ladyattis · HackerTrans

3 года назадdiscuss

Honestly, I think this is true. I've noticed ever since I've stopped watching TV since 2007 and avoided most TV dramas (I've been mostly watching youtube videos on various topics like radio electronics, cooking, and the like since with maybe the occasion let's play of Dwarf Fortress or a group of people playing a tabletop campaign) that I've kind of fell out of the loop of the mainstream culture. So many things from pop music to references to TV shows have kind of left me just puzzled. Mind you, I'm in my 40s so I'm kind of "boomer" at this point.

ladyattis

3 года назадdiscuss

I've had to deal with this kind of weird obsession with folks performing in online spaces like Second Life for a long time. I mean, sure, you can do your roleplay in an explicitly roleplay oriented place, but whenever I'm in what amounts to as a town square I've still found people who would rather play the part of Mean Girls or some other nonsense than being an authentic human being. It seems sincerity and honesty are poison to such folks who would rather live in irony or satire 24/7. I have to wonder that after a while do these people become the thing they're portraying? Is it more like what Oscar Wilde said, "give a man a mask and he'll tell you the truth?" Or is it that folks can't actually distinguish their performance from reality? Heck, I've seen the same stuff on Twitter. It just makes my head hurt these days.

ladyattis

4 года назадdiscuss

You have so many assumptions in this comment but I will sum up my response as best as I can.

First, websites are websites. It doesn't matter if it's Facebook or your own personal blog, they're functionally identical in terms of features. They both have a means to communicate with other visitors and they're nominally accessible to the public at large with one being more popular than the other. Meaning that you're saying that if hypothetically a personal blog became popular then the blogger couldn't just delete posts they didn't like even though they're on the hook for hosting content (paying the host provider, laboring to write the content, laboring to moderate the content, and so forth). This seems suspicious to me since it treats being popular with being a monopoly which the two aren't the same. Facebook can ban you but you and your friends can freely setup a VPS with a web forum and keep it private among yourselves to talk and socialize. If say Comcast banned you then I would think you'd have an argument but with a website, it makes no sense in the context that you have an alternative to communicate with users but that you don't have a right to communicate via a specific application/platform.

Second, you're not owed a successful business model. This is important as you talk about folks making a living on websites like Facebook or YouTube (which is more relevant in my opinion). If the case law did bear out the opposite then any act of blocking spamming, scams, or other disruptive economic activity on websites would be illegal but it's not thankfully. I'd rather deal with having several websites not letting me post content because it isn't a good fit them (imagine Free Republic, who's banned me many years ago, letting me spread the good word of PJ Proudhon and other left market anarchists, or me forcing Rebel Media [a conservative website/outlet] to host a transgender vlog). Rather, it means we can self-sort into sites that fit our interests. Granny's knitting blog need not be bothered hosting posts about aquariums. Joe's betta fish web forum need not worry about hosting knitting content. And so on.

Third, no one is calling police on people being racists or fascists in general. This particular scenario is nonsense, so I'm going to just shrug and move on.

Fourth, many of those blocking tools you mention would be illegal under similarly proposed social media laws. All these current attempts to regulate popular websites are just another way to force users to consume content they would otherwise now (ex. trucks with pictures of aborted fetuses being driven around nominally pro-choice areas). The proponents of such regulations are against audiences self-sorting as they can't grow their support base. It's why so many other unrelated, but significant, laws are appearing such as laws forcing teachers to narc on LGBT students. It's meant to break down sites that have appeared to cater to such marginalized groups or are otherwise a big tent platform (inclusive to many but not for anti-social movements such as anti-LGBT). It's a multiprong approach to the demographic changes that has doomed reactionaries for the last three decades.

ladyattis

4 года назадdiscuss

Actually, Florida doesn't own the property of the private citizens whether its the network fiber, routers, or buildings which contain these items. If you can't justify such a capricious law then maybe your intention is malicious?

ladyattis

4 года назадdiscuss

So you believe that a website should be regulated in how it manages user access? So if I have a forum for betta fish owners and I don't want spammers or trolls then I must justify my bans to some bureaucrat in DC or the state capital? Seriously, this is why I don't buy there's any good faith behind these laws.

ladyattis

4 года назадdiscuss

These laws just make no sense to me. First, a website is a website is a website. Whether it's Google, Facebook, or your granny's knitting blog. You can't just say because one website has X features of interaction and Y number of unique users that it must be handled differently than others as it makes the delineation arbitrary and flimsy. There has to be a basis to say Facebook must be given extra supervision by the state that makes it clear that Facebook is not alone in its own functionality. If Facebook were made the special case then it leads to making convoluted laws that are hard to decide on.

Second, as some have already said, this is the wrong level of the Internet to manage such a concept of common carrier. Facebook isn't in the business of actually routing data between two points on the internet. Facebook handles internal data on its own internal networks that connect up to the core of the internet which then that core connects to all the edge networks (consumer facing ISPs). This approach is better as it means there's no arbitrary singling out of one provider over another (Comcast vs some random rural co-op) due to political climate. Everyone gets the same process, everyone has the same burden or benefit.

Third, this is all political theater in an age that frankly doesn't really make sense to me. How is this exactly going to get the core voters of Republicans out to the ballot box? I just see this as over the top nonsense.

ladyattis

4 года назадdiscuss

This reminds me of how the US Navy had touchscreen controls which ultimately were found to be dangerous, especially for ship throttle controls. All these touchscreens result in gorilla arm and engineers know this. It's not like it's an unknown problem as aircraft control designers have had to deal with the same pressure to make controls look fancy and new.

ladyattis

5 лет назадdiscuss

Why is polyamory bad?

ladyattis

5 лет назадdiscuss

>I assumed the police were telling the truth.

I gotta laugh at this. Being someone that's from a working town and being from a working class family, cops weren't to be trusted. Cops lied even back then. Life wasn't better back then. The fact he seems to mock gender fluidity and polyamory really shows how much has changed for the better. People who didn't fit in with the gender constructs then were out of luck. Either you were forced to be lgb or if you were trans you had to fit the gendered mold; no androgyny unless you're doing it as part of a musical act.

comments