A more common point that I see is that we didn't have net neutrality until 2015. Not only was the net effectively neutral (most of the time) prior to that, the dial-up internet of the dotcom era was regulated similarly, and even had leasing requirements that meant multiple options and some real semblance of competition. The change from that regime happened with cable and DSL, which were less regulated, but still neutral, until the actions from ISPs that prompted the 2015 rules out of necessity.
So, the actual timeline was: Neutral internet->Deregulated broadband->Dickish ISP behavior->Fixing dickish ISP behavior by re-regulating->Re-deregulating broadband.
If you had a real argument, you wouldn't need to be such a condescending cunt. You have the same kind of undeserved hubris that managed to lose a general election to a moron with no frontal lobe inhibition. You could have reasonably accuse me of being overly paranoid, but then it would point out the idiocy of your previous naivety claims, since I have the cynicism high ground, by far.
So now, you've got to claim that I don't read, with the only evidence being that I brought up Youtube users over Youtube's soft censorship to explain how this would likely play out regarding news sources under Google News's hard censorship (albeit it currently limited in scope).
And you have the balls to claim that what is obviously a "kill the Russian fake news" effort is not censorship. You can argue that it's justified censorship, but then you have to have an uphill, adult conversation about how such a policy will not creep or be abused.
I'm not saying that it's a way to make a lot money, but it is a way to reduce costs. Even if you still have to pay a mortgage, it's typically a fixed payment. The security of never having again the cost of a roof over your head increase (a cost which has outpaced inflation) opens up a lot of options.
Any decrease in housing prices or the quality of your area in general immediately results in a huge decrease of your net worth.
But does that really affect you in your day to day life? Other than tax rates (for which a decrease is a positive change), the net worth of my house is meaningless to me, outside of times I want to sell it or borrow against it. Regardless of the stability of the financial value, the utilitarian value of a home is very stable.
It's not about whether or not we should stop/fight the far-right. AmiMoJo already established that as something necessary. My point was that, if you think it's necessary to stop them, you should use methods that will actually work.
Also, my solution is the very opposite of purging. I'm saying the way to stop alt-right false propaganda is with ACTUAL GODDAMN JOURNALISM. If CNN hadn't been complete horseshit for over a decade, we wouldn't be in this mess.
I didn't say "news source," I said "independent left media." All of those are independent left media. I didn't say that those particular people would be hit by this, but that the niche of "left-wing media that doesn't constantly suck off corporations" would probably be collateral damage under this change, just like they were under the adpocalypse.
No, we don't have an example of how censorship would play out here, because they haven't done this kind of censorship yet. But because I'm not naive, I realize that censorship is almost never a net positive, and always creeps outside of the specific niche that was nominally the target.
Yes, the Youtube monetization issues. Taking away the majority of the money they receive would be undermining them. They sold that bullshit with the exact same pitch as this, so I expect similar results.
The far right is a disease. Diseases infect opportunistically. In a healthy democracy, the press is the immune system to such a disease. The flaws in our heavily consolidated media, with very strong pro-corporate values, have failed to function because they've prioritized access to politicians over their duty to hold politicians responsible. Congress has unbelievably low approval ratings, because they are accurately perceived as bought-off scumbags. And the media rarely bothers to press politicians to any real extent, even with some of the most egregious of cases.
The reason that we are susceptible to fake news is because the mass of the fourth estate is having pleasant conversations with criminals, instead of doing their job and holding those criminals accountable. The solution isn't censorship, it's giving people a reason to have some faith in the 'legitimate' media. And no, it's not going to be fixed overnight, not with all the damage we've done.
Everything in TYT Network, David Pakman, Humanist Report. They all have videos discussing it, and if you dig through them, you'll get mentions of a fair number of others.
Let's be clear. The same rationale from the same company has already been extensively to undermine independent left media. It stands to reason that the same would probably happen here. Blame it on the weakness of algorithms or blame it on the influence of large media corporations, but that's what happened before, and that's what will likely happen again.
For starters, if you are tracking someone with facial tech, you can find something that at least appears criminal with enough justification to bring them in. Follow someone around all day, and you can eventually find them doing something that you can jail them for.
You need to keep in mind the way humans function. A skill set not utilized will diminish over time, while a skill set heavily utilized will improve, at least up to a certain point. Maybe you'll catch more jaywalkers, but more murderers will likely walk free because the entire force is at a Barney Fife level of competence.
Maybe Gawker exposed some serious things, but their signal to noise ratio was so poor, the value of it in practice was probably around zero. They managed to be the gold standard of crappy journalism in multiple fields. They might have been spared a few flaws, but a Gawker site posting something generally removed credibility from the claim.
Perhaps you need a brain scan, because you clearly lack the ability to read. I clearly said that EVERYONE should probably have regular tests for things like glaucoma. You just said that it's often asymptomatic, which means that people who don't need glasses go unchecked, while people with glasses and contacts are subjected to lots of extra costs on something only somewhat correlated with the risks of disease.
It just seems like a post-hoc justification for what is clearly a profit-driven practice, with only moderate correlation with actual health. We would likely be better served with these things being tested for every X years.
But periodic tests for eye diseases are in no way limited to those who need corrective lenses. There may be some diseases that contact lenses wearers are subjected to at higher rates, since they are putting something into their eyes, but the reasoning here is incredibly convoluted.
I'm not worried about them not vetting prescriptions. There is no real path for serious abuse, at most, cheapskates poorly guesstimating their vision, and with a few months of playing "better or worse" with them, they can find something that works well enough anyway.
I am concerned about them being safe. If these contacts are sitting in bleach or will otherwise harm eyes, that's a problem. But this doesn't seem to discuss that.
That propaganda thinking might work on the internet, but Slashdotters know enough to understand that one doesn't magically hack both parties simultaneously. Plus, Trump came relatively out of nowhere, meaning that there is far less of a window for hacking him, and less of a paper trail for misdeeds.
The Clinton campaign fucked up royally, and that's why we have Trump.
Slashdot Mirror
A more common point that I see is that we didn't have net neutrality until 2015. Not only was the net effectively neutral (most of the time) prior to that, the dial-up internet of the dotcom era was regulated similarly, and even had leasing requirements that meant multiple options and some real semblance of competition. The change from that regime happened with cable and DSL, which were less regulated, but still neutral, until the actions from ISPs that prompted the 2015 rules out of necessity.
So, the actual timeline was: Neutral internet->Deregulated broadband->Dickish ISP behavior->Fixing dickish ISP behavior by re-regulating->Re-deregulating broadband.
If you had a real argument, you wouldn't need to be such a condescending cunt. You have the same kind of undeserved hubris that managed to lose a general election to a moron with no frontal lobe inhibition. You could have reasonably accuse me of being overly paranoid, but then it would point out the idiocy of your previous naivety claims, since I have the cynicism high ground, by far.
So now, you've got to claim that I don't read, with the only evidence being that I brought up Youtube users over Youtube's soft censorship to explain how this would likely play out regarding news sources under Google News's hard censorship (albeit it currently limited in scope).
And you have the balls to claim that what is obviously a "kill the Russian fake news" effort is not censorship. You can argue that it's justified censorship, but then you have to have an uphill, adult conversation about how such a policy will not creep or be abused.
I'm not saying that it's a way to make a lot money, but it is a way to reduce costs. Even if you still have to pay a mortgage, it's typically a fixed payment. The security of never having again the cost of a roof over your head increase (a cost which has outpaced inflation) opens up a lot of options.
But does that really affect you in your day to day life? Other than tax rates (for which a decrease is a positive change), the net worth of my house is meaningless to me, outside of times I want to sell it or borrow against it. Regardless of the stability of the financial value, the utilitarian value of a home is very stable.
I'm naive for thinking that a censorship move is going to favor big players over little ones, like it has in the entire history of censorship.
It's not about whether or not we should stop/fight the far-right. AmiMoJo already established that as something necessary. My point was that, if you think it's necessary to stop them, you should use methods that will actually work.
Also, my solution is the very opposite of purging. I'm saying the way to stop alt-right false propaganda is with ACTUAL GODDAMN JOURNALISM. If CNN hadn't been complete horseshit for over a decade, we wouldn't be in this mess.
I didn't say "news source," I said "independent left media." All of those are independent left media. I didn't say that those particular people would be hit by this, but that the niche of "left-wing media that doesn't constantly suck off corporations" would probably be collateral damage under this change, just like they were under the adpocalypse.
No, we don't have an example of how censorship would play out here, because they haven't done this kind of censorship yet. But because I'm not naive, I realize that censorship is almost never a net positive, and always creeps outside of the specific niche that was nominally the target.
Yes, the Youtube monetization issues. Taking away the majority of the money they receive would be undermining them. They sold that bullshit with the exact same pitch as this, so I expect similar results.
The far right is a disease. Diseases infect opportunistically. In a healthy democracy, the press is the immune system to such a disease. The flaws in our heavily consolidated media, with very strong pro-corporate values, have failed to function because they've prioritized access to politicians over their duty to hold politicians responsible. Congress has unbelievably low approval ratings, because they are accurately perceived as bought-off scumbags. And the media rarely bothers to press politicians to any real extent, even with some of the most egregious of cases.
The reason that we are susceptible to fake news is because the mass of the fourth estate is having pleasant conversations with criminals, instead of doing their job and holding those criminals accountable. The solution isn't censorship, it's giving people a reason to have some faith in the 'legitimate' media. And no, it's not going to be fixed overnight, not with all the damage we've done.
Everything in TYT Network, David Pakman, Humanist Report. They all have videos discussing it, and if you dig through them, you'll get mentions of a fair number of others.
Let's be clear. The same rationale from the same company has already been extensively to undermine independent left media. It stands to reason that the same would probably happen here. Blame it on the weakness of algorithms or blame it on the influence of large media corporations, but that's what happened before, and that's what will likely happen again.
Why not? Doing nothing is often the best solution, particularly if every proposed solution is a net negative.
For starters, if you are tracking someone with facial tech, you can find something that at least appears criminal with enough justification to bring them in. Follow someone around all day, and you can eventually find them doing something that you can jail them for.
We shoot people in the US for not wearing seatbelts.
You need to keep in mind the way humans function. A skill set not utilized will diminish over time, while a skill set heavily utilized will improve, at least up to a certain point. Maybe you'll catch more jaywalkers, but more murderers will likely walk free because the entire force is at a Barney Fife level of competence.
Maybe Gawker exposed some serious things, but their signal to noise ratio was so poor, the value of it in practice was probably around zero. They managed to be the gold standard of crappy journalism in multiple fields. They might have been spared a few flaws, but a Gawker site posting something generally removed credibility from the claim.
Perhaps you need a brain scan, because you clearly lack the ability to read. I clearly said that EVERYONE should probably have regular tests for things like glaucoma. You just said that it's often asymptomatic, which means that people who don't need glasses go unchecked, while people with glasses and contacts are subjected to lots of extra costs on something only somewhat correlated with the risks of disease.
It just seems like a post-hoc justification for what is clearly a profit-driven practice, with only moderate correlation with actual health. We would likely be better served with these things being tested for every X years.
But periodic tests for eye diseases are in no way limited to those who need corrective lenses. There may be some diseases that contact lenses wearers are subjected to at higher rates, since they are putting something into their eyes, but the reasoning here is incredibly convoluted.
I'm not worried about them not vetting prescriptions. There is no real path for serious abuse, at most, cheapskates poorly guesstimating their vision, and with a few months of playing "better or worse" with them, they can find something that works well enough anyway.
I am concerned about them being safe. If these contacts are sitting in bleach or will otherwise harm eyes, that's a problem. But this doesn't seem to discuss that.
That propaganda thinking might work on the internet, but Slashdotters know enough to understand that one doesn't magically hack both parties simultaneously. Plus, Trump came relatively out of nowhere, meaning that there is far less of a window for hacking him, and less of a paper trail for misdeeds.
The Clinton campaign fucked up royally, and that's why we have Trump.
But the Russian moles within our TLAs already gave them that info...
They blamed Russia when they got caught with their pants down. They are grasping at any straws they can find.
We don't need troll factories. We have the world's largest propaganda machine.
The problem is in the very definition of terrorism, because it isn't a difference based on morality, but on power.