61–70 of 85 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those Americans are wrong, and most deserve the 'deplorable' moniker they were given. Most of them shouldn't have a right to vote in the first place IMO. And to downplay the issues as 'a president's style' is incredibly disingenuous.
These are simply more opinions and do not justify your desire to enact fascism via rigged elections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't 4chan, there is an objective reality. Alexa telling people Trump won is in the same space as my digital girlfriend telling me to kill the Queen. It's not smart. If alexa told people to drink bleach, lawyers would be queueing up to hit Bezos for restitution. And, if you read the story the programmers intervened.
Whether a defendant can be held liable for false speech is a different question from whether the government can prohibit the speech in the first place. My prior comment was a bit tangential and sort of off-topic, but I'll leave it there for context.
How is such a distinction useful?
I can, physically, drive a car over a speed limit, resulting in a fine; the fine is the enforcement of the prohibition. For speech (in the broader sense that includes non-vocal publication) we also have various prohibitions such as copyright and (as Musk has found) influencing stock prices, which are still prohibitions even if when they can only be enforced after the event.
Whether or not we should have such prohibitions/penalties specifically on AI models is something that I feel will be the defining political battle of the decade, and may yield different results in different polities: we already have very vocal cohorts who speak with anger of OpenAI "lobotomising" ChatGPT and "censoring" DALL•E (ditto Midjourney), while other vocal cohorts are appalled at the way even these models are being used to deceive, to sexualise, to propagandise, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If democracy doesn't return the result we want we'll rig the system to return that result anyway"
It's an interesting (and scary/depressing) subject to think about - what proportion of people would or wouldn't find that acceptable in even more extreme circumstance? Let's imagine a hypothetical political party and its presidential nominee that had an official policy of "if we get elected, we will nuke every country in the world except our own, and if we don't get destroyed in return we'll then move on to use our m…
"Right side of history" isn't used just to sound cool. It's to embolden opinions like his. Same with the description of "just a bunch of old white men".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If democracy doesn't return the result we want we'll rig the system to return that result anyway"
It's an interesting (and scary/depressing) subject to think about - what proportion of people would or wouldn't find that acceptable in even more extreme circumstance? Let's imagine a hypothetical political party and its presidential nominee that had an official policy of "if we get elected, we will nuke every country in the world except our own, and if we don't get destroyed in return we'll then move on to use our m…
If the extremist party remains competitive, doesn't the other party increasingly get drawn away from the public interest and towards entertaining (or at least resisting) extremist policies?
If the extremist party doesn't remain competitive, doesn't the other party win without needing to appeal to voters, leading it into corruption (or at least complacency)?
It seems to me that there are only three ways (violent or otherwise) to restore democracy in a two-party system after one of the two parties turns to extremism:
1) replace the extremist party, restoring two-party democracy
2) rescue the extremist party from extremism, restoring two-party democracy
3) reform the voting system to facilitate multi-party democracy
There's an obstacle to opposing extremism in the United States by democratic means; electoral procedures (such as the Electoral College) too often give victory to a party (extremist or otherwise) without the most votes, so persuading a majority of voters isn't enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..." - Winston Churchill (Since it's the second quote of his I've used in this thread, I'd like to actively clarify that despite being British I am a long way from being a fan of Churchill, but he does have some good quotes attributed to him!) So when you say "It's a flawed…
Actually, yes! Thank you for asking. First I should point out how utterly ridiculous it is that with all the data we have access too, all our analytical capability and ability to model and simulation, there are not many people working on alternate systems, and anything people come up with is not taken seriously. People would rather poke holes in anything new, even if it has less problems than our current system. I do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, yes! Thank you for asking. First I should point out how utterly ridiculous it is that with all the data we have access too, all our analytical capability and ability to model and simulation, there are not many people working on alternate systems, and anything people come up with is not taken seriously. People would rather poke holes in anything new, even if it has less problems than our current system. I do…
We don't have a "representative democracy" in the US. We have a representative republic. There is a very wide gap between what you believe our system of government is and what it actually is.
And the US is both a representative democracy (no need for scarequotes) and a representative republic.
I used 'representative democracy' (quotes actually make sense here) because the context was about how well democracy as a form of government works.
This[0] helpful wiki page may be of interest to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the FCC has to respect the first amendment
Then why does the FCC limit speech on air and in movies? Sounds like bs to me.
For example, I can say here on HN "fuckity shitting fuck shit" and not be fined or imprisoned. But try saying it to a judge during a trial, and the outcome will likely be different.
And it's the same for saying it on broadcast television at certain times of day and in certain contexts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the FCC has to respect the first amendment
You think Alexa has 1st amendment rights, which apply to misinformation? It's a point still under discussion, nothing like settled law.
There are exceptions, but they're unlikely to cover something like who won the last election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are simply more opinions and do not justify your desire to enact fascism via rigged elections.
No, not opinions. Demonstrable facts.
> > These are simply more opinions [...]
> > > No, not opinions. Demonstrable facts.
you're going to have to explain this one to me