Google should and almost certainly will continue to do what they've always done: censor hate speech and harassment without political bias. If any new party deals in those, let them be butthurt.
See? Perfect example. If one Democratic politician isn't dropped like a hot potato on the first allegation of abuse, they're exactly as bad as the Republicans who unflinchingly support their rogues' gallery of wife-beaters and rapists.
With binary thinking and false equivalence, all morally imperfect beings and organizations can be equally terrible, so that the most terrible need not feel ashamed.
I think it's reasonable and honest to call their web services unbiased. They only censor "conservatives" for sufficiently broad, goose-steppey definitions of "conservative." They'll never censor you for calling for limited government, supply-side economics, strict abortion laws or loose gun laws.
Hate speech has a reasonably specific definition. If you post holocaust denial, calls for genocide, calls for violence against people by sexual orientation, etc, then you'll get banned. If you use the platforms for harassment you'll also get banned, and courts need not be involved.
You'll never find a case of "conservative speech" being censored by Facebook/Twitter/Google unless the person making the claim defines "conservative" as including viewpoints that conservatives actively avoided public association with just 3-4 years ago. So are open white nationalists of various kinds to be explicitly and publicly welcomed under the "conservative" tent? Choose.
Won't work, he's a leftist, they'll not only pillory him, but also say that he's an example of leftist hypocrisy on sexual predators if a Democrat doesn't initiate a flying jumpkick to stop the harassment within 3 seconds.
Their CEO literally said at an all-hands meeting that they would, "do everything in their power to stop conservatives."
Source? I haven't been able to find any quotes anything like this.
As far as I can tell, the supposed tech megacorp censorship against conservatives is some mix of categorizing far-right hate speech and outright harassment as "conservative" speech, and inflamed conservative persecution complexes leaping at shadows.
Strongly disagree, neither should be relevant to anything sent over a webpage, which runs in an OS-independent and largely hardware-independent web browser. It is traditional for the UA to include a rough OS version, although the OS should be completely irrelevant to web contant, but Chrome doubles down and delivers unnecessarily detailed information, down to minor OS revision. Sending the exact model of the device takes this lunacy to the greatest extreme possible short of sending hardware serials, how would you defend this pointless privacy violation?
Haha if only. All kinds of scientific, industrial and automotive equipment interface software only runs on Windows, all from industries that should bloody well know better.
Fun fact, Chrome for Android sends the fine details of the device you're using in the user agent string, down to the device model, and as far as I can tell there's nothing you can do about this other than not using Chrome for Android.
Welcome to 2018, where not just the "libertarian" but also the "conservative" tent is mostly populated by people with much worse ideologies making use of a convenient and publicly palatable hiding place, and the few remaining conservatives and libertarians are too afraid of political irrelevance to do anything but welcome them.
I disagree, the answer is No - what happened is that a famer's lobbying group sold out California's farmers' right to repair to John Deere. Different thing.
You've made some kind of fallacious connection between energy costs and GDP there, but you're otherwise on the right track to verifying this number. A better estimate would be to check if the value of the coins mined exceeds 0.5% of world grid power expenditure.
I couldn't find a number for total worldwide energy consumption, or the total number of bitcoins mined in any year, and the average worldwide cost would obviously be higher than the electricity mining companies are buying, but if we take the projected 7.67GWh we can estimate an energy cost. The study that produced these estimates uses an energy cost of 5c/KWh, the global average is 6c/KWh, and the average US household electricity cost is 12c/KWh. If we use that range, we can estimate that between $38.35M and $92.04M will be spent in total on energy for mining bitcoins in 2018 if the energy usage estimate holds throughout the year. In the grand scheme of things this isn't a significant amount of money, it's less than the cost of one high-end fighter jet, and a cost that could credibly be absorbed by all the world's large mining operations combined.
Now that the value of cryptocurrencies has crashed though, it may not be so profitable and this madness might finally cease.
I don't think it's impossible when there are whole (coal!) power plants being brought out of retirement to run mining operations. Alex de Vries' latest estimate that Bitcoin alone is using almost 0.5% of humanity's energy is actually a very conservative estimate which assumes that everyone is using the most efficient hardware possible. Cryptocurrency is an unmitigated environmental disaster.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble knows shit like, "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" is racist.
I don't think all the people who can read it in-context as a parody of scientific racism are in the far-left filter bubble.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble can look at those Biden clips and have their skin crawl.
I think centrists could also handle an adult touching childrens' shoulders, giving children hugs, and joking about how girls will grow up to be beautiful. But the party of Roy Moore will indeed pantomime their skin crawling forever.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble can see that Louis Farrakhan [dailycaller.com] is the black equivalent of David Duke.
Sure, I have no disagreement here. Even most in the far-left can see this. Are you done with this red herring?
Roy Moore was not elected. Never-Trump conservatives exist to this day. Milo was thrown [thehill.com] under the bus.
Roy Moore very nearly won an election and had mainstream support.
A minority of never-Trumpers doesn't represent mainstream conservatism any more than Hollywood represents mainstream liberalism.
And go ahead and pat yourself on the back for finally dropping an open pedophilia apologist/supporter while Roy Moore continues to cruise the mall for underage girls and Trump continues to be the pussygrabber-in-chief with at least 5x as many sexual misconduct allegations against him as Bill Clinton, one of which was a very underage girl connected to Jeffrey Epstein. Pat yourself heartily.
You have fun asserting that some Hollywood insiders represent all liberals and nitpicking at the left's moral imperfections while Trump and Roy Moore run rampant, see how far that goes to convincing anyone outside the far-right filter bubble. Fact is that liberals "eat their own" in a way that is generally consistent with having morals and principles, while today's "conservatives" simply don't "eat their own" at all, ever, for any reason. Nitpick and cherry-pick your way out of that.
It wasn't undiscovered. It was an open secret [duckduckgo.com].
It's not an open secret if only his own company and some Hollywood insiders know about it. If it's not widely known, it's just a regular secret.
Why do you strawman instead of tackling the issue? You ignored the initial pushback. You ignored the context in which he was finally pushed out. It wasn't about morals, it was about what was politically expedient.
Consider their record, compared to the record of the Republicans on Roy Moore and Trump himself. This is the beginning of a trend where you've begun to move the goalposts from the core issue of a vast difference in moral/principled behavior and tribalism among the left and right in the US, to making the false equivalence argument that the left isn't perfect on these issues and is therefore just as terrible as the party where Donald Trump and Roy Moore operate freely.
But they are liberals.
Biased sample fallacy. Most liberals would not support Polanski.
No, I'm talking about this [twitter.com].
A ridiculous description of well-documented events?
You know Good Ole' Bubba has been accused of rape, as well as being a serial sexual harasser of women, right?
Fair point. So is he still in good standing? Hard to tell. He's no more involved in politics than any celebrity with political opinions these days. If the allegations from the '90s happened today and he was in office, it would likely be a different story.
As for Sarah Jeong, like it or not parodying racism isn't racist, and there is a difference between punching up and punching down in comedy. Pretending otherwise harms your credibility.
And, breaking news, soon we'll get to see how this turns out. I predict plenty of mulligans and conspiracy theories on the right:
Came here to see if Paypal payments would be affected, I ordered stuff from them just a couple weeks ago using Paypal as the payment method (to work around Newegg's billing address restrictions).
How long did it take for Weinstein to face the music? That started the #MeToo movement, and after that a comedian like Louis C.K. stood no chance.
So you're arguing that because this super-rich and powerful man's well-oiled rape factory was able to operate for a long time undiscovered, that's evidence of tribalism, rather than evidence of the effectiveness of a powerful, efficient, and well-funded rape factory?
Al Franken is an illustrative example, because there was initially a lot of pushback to prop him up. But this was during the time of the Roy Moore election, so eventually he fell because it was more politically expedient to drop him.
In other words, he was pushed out in line with their morals and prinicples, but this behavior ultimately benefitted democrats so it doesn't count? No it still does. Maybe you should get your guys to try this morals and principles thing sometime if you'd like them to benefit. Or don't..who needs votes from decent people, right?
But what about Keith Ellison? Oh ho, different story here. He's deemed too important right now.
What about Roman Polanski? Remember how Hollywood stood by him?
So? He's a fugitive hiding from US law enforcement. Hollywood nutballs aren't politicians.
What about Joe Biden? As Vice President, this creepy perv got all touchy-feely with the wives, daughters, and granddaughters of Senators at a public swearing in ceremony, in front of cameras.
That's an attempt to stretch the most generous interpretation of those words, on par with calling a rock a machine or an abacus a computer. Animals practice tribalism. Tribalism is basically savagery as a team sport.
Slashdot Mirror
Addendum: If any new political party shelters people who deal in those and feels wronged by proxy, let them be butthurt too.
Google should and almost certainly will continue to do what they've always done: censor hate speech and harassment without political bias. If any new party deals in those, let them be butthurt.
I'm modded down, no source given, currently the GP appears to have a fabricated quote at +5.
That's called Google bombing, but feel free to let Reddit drive you deeper into the looney bin:
http://fortune.com/2018/07/19/...
See? Perfect example. If one Democratic politician isn't dropped like a hot potato on the first allegation of abuse, they're exactly as bad as the Republicans who unflinchingly support their rogues' gallery of wife-beaters and rapists.
With binary thinking and false equivalence, all morally imperfect beings and organizations can be equally terrible, so that the most terrible need not feel ashamed.
I think it's reasonable and honest to call their web services unbiased. They only censor "conservatives" for sufficiently broad, goose-steppey definitions of "conservative." They'll never censor you for calling for limited government, supply-side economics, strict abortion laws or loose gun laws.
Hate speech has a reasonably specific definition. If you post holocaust denial, calls for genocide, calls for violence against people by sexual orientation, etc, then you'll get banned. If you use the platforms for harassment you'll also get banned, and courts need not be involved.
You'll never find a case of "conservative speech" being censored by Facebook/Twitter/Google unless the person making the claim defines "conservative" as including viewpoints that conservatives actively avoided public association with just 3-4 years ago. So are open white nationalists of various kinds to be explicitly and publicly welcomed under the "conservative" tent? Choose.
Won't work, he's a leftist, they'll not only pillory him, but also say that he's an example of leftist hypocrisy on sexual predators if a Democrat doesn't initiate a flying jumpkick to stop the harassment within 3 seconds.
Their CEO literally said at an all-hands meeting that they would, "do everything in their power to stop conservatives."
Source? I haven't been able to find any quotes anything like this.
As far as I can tell, the supposed tech megacorp censorship against conservatives is some mix of categorizing far-right hate speech and outright harassment as "conservative" speech, and inflamed conservative persecution complexes leaping at shadows.
Strongly disagree, neither should be relevant to anything sent over a webpage, which runs in an OS-independent and largely hardware-independent web browser. It is traditional for the UA to include a rough OS version, although the OS should be completely irrelevant to web contant, but Chrome doubles down and delivers unnecessarily detailed information, down to minor OS revision. Sending the exact model of the device takes this lunacy to the greatest extreme possible short of sending hardware serials, how would you defend this pointless privacy violation?
Haha if only. All kinds of scientific, industrial and automotive equipment interface software only runs on Windows, all from industries that should bloody well know better.
I assume Brave only lets you watch straight porn? :-P
Here's a good start:
https://staging.f-droid.org/se...
Fun fact, Chrome for Android sends the fine details of the device you're using in the user agent string, down to the device model, and as far as I can tell there's nothing you can do about this other than not using Chrome for Android.
Welcome to 2018, where not just the "libertarian" but also the "conservative" tent is mostly populated by people with much worse ideologies making use of a convenient and publicly palatable hiding place, and the few remaining conservatives and libertarians are too afraid of political irrelevance to do anything but welcome them.
I disagree, the answer is No - what happened is that a famer's lobbying group sold out California's farmers' right to repair to John Deere. Different thing.
You've made some kind of fallacious connection between energy costs and GDP there, but you're otherwise on the right track to verifying this number. A better estimate would be to check if the value of the coins mined exceeds 0.5% of world grid power expenditure.
I couldn't find a number for total worldwide energy consumption, or the total number of bitcoins mined in any year, and the average worldwide cost would obviously be higher than the electricity mining companies are buying, but if we take the projected 7.67GWh we can estimate an energy cost. The study that produced these estimates uses an energy cost of 5c/KWh, the global average is 6c/KWh, and the average US household electricity cost is 12c/KWh. If we use that range, we can estimate that between $38.35M and $92.04M will be spent in total on energy for mining bitcoins in 2018 if the energy usage estimate holds throughout the year. In the grand scheme of things this isn't a significant amount of money, it's less than the cost of one high-end fighter jet, and a cost that could credibly be absorbed by all the world's large mining operations combined.
Now that the value of cryptocurrencies has crashed though, it may not be so profitable and this madness might finally cease.
I don't think it's impossible when there are whole (coal!) power plants being brought out of retirement to run mining operations. Alex de Vries' latest estimate that Bitcoin alone is using almost 0.5% of humanity's energy is actually a very conservative estimate which assumes that everyone is using the most efficient hardware possible. Cryptocurrency is an unmitigated environmental disaster.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble knows shit like, "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?" is racist.
I don't think all the people who can read it in-context as a parody of scientific racism are in the far-left filter bubble.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble can look at those Biden clips and have their skin crawl.
I think centrists could also handle an adult touching childrens' shoulders, giving children hugs, and joking about how girls will grow up to be beautiful. But the party of Roy Moore will indeed pantomime their skin crawling forever.
Everybody outside the far-left filter bubble can see that Louis Farrakhan [dailycaller.com] is the black equivalent of David Duke.
Sure, I have no disagreement here. Even most in the far-left can see this. Are you done with this red herring?
Roy Moore was not elected. Never-Trump conservatives exist to this day. Milo was thrown [thehill.com] under the bus.
Roy Moore very nearly won an election and had mainstream support.
A minority of never-Trumpers doesn't represent mainstream conservatism any more than Hollywood represents mainstream liberalism.
And go ahead and pat yourself on the back for finally dropping an open pedophilia apologist/supporter while Roy Moore continues to cruise the mall for underage girls and Trump continues to be the pussygrabber-in-chief with at least 5x as many sexual misconduct allegations against him as Bill Clinton, one of which was a very underage girl connected to Jeffrey Epstein. Pat yourself heartily.
You have fun asserting that some Hollywood insiders represent all liberals and nitpicking at the left's moral imperfections while Trump and Roy Moore run rampant, see how far that goes to convincing anyone outside the far-right filter bubble. Fact is that liberals "eat their own" in a way that is generally consistent with having morals and principles, while today's "conservatives" simply don't "eat their own" at all, ever, for any reason. Nitpick and cherry-pick your way out of that.
It wasn't undiscovered. It was an open secret [duckduckgo.com].
It's not an open secret if only his own company and some Hollywood insiders know about it. If it's not widely known, it's just a regular secret.
Why do you strawman instead of tackling the issue? You ignored the initial pushback. You ignored the context in which he was finally pushed out. It wasn't about morals, it was about what was politically expedient.
Consider their record, compared to the record of the Republicans on Roy Moore and Trump himself. This is the beginning of a trend where you've begun to move the goalposts from the core issue of a vast difference in moral/principled behavior and tribalism among the left and right in the US, to making the false equivalence argument that the left isn't perfect on these issues and is therefore just as terrible as the party where Donald Trump and Roy Moore operate freely.
But they are liberals.
Biased sample fallacy. Most liberals would not support Polanski.
No, I'm talking about this [twitter.com].
A ridiculous description of well-documented events?
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/...
You know Good Ole' Bubba has been accused of rape, as well as being a serial sexual harasser of women, right?
Fair point. So is he still in good standing? Hard to tell. He's no more involved in politics than any celebrity with political opinions these days. If the allegations from the '90s happened today and he was in office, it would likely be a different story.
As for Sarah Jeong, like it or not parodying racism isn't racist, and there is a difference between punching up and punching down in comedy. Pretending otherwise harms your credibility.
And, breaking news, soon we'll get to see how this turns out. I predict plenty of mulligans and conspiracy theories on the right:
https://www.wired.com/story/co...
Came here to see if Paypal payments would be affected, I ordered stuff from them just a couple weeks ago using Paypal as the payment method (to work around Newegg's billing address restrictions).
How long did it take for Weinstein to face the music? That started the #MeToo movement, and after that a comedian like Louis C.K. stood no chance.
So you're arguing that because this super-rich and powerful man's well-oiled rape factory was able to operate for a long time undiscovered, that's evidence of tribalism, rather than evidence of the effectiveness of a powerful, efficient, and well-funded rape factory?
Al Franken is an illustrative example, because there was initially a lot of pushback to prop him up. But this was during the time of the Roy Moore election, so eventually he fell because it was more politically expedient to drop him.
In other words, he was pushed out in line with their morals and prinicples, but this behavior ultimately benefitted democrats so it doesn't count? No it still does. Maybe you should get your guys to try this morals and principles thing sometime if you'd like them to benefit. Or don't..who needs votes from decent people, right?
But what about Keith Ellison? Oh ho, different story here. He's deemed too important right now.
How is that an example of hypocrisy or tribalism? Trump has surrounded himself with domestic abusers, only one of which has been pushed out by incontrovertible evidence. If they were all being pushed out on allegations alone, then I could see that as a case of hypocritical behavior.
What about Roman Polanski? Remember how Hollywood stood by him?
So? He's a fugitive hiding from US law enforcement. Hollywood nutballs aren't politicians.
What about Joe Biden? As Vice President, this creepy perv got all touchy-feely with the wives, daughters, and granddaughters of Senators at a public swearing in ceremony, in front of cameras.
I haven't heard of this. Is this what you're talking about?
Is Bill Clinton still in good standing within Democrat circles?
How is this relevant? Should adulterers be treated the same as rapists and misogynists?
Why did the New York Times hire a racist to their editorial board, and then double down after being called out?
your_credibility--
Then explain why Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein and Louis C.K. weren't given a mulligan.
That's an attempt to stretch the most generous interpretation of those words, on par with calling a rock a machine or an abacus a computer. Animals practice tribalism. Tribalism is basically savagery as a team sport.
Liberals happily "eat their own" because they have these things called morals and principles, rather than just simple party tribalism.