151–160 of 238 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is virtue signaling being a good person through your actions?
It can appear that way, sure. But it usually means broadcasting your ‘goodness’ visibly, to ingratiate yourself with certain people. It can also mean seeking to establish one’s moral superiority, creating a power imbalance for offensive or defensive purposes.
Wow, I don't mean to issue an ad-hominem attack... but I do not consider anything from NY Post legitimate, I'd even venture to say NY Post is a tabloid owned by News Corporation, and surprised that this is on HackerNews.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/minor-lawsuit-twitter-explic...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the individual users who create the posts, but it's the social media companies using software to select posts to display to others. 'Sow' means to spread or disperse seeds, or when used figuratively, to spread around or propagate something in general. Automated recommendation systems seem to fit the word. They're not creating these seeds, but they sure are sowing them far and wide. (S e wing is what you do with…
I understood the point. My point is that propoganda and it's distribution channels have existed for as long as human speech has. A new distribution channel isn't the problem, it's a society that cannot think for themselves and distinguish between what is real and what is not. Blaming the platform is scapegoating the real problem.
It's a story that's so completely outside of my personal experience that I cannot evaluate it In 14 years of holding a Twitter account, I've never seen anything even close to such things on Twitter, and wouldn't use the platform if I did. If I were to see child pornography on Twitter, I would immediately report it to law enforcement and close my account Well, I hope that poor child wins justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the individual users who create the posts, but it's the social media companies using software to select posts to display to others. 'Sow' means to spread or disperse seeds, or when used figuratively, to spread around or propagate something in general. Automated recommendation systems seem to fit the word. They're not creating these seeds, but they sure are sowing them far and wide. (S e wing is what you do with…
I understood the point. My point is that propoganda and it's distribution channels have existed for as long as human speech has. A new distribution channel isn't the problem, it's a society that cannot think for themselves and distinguish between what is real and what is not. Blaming the platform is scapegoating the real problem.
I've had this happen to me on Facebook. Found a disgusting video involving children, reported it, got a response that there's nothing wrong with it. It's like the people reviewing this stuff have only a second to decide if the content should be deleted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's the headline that is misleading you, or it's a symptom of our times. In any case: it should be blatantly obvious that the Twitter representative did not know or agree that the person in the video was a minor. The insinuation that it's Twitter policy to distribute child pornography is laughable. They have absolutely nothing to gain from it. As to liability: Section 230 is about exactly that situation: tryin…
> In any case: it should be blatantly obvious that the Twitter representative did not know or agree that the person in the video was a minor. The lawsuit alleges precisely that Twitter had ample evidence to know that he was a minor. How about we let the case play out instead of assuming innocence?
Excuse me?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OTOH, I've reported posts and had them take them down within the hour... The issue seems to be that some posts are reviewed by Facebook staff in America, and others by Facebook staff in India. The American staff acts quickly and is very good about taking violations down. The Indian staff seems to be very laissez faire, due to the different cultural standards for content.
Are you notified of the location of the reviewer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understood the point. My point is that propoganda and it's distribution channels have existed for as long as human speech has. A new distribution channel isn't the problem, it's a society that cannot think for themselves and distinguish between what is real and what is not. Blaming the platform is scapegoating the real problem.
No, getting content shoved into your face without human review is definitely a new problem. At least before recommendation algorithms, you were either looking up something you specifically sought out, or someone took on the publishing liability to recommend you something.