> I’m sick of this framing. Tired of it. Many people have tried to explain, many scholars. Listen to us. You can’t just reduce harms caused by ML to dataset bias.
Is pointing out the technical reason for a malfunction "reducing harms caused to dataset bias"?
Actually, in this specific example, what form would the harm take place? Would the ML system upscale a surveillance photo of a black person into a white person, causing the white person to be wrongfully arrested? Does facial recognition working better on white faces mean white protesters are at greater risk of surveillance?
Renters desperate to sell because they're facing bankruptcy from having their property effectively confiscated is just what they need to keep the prices low. Especially since they're all getting desperate around the same time, flooding the market with supply
There's nothing childish or hysteric about caring about principles.
> How could you be this naive? Especially after the Snowden revelations.
You make a good argument, but you're wrong to dismiss the slippery-slope counter-argument. This move by Apple is normalizing your own devices betraying you. Like if door locks all had a master key the police could use to open them. It doesn't matter that they're easy to lockpick, what matters is the principle, because that is what stops you from taking the first step down a very dark road. And every step along that road will be portrayed as the "first".
As for "do you really think that a powerful government like China or the US can't already do it???" - this argument can be used to dismiss any effort at preserving privacy.
If a lone clerk can compromise the machines, should we really be using them? Do we know and trust everyone who had (legitimate or otherwise) access to these machines, including the manufacturer?
And what benefit do they offer over a hand count, to justify so much risk?
Just because the Republican's allegations about fraud were without merit, does not mean electronic voting is a good idea.
It's hard to decide which part to highlight, as every sentence is more farcical than the last, starting with the premise that the code that counts American's votes is kept secret from them, and the unquestioning trust placed by the author in what election officials and voting machine vendors say - election security is not something that should be taken on faith.
> Dominion has filed suits contesting unfounded claims about its systems. In May, it called giving Cyber Ninjas access to its code “reckless” and said it would cause “irreparable damage” to election security.
The machines are so very secure, that mere access to the source code (something which many people had even before - do we trust all of them? Do we even know who they are?) is downright reckless? Then we shouldn't be using machines at all, as they are clearly untrustworthy even by their own admission.
This is not a fringe opinion - electronic voting was ruled unconstitutional in Germany [1], and Computerphile has strong arguments against it as well [2].
In summary, we should be outraged that a leak was needed, not that it happened.
One-to-one messaging is not "amplification". Without Facebook's network effects, they would probably be using a different messenger, so you can't even claim that Facebook is enabling a communication that would otherwise not take place.
And the fact that it's not unexpected doesn't make it not censorship, or not worth pointing out.
Do you have a source for this claim? It seems you're right about OnlyFans, majority-owned by Radvinsky [1], but I don't know about the payment processors.
So the Guardian also has a comparable number of Opinion pieces decrying the financial censorship of sites like amren.com? Since, as you claim, what they choose to publish under Opinion is completely unrelated to their ideals.
Yes, proprietary systems are so accountable. It only took "the prosecution and conviction of hundreds of [innocent] sub-postmasters for alleged theft, false accounting and/or fraud, resulting in imprisonment, loss of reputation and livelihood, bankruptcy, divorce, and even suicide amongst those involved" before the UK Post Office's proprietary Horizon system was found to be the cause.
So far no-one responsible for the computer system or the prosecution has faced any repercussions.
It affects more than just sex workers. Amren cannot accept Paypal or credit cards due to deplatforming (or even draw attention to this through Youtube or Facebook, as those also banned them), Wikileaks was also financially isolated, and donation websites and payment providers deplatformed Rittenhouse's legal defense fundraising.
Funny the Guardian didn't mention this. Reading their coverage gives the impression deplatforming is limited to moralizing against sex workers.