When everyone thought Trump was going to lose Trump said the election was rigged. After he won the election but didn't win the popular vote Trump said the election was rigged. HRC never said the election was rigged, but the fake news people are saying she said the election was rigged. Who here has less faith in American democracy?
I find it ironic, and kind of funny, that someone modded this down. If everyone had a right to have everything posted on social media we couldn't have a mod system to restrict viewing of their posts.
When a company controls so much of the screen real estate, this actually moves beyond what they're allowed to censor. Otherwise they can create their own views, tell you what's acceptable, and of course how to vote.
Is your solution to have governments punish companies for not posting everyone's posts? Do you really want the government to have that much power over media companies? Think of the oversight necessary to enforce this law. You would have thousands, perhaps millions of people complaining to the government that these companies aren't posting their content, and if the media companies deny that this content was ever posted on their platforms, the government would have to have permanent access to the servers to monitor if the posts are in fact ever made. Who is to determine how big a media company is before the government takes control of it?
The issue is people will choose to go with whomever filters content they don't like and promotes content they do like even if it is wrong.
Just look at fox entertainment news.
To be fair MSNBC does the same damn thing.
Exactly. And the info bubbles will become info force fields. So you'll have two populations, one that is skewed slightly left of reality, and the other that is skewed to an alternate dimension where Donald Trump is competent enough to be President of the United States. Oh wait, we already have that.
I'm curious how this will butt heads with the First Amendment in the United States
This will not butt heads with the First Amendment of the Constitution at all. These are private companies, they are not obligated to post anyone's fake news.
Let the free market do it's job. If social media platforms try to filter out propaganda, create social media platforms that don't filter out propaganda. See which ones the people prefer.
As usual, the number doesn't count the 'statistically employed' - people who've been out of work for long and have given up looking for work as a result
I have a relative in his 30. His wife is a computer programmer and makes good money. He hasn't worked for years. He stays home and smokes weed all day and is perfectly happy. Are you saying we should be counting him as unemployed?
As usual, the number doesn't count the 'statistically employed' - people who've been out of work for long and have given up looking for work as a result
It's a sign of the robustness of the economy that it can support so many able-bodies people who have given up performing useful labor.
Hillary might have started one, over Syria. She fucked up in Libya as SoS and was talking of escalating in Syria.
Don't kid youself that Trump will be worse. Clinton is a warmonger. Or would have been, we've dodged that now.
Get in your "But Hillary would have been worse" arguments while you still can. They will provide increasingly diminishing returns. If America isn't sick of winning in 4 years we're going to be really pissed.
I agree that MSM has an agenda. The point is that Fox/Drudge/Breitbart also have an agenda, but many who follow them simply take them at their word like simple mindless zombies. I point this out and the response is to say that MSM has an agenda. No duh.
I find it remarkable that people who consider themselves to be skeptical of authority should be so slavishly gullible when it comes to CNN/NYT/MSNBC/ABC/CBS.
I find it remarkable that people who consider themselves to be skeptical of authority should be so slavishly gullible when it comes to Fox/Drudge/Breitbart.
All citizens will use Dvorak keyboards, the metric system, drive on right hand side of the road, nonsmoking, use vi text editor, do not use system d
...replace tabs with spaces, 3 spaces per tab. Use a base 12 number system (this of course conflicts with the metric system, we'd have to create something better). Tau instead of Pi.
From what I read elsewhere, one of the Martian moons would become a way station for the initial flyby and landing missions.
The thing about a mission to Earth's moon is that if there is a major failure it would only take a few days to return to Earth. It would still take months to get back from Phobos or Demos.
Colonizing Venus with floating cities is a far more sexier venture.
...or at least send a solar powered robotic drone into the atmosphere. The winds can get a little rough (over 200 kph) but we would have a freakin' plane flying around through the clouds of another world.
Before sending people to Mars we should send a practice mission to the moon for 2 years. If you can't send people to the moon and have them survive on their own for 2 years, you certainly can't send them to Mars.
Russia's interests are not the same as the United State's interests. Russia needs a defensive buffer, a ring of countries around it where it can project power beyond its border. Historically, this is what has saved it from being destroyed by Napoleon and Hitler. They also need an economic block of countries that it can directly control, rather than being surrounded by independent free market countries that it has to compete against. The primary interest of the United States, on the other hand, is to prevent any regional power in the world from becoming a global power. The consolidation of power by Russia is seen by the United States as a push to become a global power again. Islamic terrorism is not an existential threat to either the US or Russia, especially since both countries are now flush with oil. Russia is up against the wall now and sees itself threatened by the West. Putin is fighting back every way he can. If he feels threatened enough, he may do something that spirals out of control.
If they are a K2 civilization we are no competition yet and they can stop us before we become competition. The only resource they would need from us is information, as we are a limited resource--a complex biosphere/technosphere. One thing they probably want to know is if we will destroy ourselves before becoming a K2 civilization. Are we approaching a "Great Filter"?
It is in their best interest to study us in detail. A space-faring civilization will, for purposes of survival, need to know the distribution and rate of development of other technological civilizations in order to get an idea of what their potential competition will be like. Raw data about the development of technological space faring species is the most valuable commodity in the universe.
If everyone knows everything about everyone else then those with an advantage of raw power will have the upper hand. Privacy and anonymity give some measure of protection to the powerless.
lol okay. Tell me how that matters to anyone that's not a megalomaniac. Does it put food on the table? Help people pay their hospital bills?
This is actually an interesting topic. Is it more beneficial for an individual to live in a country with more or less global power? Does global power translate to a better life for a country's citizens? An argument against this is that a global power has to spend resources outside of the country to maintain its power, like for the military, and for financial aid to weaker allies. But there are economic returns for those military expenditures--military dominance does lead to better access to different markets and resources, whether gotten implicitly or explicitly. For the individual, you could say that it's best to live in a small country under the protection of a larger power, like Denmark, where the country can invest more in its citizens. But Greece is also a small country living under a larger power, and Greece has lost economic control over its destiny. Ultimately, the destiny of Denmark relies on the benevolence of greater powers. I'll tell you this, when travelling abroad there is a big difference in how you are treated between being an American and being from, let's say, Sudan. It's a sad commentary on the current state of affairs, but a human life from a country with greater socio/economic/military power is treated as having more value than a life from a poor country.
Slashdot Mirror
When everyone thought Trump was going to lose Trump said the election was rigged. After he won the election but didn't win the popular vote Trump said the election was rigged. HRC never said the election was rigged, but the fake news people are saying she said the election was rigged. Who here has less faith in American democracy?
And you're still clinging to this nonsense that illegals won't vote when Obama himself encouraged it and specifically said they wouldn't check IDs.
This is pure fake news. You are a sheep.
I find it ironic, and kind of funny, that someone modded this down. If everyone had a right to have everything posted on social media we couldn't have a mod system to restrict viewing of their posts.
When a company controls so much of the screen real estate, this actually moves beyond what they're allowed to censor. Otherwise they can create their own views, tell you what's acceptable, and of course how to vote.
Is your solution to have governments punish companies for not posting everyone's posts? Do you really want the government to have that much power over media companies? Think of the oversight necessary to enforce this law. You would have thousands, perhaps millions of people complaining to the government that these companies aren't posting their content, and if the media companies deny that this content was ever posted on their platforms, the government would have to have permanent access to the servers to monitor if the posts are in fact ever made. Who is to determine how big a media company is before the government takes control of it?
The issue is people will choose to go with whomever filters content they don't like and promotes content they do like even if it is wrong.
Just look at fox entertainment news.
To be fair MSNBC does the same damn thing.
Exactly. And the info bubbles will become info force fields. So you'll have two populations, one that is skewed slightly left of reality, and the other that is skewed to an alternate dimension where Donald Trump is competent enough to be President of the United States. Oh wait, we already have that.
I'm curious how this will butt heads with the First Amendment in the United States
This will not butt heads with the First Amendment of the Constitution at all. These are private companies, they are not obligated to post anyone's fake news.
Let the free market do it's job. If social media platforms try to filter out propaganda, create social media platforms that don't filter out propaganda. See which ones the people prefer.
People will become professional NPCs in virtual reality.
As usual, the number doesn't count the 'statistically employed' - people who've been out of work for long and have given up looking for work as a result
I have a relative in his 30. His wife is a computer programmer and makes good money. He hasn't worked for years. He stays home and smokes weed all day and is perfectly happy. Are you saying we should be counting him as unemployed?
As usual, the number doesn't count the 'statistically employed' - people who've been out of work for long and have given up looking for work as a result
It's a sign of the robustness of the economy that it can support so many able-bodies people who have given up performing useful labor.
Hillary might have started one, over Syria. She fucked up in Libya as SoS and was talking of escalating in Syria.
Don't kid youself that Trump will be worse. Clinton is a warmonger. Or would have been, we've dodged that now.
Get in your "But Hillary would have been worse" arguments while you still can. They will provide increasingly diminishing returns. If America isn't sick of winning in 4 years we're going to be really pissed.
I agree that MSM has an agenda. The point is that Fox/Drudge/Breitbart also have an agenda, but many who follow them simply take them at their word like simple mindless zombies. I point this out and the response is to say that MSM has an agenda. No duh.
I find it remarkable that people who consider themselves to be skeptical of authority should be so slavishly gullible when it comes to CNN/NYT/MSNBC/ABC/CBS.
I agree.
I find it remarkable that people who consider themselves to be skeptical of authority should be so slavishly gullible when it comes to Fox/Drudge/Breitbart.
All citizens will use Dvorak keyboards, the metric system, drive on right hand side of the road, nonsmoking, use vi text editor, do not use system d
...replace tabs with spaces, 3 spaces per tab. Use a base 12 number system (this of course conflicts with the metric system, we'd have to create something better). Tau instead of Pi.
From what I read elsewhere, one of the Martian moons would become a way station for the initial flyby and landing missions.
The thing about a mission to Earth's moon is that if there is a major failure it would only take a few days to return to Earth. It would still take months to get back from Phobos or Demos.
Colonizing Venus with floating cities is a far more sexier venture.
...or at least send a solar powered robotic drone into the atmosphere. The winds can get a little rough (over 200 kph) but we would have a freakin' plane flying around through the clouds of another world.
Before sending people to Mars we should send a practice mission to the moon for 2 years. If you can't send people to the moon and have them survive on their own for 2 years, you certainly can't send them to Mars.
It's all fun and games until quantum computers break these chains.
Russia's interests are not the same as the United State's interests. Russia needs a defensive buffer, a ring of countries around it where it can project power beyond its border. Historically, this is what has saved it from being destroyed by Napoleon and Hitler. They also need an economic block of countries that it can directly control, rather than being surrounded by independent free market countries that it has to compete against. The primary interest of the United States, on the other hand, is to prevent any regional power in the world from becoming a global power. The consolidation of power by Russia is seen by the United States as a push to become a global power again. Islamic terrorism is not an existential threat to either the US or Russia, especially since both countries are now flush with oil. Russia is up against the wall now and sees itself threatened by the West. Putin is fighting back every way he can. If he feels threatened enough, he may do something that spirals out of control.
If they are a K2 civilization we are no competition yet and they can stop us before we become competition. The only resource they would need from us is information, as we are a limited resource--a complex biosphere/technosphere. One thing they probably want to know is if we will destroy ourselves before becoming a K2 civilization. Are we approaching a "Great Filter"?
It is in their best interest to study us in detail. A space-faring civilization will, for purposes of survival, need to know the distribution and rate of development of other technological civilizations in order to get an idea of what their potential competition will be like. Raw data about the development of technological space faring species is the most valuable commodity in the universe.
How big of a dish do I need to watch alien television, and will I need a subscription?
If everyone knows everything about everyone else then those with an advantage of raw power will have the upper hand. Privacy and anonymity give some measure of protection to the powerless.
lol okay. Tell me how that matters to anyone that's not a megalomaniac. Does it put food on the table? Help people pay their hospital bills?
This is actually an interesting topic. Is it more beneficial for an individual to live in a country with more or less global power? Does global power translate to a better life for a country's citizens? An argument against this is that a global power has to spend resources outside of the country to maintain its power, like for the military, and for financial aid to weaker allies. But there are economic returns for those military expenditures--military dominance does lead to better access to different markets and resources, whether gotten implicitly or explicitly. For the individual, you could say that it's best to live in a small country under the protection of a larger power, like Denmark, where the country can invest more in its citizens. But Greece is also a small country living under a larger power, and Greece has lost economic control over its destiny. Ultimately, the destiny of Denmark relies on the benevolence of greater powers. I'll tell you this, when travelling abroad there is a big difference in how you are treated between being an American and being from, let's say, Sudan. It's a sad commentary on the current state of affairs, but a human life from a country with greater socio/economic/military power is treated as having more value than a life from a poor country.
By what metric exactly? All measures of education, poverty, GDP per capita, health outcomes, etc. do not put us in first place. Far from it actually.
Raw power.