211–220 of 285 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, Wilmington NC 1890, the place I go to when I need to imagine what could possibly happen in DC not 130 years later.
If oblivious sarcasm is your only recourse for when you have nothing left to contribute to an argument, then I accept your concession.
Either of those precludes a good faith argument.
I read, and re-read the article and I am yet to understand how a protocol will help what the author describes in the first few paragraphs. (BTW very nicely walked around that hot bowl of mess!) First, Usenet was just as much of a dumpster fire as Reddit et al. in some branches ( alt. I am looking at you). The rest (comp. soc. sci. etc) were heavily self moderated. Second, I am not sure the author is clear on what is…
>a workable plan that enables more free speech, [...] That approach: build protocols, not platforms. To be clear, this is an approach that would bring us back to the way the internet used to be. The early internet involved many different protocols—instructions and standards that anyone could then use to build a compatible interface. As I've commented before[1][2], discussing protocols and advocating for them is a pop…
Yeah. See how well it goes when everyone takes the comfortable approach?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> don't want to run a USENET node I would love to run a Usenet node, I just suspect my hosting provider would shut me down after too long.
You do not have to carry all newsgroups, and the last time I used a free Usenet node they explicitly did not carry any binaries (too much traffic and too much liability). The reason nobody uses Usenet is that unmoderated newsgroups were taken over by nazis and trolls, and moderated newsgroups have no particular advantage over forums as far as "free speech" goes. (Though I take issue with the idea that moderation some…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was referring to the fact that none of those findings concluded that the outcome of the 2016 election was affected. That is the standard that's being applied for 2020 so I was applying the same standard.
The standard for 2020 is whether the alleged fraud actually took place at all. There is no court-worthy evidence that it did. Some would say there is no evidence at all. The standard for 2016 is therefore whether or not Russian interference occured, which two high level US government reports have confirmed took place.
In fact, this is exactly what was alleged in many court cases. These cases were not allowed to move forward, however, because of procedural issues, not the merits of the case (standing, mootness, and latches).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was referring to the fact that none of those findings concluded that the outcome of the 2016 election was affected. That is the standard that's being applied for 2020 so I was applying the same standard.
The standard for 2020 is whether the alleged fraud actually took place at all. There is no court-worthy evidence that it did. Some would say there is no evidence at all. The standard for 2016 is therefore whether or not Russian interference occured, which two high level US government reports have confirmed took place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do people really believe that it was a coup attempt though? I see people framing it that way but always assumed it was political exaggeration
What term would you use for an event, even if if doomed to fail, that involves at least hundreds of people outside (and then inside) of the building where the vice-president is present, chanting "Hang Mike Pence" ? Do you think it's just some of kiddie protest party? Do you think they didn't mean it? Do you think that because it wasn't 100,000 people it doesn't count? Do you think that because they didn't have the ar…
"After a decade or so of the general sentiment being in favor of the internet and social media as a way to enable more speech and improve the marketplace of ideas, in the last few years the view has shifted dramatically—now it seems that almost no one is happy." 10 or 15 years ago people looked at web 1.0, saw many good communities and valuable conversations and said "we need to protect free speech". Today people loo…
I'm shocked (/s) that Silicon Valley's brand of libertarianism led to five companies dominating everything and then pulling up the ladder behind them by abandoning open standards in favor or proprietary silos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think what many don't realise is that it is precisely the "unfree" parts of HN that make it attractive. And by that I don't mean centralized technical or organizational structure, but rather stuff like a culture of downvoting destructive, inflamatory or snarky comments, a good and mostly invisible moderation, a strong focus on certain topics etc. I'm over it. I see many comments that politely present the opposing…
I don’t think I would visit HN if the voting system worked like this. I like hearing the popular opinion, but I also like hearing the popular contrary opinion and very often - like with your comment - the popular contrary sits right below the popular. What I don’t like reading is “zinger” comments - stuff like “X is bad and people that think X is good are dumb”. From what I’ve seen - these are the comments downvoted…
Seems I've lost a point. Someone took exception to what I said above. Not sure how I went wrong, but if enough people feel similarly, then my post will fade away. It will be censored. Make of that what you will.
UPDATE: I've got a point back since I wrote this comment. I won't keep editing this comment each time my comment is voted for or against. It's enough to say that people sometimes downvote when they don't like an opinion, or the way it's expressed at least, even if it is not rude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our founding fathers and subsequent forefathers fought wars to protect our freedoms, and sadly the current generation don't value or even want to preserve that freedom. Good times create weak men, and weak men will happily surrender to Tyranny.
Some of that "subsequent" group actually even fought a war to prevent some of our freedoms! There's no weakness in challenging the storybook fable-ized versions of history.
I think the biggest "story-telling" that's going on lately is in our schools by our socialist educators.