I'm not sure that's true. It is true that many more people from the right have been banned, but the right is home to much more virulent rhetoric at this point. I've also seen complaints from people on the left that progressives are being banned for relatively benign things while people on the right are able to get away with extreme content.
The mail bomber Sayoc threatened multiple people on Twitter, they complained to Twitter, and he never got banned.
I think the process is just too random to accurately detect bias on Twitter's part.
Yeah, I think most data shows that any corporate social media bans/censorship have the independent left taking about 75% of the bans. Unfortunately, 0% of the bans are on the corporate left, so it's easier for the right wingers to pretend that it's an attack against them. Furthermore, they tend to be more public about the right-wing bans, and they blame a lot of the left-wing bans on 'Russians.'
Basically, social media giants are making the worst possible choices on their ban policy.
That is true. Ideally you'd find some way to encourage them to behave civilly but there doesn't seem to be an easy fix for that. And I don't know how you kick off the extremists without the exiled extremists gathering together somewhere else.
I would argue that we need the very opposite approach. The way you neuter extremists is to have the opposite of bubbles. Force people into having to interact and see people with drastically different viewpoints. But that's not much in line with what users want or what advertisers want. so we end up with a machine that breeds right wing extremists.
The problem is that Gab is filling a niche that Twitter has forced open through bans, and disproportionately just that niche. Throw in the existing persecution complex of those groups and you've got a recipe for trouble, because you've created an even stronger echo chamber for the worst elements.
Stupid is relative. In many cases, elected officials could be replaced by a random number generator with better results, because random noise is less harmful than active corruption or relentless pursuit of a ridiculous ideological agenda.
Why is foreigner money used deceptively different substantially different than American money used deceptively?
Domestic oligarchs are no less of a threat to our democracy, and that's where you get the real resistance, because it's a distinction without a difference.
Yeah, we know how effective it can be. Clinton was around the margin of error against Trump before anything major that could be considered Russian interference, and the final elections were within the margin of error. If these methods are effective, they are only effective when the rest of the system is already shitting the bed.
A company that's been fucking the people for decades, and whose business is 100% dependent upon eminent domain doesn't get to bitch about not getting contracts.
Maybe because NOBODY who doesn't suck dicks for ISPs is against net neutrality. The other ACs wonky explanation is unnecessary. Trump didn't win, Clinton lost. And that's pretty much par for the course for the GOP's victory. Nobody likes anything they do, the Dems are just fucking morons about politics. They keep trying to play nice with the GOP, which only turns off their base and lets the GOP tout how they "whupped those damned liberuls." Nobody likes them or any of their policies, they just hate a handful of elite liberals more.
If a meteor wiped out the majority of the Dems, and they had to be replaced with regular schmucks instead of idiots who spend their lives talking to rich donors, they'd be significantly to the left of the current Democratic party, and they'd dominate the whole fucking country. Because the GOP doesn't win, the Dems lose.
What the fuck are you talking about? "completely uncontroversial business regulations" is not the hill to die on over government overreach when direct murder and theft by agents of the state is common, and all of our communications are intercepted by power-hungry spies. Oh, and those same ISPs are bending over backwards to cooperate with them.
You say that like it wouldn't be a godsend. If I could kick those assholes out of my state and let muni broadband take over, I could have more for less, and maybe some half-decent support.
Why? It's not a hoax. It is happening and it's natural. The level of AGW is the issue and whether or not we need to tax gas at $200+/gallon (per the IPCC).
Because my point was that even if burning oil has NO environmental harms, my follow up argument says that we should act in the exact same way for other reasons.
Nice condescending statement that indicates what an asshole you are.
You're no fun. I am playfully reversing the reality for comical effect. The reality I speak of is that economies based on extracting natural resources are usually grossly undemocratic because the value is in the resources instead of the labor, leading to them to be authoritarians, which are universally assholes.
Now, the people who oppose efforts to burn oil will blame anything on God's will, but they don't seem to put together the above correlation between assholes and oil as part of a divine plan, even though there's more evidence of that than anything they believe.
So, regardless of whether or not there are environmental concerns with burning oil, it's in the interests of people who don't like tyranny and terrorism to destroy the global market for fossil fuels.
No, because they generally use solid metrics. But let's say that climate change is indeed a hoax. God clearly doesn't want us to burn oil, or he wouldn't have buried it almost entirely under assholes and terrorists.
Again, the last time would be 2008, when the global economy crashed, but if you think Reagan was a good president, you're too damn stupid to continue talking to.
Let me put it more clearly. The point was that the last time the numbers looked like this, there was an economic collapse that crashed the global economy. The point is that this metric is a poor indicator of the actual health of the economy, and citing it uncritically as a good thing is ignoring history.
Population growth actually shrinks when you have a stable standard of living and certain basic rights and amenities. That's why Europe, America, and Japan have either replacement of sub-replacement birth rates.
Yeah, all of those are rounding errors, that only happened because the spies get more power if they DON'T protect, so they don't protect us. Pretty much all of those had 20 warnings of "THIS GUY IS GONNA BLOW SOMETHING UP" that were completely ignored.
Furthermore, if we'd spend a tenth of the money in any of a dozen ways, we could have saved more lives.
As for the military budget, it only needs to be big enough to make an invasion not worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I think most data shows that any corporate social media bans/censorship have the independent left taking about 75% of the bans. Unfortunately, 0% of the bans are on the corporate left, so it's easier for the right wingers to pretend that it's an attack against them. Furthermore, they tend to be more public about the right-wing bans, and they blame a lot of the left-wing bans on 'Russians.'
Basically, social media giants are making the worst possible choices on their ban policy.
I would argue that we need the very opposite approach. The way you neuter extremists is to have the opposite of bubbles. Force people into having to interact and see people with drastically different viewpoints. But that's not much in line with what users want or what advertisers want. so we end up with a machine that breeds right wing extremists.
The problem is that Gab is filling a niche that Twitter has forced open through bans, and disproportionately just that niche. Throw in the existing persecution complex of those groups and you've got a recipe for trouble, because you've created an even stronger echo chamber for the worst elements.
Yeah, I'd be a lot more concerned about NSA backdoors. The Chinese government is much less likely to have a beef with me.
I think the assertion is that Trump isn't involved in anything important. They leave that to the grown-ups.
Stupid is relative. In many cases, elected officials could be replaced by a random number generator with better results, because random noise is less harmful than active corruption or relentless pursuit of a ridiculous ideological agenda.
Why is foreigner money used deceptively different substantially different than American money used deceptively?
Domestic oligarchs are no less of a threat to our democracy, and that's where you get the real resistance, because it's a distinction without a difference.
Yeah, we know how effective it can be. Clinton was around the margin of error against Trump before anything major that could be considered Russian interference, and the final elections were within the margin of error. If these methods are effective, they are only effective when the rest of the system is already shitting the bed.
A company that's been fucking the people for decades, and whose business is 100% dependent upon eminent domain doesn't get to bitch about not getting contracts.
Maybe because NOBODY who doesn't suck dicks for ISPs is against net neutrality. The other ACs wonky explanation is unnecessary. Trump didn't win, Clinton lost. And that's pretty much par for the course for the GOP's victory. Nobody likes anything they do, the Dems are just fucking morons about politics. They keep trying to play nice with the GOP, which only turns off their base and lets the GOP tout how they "whupped those damned liberuls." Nobody likes them or any of their policies, they just hate a handful of elite liberals more.
If a meteor wiped out the majority of the Dems, and they had to be replaced with regular schmucks instead of idiots who spend their lives talking to rich donors, they'd be significantly to the left of the current Democratic party, and they'd dominate the whole fucking country. Because the GOP doesn't win, the Dems lose.
What the fuck are you talking about? "completely uncontroversial business regulations" is not the hill to die on over government overreach when direct murder and theft by agents of the state is common, and all of our communications are intercepted by power-hungry spies. Oh, and those same ISPs are bending over backwards to cooperate with them.
Ideally, violence shouldn't be used, but keeping it on the table is an important way to balance power.
Humans are still just as much not bulletproof as they were in 1776.
You say that like it wouldn't be a godsend. If I could kick those assholes out of my state and let muni broadband take over, I could have more for less, and maybe some half-decent support.
Yeah, I'd count Texans under assholes, and a lot of the people concerned about borders act a lot like terrorists.
Because my point was that even if burning oil has NO environmental harms, my follow up argument says that we should act in the exact same way for other reasons.
You're no fun. I am playfully reversing the reality for comical effect. The reality I speak of is that economies based on extracting natural resources are usually grossly undemocratic because the value is in the resources instead of the labor, leading to them to be authoritarians, which are universally assholes.
Now, the people who oppose efforts to burn oil will blame anything on God's will, but they don't seem to put together the above correlation between assholes and oil as part of a divine plan, even though there's more evidence of that than anything they believe.
So, regardless of whether or not there are environmental concerns with burning oil, it's in the interests of people who don't like tyranny and terrorism to destroy the global market for fossil fuels.
No, because they generally use solid metrics. But let's say that climate change is indeed a hoax. God clearly doesn't want us to burn oil, or he wouldn't have buried it almost entirely under assholes and terrorists.
Again, the last time would be 2008, when the global economy crashed, but if you think Reagan was a good president, you're too damn stupid to continue talking to.
Let me put it more clearly. The point was that the last time the numbers looked like this, there was an economic collapse that crashed the global economy. The point is that this metric is a poor indicator of the actual health of the economy, and citing it uncritically as a good thing is ignoring history.
The bubble burst.
Why would you listen to bosses on technical implementation details? They rarely have any idea, which is why they hire people who do.
Population growth actually shrinks when you have a stable standard of living and certain basic rights and amenities. That's why Europe, America, and Japan have either replacement of sub-replacement birth rates.
128GB ought to be enough for anybody.
Yes, they are also known as "The US government."
Yeah, all of those are rounding errors, that only happened because the spies get more power if they DON'T protect, so they don't protect us. Pretty much all of those had 20 warnings of "THIS GUY IS GONNA BLOW SOMETHING UP" that were completely ignored.
Furthermore, if we'd spend a tenth of the money in any of a dozen ways, we could have saved more lives.
As for the military budget, it only needs to be big enough to make an invasion not worthwhile.
The best way to "protect against foreign actors" is to put everyone in US military leadership in jail. We are a global menace.