971–980 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope your youtube account isn't linked to a gmail account you consider important.
This is the first time I am seriously considering leaving Gmail. Seems like a royal pain in the ass to switch though, since you don't "own" your email handle like you would a domain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever the government decides, they rarely, if ever, provide an explanation or recourse either: the Patriot Act, Ahmad Arbury, TBTF, the assassination of Awlaki, snooping on Americans, Operation Fast and the Furious, the Pentagon's missing billions, Epstein's death, etc. I'm as pro-democracy as they come, but the belief that the government is somehow (and always) more accountable than companies strains credulity. C…
Accountability to wallstreet = accountability to consumers? Where is this idea even coming from? Can you name a single instance of Wallstreet punishing anti-consumer practices? Did AT&T selling of customer location data affect stock price? All your examples are from defence. I've been watching people challenge in court every kind of decision, from roadbuilding to Brexit. But tech companies circumvent laws, uber is no…
Why do you think Zoom hired security professionals and bought Keybase? Why do you think Facebook reacted after the Cambridge Analytica scandal? Why do you think TikTok separated itself from ByteDance in China?
Even with the most federal oversight, US banks and financial firms tanked the economy and then got paid for it. And it's not a left-right thing; it's a them-us thing. And if you don't believe that, you only need to take a look at the Panama Papers scandal.
Similar happens with the name "Eric Ciaramella", which YouTube instantly deletes. This is a name of a CIA whistle blower. It would be interesting to know what other words are in the YouTube censor list.
That's a strange equivalence, and a malevolent comment. Outing whistle-blowers (or supposed whistle-blowers) is bad for democracy. The government is supposed to be transparent to the people. This does not mean that the people should be transparent to the government, or that dissidents should be outed.
Look, I'm not saying that's what happened, I don't know anything about it, but the idea that we should be shutting down inquiry into CIA agents interfering in other parts of our government, given the known history of the CIA, is absolutely crazy to me. And it's not like they've changed! We're talking about an organization that just recently illegally spied on the Congressional illegal CIA torture investigation and then lied about it to Congress (also a crime) - and got away with it!
Even in other branches of the government, we know that "whistleblowers" are not always acting in good faith - the NY Times just did a story about a "whistleblower" lying to the press about what was happening and using that as an excuse to leak people's personal information to the press, all in order to advance his own political agenda. If that can happen at the IRS, surely it can happen at the CIA? And surely we should at least be able to look into whether that's a possibility>
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/17/business/media/ronan-farr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, since I think all speech* is equally protected speech, including a crude slur. The reason for that is because it is far too easy for the powers that be to use claims of "only cleaning out the trash" to censor legitimate thoughts and expressions. Throughout history humans have proven incapable of making the right call on where to draw that line, so the only option is to draw it at all. To refute your point…
You posit a false dilemma: * Accept suppression of intelligent dissent. * Allow all speech, including unintelligent and hateful speech. This is evidently false, given: 1) Intelligent, well-reasoned dissent against a platform is permitted on virtually all large platforms on the internet, and this has been the case for decades. 2) Virtually all large platforms censor unintelligent, hateful speech. Your nightmare scenar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We desperately need a Post Office of internet content. At-cost hosting and completely content-agnostic.
Total content agnosticism is not going to fly once illegal stuff starts getting hosted, and then you go down that sliding scale of what content is allowed vs what isn't. If you ban some highly illegal content, you'll probably need to ban some other illegal content, and then start picking what countries laws count to enforce (recognizing that you'll be banned in some countries if you dont comply), and you'll end up ba…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, you need to re-read what I wrote. I didn't call it a slur. I called it a hateful meme. It's precisely that, because it is driven by hate -- you will understand this if you talk to people who deeply hate communism, such as in my experience Czech people who suffered under it -- and it's a meme, something repeated for social reasons, not to cultivate understanding. If you can understand what's driving the kids to…
Thanks for the well-wishes. I'm a bit confused here: "YouTube filtering slurs and hateful memes" "I didn't call it a slur." "And thus, when the rallying cry is sounded for the non-event of a crude slur being censored..." Are you calling it a slur or not? Also, good catch -- above I mistyped "crybaby" when I meant "crybully". I can't stand watching an totalitarian party like the CCP hide its crimes behind this languag…
A more effective approach for anti-CCP activists would be to spam a short, compelling sentence regarding one of CCP's questionable activities, followed by, "Read more here: ".
If that lucid and informative spam got taken down, I'd also be up in arms. I myself invested time in online activism regarding Hong Kong. "Communist bandits", however, is worse than useless. Censor/filter away the low effort and unproductive stupidity, not the substantiative information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those rules applied today would result in indecipherable cesspools of memes at best or a community of authoritarian sympathizers at worst, who would be oh-so-happy to start conditioning their like-minded members to force undesirables away, either explicitly through bans or implicitly through non-stop hatred and coordinated harassment. Neither one is the type of community I have any interest in participating in, and i…
>Those rules applied today would result in indecipherable cesspools of memes at best or a community of authoritarian sympathizers at worst, who would be oh-so-happy to start conditioning their like-minded members to force undesirables away, either explicitly through bans or implicitly through non-stop hatred and coordinated harassment. It seems like the only point of disagreement between you and "them" is who should…
An internet community having a solid framework of rules that is strictly enforced that keeps discussions friendly and on-topic is a completely separate axis entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
User configurations. Opt in/out features. This isn't even remotely difficult, and I can't believe people are so obsessed with forcing their opinions on each-other that a live-and-let-live solution does not even occur to them.
> This isn't even remotely difficult Not technically but in practice it is difficult. - What happens if I opt out but you reply with an "offensive" word in the thread I'm in? - If two people are discussing and one uses "offensive" words what do I see? Nothing or one person screaming at the void? The other problem I see having more confirmation bias. We would have a split in the community between politically correct a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Founding Fathers totally predicted this. The USPS existed in some form before the founding of the nation. The postal service was vital for allowing communication and dispersal of news through the nation. Without this neutral party a private mail carrier could opt to not deliver for any reason, like after they've opened your mail and read the contents they find politically disagreeable.
Historically the monopoly of the mail was abused for censorship (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws ). If there've been comparable consequences from competing private mail services, I haven't heard of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Total content agnosticism is not going to fly once illegal stuff starts getting hosted, and then you go down that sliding scale of what content is allowed vs what isn't. If you ban some highly illegal content, you'll probably need to ban some other illegal content, and then start picking what countries laws count to enforce (recognizing that you'll be banned in some countries if you dont comply), and you'll end up ba…
True, but to me the difference is the focus on the user rather than the platform. If somebody mails a package of child pornography to someone else the news doesn't attack the Post Office. Since it'd be government-run I wouldn't have a problem with each account being tied to a specific social security number. A true federal public utility that doesn't have to worry about crossing borders.