181–190 of 202 posts
"roughly 95 percent were identified by the company’s spam-fighting automation tools" I wonder how high the false positive rate is.
More interested in the false negatives (what wasn't found)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! > It is possible to recognize the ethical problems of the drone program while also saying it is on a higher moral ground than the random killing that terrorists employ. Are those ethical parameters or economic parameters? If every regime that would possibly end up in conflict with the US is expected to develop the satellite technology, smart bomb tech, drone tech, etc., before engaging in battle, that's prett…
I think they have to be ethical standards. If they are economic standards then you open up the possibility that any method of war/killing is acceptable in dire economic circumstances. That is how you get a country like North Korea threatening nuclear war. This idea isn't uniquely American. Humanity as a whole has decided that there are different levels of morality in warfare and killing. Those standards evolve over t…
How do you draw the line at what's OK and not OK? As the GP suggests, it seems to be drawn at whatever level of technology the most advanced group has.
Personally, I think terrorism is one of the most moral ways of fighting. By definition, it creates a high level of fear with a small number of casualties. That's far better than, say, trench warfare with a high level of casualties but isolated from the majority of the population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
terrorism describes the infliction of civilian casualties meant to create a disproportionate climate of fear. By this definition, drones used in warfare are a form of terrorism. Let's address that point. First, that's a convenient definition that erases the distinction between State and non-State violence which is critical to many people's formulations of what is and isn't permissible. E.g I wouldn't tolerate my neig…
Terrorists seek to maximize damage That's not usually true. Terrorists often don't go for max deaths but for a specific symbolic target (e.g. Pentagon, wtc etc). What they want is to provoke a response, ideally heavy-handed repression - the aim is to polarise the society targeted, to instill fear and panic, and reveal the implicit violence of government as explicit action. Drone strikes and the policy of global assas…
I saw one account that threatened to exterminate tens of millions of people today. I reported the post but somehow I doubt Twitter will do anything about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Agreed, and this should be the retort to any curtailing of free speech in the name of safety There is no free speech issue here, Twitter isn't operated by the government, neither is Facebook or Reddit. My point is, people are still free to set up their own servers at home, running their own app, their liberty to do that is not harmed by Twitter rejecting content. On the contrary, it's an opportunity for free speech…
The concept Free Speech transcends the specifics of the US Constitution's First Amendment. "Complies with US First Amendment" != "Free Speech"
In all contexts, freedom of speech is considered a 'right', but in some contexts it's a positive right, and in others it's a negative right.
In the US constitution, it's a negative right. The First Amendment states that 'Congress shall write no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.' In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it's a positive right:
"everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". [1]
To dissallow Twitter to shape its own content/user base strategy would be unethical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'The pen is mightier than the sword'. The tweets are valuable propaganda to ISIS. They are consumed by billions of young impressionable minds all over the world, inducing them to 'take up the cause'. ISIS does not have the right to 'free speech'. Stopping ISIS from spreading their selfie vids of how they burned people alive and 'You can too!' - is not controversial.
If posting murder vids and torture photos is an effective recruiting tool in your country, you country has problems it needs to address. Banning the tweets is attaching the symptom, not the cancer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Secondly, drone warfare isn't conducted primarily to kill civilian targets. Sure, bystanders do die in the process but there's never been an account of a US drone strike that was motivated by the desire to instill fear in civilians by maximizing civilian causalities. This isn't a drone strike, but wasn't the goal of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs to kill as many civilians as possible in order to instill so much fe…
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are imo one of the most ethically/morally challenging situations ever. I don't think it's terrorism for a few reasons: 1. America took steps to minimize causalities [0] - America dropped pamphlets and warnings prior the attack (although the warnings were dire, they didn't explain exactly how terrible the bombs would be) 2. America didn't exclusively target civilians or the softes…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's conflation to compare coontown with the_donald. Go there right now. You won't find "kill the jews" posts. You won't find "kill the gays/black people" posts. You'll find a ton of supportive people with a particular worldview--and there's nothing wrong with that. If you assume the people you disagree with are "insane" or disregard them as "full of hate" then you'll never understand why they think the way they do a…
"It's conflation to compare coontown with the_donald. Go there right now. You won't find "kill the jews" posts. You won't find "kill the gays/black people" posts. You'll find a ton of supportive people with a particular worldview--and there's nothing wrong with that." Go read the comments. You will find plenty of that stuff. "If the other candidate had won, would we consider her subreddit a hate sub?" False equivalen…
This part isn't really fair. If I want to jail my political opponent because she's my political opponent, this is a big problem, but if I want to jail her because she's committed crimes, that's perfectly fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's conflation to compare coontown with the_donald. Go there right now. You won't find "kill the jews" posts. You won't find "kill the gays/black people" posts. You'll find a ton of supportive people with a particular worldview--and there's nothing wrong with that." Go read the comments. You will find plenty of that stuff. "If the other candidate had won, would we consider her subreddit a hate sub?" False equivalen…
> I don't recall Clinton ever saying she wanted to jail her political opponent. This part isn't really fair. If I want to jail my political opponent because she's my political opponent, this is a big problem, but if I want to jail her because she's committed crimes, that's perfectly fine.
Except, as many, many investigations have proven over many, many years, she hasn't. Hence it largely being a dogwhistle for...
> [wanting] to jail my political opponent because she's my political opponent