221–230 of 285 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitHub is an interesting example, because if I push code to GitHub, I still have my local source, and being an open protocol I can easily push it elsewhere as well.
Can an open source repo contain illegal speech commented in the code itself? What happens then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
One need not prove fraud to substantiate the claim that it was stolen. It could have been stolen, for example, if laws were bent or broken to dramatically increase the number of mail-in absentee ballots, while at the same time decreasing the scrutiny given to those ballots as required by law. In fact, this is exactly what was alleged in many court cases. These cases were not allowed to move forward, however, because…
If it's true, where is this evidence? It hasn't been on Fox. It hasn't been on OAN. It hasn't been on Newsmax. What's been presented has been uniformly debunked in ways that I find completely convincing. If this is as big as it's claimed to be, you don't shut up just because a judge says you don't have standing.
I haven't found a statistical summary, but I've just surveyed the status of all the cases on several neutral sites (ABA, Ballotpedia and others). I don't see how it is possible to draw any conclusion other than a deeply incompetent legal team with no convincing evidence failed to get a single in-place ruling that supports their wild claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. Recommendation systems, like HN, are attractive to people and difficult to replace with open protocols.
I don't know, HN isn't much more than a focused subreddit (no offense meant!). I could imagine some kind of federated Reddit where HN could be a community fully managed by dang et al. according to their own needs/wants. Then you just subscribe to each community as you like. Much like you can unsubscribe to all the default subreddits and only subscribe to the subreddits that interest you, only this time you don't have…
>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…
The reason people don't run nntp servers is the same reason I don't go to Antarctica to socialize. The reason people use github is because it it there. > It's because "free & open protocols" weren't really the issue! Why do VC funded startups build platforms? Because that's how you get the gate-keeping function. Protocols do not get funded because they do not let you exclude. Chiding others for not making progress on…
>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…
I think a very important reason why people don't run their own USENET node or Gitlab instance is because it's not easy. In fact, it's the opposite of easy. It's extremely difficult in the long run. If using your own server was as easy as using an iPhone, then we would see way more people doing it.
>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…
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. To have a good discourse it totally helps if that one guy over there…
Cultures of upvoting/downvoting are completely orthogonal to whether protocols or applications are free software or proprietary. Neither does the subject matter focus on a news aggregation site.
> What if the free platform you are hosting is used by a ring of child molestors and pedophiles?
Guess what? The telephone network is used by "rings of child molesters and pedophiles". And strangely enough, nobody expects the phone companies to "deal with this". Same goes for a decentralized instant messaging and chat platform.
Also, the government and corporate opponents of privacy routinely inflate the prevalence of rings of supposed terrorists, pedophiles etc., because bringing them up instills excessive fear and clouds our judgement. You write that you're "aware" of this, but apparently you're fine with it, as you're making that the center of your argument.
> Do you accept that freedom for all also means freedom for them?
Your question is phrased ambiguously, to manipulate us into believing that a free decentralized communications platform means that we agree that people are "free" to molest children, whatever that means.
Well, you should be free to pick up the phone and call whichever number you like, without having to first prove you're not a child molester. And the same goes for putting up some flyer on a neighborhood notice board. And for putting up a website.
> One where the discussions enrich... or rather the lawless zone...
If-by-whiskey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey
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. To have a good discourse it totally helps if that one guy over there…
In all cases ILLEGAL speech can’t be allowed to remain on platform. There needs to be a high tech system for logging and reporting Illegal Speech to government. And a means for government to take efficient and prompt action. Disliked speech is not illegal speech and this article states the unique definition that each person has and poses some solves to allow people to use systems that filter out what they dont want t…
On the contrary. In most cases, it is imperative that illegal speech remain on online platforms. It's bad enough that governments censor criticism, alternative viewpoints (including ones we may abhor), and leaked information using the police, the judicial and prison systems, and their close ties with large media companies.
> Disliked speech is not illegal speech
Not so. There exist all of:
* Well-liked, illegal speech
* Disliked illegal speech
* Well-liked, legal speech
* Disliked legal speech
It seems like you're assuming the law, everywhere, is just and fair and should be not just followed but upheld.
> our first amendment
Most people don't live in the US, you know. In fact, less than 5% of people do. Not that I would agree with you had I lived there, but online content is not a US-local affair.
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. To have a good discourse it totally helps if that one guy over there…
In all cases ILLEGAL speech can’t be allowed to remain on platform. There needs to be a high tech system for logging and reporting Illegal Speech to government. And a means for government to take efficient and prompt action. Disliked speech is not illegal speech and this article states the unique definition that each person has and poses some solves to allow people to use systems that filter out what they dont want t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since no one else mentioned it, " The entire summer long while buildings burned, and entire cities looted by violent murdering thugs... " Could you provide some evidence for "entire cities looted by violent murdering thugs"?
Well, if you watched the M5M you won't really know about any of it. lol. Thanks for helping make my point!
I still can't find any actual evidence of "violent murdering thugs" "looting entire cities".