191–200 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean this is a little much - Manipur and Meghalaya are Hindu majority and China is fomenting separatism there too?
Interesting you bring this up. A counter example would be what's happening in Balochistan. It has a majority Muslim population, is India forme ting separatism there too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Uighurs are being oppressed due to religion, it’s just the generic religious oppression that China applies to everyone. Heck, even if racism and dissidence wasn’t involved, there is still oppression that is or was rather common in the rest of China (eg re-education work camps weren’t invented in Xinjiang). There is plenty of room for both sides to play on technical truths, perhaps the same is happening in India (…
> But Uighurs are being oppressed due to religion, it’s just the generic religious oppression that China applies to everyone. Reporting claims that (1) the Uyghurs are suffering under much more oppression than other Chinese groups, such as live-in minders and a legal ban on owning kitchen knives; and (2) this is because of their religion. These two claims cannot both be true. Islam is one of the traditional religions…
> You are free to make the argument that Western reporters are hallucinating or lying about what is happening to the Uyghurs.
Again, that is not the point in dispute. My position is even more anti Chinese than the norm, that what is happening to the Uighurs is bad but just not unusual for China. Your argument against mine then is that things are actually better for the other groups, but you really don’t provide any evidence of that, and I can guarantee you that it’s not (other minorities, Tibetans especially, Christians, especially those outside the official church, Hui over the last decades, re education camps for everyone, etc…).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I just told you that everybody was lying about the bill.
I see. I did some additional googling and I think you're basically right: the family exemption was already in the original bill, and it was merely kept, not introduced, in the amendment. Row 5 in this quite thorough article [0] shows the similarity/difference. So I'd wager the reason there was backlash against the bill was that it did not close the exemption, not (as mentioned in the article I posted originally) that…
Tangential, but I'm fascinated by the name of the mentioned "Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act" of 2009. You don't often hear about your right to be compelled to do something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But Uighurs are being oppressed due to religion, it’s just the generic religious oppression that China applies to everyone. Reporting claims that (1) the Uyghurs are suffering under much more oppression than other Chinese groups, such as live-in minders and a legal ban on owning kitchen knives; and (2) this is because of their religion. These two claims cannot both be true. Islam is one of the traditional religions…
That might be true right now, but only a decade or two ago, Hui and Christians were subject to similar oppression. The legal ban on selling kitchen knives isn’t unusual to anyone who has lived in Beijing during a national conference. > You are free to make the argument that Western reporters are hallucinating or lying about what is happening to the Uyghurs. Again, that is not the point in dispute. My position is even…
I read you as postulating these facts:
- 10-40ish years ago, Hui, Christians, Falun Gong, Uyghurs, Mongols, pro-reform Han, and various other groups were subject to various repressive measures.
- Today, Uyghurs, Falun Gong, and other ethnic Tibetan groups are still subject to similar measures.
- Hui and Christians are not, today, subject to similar measures.
These facts do not support the idea the the repression of Uyghurs and Tibetans is due to religion. They very much do support the idea that their repression is due to dissidence. Uyghurs and Hui avow the same religion, but the treatment of one of those groups diverged from the treatment of the other. Why? College professors may have avowed no religion at all, but were sent to reeducation camps en masse. (Granted, more than 40 years ago.) Why?
Apple complied to investigating Members of Congress when asked by the Justice Department.
When you provide your services in a country you are governed by the laws of the country, e.g. DMCA is applicable in US but not recognised in other countries.
If certain set of laws in a country are incompatible with the principles of your company, you may fall on the sword not offer your services in that particular country. I feel certain that Twitter withdrawing from India will do more good as it may bring increased focus on these amendments and expedite the judicial scrutiny.
Twitter is straddling the fence, trying to malign the government but more often than not governments don’t blink against corporations.
Related: India PM Narendra Modi named 'predator of press freedom' - BBC News https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Jm05y2PVn8k
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By returning the best match to a search first… second one second…
What makes the best match? Highest number of back links?
But when those people got their respectable reputation by the same means you could have an entirely circular self-praising reputation machine that seems to work wonderfully but operates without reviewing any work.
At some stage of google the Nr 1 result for both "France" and "Paris" belonged to a blogger from NYC who had a single highly optimized page about France and one about Paris.
Similarly a high page rank page about cars shouldn't be an authority on anything else but if they link to your article about flowers it gains a lot of points. So much it would be attractive to pay them for it.
Back links were fabulous when the internet started then increasingly became a self serving loop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You wouldn't want google manipulating search results and then claim to be neutral. Isn't ranking a manipulation? Not sure what you mean by this.
I think it's clear from the context that OP was referring to manipulation based on ideological biases tainting search results, versus, mnipulation (ranking) based on relavence of search.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So censoring a specific topic or viewpoint is fine as long as it's applied to everyone?
Did you even read what I said? If you remove user related data as an input to the search query, the results will be purely based on algorithm efficiency, rather than feeding on the biases of the users. Such feedback loops, of showing content that is suitable to the user, will lead to information silos and gradual radicalization of the user.
With much respect for those who have to hammer them out: The algorithms are full of bias, they have to be. They are essentially just a pile of hacks. Machines cant understand articles. Even if they could they would have the same problem a human reviewer would have when asked if article A is better than B. You cant switch off your own bias. Even if we could do all that you may end up with a category dominated by the writings of [say] 50-51 year old Caucasian males which forces you to ponder corrections that may or may not be terrible ideas if or if not applied. And then you have to chose which bias to apply and we are back to biased search results.
People are the sum of their experiences, if you remove that nothing is left.