71–80 of 102 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making another company host your speech is not.
large corporations are not people, and do not have rights, no matter what you or the courts say
Earlier quoted context omitted.
large corporations are not people, and do not have rights, no matter what you or the courts say
Large (and small, and in between) corporations are abstractions, through which act actual people, whose rights are not diminished by that fact.
I understand that libertarian logic uses gray areas as a means to an end of furthering their ideology, but that is not an issue for me.
The article presents small discussion forums as safe and cosy, which they can be, but their insular nature also makes them a perfect breeding ground for extremist views. We shouldn’t ignore that most of the radical politics and conspiracy theories swirling Twitter are born in such small forums.
I purposefully expose myself to alternate viewpoints from my own. It’s how to prevent the frog from boiling into an extremist (L or R) without noticing. I have enough conviction in my beliefs that I can read contradictory views without getting emotional. I don’t understand the desire to surround yourself with clones of yourself.
> I don’t understand the desire to surround yourself with clones of yourself.
Every society ever follows the formula of being with people who share similar characteristics one way or another. Not that crazy.
Just use Mastodon (?).
One important part is missing in this article: RSS Feeds! The missing aggregation of news can be done easily with RSS. I'm waiting for a online service that adds tue conversation part to the aggregation part that RSS feeds offer for years
That sounds interesting. Are you thinking about a comment system build into RSS? I am interested in potential future RSS capabilities. Would you mind a chat about that? If so, please drop me an email, see profile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making another company host your speech is not.
Making telcos carry your speech is, thanks to common carrier legislation. I hope we can see the expansion of this legislation soon to cover the modern ways in which people communicate and the modern town square.
Social media is a fundamentally flawed model that you have can have human communication on a global scale with a “The Algorithm” used to cleanly order high quality capital-C “Content” into numeric categories that can be parceled out to drive capital-E “Engagement”.
If you told people about this 30 years ago, they would have laughed at you, and not because of some garbage about people expecting horses instead of cars (Christ how I’ve come to hate this quote, it needs to die a painful death) but because it is a fundamentally stupid idea that only an autist that doesn’t actually communicate with people could have come up with. This is not how people communicate, this is how computers operate, and we’ve been shoving humans pegs into computer-sized boxes using addiction to dopamine hits to keep them firmly wedged in there, and now we’re wondering why everything’s going to shit as a result.
The old ways were best. An ecosystem of small forum communities where the only ordering is time (the ordering none of us can escape) and the subject of the conversation, and the community itself evolves its rules organically through migration, not what a committee of managers in Silicon Valley thinks its CoC’s should look like this month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scientists are on average a little left-leaning but science denialism, somehow, is something that crops up in both far-left and far-right spaces (just not equally). If you were in a leftist bubble, you’d have been seeing science denialism for a while now. Far-left science denialism starts with the “only use natural products, chemicals are bad for you, vaccines are bad for you” crunchy lifestyle accounts. Sometimes I…
> somehow Science is funded by government, so researchers come to conclusions that support them. I'm not suggesting any conspiracy, just incentives. Researchers just see which proposals get funded, and it happens those are the ones that support the mainstream narrative that the government would like to push. So it makes sense that if you are against the mainstream narrative, this would also pit you against some mains…
I’m not saying that this is an apolitical process. I don’t believe that an apolitical process is possible here, even in theory, and if we imagine a world where an apolitical process were possible, I don’t think such a process would be desirable. I’m also not saying that the process isn’t flawed. I’m just saying that there is not a coherent, unified political force here, and in this environment, there is plenty of room for good research, good science to be done.
I would like to hear if you are basing this opinion on any of your personal experience applying for research grants, or on any informed analysis of how this works, or whether you are just making conjectures about incentives based on the same facts everyone else has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making telcos carry your speech is, thanks to common carrier legislation. I hope we can see the expansion of this legislation soon to cover the modern ways in which people communicate and the modern town square.
Freedom of association - the right to tell someone to get off your lawn, or your website - is free speech too.
Twitter, being the de facto modern public square, should soon be covered by this type of legislation.
The article presents small discussion forums as safe and cosy, which they can be, but their insular nature also makes them a perfect breeding ground for extremist views. We shouldn’t ignore that most of the radical politics and conspiracy theories swirling Twitter are born in such small forums.
I purposefully expose myself to alternate viewpoints from my own. It’s how to prevent the frog from boiling into an extremist (L or R) without noticing. I have enough conviction in my beliefs that I can read contradictory views without getting emotional. I don’t understand the desire to surround yourself with clones of yourself.