341–350 of 645 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure it was just automatic and based upon the fact that they are using the same feed, but let's not let reason get in the way of finding our conclusions when they can just confirm how we want to feel.
They have been using the same feeds for two weeks. Automatic doesn't sound as likely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly would they know that it's public access? Their algorithms don't understand what content is, it just recognizes patterns in data, and that one snippet of video is sufficiently similar to another as to be considered the same snippet. Putting in a rule to deal with an edge case is non-trivial, and there are an infinite number of edge cases.
They are pretty smart, I guess they could reuse the same technology they use to not to take down videos with "correct" views that they agree with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a couple problems with the "market opportunity" argument. The first is that no, there isn't a market opportunity due to network and monopolistic forces. The second is that there is a fundamental issue with the system itself, whereby both state and private establishment players eventually force any player with a large piece of the market to do things like censor certain narratives.
While I agree that network effects play a large role in entrenchment, I wouldn't be so surprised if smaller players start swooping up the dissenters and begin slowly chipping away at the giants.
Time it right and you can have a set of regulations tailored to your competitors that only minimally impact you and then, when the next party gets its turn at power and all of your competitors are dead, get those regulations removed in the next big wave of corporate deregulation.
It really is a sweet game. Too bad we'll never get to play it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The founders also were aware that the only freedom of speech that you have is from the gov't restricting your speech.
They didn't account for a corporatocracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses. Instead, media outlets seem to obfuscate and sensationalize the story and imply wrongdoing or bias by the criminal just…
Personally, I haven’t followed this story or the trial closely at all. But what you describe would be woefully inadequate coverage of an event. The details are important, and to me the important details (that allow me to form an opinion) are “guy traveled waaay out of his way with a giant gun in order to ‘protect’ strangers’ property; guy has history of saying he would shoot shoplifters.” Nuff said. My opinion is the…
My understanding of the law is that self-defense is determined by the actions of the people involved and what they were thinking - not what they may have said on other occasions or the distance from the event they live. The fact that Kyle lives twenty minutes away from Kenosha or has previously said he wanted to shoot shop lifters seems irrelevant to me and would have twenty years ago too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't "waaay out of his way" though, and he was also there helping provide first aid. It's also mindblowing that you think that him being threatened and chased by a convicted child rapist (the first person he shot), then running away and only shooting again when people were trying to kill him when he fell on the ground, aren't important details.
Like I said, I haven’t followed this, so I do not know what your last sentence is about (and thus your mind is unjustifiably blown). That said, I can respond solely to the details you provided: you seem to be implying that Kyle was at risk of being raped by this guy if caught. That is certainly scary! Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that…
Is it possible for us to put aside the edgelord screeching over censorship and instead talk rationally about content distribution regulations, required public APIs, and using the Post Office for things like email/videos/blogs/PGP keys/etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses. Instead, media outlets seem to obfuscate and sensationalize the story and imply wrongdoing or bias by the criminal just…
Personally, I haven’t followed this story or the trial closely at all. But what you describe would be woefully inadequate coverage of an event. The details are important, and to me the important details (that allow me to form an opinion) are “guy traveled waaay out of his way with a giant gun in order to ‘protect’ strangers’ property; guy has history of saying he would shoot shoplifters.” Nuff said. My opinion is the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are the past crimes they've been sentenced guilty already at court not some rumor or events they never got punished for. Calling a pedophile a pedophile is not disrespectful.
Listen, I have no connection to these people and really don’t care, but using sports slang to celebrate these deaths - as if such events are common and desirable in Kenosha - is indeed callous and disrespectful. Call me old fashioned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the ongoing US culture war I think that's an oversimplification. Rittenhouse's decision to show up there armed was due to the partisan division and demonization. Rittenhouse showing up armed and killing two people is a product of the stoked polarization.
Rittenhouse showing up was a result of unrest in a town where he had friends and family. He gave aid to rioters and protesters as well as counter protesters. He showed up to protect and help people, and if he hadn't been armed, he could have been shot and killed or beaten to death, because he told people he was there to help the police. It wasn't until he'd been shot at, attacked with a skateboard, and had a gun aime…