The issue here is not telling people they aren't "allowed to be interested in something," the issue is about which messages particular social media companies should endorse via their recommendations.
Endorse ? Did you just use the word "Endorse" ? Do you know what you're implying here. They are not endorsing anything. You view content, the algorithm suggests similar content. Social Media is not endorsing anything. They ARE NOT PUBLISHERS.
There's a gulf of difference between actively censoring arguably unsavoury messages, and guiding viewers eyes towards them.
No, what you're suggesting is censorship. If I'm interested in hearing commentators talk about how Jussie Smollett might have staged a hoax, I don't want Youtube to start being creative and suggest to me CNN panels about how we need to believe Jussie and that this attack is a result of the President's rethoric. I want to hear the other side. The lack of evidence, the inconsistences in his testimonies. Youtube's job is not to "guide my opinion" towards their selected narrative.
Because let's face it : the "accepted narrative" is not always correct. And by suppressing disenting voices, all you're doing is making it harder for the truth to be exposed.
If we did things your way, we'd all be Flat Earthers because that was the accepted truth at some point, and no one should be allowed to say otherwise!
Just waiting for the wave of videos about Lauren Southern to hit now, given that the Christchurch terrorist cited her "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory prominently in his manifesto, even using it as the title.
Why would you do exactly what that guy wants you to do ? Sow discord and create unrest. Like do you enjoy being a pawn ?
But in the end, we can see the real damage to the Internet is from Silicon Valley monopolies enforcing restrictions on speech and suppressing their competition to prevent any actual free speech supporting platforms from starting up. Then they say their don't "editiorialize" and thus get to benefit from protections from law enforcement when they let actual unlawful behavior roam free while at the same time, enforcing their own politics in their moderation.
What we need now is not to suppress ISP. We need an actual "Neutrality bill. We need the Internet Bill of Rights. We also need to make sure to remove protections from prosecution from Social media platform when they fail to remove unlawful content. Maybe then they'll spend time actually enforcing stuff that's illegal, rather than selecting which voices get to speak based on politics.
you do realize the Civil Rights Act passed, right? With more Democratic votes than Republican votes. [wikipedia.org]
Your own link dispells this myth that it was Democrats who passed it. Look at the actual percentages. The Civil Rights Act had more democratic opposition than it had republican opposition.
Also, for those of you as unaware about US politics as this poster, there's this thing called the "Southern Realignment"
That myth again. For those unaware of US politics, Democrats tend to try to wave away their own party's history of racism through pretending the "parties switched" after the Civil Rights Act passed. LBJ lost that battle and the bill passed. And then the Republicans won the south based on Economic policies, not racial lines, but the Democrats want to pretend it was all the "Racists" that left their party.
Fast forward today : Democrats are the biggest race baiters and the most racists around, pretending that "Blacks don't have ID! Voter ID is racist because Blacks don't have ID!" and other "Racism of low expectation" type proposals.
The establishment and their media cronies are the ones responsible. They always demonized republicans, called them racists, ever since LBJ lost the Civil Rights Act battle to them.
And now it's that same establishment trying to deflect their own divisiveness unto some strange boogeyman. And the media cronies repeat and spread for their master. Yes that means you Slashdot Editors. My god has this site gone to shit.
Got it. You don't understand statistics or polling. Because it's not a random sample, and it's treated as a percentage, it's meaningless. An absolute number of people who do want to see it would work, but the number of people who don't is meaningless.
Nice strawman.
But of course, you're wrong. The percentage did in fact indicate whether people interacting had a positive or negative view overall.
And, again, it's not a feedback mechanism, at least not a meaningful one.
The user you're replying to literally called "Masculinity is toxic" a positive message. He's the definition of a troll. He's always all over all these types of Social Justicy, Political Correctness threads, basically gaslighting everyone.
"Intend to see" is a stupid and useless metric. Unless non-responses were counted as "no"s, the self-selection in the voting makes any percentage meaningless. I mean, when's the last time you went out of your way to tell people on the internet you weren't doing something?
It was a good way to see how well the promotion campaign was going. And it did its job perfectly in this case : Brie came out and said something people disliked during the promotion of the movie, so people actually went out of their way to leave feedback about their sudden lack of intention of seeing the movie.
As a feedback mecanism, it worked perfectly. It's just that the powers-that-be didn't like what the feedback said in this instance.
You're the one that's letting people's different opinions ruin it for you, they are not actively trying to ruin it at all.
Brie Larson made a stupid comment, had to walk it back, and some people didn't like her "activism" and as such opted to leave a note on RT that they wouldn't see the movie (not a review, there were no reviews).
You never could post reviews on RT before release. No one "troll bombed" the reviews on Captain Marvel. You were spun a fake story, and now the "fix" is in, based on those lies.
The actual section that was "bombed" (aka, people have an opinion that's different from our manufactured consent) was the "Intend to see" section. And you see, the pesky thing about an "Intend to see" section is that you actually need to fill that out before you see the movie.
Slashdot is merely continuing the push the fake RT narrative of a "review bomb" by trolls, to mask Brie Larson's poorly chosen attempt at shoving her "activism" into the promotion of the movie.
White ethno-nationalists have a warped perception of what a âoen-wordâ is. That is not Black people. Sargon told them they were acting exactly like they describe black people.
Ie he was calling them out on their hypocrisy.
Stop making shit up. You are just pushing a stupid narrative that has no basis in fact. Your a propagandist and your shit is tiring. And if you arenâ(TM)t gaslighting slashdot threads on purpose like I firmly believe you are, you must be the most brainwashed idiot on this planet.
When corporations like Visa and Mastercard pretty much control who can exchange money on the Internet, yes, we should absolutely consider them equivalent if not more dangerous than Government.
Left-wing ideology actually dictates that in such a scenario, Governement Regulation should be used to force them to "quit it" in regards to demonetization over speech.
The problem is you just literally made everything up out of thin air.
That's not good context. That's you making shit up.
Sargon never used the N word to refer to Black people. He was refering to White Ethno-nationalists. You know, the people you are now defending against mean ol' Carl Benjamin. How dare he offend actual racists right ? My god you're a trainwreck.
Perusing their programme pretty much paints them as at least Centrist, if not Center Left. What the heck are you calling UKIP right-wing for ? Are you drunk or simply daft ?
His strong anti-Islam stance is also associated with the far right.
WTH does that have to do with "Far right" ?
Did you even read his wiki entry?
Because Wikipedia is known for being objective and not labeling everything right of Mao as "far right".
Please. Just because you read it on the Internet doesn't make it true. Actually try to listen to people and understand what they say, instead of using stupid labels to dismiss them. You might actually learn something.
Tommy Robinson is a Union type, which is more commonly associated with the left.
Why do you falsely peg him as right wing ? What do you think Right-wing even means ?
Why do you just repeat stupid SJW talking points all the time instead of actually getting informed ? You're so predictable, you might as well just be an NPC at this point.
It appears as if this movie is being specifically targeted with down votes.
It's almost as if Brie Larson made an OOPSIE and people are reacting to it... and then being labeled "trolls" for daring having an opinion that's different than the accepted narrative...
Where have we seen that before uh... ? This is typical 2016+ damage control. Says something dumb. Get called out. Walk it back but at the same time paint anyone you displeased as "Russian" or "Troll" or "Gamergater" or any other pejorative term you can think of to make it seem like all the backlash was illegitimate.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue here is not telling people they aren't "allowed to be interested in something," the issue is about which messages particular social media companies should endorse via their recommendations.
Endorse ? Did you just use the word "Endorse" ? Do you know what you're implying here. They are not endorsing anything. You view content, the algorithm suggests similar content. Social Media is not endorsing anything. They ARE NOT PUBLISHERS.
There's a gulf of difference between actively censoring arguably unsavoury messages, and guiding viewers eyes towards them.
No, what you're suggesting is censorship. If I'm interested in hearing commentators talk about how Jussie Smollett might have staged a hoax, I don't want Youtube to start being creative and suggest to me CNN panels about how we need to believe Jussie and that this attack is a result of the President's rethoric. I want to hear the other side. The lack of evidence, the inconsistences in his testimonies. Youtube's job is not to "guide my opinion" towards their selected narrative.
Because let's face it : the "accepted narrative" is not always correct. And by suppressing disenting voices, all you're doing is making it harder for the truth to be exposed.
If we did things your way, we'd all be Flat Earthers because that was the accepted truth at some point, and no one should be allowed to say otherwise!
Just waiting for the wave of videos about Lauren Southern to hit now, given that the Christchurch terrorist cited her "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory prominently in his manifesto, even using it as the title.
Why would you do exactly what that guy wants you to do ? Sow discord and create unrest. Like do you enjoy being a pawn ?
Can't believe that after over 3 millenia of recorded human history, there are fucking morons who don't see humans as a threat.
Censorship is wrong. Removing child pornography, Terrorist recruitment material, live stream killings, threats of physical violence is not censorship.
Maybe if they concentrated on that stuff rather than Steven Crowderâ(TM)s latest rant or Charlie Kirkâ(TM)s opinion.
But in the end, we can see the real damage to the Internet is from Silicon Valley monopolies enforcing restrictions on speech and suppressing their competition to prevent any actual free speech supporting platforms from starting up. Then they say their don't "editiorialize" and thus get to benefit from protections from law enforcement when they let actual unlawful behavior roam free while at the same time, enforcing their own politics in their moderation.
What we need now is not to suppress ISP. We need an actual "Neutrality bill. We need the Internet Bill of Rights. We also need to make sure to remove protections from prosecution from Social media platform when they fail to remove unlawful content. Maybe then they'll spend time actually enforcing stuff that's illegal, rather than selecting which voices get to speak based on politics.
What a bunch of thieves.
The concept of a "Black hole driven starship" is called the Kugelblitz engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Looking through the comments on a site *FOR NERDS* no one has brought this up yet. Shame.
So that we can write a Python script that does a bunch of binary decisions on a large dataset based on keyword recognition.
... I see : Opinion, Opinion, Opinion, Perspective, Why X is Y, Opinion, Opinion, Perspective...
I think I found the issue with "Journalism".
you do realize the Civil Rights Act passed, right? With more Democratic votes than Republican votes. [wikipedia.org]
Your own link dispells this myth that it was Democrats who passed it. Look at the actual percentages. The Civil Rights Act had more democratic opposition than it had republican opposition.
Also, for those of you as unaware about US politics as this poster, there's this thing called the "Southern Realignment"
That myth again. For those unaware of US politics, Democrats tend to try to wave away their own party's history of racism through pretending the "parties switched" after the Civil Rights Act passed. LBJ lost that battle and the bill passed. And then the Republicans won the south based on Economic policies, not racial lines, but the Democrats want to pretend it was all the "Racists" that left their party.
Fast forward today : Democrats are the biggest race baiters and the most racists around, pretending that "Blacks don't have ID! Voter ID is racist because Blacks don't have ID!" and other "Racism of low expectation" type proposals.
Fuck right off with your race baiting shit.
The establishment and their media cronies are the ones responsible. They always demonized republicans, called them racists, ever since LBJ lost the Civil Rights Act battle to them.
And now it's that same establishment trying to deflect their own divisiveness unto some strange boogeyman. And the media cronies repeat and spread for their master. Yes that means you Slashdot Editors. My god has this site gone to shit.
https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/02/25/captain-marvels-brie-larson-clarifies-overwhelmingly-white-male-comments-wants-to-bring-more-seats-up-to-the-table/
Got it. You don't understand statistics or polling. Because it's not a random sample, and it's treated as a percentage, it's meaningless. An absolute number of people who do want to see it would work, but the number of people who don't is meaningless.
Nice strawman.
But of course, you're wrong. The percentage did in fact indicate whether people interacting had a positive or negative view overall.
And, again, it's not a feedback mechanism, at least not a meaningful one.
That's your opinion of course, not a fact.
Don't fall for the gaslighting.
The user you're replying to literally called "Masculinity is toxic" a positive message. He's the definition of a troll. He's always all over all these types of Social Justicy, Political Correctness threads, basically gaslighting everyone.
The Last Jedi was such a great success that Solo rode it all the way to insolvency.
Disclaimer : I personally enjoyed both TLJ and Solo. I recognize that I am in a minority of people.
"Intend to see" is a stupid and useless metric. Unless non-responses were counted as "no"s, the self-selection in the voting makes any percentage meaningless. I mean, when's the last time you went out of your way to tell people on the internet you weren't doing something?
It was a good way to see how well the promotion campaign was going. And it did its job perfectly in this case : Brie came out and said something people disliked during the promotion of the movie, so people actually went out of their way to leave feedback about their sudden lack of intention of seeing the movie.
As a feedback mecanism, it worked perfectly. It's just that the powers-that-be didn't like what the feedback said in this instance.
You're the one that's letting people's different opinions ruin it for you, they are not actively trying to ruin it at all.
Brie Larson made a stupid comment, had to walk it back, and some people didn't like her "activism" and as such opted to leave a note on RT that they wouldn't see the movie (not a review, there were no reviews).
You never could post reviews on RT before release. No one "troll bombed" the reviews on Captain Marvel. You were spun a fake story, and now the "fix" is in, based on those lies.
The actual section that was "bombed" (aka, people have an opinion that's different from our manufactured consent) was the "Intend to see" section. And you see, the pesky thing about an "Intend to see" section is that you actually need to fill that out before you see the movie.
Slashdot is merely continuing the push the fake RT narrative of a "review bomb" by trolls, to mask Brie Larson's poorly chosen attempt at shoving her "activism" into the promotion of the movie.
This is more gaslighting.
By that line of thinking, Labor is also far right masquerading as leftist nut jobs.
Like at some point do you plan ever joining us in reality or are you a bot that just says inflammatory stuff ?
Robert Spencer. Jihadwatch.
Gaslighting Idiot.
It wasnâ(TM)t.
White ethno-nationalists have a warped perception of what a âoen-wordâ is. That is not Black people. Sargon told them they were acting exactly like they describe black people.
Ie he was calling them out on their hypocrisy.
Stop making shit up. You are just pushing a stupid narrative that has no basis in fact. Your a propagandist and your shit is tiring. And if you arenâ(TM)t gaslighting slashdot threads on purpose like I firmly believe you are, you must be the most brainwashed idiot on this planet.
When corporations like Visa and Mastercard pretty much control who can exchange money on the Internet, yes, we should absolutely consider them equivalent if not more dangerous than Government.
Left-wing ideology actually dictates that in such a scenario, Governement Regulation should be used to force them to "quit it" in regards to demonetization over speech.
Just to give some context.
The problem is you just literally made everything up out of thin air.
That's not good context. That's you making shit up.
Sargon never used the N word to refer to Black people. He was refering to White Ethno-nationalists. You know, the people you are now defending against mean ol' Carl Benjamin. How dare he offend actual racists right ? My god you're a trainwreck.
UKIP on Social care for elderly and mental illness, more money :
https://www.ukip.org/ukip-manifesto-item.php?cat_id=2
UKIP on families, more money through taxes to help broken families :
https://www.ukip.org/ukip-manifesto-item.php?cat_id=7
Perusing their programme pretty much paints them as at least Centrist, if not Center Left. What the heck are you calling UKIP right-wing for ? Are you drunk or simply daft ?
His strong anti-Islam stance is also associated with the far right.
WTH does that have to do with "Far right" ?
Did you even read his wiki entry?
Because Wikipedia is known for being objective and not labeling everything right of Mao as "far right".
Please. Just because you read it on the Internet doesn't make it true. Actually try to listen to people and understand what they say, instead of using stupid labels to dismiss them. You might actually learn something.
Tommy Robinson is a Union type, which is more commonly associated with the left.
Why do you falsely peg him as right wing ? What do you think Right-wing even means ?
Why do you just repeat stupid SJW talking points all the time instead of actually getting informed ? You're so predictable, you might as well just be an NPC at this point.
It appears as if this movie is being specifically targeted with down votes.
It's almost as if Brie Larson made an OOPSIE and people are reacting to it... and then being labeled "trolls" for daring having an opinion that's different than the accepted narrative...
https://movieweb.com/captain-marvel-brie-larson-inclusion-controversy/
Where have we seen that before uh ... ? This is typical 2016+ damage control. Says something dumb. Get called out. Walk it back but at the same time paint anyone you displeased as "Russian" or "Troll" or "Gamergater" or any other pejorative term you can think of to make it seem like all the backlash was illegitimate.