251–260 of 814 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems to be a really common thing! It's incredibly frustrating when reading some articles about someone being cancelled or the like.
It's a speciality of Fox News. It promotes the outrage well when you leave out the actually objectionable part. Others do it as well of course.
Have no idea what this Brandon song was about. Watched it couldn’t understand lyrics. 2 weeks later it’s on HN. Read comments, people saying it should be banned. Saying it should be number 1 - that it was - but now is 23 and shadow banned. Don’t believe a word. Someone posts lyrics saying pandemic was planned and not real “or serious”
Realise it’s a political Comment. Suddenly understand all the above is probably true and that it was shadow banned.
I love the way communities seem to learn more about the real narrative by shadow bans than otherwise.
Not that I’m right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they are they a publisher?
No? They're a platform, the artist is the publisher.
Digital platforms want to have it both ways - they want to (in some cases manually!!!) curate and censor recommendations, search results, and plain uploads, while also retaining their platform protections.
The libertarian stance on this issue is completely untenable. I know an Olympic gymnast who can’t perform gymnastics that well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But is the pandemic over? It's clearly not, and that was the point of the lyric. Countries with 90%+ vaccination rates are still having lockdowns because of breakthrough cases.
You're adding things that aren't there. The lyrics are just "the jab stops the spread." That is true.
Article goes out of its way to avoid saying what's actually in the song or video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just create and apply better anti-trust laws and break up the monopolies. (Specially since most platforms got their almost monopolies by creating anti-competitive walled gardens with no inter-operation with other similar platforms a la Fediverse / ActivityPub / Diaspora / Friendica) Or better yet, promote counter-anti-desintermediation: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediatio... > The idea of dis…
The idea of treating as a monopoly problem is interesting, but I'm not sure how you prevent centralization like this from repeating itself in the future, given that it is built on network effects. At the end of the day there will be a concentration of audiences somewhere , so I don't think this problem goes away. What I wonder is whether at a certain point we actually need to protect people from themselves. I get how…
Network effects can happen in a federated or decentralized way:
- Email is useful regardless of the software, OS, server or owner of the address you are sending emails to.
- The fediverse benefits from network effects and interoperability between instances with both different software and different communities.
I would even go further and argue that centralized "network effects" are in reality "captive costs" of "not being inside the walled garden" rather than a true network to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it really matter? Clearly it would be in the realm of satire or political humor, things liberals have historically been very vocal about protecting.
[flagged]
Tech bros are now the gatekeepers of information for hundreds of millions of eyes (not just youtube, also google search manipulation, facebook algos, arguably outlets like netflix...maybe not Amazon yet) and here about half of the western world is cheering on the suppression. How can someone place so much trust in this suppression without even seeing what's being censored? Is it just a deliberate blissful ignorance?…
it is management doing this, not the lower level coders
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Biden said the jab stopped the spread, it was lies. How you WOKE but you haven’t opened your eyes?"
Flagged for some reason, so I will post it again: Are you implying that the pandemic is over?
Regardless of whether the pandemic is over or not, the statement isn't a lie and therefore the quote is incorrect. The vaccine significantly slows ths spread and from both theory and past experience can fully stop it, given a high enough vaccination rate. At best it hasn't come to fruition yet and at worst it won't not because the statement is a lie but because people actively prevented it from coming true, despite all reason and logic.
Something's wrong when the jester is found to have played a huge part in electing a leader of a leading world power.