141–150 of 234 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think journalists and reporters do? Is their work immoral?
why do you think journalists, and reporters are so safety conscious ? why do they use pseudonyms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My man… if you think the problem with Reddit is “far right” that is just how far your perspective is skewed. There are a lot of accusations to make at Reddit; that is by far not even close to reality.
Reddit has a far everything. From tankies in denial to straight up Nazis, Admins do nothing with both sides. I used to like the libertarian approach (except the borderline/straight up cp subs...) but it is evident that they dont do anything except punishing their own community and censoring what they dont like because of being understaffed and underqualified rather than sacrificing on advertising revenue for the sake…
Part of the power of social media, is that powerful people acting badly in public finally might face some public backlash or justice. Banning this, will certainly protect the powerful, and will likely continue to be unenforced for the average person.
> Part of the power of social media, is that powerful people acting badly in public finally might face some public backlash or justice. Who are the powerful people in your opinion? Does it depend on their skin color? Their gender? Their perceived wealth? Their looks? Try hard enough, you can find any kind of hook that will justify public shaming because this person has privilege and so it isn't punching down. Of cour…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why do you think journalists, and reporters are so safety conscious ? why do they use pseudonyms?
Is the answer you're expecting that journalists are doing something that is immoral? Because that's not it.
im actually expecting you to duck the question, with non-interrogative questions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know I'm not saying anything new here, but I'm always shocked by just how vicious the Reddit community is, especially from a group who considers themselves highly intelligent (compared to those "other" people). Videos like you describe are there every time I visit, along with fight videos and comments making up a back story as to what the victim did to deserve it, etc. Sometimes I wonder why things like vigilanteis…
Groups which consider themselves as very intellectual can commit the worst atrocities. Just look at communists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the exact reason I just ordered a locally recording doorbell and am finally replaced the last cloud based "smart" device in my home. I found myself actually changing my behavior and not saying certain things to my wife in front of it. The thought that every time I passed my own front door a stranger, that I placed there, was recording me was nauseating.
I had a ring for about one week before I ripped it out and sent it back. I can’t understand how almost no one realized we went far worse than UK or Singapore’s surveillance state and did it on our own dollar voluntarily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those ring cameras are actually crazy. The fact that they are so normalized in the BA is kind of disturbing This lady just moved in next to me. Drives a leased luxury car. Doesn't interact with anyone, she just put up a ring camera (on an apartment door) and doesn't go outside I absolutely can't stand people who put up all of this cringey privacy invading IOT shit, in a relatively nice area on top of that
In Switzerland those cameras are illegal, since there is a right to privacy for all persons. Security cameras can exist on private land or where the need is deemed to be absolutely necessary (eg, high security or high value areas where it is in the public interest to have a camera) - but filming the street from your house fails these tests. Same for dashcams. People like to make this "oh but you're in public so why c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit has a far everything. From tankies in denial to straight up Nazis, Admins do nothing with both sides. I used to like the libertarian approach (except the borderline/straight up cp subs...) but it is evident that they dont do anything except punishing their own community and censoring what they dont like because of being understaffed and underqualified rather than sacrificing on advertising revenue for the sake…
[flagged]
Reddit is full of whatever a dogwhistle becomes when everyone can hear it. Just whistles, I suppose. It is shockingly easy to find racists commenting about IQ and 13/50 bullshit in any subreddit that isn't actively moderating against that, let alone one that encourages it like the Donald.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not a lawyer, but is this actually the case? Generally, no, they have a license, generally a broad, perpetual, non-exclusive license per the conditions attached to use of the site. not ownership. OTOH: > I thought the core of section 230 was about exactly that - that a site operator does not constitute a "publisher" for everything that is written on their site, if the site is just a "dumb" software that displays co…
Thanks a lot for that clarification. That actually changed my understanding of section 230: I always thought that the "shaping" of content was some sort of loophole that the section might have more or less accidentally enabled - I wasn't aware that this was its main purpose. Considering that we increasingly understand how much power lies in that ability to "shape" distribution of UGC, and how much platforms actively…
I’m curious who you’re referring to as the people wanting to reform/repeal. Most of the discussion on section 230 that I’ve seen in recent years can pretty much be summarized as “I allege that you’re shaping content to reflect a particular political/cultural preference. Therefore you should not be shielded from responsibility for illegal content”—which is a total non-sequitur. But maybe there’s also bee more thoughtful discussion that I’ve missed since I was never really paying that close attention to it.
Really, those people weren’t even looking for reform. They wanted to apply their interpretation of the existing law such that it would lead to a punitive outcome for the sake of retribution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Switzerland those cameras are illegal, since there is a right to privacy for all persons. Security cameras can exist on private land or where the need is deemed to be absolutely necessary (eg, high security or high value areas where it is in the public interest to have a camera) - but filming the street from your house fails these tests. Same for dashcams. People like to make this "oh but you're in public so why c…
> People like to make this "oh but you're in public so why can't I film you" argument and it's so strange to me that this is something people actively want - to not be allowed privacy from other peoples pictures and recordings. I don’t find it at all surprising that there’s disagreement about this. You have two entirely reasonable and important principles that are butting up against each other. Personal freedom is im…
How exactly is being allowed to record someone else in public without their consent an "important principle"? Especially if the non-consenting person is the subject of the recording?