The bill in question has not, as far as I can tell, been brought up for consideration yet anywhere so the only text that exists is that which is linked in the submission.
Just looking at the co-sponsors alone, I'd be worried about this legislation.
KISS Linux[1] is a similar option. Busybox-based init and coreutils (with musl by default), although all shell scripts are POSIX compliant so you can plug in pretty much whatever you want (sbase/ubase, GNU's coreutils, etc).
While I recognize that "private communities" have the ability to moderate and administer their communities whatever way they see fit (and subreddits [at least their initial iterations] certainly fit under this label), I do not agree that blanket censorship without contextual understanding is the right way to do things.
>My only caveat would be that you can't discriminate against protected classes
How do you define "protected classes", though? Is it your definition? The US Federal Government's? Who gets to make those decisions keeping in mind a niche subreddit (or even a full site like we are on here) will already have a very different demographic than the real world?
Not to mention, sorting and censoring people based on a classification that is outside of their control is quite a... controversial way to go about things.
>Managing private communities of tens of thousands of people require some disciplined rules in order for the entity's leaders to achieve their goals.
Establishing, enforcing, and maintaining "disciplined rules" should not, and do not need to, mean "shadow bans, rate limiting, etc". Certainly not without a human element capable of contextual analysis, at least.
--
I disagree with you, but respect for explaining your beliefs.
Thank you for the more thorough take on that perspective.
Yes, there are "parallels to the Dark Ages" in the sense that "medical practitioners prescribe treatment based on the best information available at the time".
That doesn't mean medical knowledge, practice, research, and equipment has been stagnant or that medical practitioners should not be trusted with their advice.
Statements like "the lunacy of modern medicine" are not truthful and not productive, especially when the minimal supporting evidence for the statements are misleading at best.
How do you decide to attribute something to "modern medicine" versus "The Game of Telephone, Medical Style"?
For example,
>Giving patients highly addictive narcotics for pain relief.
Is the opioid epidemic modern medicine's fault? Or is it more the fault of doctors who over-prescribe coupled with the lack of a sane healthcare system?
Also, are there viable (read: equally effective) alternatives to opioids for pain relief?
>Giving patients broad-spectrum antibiotics
Is the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria modern medicine's fault? Or is it more the fault of patients who do not finish out their full regimen?
And again, are there viable alternatives to broad-spectrum antibiotics?
>Covid 19 spreads 3M in Europe but only 6ft. in the USA
Distancing guidelines were meant to provide a general reference point, not magical thresholds at which COVID is incapable of passing over... They're going for a distance that is easily visualized, is situated well up on the "diminishing returns" curve, and (when combined with other measures like wearing a mask) provides an "acceptable" risk of exposure.
Sneezing, for one example, will throw respiratory droplets much further than the recommendation for social distancing.
>N95 masks don't prevent infection but surgical masks work great
I'd like to see a source for this claim if you don't mind, as a quick perusal of the FDA[0] and CDC[1][2] do not show this statement anywhere. Everything I've found states they're fairly equally effective. Everything I've found also says that N95 and surgical masks are not recommended for use outside a profession which requires them:
Q: Should I purchase personal protective equipment such as facemasks or N95 respirators for me and my family?
A: No. Surgical masks and N95s need to be reserved for use by health care workers, first responders, and other frontline workers whose jobs put them at much greater risk of acquiring COVID-19. The cloth face coverings recommended by CDC are not surgical masks or N95 respirators. Surgical masks and N95s are critical supplies that must continue to be reserved for health care workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by CDC.
--
CDC does not recommend using masks for source control if they have an exhalation valve or vent.
Masks are not surgical masks or respirators. Currently, those are critical supplies that should continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance. Masks also are not appropriate substitutes for them in workplaces where surgical masks or respirators are recommended or required and available.
--
CDC also links to a study[3] that found "Surgical and N95 masks were equally effective in preventing the spread of PCR-detectable influenza". There are plenty of related studies which come to the same conclusion.
>viruses don't spread while sitting but spread while standing in a restaurant
Again, how is this a "modern medicine" issue, or a "conflicting and dubious public health guideline"? They're not saying "the virus won't spread as long as you're sitting down!", they're saying "if you fucks have to go out, at least try to stay apart for everyone else's sake".
To reiterate what you're saying in case you just had a typo or something, you're advocating for blanket censorship regardless of context. Is that correct?
So a single comment I made multiple years ago that was in criticism of /r/the_donald was actually "brigading" and worthy of a ban across multiple unrelated communities?
>there's a huge responsibility on the folks writing moderation tools like this
I'm fatalistic in my opinion that all moderation tools would eventually end up in situations like this.
The Rise of The Power-User just feels too inevitable to me. Once you have power-users you start to have clashing of egos. Once you have egos, you start to have censorship (as opposed to moderation).
>where participating in one community automatically bans you from other communities
This absolutely does happen.
I got banned from /r/offmychest, for example, despite never commenting or submitting anything to that subreddit.
When I asked for a reason for the ban, I was told there is a tool that mods can use which will automatically ban accounts who "participate" in specific subreddits that the moderator deems "bad".
The rest of their reply to me was: "We are automatically banning participants in specific abusive hatereddits that have systematically harmed this support community."
Alongside /r/offmychest, I was also banned from /r/blacklivesmatter, /r/depression, /r/relationships, and who knows what other ones because I got tired of trying to find out. Literally never interacted with any of these in any way, yet I'm already banned from them...
>regardless of the content and context of your reputation
If they had bothered looking at the "content and context" of my singular, years-old comment then they would have realized I was actually criticizing the subreddit in question (and its users) rather than supporting them. Instead, I was preemptively banned from multiple communities.
https://www.congress.gov/member/thomas-tillis/T000476
I've had decent results consulting this site.
The bill in question has not, as far as I can tell, been brought up for consideration yet anywhere so the only text that exists is that which is linked in the submission.
Just looking at the co-sponsors alone, I'd be worried about this legislation.