That's hilarious. I can't deny that he is incredibly intelligent, but it always makes me think what he could accomplish if he had humility and could get along well with other highly intelligent technologists
Wolfram's ego has always been the most off putting thing about him and his project. I was quite disappointed by the lack of Clojure relevant material in this Keynote and the unabashed emphasis on himself and his product.
While I would never be one to question the value and power of internet forums to facilitate meaningful social interaction, I do question that this value can (or should) be realized by financial markets. This makes me very concerned that the social capital harbored on the site will be transmutated into revenue via advertising models and thereby be diluted or even extinguished.
Well it is also important to note that censorship is a continuous variable. Censorship can gradually increase over time, and what many people in the US are observing is that even in the absence of any censorship (Note: I do not think there is an absence of censorship), the mechanisms for application of censorship are becoming evermore potent.
Think of it in the language of physics. Regardless of the "Kinetic Energy" of censorship, the "Potential Energy" for censorship in is the US with concentrated power to decide who can say what and effectively remove people from public life and discourse is likely far greater than existed in a country like Croatia (which you believe to have had far greater "Kinetic Energy" than the US has).
threeseed, I do not believe that you have an accurate mental model of the world or technology and social platforms in particular.
It could be argued that "the web is as open and free as it ever has been", but I do not think this argument could be made honestly. Even though many of the mechanisms for accessing websites exist as they did many years ago, the "surface area" of the internet that most people are able to discover and access is significantly reduced due to search engine algorithms (which are monopolies) and advertisement allowing individuals to pay for traffic and attention. Moreover, in the present moment we are near a peak level of intrusive data collection and surveillance.
Do you truly believe that the web for the average user in 2020 is as free as the web for the average user in 2000? Please give it some thought (15-30 minutes of quiet reflection) and let me know what you think.
As someone who enjoys technology and liberty this is a very disturbing development. We do not have a well diversified portfolio of options of tools and platforms for communication due to corporations monopolizing and conspiring together to concentrate power.
Well this is actually somewhat disturbing, but if you think of social media corporations as organisms that are trying to further their own self-interest it does make sense.
In order to protect and preserve their monopolies and undue influence over others, it seems reasonable that they would suffocate and kill any competitors that would threaten their survival. This includes silencing their political rivals in addition to other corporate structures and platforms.
This seems like a fairly antiquated view that does not map well to the current era or actual definition of censorship (A cursory internet search will help to better inform you as to what censorship entails and what actions may reside within the purview of censorship).
One does not have to prosecuted by the government in order to have their speech censored, access to a public forum revoked, or have their livelihood and career threatened.
There are things you simply cannot say within our society due the fact that they are deemed subversive or improper. This arbitrary ability to ascribe these labels to speech and thereby limit its reach and punish those who speak it is the very abuse of power that is characterized as "censorship".
A government is one institution that concentrates power that can be a censor, but in modern times there are alternative organizational structures that are both powerful and global that can perform the act of "censorship".
Very disturbing example of censorship and de-platforming. The rationale for permanent ban seems both reactionary and subjective.
The scant analysis provided under the "Assessment" stretches the words and context of the tweet to imbue it with the most uncharitable meaning possible.
This should be dismaying to non-political and political citizens alike, as well as supporters and non-supporters of this individual. I believe this because subduing your opposition with force (whether it be physical or social) is never an honorable way to triumph.
If Social media and the news media were not around to radicalize and polarize Americans, this would not have happened along with many other events this year :)
If I were a foreign actor with malign intent towards the US, I would be very pleased with how things are playing out.
1. Corrosion of formerly stalwart American Institutions
2. The majority of Americans being habituated to mistrust their fellow American
3. The ability for a few entities with concentrated power to harness and control the nervous systems of millions of Americans
I think that the major filter is this: In order to receive the main benefit from Hacker News you will have to expend effort in reading and digesting the content, and engaging in meaningful discussion where possible. There are much better places to gain instant gratification.
The notion that "Not doing politics" is political position is a fairly recent fallacy. I believe that the individuals who parrot this sentiment verbatim have been reinforced with this idea from lobbyists and monied interests (including corporations and the media). The reason that I think this is as follows:
This notion helps to habituate partisan zealotry, which allows individuals to have their attention captured for profit, and makes them more manipulatable. If non-involvement in one facet of one dimension of life (politics for the benefit of corporations) is now not possible, then nobody is safe from the moral imperialism of political movements.
There are many spheres of life and influence within the world, and politics is but one of them. In modern times, however, the lines between different currencies of power are blurring, and there are clear channels for the transmutation of different types of power and capital to political power. For corporations, this is very appealing because democratic ideals, the environment, or individual rights might be at odds with their interests. Therefore, if they can convince you to give up your individualism in order to become politicized towards a cause that benefits the corporation, that is a wonderful way to circumvent democracy and concentrate power.
The answer to the question is no. Companies should not do politics.
Companies, however, will continue to do politics so long as it furthers their self-interest as there is a failure of separation of powers between government and corporations in the modern age.
I think that the point being made is not that religion has facilitated negative outcomes, but that the trope of "church impede scientific process. church absolute bad" is an example of a biased retrospective view adopted as a common myth in the modern, western worldview. It is important for societies to hold myths as part of their common culture for purposes of cohesion, but we must also acknowledge that reality is more complex and these myths are often ahistorical.