussion. This smacks of making a list.. And? Are you suggesting that HN is anti-lists?
This gave me a seriously hearty laugh. They're just in bed with "Big List"!