Yes. The more control centralized authority has the more they can control hate speech. Please babysit us apathetic cynical regulatory capture mechanisms - I mean politicians.
I’m so tired of seeing these posts. Private people can criticize whatever they want about Facebook and the crappy things they do. Commenting isn’t some “illegal activity” when it’s critical of legal activity.. Legality isn’t the ultimate shield against, guess what, criticism.
I care about the reality of free speech, not the abstract concept. It matters to me not one bit who the censors are if the end result is the same.
A handful of companies control the vast majority of discourse in the world - and there's no competition in their moderation styles. It's either time to split them up or to regulate them.
Yeah, let's forget that taxpayers paid for the internet and so much of the internet infrastructure in US. But it's cool to cut off the people who subsidized it.
If the US antitrust machine hadn't been asleep at the wheel for a couple decades, it wouldn't be a problem.
"There's no mechanism to force a private business to do a thing" - but bakeries have to make cakes for gay weddings - which I'm not opposed to.
If the vast majority of tech companies are based in the echo chamber of Silicon Valley, and they're going to ban any thought that falls outside of that narrow range, then political views need to be the next protected class.
Yes. An expansion of government powers. An added protected class. Or antitrust can come out of hibernation. Either way.
Neither party values freedom or privacy. Who can I vote for who even pretends? I'm gay and largely agree with leftist ideals, but completely disagree with modern tactics by both parties. But the left controls technology, and so I criticize them more because there's more at stake.
So I'm an identitarian for criticizing Silicon Valley for constantly engaging in that kind of discourse? Are you identitarian for assuming I am one?
I criticize Silicon Valley because they are worthy of criticism. You say they aren't?
Thank God Jeff Bezos is protecting us from these vile terrorists.
We need to take down Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile. The insurrectionists were customers and bafflingly, these companies don't moderate their texts or phone calls whatsoever.
What's embarrassing is the fact that our industry is so obsessed with censoring wrongthink that it's not enough to drive thought criminals off of mainstream platforms - we have to drive alternative platforms off of their infrastructure.
I really like the way they lay out the probability factors that contributed to their conclusions - it's easy to follow, at least.
I'm glad they put money behind it, but dislike that they're expecting $10,000-$100,000 in risk from submissions. They hyped up the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, but - as far as I can tell - that challenge didn't require the applicants to take on such risk.
I get that they want to stem the tide of low-quality submissions, but doing it this way really takes the wind out of their James Randi spiel.
With the paranormal challenge, you could say "the lack of applicants indicates they know the claim is false." With this, the lack of applicants could just as easily indicate a lack of funds/risk tolerance.
Over the last several years, I've stopped buying games that aren't on Linux. It's just too much of a hassle to be switching around when there's plenty of Linux-supported fun to be had.