501–510 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well you kind of need to ever since the dislike count was removed.
You checked the dislike count before reading the comment? That's almost a superpower of visual focus since they are next to each other Edit -Didn't realize he meant video counts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit is highly moderated and censored. You can't even post facts in /r/conservative without being banned. Reddit also has a Terms of Service and it has banned hate groups under such terms of service. With a large bias towards far right hate groups because there really is no existence of far left hate groups. So of course moderation seems biased when your views are hateful to begin with. Advertisers generally want n…
Moderated by unpaid users = shit moderation, you get what you pay for. Moderators get rewarded with the rush of 'power'
Powermods have been detrimental to Reddit's health. There are some great communities with unpaid moderators who care about and foster their subreddits, but most of the prominent moderators don't care about their subreddits beyond the 'power'.
Seems like this is gonna get overruled, but who knows with this supreme court nowadays. Aside from that issue, I'd like to discuss why social media always seems so impotent in their response to misinformation. Seems Youtube, Facebook, etc, are all letting people post misinformation, it gains traction through whatever means and is shared to millions of people. Then after the damage is done they swoop in and block it a…
> If no keywords were triggered for misinformation, and none of the eyeballs on that post marked it as misinformation or offensive
Keywords? Who decides the keywords? What are you going to do when normal words get a coded meaning. Remember “milk” and the “ok” sign. 4chan is going to have a field day with this! What about the ((( echos ))). You gonna write a regex for potential use of non letter characters?
Marked as misinformation. What, you’re going to ask the ministry of truth for input? Do you think this will achieve anything except build an echo chamber and increase division? The same for offensive. What’s going to happen when all posts by trans people are marked as offensive? Or that doesn’t count cause you’re ok with it. Should we establish a Ministry of Morality, perhaps with a morality police like the saudis to tell us what’s offensive and what’s not?
Everything you wrote is, I don’t even know how to call it. It’s evil. It’s evil, that’s what it is. You have though up an evil system whose only outcome will be oppression, division and resentment.
Will this apply to bots? What if I have a big list of a complaints about a certain politician (use your imagination, there's more than one politician to complain about), but the "other party" doesn't follow me, in fact, I have very few followers overall. So I create a bot that spreads my opinions by replying to millions of other Tweets. Anyone who mentions the politician of interest will receive a reply from "me" (my…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This opinion is just badly written and badly reasoned. It's not even well written enough that it is worth trying to debate. Of course the judges in question were rated unqualified by the ABA (which is a really low bar) so not surprising.
The ABA at this point is a partisan institution. Go read into some of their politics and realize that they are very much left-leaning. Edit: example https://www.wsj.com/articles/anticompetitive-woke-law-school...
How exactly do their political positions figure into their ratings? Conservative judges are de facto unqualified? Left leaning judges get a pass?
If you have a concrete criticism of their rating practices you don't need to focus on their politics, do you?
> "Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say," Judge Andrew Oldham, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote in the ruling. I don't really understand this; from my perspective, it sounds like this judge doesn't really understand the first amendment (hopefully this is not the case, and the quote is taken out of context). Corporations are…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not so sure, since section 230's safe harbor is involved. If section 230's protections were dropped for social media, I am sure that most courts would adopt the Citizens United standard. However, that would mean a ton of lawsuits for all the defamation and harassment that happens on those platforms.
Section 230 is a federal law, it cannot make a state law that would otherwise violate the First Amendment as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment somehow okay. That’s not how the relationship between state, federal, and constitutional law works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The line between "user" and "bot" would get very murky very quickly. If you write a tweet and then use a bot to post it at a certain time of day, is your speech still protected, even if it was posted by a bot? What if you have the bot post it at the same time every day? What if you have the bot post it in reply to all tweets with a certain hashtag? Or just all tweets? In each of those cases, the original speech is a…
Fortunately there’s hundreds of years of cases and frameworks to help us get this right. Application of the law won’t turn on minor technical details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really think the average non-technical user will have a clue as to what to do about this hypothetical problem? I don't think that's a credible take. Consider that this situation isn't like email spam filtering. I can't run a spam filter on the Twitter app on my phone. And if Twitter is not allowed to filter spam, that's it: no spam filtering for Twitter users.
> I can't run a spam filter on the Twitter app on my phone That's nothing fundamentally preventing this. It's Twitter themselves who've decided not to allow you to do this. Were their app more open to extension you would be able to download and configure a spam filter of your choosing.