Well, my whole point all along has been there's no such decreased job mobility, once you have a few year's experience. There are, however, a great many geeks to lack the courage to change jobs as often as they should - a job hunt is hard on introverts, after all.
How is this not a clear violation of the First Amendment again? Sure sounds like he's trying to get Congress to make a law abridging free speech,
He's a bit off-center, but he does circle around a good point: is Facebook a common carrier, carrying everything legal without discrimination and free from liability, or is it a publisher, exercising editorial discretion, and thus liable for libel and incitement?
Well, Facebook, pick one.
worst case is this is a back door for government abuse of power to go after political enemies and malcontents because you don't like what they're saying.
Oh, I'd say that's the blatant intent - Wyden wants the power to crush opposing views. As the right has been saying for some time now to the left "you're not going to like the new rules". Some of us are old enough to remember when the right-wing religious wackos has the influence to censor stuff they didn't like. Why the left wants to return to those days is pretty obvious - they imagine they'll always be in power.
Unless you're subject to the UCMJ, or have agreed to keep secrets or face jail time. And sure, a newsreader can legally go on the air and claim every night that we're losing a war that we're actually winning, until we surrender, but that just makes him an unconvicted traitor.
...but "Internet Explorer isn't fully functional as it simply refused to load pages."
So, just like the Win95 Real Thing then.
Hey now, in the late 90s IE was the king of browsers, and was for many years. There's a reason IE had grown to market dominance by the time IE6 came out, and it wasn't just bundling - IE3 (1995) was good for its time. IE4 (1997) was just better than the competition, and knocked Netscape Navigator off it's throne.
Remember, early versions of Netscape Navigator weren't free, and had their own embarrassing security holes. It's advantage was "not Microsoft", not actually being better. It wasn't until Firefox come out (2004) that there was an open source, legitimately better browser to compete with IE.
You imagine this sort of thing wasn't the norm in earlier societies? Why would you imagine that? You blame the Catholic Church for not being strong enough to stop the 100 Year's War? Fair enough, but you're advocating that it should have been stronger.
The argument that "bad things happened in places with religion, therefore religion is bad" is childish. The only decent arguments in this regard must show that religion caused the evils, such as blaming the Church for the Inquisition, or Islam for its wars of conquest. Pointing out that the church failed to stop some evil doesn't mean much in isolation. Did the church ignore the events in front of it, contrary to the admonitions of that religion, as with the Holocaust? That's a decent argument that something is amiss, but not one that the situation with religion was worse than it would have been without.
It's important to remember that the common morality in 600 BC was "might makes right". Not just that the strong can do what they want to the weak, and ignore morality, no, but the belief that they are morally right to do so. You have to show that a religion is worse than that starting point, if you want to make a case against religion historically.
Post-Enlightenment we can see the possibility that social science could do better, but we only have social "science" thus far, and so no progress on that front yet.
As a Canadian, I did not like your election results either. I am currently protesting by not buying oranges as long as Trump is president.
As a Canadian, you are free to be as un-American as you like, and no one will hold it against you. You also can't be a traitor for protesting US wars, or an election result, with illegal leaks. Carry on.
this is the kind of thing that leads me more and more to the conclusion that the scriptwriter for this show is a hack of the lowest caliber, doesn't even care any more and is probably a habitual drunkard.
There does seem to be a lot of evidence for this hypothesis. In fact, there's already a religion around the idea. "But do not reject these teachings as false because I am crazy. The reason that I am crazy is because they are true. "
The situation in ancient Egypt is a bit speculative, though. It may well be as you say, that there was some idea of morality more important than the will of the king. Personally I think so, just because church-state political rivalry seems inevitable.
Maybe if humans are so fallible so frequently under a given religious doctrine there might be a problem with the doctrine itself.
Maybe so. But there is no perfect set of rules for humans, and we know that the rules that survive as the basis of the major religions worked quite well to make societies function because those are the cultures that survived.
never did claim to do away with Mosaic Law which is brutal and vicious
Eh? There were 2 different v2.0s - the New Testament, and the Torah.
Mosaic Law was better than what people had before, and the 10 commandments are a reasonable starting point for a set of laws: don't kill, don't steal, and don't do the kind of shit that makes people want to kill you. Eventually it accumulated a bunch of stuff more appropriate for a tribe constantly at war, which turned not so helpful when they were conquered. The Koran is still all Old Testament stuff, but then Islam is still growing.
It is sad that as we live in a more apparently Fascist regime, people with brains still think that Socialism is the problem.... (that's in response to your sig)
Fascism and socialism don't really oppose one another meaningfully - they're both about giving power to the government to control things, especially the economy, and hopig you don't get an asshole in charge. Fascism ended up with an asshole in charge 100% of the time, while socialism has evolved to have more democratic control - some people make a strong distinction between Marxism Socialism and Social Democracy. It's very clear, however, that socialism can evolve directly into fascism, since it did, given the right asshole.
Anyway, we're only "apparently fascist" because a lot of people call everyone they don't like a Nazi, especially when they lose an argument. This has replaced calling everyone "racist", since that accusation has lost it's emotional power. In a few years we'll have a new insult, and we won't be "apparently fascist" any more.
I do find if funny that the early nerd-only internet was years ahead of its time in the fashion of calling someone a Nazi when losing an argument.
You added the word "only" when you made your strawman. Before the Enlightenment, that's just how it happened to work for 2000 years. It didn't seem to work that way before that, not sure why, but then civilization was very spotty before 600 BC. There's at least a correlation between the idea of morality as something other than the will of the king, and civilization becoming common enough to preserve written histories and other documents consistently enough to reach us today.
Maybe so, but there's no surviving documentation of moral codes derived from religious principles before about 600 BC. E.g., I don't think the Code of Hammurabi calls out any religious basis. I think something changed in the way humans saw religion around 600 BC, and it's probably not an accident that that's the point where written history becomes sparse.
And of course his message has persisted, but then there's the "humans are fallible" part too. At least his message is there to read for those who care to listen.
That just adds Apple to the "start your own" bucket. There's no natural monopoly here, and while the network effect is powerful, you'd expect the second-biggest site to be at least 20% as big as the biggest. Certainly not the case with YouTube or Twitter. Conservatives do need to get off their ass here, and remember that capitalism depends on new companies challenging old as the old lose their focus.
Agree on the anti-trust. It certainly seems like there's something wrong with the oligopoly of "social media" companies colluding to drive out new entrants.
This is the whole story in a nutshell. The fire department was cheap on their basic infrastructure choices. Were they deceived by a slick salesman along the way? Maybe. But that's a poor excuse, really.
Ah, so the structures that successfully kept societies together for 2000 years "can safely be regarded as a fundamental failure"? How convenient. All religions over history combined have killed fewer people than communism, of course.
Any set of laws, without a sense of morality to guide their interpretation and enforcement, can be turned to evil. Does that make the concept of "laws" bad? Of "morality"? Or does it simply mean that humans are fallible?
There was this guy once who said that scripture is complicated, and it's easy to read it wrong, so if you think it's telling you to hurt someone, that's how you know you're reading it wrong. He got pretty famous for saying things like that, though it didn't end well for him. However, he got the last laugh, as it turns out, since you've probably heard of him.
In meatspace, a public business can tell anyone they want to leave and refusal to leave will result in them calling the police for trespassing.
Not even close. If you're open to the public, you can't discriminate against protected classes. There are some additional restrictions around community message boards.
Really, there's only two places I'm aware of in which private businesses have free speech considerations forced on them: unions and company towns.
Good point, I had forgotten about company towns. But it's the same principle - if you are a de-facto public forum, there are some restrictions to your ability to censor not limited to protected classes.
he contention is that Alex Jones has went from "nutbag" to "nutbag inciting people to violence".
Yep, that's the given reason. No evidence or audit of that, of course.
Any one of these sites banning him, I could buy. We all know how bizarre e.g. YouTube's censorship algorithms are. But this Stalin-esque un-personing? That's very clear.
Personally, free speech advocates should make their own platforms, and conservatives should actually move to them and abandon the platforms that hate them. Gab.ai and minds.com seem worthwhile. Seems like whining to complain Twitter is evil but keep using it.
But I do think that once e.g. Facebook starts applying editorial discretion, they should be liable for fraud and libel for the user content they allow.
I thought everyone in software got their promotions (beyond the first) by switching jobs? Waiting for your current employer to decide to pay you more for the work you're already doing for them sounds... poorly optimized.
It's gotten bad enough here ta]hat Tom Sawyer is getting pulled from libraries because, in order to learn that slavery and racism are bad, Tom meets racists and interacts with them. Now that must be banned, as it's presenting racist views. FFS.
Hmm, I think I can recall quite a few people burned at stake for saying things that were disliked by official teaching of Christianity (often things that were obviously factually true, or explicitly mentioned in the Bible).
I'm sure it happened over the centuries, but it was almost always politics that got you burned at the stake. Either local politics, or church politics. The more things change...
Just because it's open to the public most private places and events have some sort of rules. Heck, they'll kick you out of the public library if you can't behave not even their tolerance is infinite.
When a private site becomes the de-facto public forum, free speech laws may apply. There's precedent for this in meatspeace, though it's not 100% clear. It's also not so clear that social media has reached that level of importance.
It's a lot more clear that you're either a carrier, and carry everything legal without liability for content, or you're a publisher with full editorial discretion and liability for what you publish. I think it's time that principle applies to social media sites.
I assume it's an implied reference to Alex Jones and yeah it almost looked like a coordinated effort
"Almost looked like"? He was deplatformed from every social media site (except Twitter) in a 24-hour period - they even closed his Linkedin page. Do you need a press release?
it probably comes from him being way across the line on almost service he's on,
Across what line? He's a nutbag, and is routinely sued for slander, but he's within the policies of these sites. They simply don't like his politics, and figured no one would defend him since he's crazy. But he's obviously the canary, and they'll be coming for more mainstream people next.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, my whole point all along has been there's no such decreased job mobility, once you have a few year's experience. There are, however, a great many geeks to lack the courage to change jobs as often as they should - a job hunt is hard on introverts, after all.
How is this not a clear violation of the First Amendment again? Sure sounds like he's trying to get Congress to make a law abridging free speech,
He's a bit off-center, but he does circle around a good point: is Facebook a common carrier, carrying everything legal without discrimination and free from liability, or is it a publisher, exercising editorial discretion, and thus liable for libel and incitement?
Well, Facebook, pick one.
worst case is this is a back door for government abuse of power to go after political enemies and malcontents because you don't like what they're saying.
Oh, I'd say that's the blatant intent - Wyden wants the power to crush opposing views. As the right has been saying for some time now to the left "you're not going to like the new rules". Some of us are old enough to remember when the right-wing religious wackos has the influence to censor stuff they didn't like. Why the left wants to return to those days is pretty obvious - they imagine they'll always be in power.
Sure thing, wars of conquest between neighboring kings totally don't happen without religion.
Unless you're subject to the UCMJ, or have agreed to keep secrets or face jail time. And sure, a newsreader can legally go on the air and claim every night that we're losing a war that we're actually winning, until we surrender, but that just makes him an unconvicted traitor.
So, just like the Win95 Real Thing then.
Hey now, in the late 90s IE was the king of browsers, and was for many years. There's a reason IE had grown to market dominance by the time IE6 came out, and it wasn't just bundling - IE3 (1995) was good for its time. IE4 (1997) was just better than the competition, and knocked Netscape Navigator off it's throne.
Remember, early versions of Netscape Navigator weren't free, and had their own embarrassing security holes. It's advantage was "not Microsoft", not actually being better. It wasn't until Firefox come out (2004) that there was an open source, legitimately better browser to compete with IE.
You imagine this sort of thing wasn't the norm in earlier societies? Why would you imagine that? You blame the Catholic Church for not being strong enough to stop the 100 Year's War? Fair enough, but you're advocating that it should have been stronger.
The argument that "bad things happened in places with religion, therefore religion is bad" is childish. The only decent arguments in this regard must show that religion caused the evils, such as blaming the Church for the Inquisition, or Islam for its wars of conquest. Pointing out that the church failed to stop some evil doesn't mean much in isolation. Did the church ignore the events in front of it, contrary to the admonitions of that religion, as with the Holocaust? That's a decent argument that something is amiss, but not one that the situation with religion was worse than it would have been without.
It's important to remember that the common morality in 600 BC was "might makes right". Not just that the strong can do what they want to the weak, and ignore morality, no, but the belief that they are morally right to do so. You have to show that a religion is worse than that starting point, if you want to make a case against religion historically.
Post-Enlightenment we can see the possibility that social science could do better, but we only have social "science" thus far, and so no progress on that front yet.
As a Canadian, I did not like your election results either.
I am currently protesting by not buying oranges as long as Trump is president.
As a Canadian, you are free to be as un-American as you like, and no one will hold it against you. You also can't be a traitor for protesting US wars, or an election result, with illegal leaks. Carry on.
this is the kind of thing that leads me more and more to the conclusion that the scriptwriter for this show is a hack of the lowest caliber, doesn't even care any more and is probably a habitual drunkard.
There does seem to be a lot of evidence for this hypothesis. In fact, there's already a religion around the idea. "But do not reject these teachings as false because I am crazy. The reason that I am crazy is because they are true. "
The situation in ancient Egypt is a bit speculative, though. It may well be as you say, that there was some idea of morality more important than the will of the king. Personally I think so, just because church-state political rivalry seems inevitable.
Maybe if humans are so fallible so frequently under a given religious doctrine there might be a problem with the doctrine itself.
Maybe so. But there is no perfect set of rules for humans, and we know that the rules that survive as the basis of the major religions worked quite well to make societies function because those are the cultures that survived.
never did claim to do away with Mosaic Law which is brutal and vicious
Eh? There were 2 different v2.0s - the New Testament, and the Torah.
Mosaic Law was better than what people had before, and the 10 commandments are a reasonable starting point for a set of laws: don't kill, don't steal, and don't do the kind of shit that makes people want to kill you. Eventually it accumulated a bunch of stuff more appropriate for a tribe constantly at war, which turned not so helpful when they were conquered. The Koran is still all Old Testament stuff, but then Islam is still growing.
It is sad that as we live in a more apparently Fascist regime, people with brains still think that Socialism is the problem.... (that's in response to your sig)
Fascism and socialism don't really oppose one another meaningfully - they're both about giving power to the government to control things, especially the economy, and hopig you don't get an asshole in charge. Fascism ended up with an asshole in charge 100% of the time, while socialism has evolved to have more democratic control - some people make a strong distinction between Marxism Socialism and Social Democracy. It's very clear, however, that socialism can evolve directly into fascism, since it did, given the right asshole.
Anyway, we're only "apparently fascist" because a lot of people call everyone they don't like a Nazi, especially when they lose an argument. This has replaced calling everyone "racist", since that accusation has lost it's emotional power. In a few years we'll have a new insult, and we won't be "apparently fascist" any more.
I do find if funny that the early nerd-only internet was years ahead of its time in the fashion of calling someone a Nazi when losing an argument.
You added the word "only" when you made your strawman. Before the Enlightenment, that's just how it happened to work for 2000 years. It didn't seem to work that way before that, not sure why, but then civilization was very spotty before 600 BC. There's at least a correlation between the idea of morality as something other than the will of the king, and civilization becoming common enough to preserve written histories and other documents consistently enough to reach us today.
Maybe so, but there's no surviving documentation of moral codes derived from religious principles before about 600 BC. E.g., I don't think the Code of Hammurabi calls out any religious basis. I think something changed in the way humans saw religion around 600 BC, and it's probably not an accident that that's the point where written history becomes sparse.
And of course his message has persisted, but then there's the "humans are fallible" part too. At least his message is there to read for those who care to listen.
That just adds Apple to the "start your own" bucket. There's no natural monopoly here, and while the network effect is powerful, you'd expect the second-biggest site to be at least 20% as big as the biggest. Certainly not the case with YouTube or Twitter. Conservatives do need to get off their ass here, and remember that capitalism depends on new companies challenging old as the old lose their focus.
Agree on the anti-trust. It certainly seems like there's something wrong with the oligopoly of "social media" companies colluding to drive out new entrants.
/thread
Took me a minute - Americans aren't so familiar with that particular incident.
It's very easy for me to believe that customer service made a mistake. It's what they do. It's all they do.
Politicians: A bunch of guys that get together to decide what they are going to do with YOUR money.
FTFY. There's no good party, when it comes to corruption, just specific people who have yet to be corrupted fully.
This is the whole story in a nutshell. The fire department was cheap on their basic infrastructure choices. Were they deceived by a slick salesman along the way? Maybe. But that's a poor excuse, really.
Sadly, ISPs have recently been caught out throttling DSL to get customers off that technology.
Ah, so the structures that successfully kept societies together for 2000 years "can safely be regarded as a fundamental failure"? How convenient. All religions over history combined have killed fewer people than communism, of course.
Any set of laws, without a sense of morality to guide their interpretation and enforcement, can be turned to evil. Does that make the concept of "laws" bad? Of "morality"? Or does it simply mean that humans are fallible?
There was this guy once who said that scripture is complicated, and it's easy to read it wrong, so if you think it's telling you to hurt someone, that's how you know you're reading it wrong. He got pretty famous for saying things like that, though it didn't end well for him. However, he got the last laugh, as it turns out, since you've probably heard of him.
In meatspace, a public business can tell anyone they want to leave and refusal to leave will result in them calling the police for trespassing.
Not even close. If you're open to the public, you can't discriminate against protected classes. There are some additional restrictions around community message boards.
Really, there's only two places I'm aware of in which private businesses have free speech considerations forced on them: unions and company towns.
Good point, I had forgotten about company towns. But it's the same principle - if you are a de-facto public forum, there are some restrictions to your ability to censor not limited to protected classes.
he contention is that Alex Jones has went from "nutbag" to "nutbag inciting people to violence".
Yep, that's the given reason. No evidence or audit of that, of course.
Any one of these sites banning him, I could buy. We all know how bizarre e.g. YouTube's censorship algorithms are. But this Stalin-esque un-personing? That's very clear.
Personally, free speech advocates should make their own platforms, and conservatives should actually move to them and abandon the platforms that hate them. Gab.ai and minds.com seem worthwhile. Seems like whining to complain Twitter is evil but keep using it.
But I do think that once e.g. Facebook starts applying editorial discretion, they should be liable for fraud and libel for the user content they allow.
I thought everyone in software got their promotions (beyond the first) by switching jobs? Waiting for your current employer to decide to pay you more for the work you're already doing for them sounds ... poorly optimized.
It's gotten bad enough here ta]hat Tom Sawyer is getting pulled from libraries because, in order to learn that slavery and racism are bad, Tom meets racists and interacts with them. Now that must be banned, as it's presenting racist views. FFS.
Isn't he an atheist? What does righteous mean?
Everything within the state. Nothing outside the state. Nothing against the state.
So you think walking into the woods pantless with a baby pig and a jar of honey is OK?
That pig is a liar!
Hmm, I think I can recall quite a few people burned at stake for saying things that were disliked by official teaching of Christianity (often things that were obviously factually true, or explicitly mentioned in the Bible).
I'm sure it happened over the centuries, but it was almost always politics that got you burned at the stake. Either local politics, or church politics. The more things change ...
Just because it's open to the public most private places and events have some sort of rules. Heck, they'll kick you out of the public library if you can't behave not even their tolerance is infinite.
When a private site becomes the de-facto public forum, free speech laws may apply. There's precedent for this in meatspeace, though it's not 100% clear. It's also not so clear that social media has reached that level of importance.
It's a lot more clear that you're either a carrier, and carry everything legal without liability for content, or you're a publisher with full editorial discretion and liability for what you publish. I think it's time that principle applies to social media sites.
I assume it's an implied reference to Alex Jones and yeah it almost looked like a coordinated effort
"Almost looked like"? He was deplatformed from every social media site (except Twitter) in a 24-hour period - they even closed his Linkedin page. Do you need a press release?
it probably comes from him being way across the line on almost service he's on,
Across what line? He's a nutbag, and is routinely sued for slander, but he's within the policies of these sites. They simply don't like his politics, and figured no one would defend him since he's crazy. But he's obviously the canary, and they'll be coming for more mainstream people next.