151–160 of 606 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ugh, no! I mean, yes, but also, stop getting sucked into this stupid debate. It's a red herring.
Haha I can sense your frustration! What is the real debate, in your mind?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be horrible. Web hosting, sure. A Twitter clone, with (next to) no moderation‽ It'd better have better self-moderation tools than I've seen on any Twitter clone ever. A Twitter clone is a good environment for metric maximisation: what makes you click “share” thrives, being reworded and altered occasionally, in a manner analogous to evolution (but with a more deliberate mutation process than randomness). So…
Doesn't have to be one thing. You can let there be a market of platforms. Just no profiteering, either directly or indirectly. Easier said than done, of course. Also, shouldn't be .gov. Public benefit but not government-owned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> speech should happen primarily on platforms that are prohibited from profit-seeking and run in the public interest. Censorship on these platforms should be prohibited, of course, but so should any form of profit seeking. No such platform has ever existed. How would you propose building one?
The American government should provide citizens with a basic public web hosting service where constitutional freedoms are respected.
I dont mind local publicly owned utilities providing internet while still allowing private competition, but anything on the state or federal level has too much power over the individual.
It's always funny to see uncensored writers talk about censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> speech should happen primarily on platforms that are prohibited from profit-seeking and run in the public interest. Censorship on these platforms should be prohibited, of course, but so should any form of profit seeking. No such platform has ever existed. How would you propose building one?
The Boston Common is such a platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> speech should happen primarily on platforms that are prohibited from profit-seeking and run in the public interest. Censorship on these platforms should be prohibited, of course, but so should any form of profit seeking. No such platform has ever existed. How would you propose building one?
It's an interesting thought exercise and I have some experiments I have to get running. Instead of half-assing a bad answer, I'll think about this in the shower for the next few days and try to return to this later with an actually well-thought out answer. But to be honest, my intent was mostly critique. If you're taking VC money and running a for-profit entity where your paycheck comes from getting folks to talk abo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> speech should happen primarily on platforms that are prohibited from profit-seeking and run in the public interest. Censorship on these platforms should be prohibited, of course, but so should any form of profit seeking. No such platform has ever existed. How would you propose building one?
using tax money. as simple as that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The American government should provide citizens with a basic public web hosting service where constitutional freedoms are respected.
I dont want the FBI providing my internet. I dont mind local publicly owned utilities providing internet while still allowing private competition, but anything on the state or federal level has too much power over the individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I search "Jan 6 Deaths" and very first hit is this NYT article. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol... The article contradicts your claim "reported and quietly fixed days later without ever really owning up to it". Firstly it is the first hit so hardly quiet. Secondly it outlines that initial reporting of Sicknick's death was simply reporting what capital police said, later revised by medical…
The linked article is from January 5 2022, a year less a day after the events in question, right? So it doesn't contradict a claim about the original reporting.
In regards to the underlying events, and my motivation for commenting, it is splitting hairs. Media reported what was established at the time but none of it significantly changes the core history of what happened on Jan 6. The protest was violent with lots of assaults and injuries. This is now extensively documented, even with investigations still well in progress.