The accusation is, the general American population is 78% white, 12% black, 10% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% Arab, x% Jewish, 51% female. If your work force does not have the same percentages you are discriminating.
No, I've never heard anyone seriously claim that. The only time it's used is as a straw man to avoid addressing the actual argument, which is that there are wide ranging systemic issues and companies should do their bit to address that.
Is there some patented tech that makes the tripod work better than others, which was copied? Or did they put a fake logo on it, which is subject to trademark protection?
Because if it's just an aesthetic design then there probably isn't that much they can do to stop other people making similar ones. The copies aren't fake unless the misrepresent themselves as being the original. And personally I actually like that people make cheaper but 90% as good versions of popular things, because I don't always need the best or don't feel the price is worth it to me.
How about, if you advertise 50Mbps and your average speed really is 50Mbps when you actually use data, then your bill is as expected. If your average speed is really 25Mbps, your bill is cut in half.
That would be a good start, but things like latency and packet loss are also pretty important for a lot of applications.
They always word it as "up to" speeds to get around that. With ISP speeds there is a specific issue that the "up to" speed is only available to a tiny fraction of customers. Worse still the true speed you will get is hard to calculate - it depends on how long your bit of copper line is, what condition it's in, how congested your area is...
It's similar to car MPG ratings. Most are complete bollocks, and it's almost impossible to anticipate what a particular customer will be seeing with their driving style and routine. But at least there are some rules to make comparing cars somewhat useful. If there were no rules the numbers would be even sillier.
It seems that Wilberg raised concerns about the hiring practices that his manager had introduced, along with other employees. For example, a black woman complained that she was only ever being asked to interview black candidates, which seems to be to make up a numerical requirement. If the claims here are to be believed then the hiring manager was incompetent and trying to cover it up with quotas.
Google's HR sanctioned the manager and put a stop to the quotas. That may well save them from the discrimination claims, because the fixed it when it was reported. However, at that point it gets weird.
Wilberg's manager was moved after HR decided that they had acted unreasonably and vindictively towards him. But the new manager apparently decided that she hated him from the moment they met, which the suit claims is because of the first manager's interference. If that is true then there could well be a wrongful dismissal claim in it.
Most of their users don't want fuckwits that post #PunchANazi or #KillAllMen on there either, but those are the cunts Twitter chose to run their Trust and Safety Council.
Would be more convincing if you named them, perhaps with a link to when they said those things.
Having said that, I'm not sure punching Nazis is all that objectionable.
A lot of people misunderstand what Twitter's goal is. They are not trying to 4chan without the doxing and porn. They actually want to get rid of the Nazis and are looking for ways to do it effectively. Most of their users don't want Nazis there, believe it or not.
I know, I know, what about free speech and the marketplace of ideas? It's a question of the greater good. Look at Reddit, it got a lot better when most of the really nasty stuff was pushed on to Voat. That's the reality here, if you want really good discussions and debates then there has to be some limit on the trolling and abuse or most people just won't participate and it becomes a fat-hating, Jew gassing echo chamber. A lot like Gab.ai, for example.
No one has come up with a solution to this yet. Maybe there isn't one. Maybe it's not actually a huge problem either. Look at the alt-right in America. They took fringe ideas on the very far right and mainstreamed them. It's proof that simply not giving Nazis a platform doesn't stop nationalist ideas from being discussed and seeping into the mainstream when there is enough support for them. It actually seems like the marketplace of ideas is working quite well.
Give them a break. The C90 tape that the site loaded off on their hacked together 192k Spectrum +3 probably got chewed up when they were listening to hits of the 90s on side B as they drove between data centres. That's the kind of thing that can happen to anyway, and these days it's actually really hard to find a biro and sticky tape to fix it.
Take the UK as an example. There is censorship via the "Cleanfeed" system that uses a government generated block list, and there is censorship via the civil legal system where rights holders get injunctions to block certain sites. Neither is universal. Cleanfeed isn't mandatory for ISPs and most of the smaller ones don't use it. The civil legal stuff only targets the biggest ISPs like Virgin, BT and TalkTalk.
I'm sure this still still piss some people off, i.e. the ones who think that Twitter should be designated a public space and constitutionally required not to ban them. But in practice Gab.ai doesn't even have a presence in Europe AFAIK, so couldn't be subject to any potential EU law anyway.
The random distribution means that you can't just make sockpuppets (not that it doesn't happen).
Unfortunately it's not really random at all, and people have found ways to consistently create sockpuppet moderation accounts. I've been doing some research into this and it's occasionally discussed on IRC and Discord when they think no-one is looking.
Basically there are two factors that vastly increase the chances of getting mod points. The first is if an account is in good standing karma and meta-moderation wise, and the way to do that is create multiple sockpuppets who meta-mod each other up. Just doing meta-moderation increases the chances of getting mod points it seems.
Newer accounts also seem to be more likely to get mod points, suggesting that there is some weighting going on. So basically keep creating new accounts, keep them meta-modding each other up and you will get mod points.
There is also a bit of a feedback loop that helps sockpuppeteers. Once a post gets a single moderation applied to it then it is much more likely to appear for meta moderation, and much more likely to be noticed by other people with mod points. There is a probably a bit of crowd mentality going on too where people follow the prevailing trend, so that very first +1 is actually worth a hell of a lot.
And why isn't there a -1 Misinformed or -1 Stupid, instead?
That would just encourage people to down-mod things they disagree with. There are plenty of examples of where facts are disputed too, e.g. climate change and Trump.
Down modding should be reserved for spam and pretty much nothing else. Better to have some bigoted asshat modded up and then ripped apart by insightful replies than have some unpopular opinion labelled trolling.
Soylent News has a -1 Disagree and it doesn't work.
Limit people to 1 down mod per day, and spot when people are modding the same person multiple times (i.e. stalking and sock-puppetry). That's all that needs to change.
I like that idea, but in the mean time (because it's not trivial to develop and test) I'll propose something even simpler.
Limit people to 1 down mod per day. There are occasional needs for down-mods, but most of the time they are simply abused. I'd rather see a bigoted or trolling post rise up and get shredded in the replies than see an unpopular argument modded down.
Another longer term fix would be to spot when someone moderates the same person's posts multiple times. That would prevent people mass-down-voting people they don't like and fix a lot of the sock puppetry going on.
What about all the left leaning channels that were hit with flagging, de-monetization, removals and bans?
How can you say that YouTube ignored left leaning channels when so many of them were hit hard by the AI ban-hammer?
Meanwhile YouTube is dominated by far right redpill/alt-right/anti-feminist channels. People like Sargon, Armoured Skeptic, Bearing, TL;DR, The Golden One, Paul Joseph Watson... How many interviews with Richard Spencer are up there? Interviewing a self-proclaimed Nazi seems to be the latest fad.
And in all the outrage over these latest bans, the fact that YouTube said they were a mistake and reversed them seems to have been ignored.
But in this case it was the left that was hit first. When it was just AI looking at videos a lot got de-monetized. Then the waves of false-flag attacks from 4chan started, and a lot of left leaning channels like Contrapoints and Kevin Logan got videos removed or even entire channels taken down.
So YouTube started hiring human beings to review videos instead, and of course mistakes were made.
Read your Declaration. The right to free speech isn't only the right against government censorship; it is a Natural Right that you have by virtue of sucking down oxygen. The government is there to make sure no one takes it from you. That includes other private actors to whom you have not ceded it. YouTube's community guidelines do not constitute an agreement to relinquish the right to make right-wing statements. If YouTube is treating it as such, that would be a breach of contract between customer and service provider.
That akin to requiring the local theatre to give you a stage, the local restaurant to tolerate your offending their other customers. And does it just apply to businesses, or can I come to your house and lecture you whenever I feel like it?
The lack of explicit terms disallowing specific speech doesn't mean anything. And if you read those terms carefully, they surely include a "we can ban you for any reason we like" clause.
we constantly curate the front page and trending vidlist to exclude viewpoints we don't like
Nope.
The front page is by default full of popular but bland videos, determined by things like the ratio of up/down votes. If you create an account it starts to customize it for you. For example, I get both left leaning and some really extreme far right stuff recommended to me, because it knows I'm interested in politics and recommends both videos similar to the ones I've liked and counter-arguments/responses to those videos.
If you have evidence of a conspiracy then post it, but since YouTube has also killed left leaning channels and de-monetized videos about things like make-up for trans folks it's hard to argue that there is any systemic bias.
He didn't say that though. That phrase does not appear in any of his posts, nor anything like it.
He was just saying that it's unusual for technology to lead directly to deaths, by which I think he meant computer technology because obviously military tech is pretty common.
Gates has done a lot wrong in his lifetime, but that doesn't excuse attributing things to him that he didn't say or believe. Like the classic 640k meme.
This actually happened to someone where I worked. She started, was getting on fine, but about a month in someone googled her name and found an old BBC article where she was interviewed about something illegal and embarrassing. Word spread quickly and in the end she quit.
At the time there was no right to be forgotten, but I hope she took advantage of it when it came in.
Many keyboards have a simple volume up, volume down and mute key arrangement. That's ideal because you generally only want to adjust the volume slowly and over a short range.
Sliders for volume are not a great idea, because one slip and you get blasted with loud, ear damaging, speaker-destroying sound. That's why an decent hifi equipment has a fairly stiff volume knob, or requires a lot of turns to make big changes.
Slashdot Mirror
The accusation is, the general American population is 78% white, 12% black, 10% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 2% Arab, x% Jewish, 51% female. If your work force does not have the same percentages you are discriminating.
No, I've never heard anyone seriously claim that. The only time it's used is as a straw man to avoid addressing the actual argument, which is that there are wide ranging systemic issues and companies should do their bit to address that.
What is the actual infringement here though?
Is there some patented tech that makes the tripod work better than others, which was copied? Or did they put a fake logo on it, which is subject to trademark protection?
Because if it's just an aesthetic design then there probably isn't that much they can do to stop other people making similar ones. The copies aren't fake unless the misrepresent themselves as being the original. And personally I actually like that people make cheaper but 90% as good versions of popular things, because I don't always need the best or don't feel the price is worth it to me.
How about, if you advertise 50Mbps and your average speed really is 50Mbps when you actually use data, then your bill is as expected. If your average speed is really 25Mbps, your bill is cut in half.
That would be a good start, but things like latency and packet loss are also pretty important for a lot of applications.
They always word it as "up to" speeds to get around that. With ISP speeds there is a specific issue that the "up to" speed is only available to a tiny fraction of customers. Worse still the true speed you will get is hard to calculate - it depends on how long your bit of copper line is, what condition it's in, how congested your area is...
It's similar to car MPG ratings. Most are complete bollocks, and it's almost impossible to anticipate what a particular customer will be seeing with their driving style and routine. But at least there are some rules to make comparing cars somewhat useful. If there were no rules the numbers would be even sillier.
The lawsuit is quite interesting: https://www.scribd.com/documen...
It seems that Wilberg raised concerns about the hiring practices that his manager had introduced, along with other employees. For example, a black woman complained that she was only ever being asked to interview black candidates, which seems to be to make up a numerical requirement. If the claims here are to be believed then the hiring manager was incompetent and trying to cover it up with quotas.
Google's HR sanctioned the manager and put a stop to the quotas. That may well save them from the discrimination claims, because the fixed it when it was reported. However, at that point it gets weird.
Wilberg's manager was moved after HR decided that they had acted unreasonably and vindictively towards him. But the new manager apparently decided that she hated him from the moment they met, which the suit claims is because of the first manager's interference. If that is true then there could well be a wrongful dismissal claim in it.
Most of their users don't want fuckwits that post #PunchANazi or #KillAllMen on there either, but those are the cunts Twitter chose to run their Trust and Safety Council.
Would be more convincing if you named them, perhaps with a link to when they said those things.
Having said that, I'm not sure punching Nazis is all that objectionable.
A lot of people misunderstand what Twitter's goal is. They are not trying to 4chan without the doxing and porn. They actually want to get rid of the Nazis and are looking for ways to do it effectively. Most of their users don't want Nazis there, believe it or not.
I know, I know, what about free speech and the marketplace of ideas? It's a question of the greater good. Look at Reddit, it got a lot better when most of the really nasty stuff was pushed on to Voat. That's the reality here, if you want really good discussions and debates then there has to be some limit on the trolling and abuse or most people just won't participate and it becomes a fat-hating, Jew gassing echo chamber. A lot like Gab.ai, for example.
No one has come up with a solution to this yet. Maybe there isn't one. Maybe it's not actually a huge problem either. Look at the alt-right in America. They took fringe ideas on the very far right and mainstreamed them. It's proof that simply not giving Nazis a platform doesn't stop nationalist ideas from being discussed and seeping into the mainstream when there is enough support for them. It actually seems like the marketplace of ideas is working quite well.
Give them a break. The C90 tape that the site loaded off on their hacked together 192k Spectrum +3 probably got chewed up when they were listening to hits of the 90s on side B as they drove between data centres. That's the kind of thing that can happen to anyway, and these days it's actually really hard to find a biro and sticky tape to fix it.
It probably won't apply to small players.
Take the UK as an example. There is censorship via the "Cleanfeed" system that uses a government generated block list, and there is censorship via the civil legal system where rights holders get injunctions to block certain sites. Neither is universal. Cleanfeed isn't mandatory for ISPs and most of the smaller ones don't use it. The civil legal stuff only targets the biggest ISPs like Virgin, BT and TalkTalk.
I'm sure this still still piss some people off, i.e. the ones who think that Twitter should be designated a public space and constitutionally required not to ban them. But in practice Gab.ai doesn't even have a presence in Europe AFAIK, so couldn't be subject to any potential EU law anyway.
The random distribution means that you can't just make sockpuppets (not that it doesn't happen).
Unfortunately it's not really random at all, and people have found ways to consistently create sockpuppet moderation accounts. I've been doing some research into this and it's occasionally discussed on IRC and Discord when they think no-one is looking.
Basically there are two factors that vastly increase the chances of getting mod points. The first is if an account is in good standing karma and meta-moderation wise, and the way to do that is create multiple sockpuppets who meta-mod each other up. Just doing meta-moderation increases the chances of getting mod points it seems.
Newer accounts also seem to be more likely to get mod points, suggesting that there is some weighting going on. So basically keep creating new accounts, keep them meta-modding each other up and you will get mod points.
There is also a bit of a feedback loop that helps sockpuppeteers. Once a post gets a single moderation applied to it then it is much more likely to appear for meta moderation, and much more likely to be noticed by other people with mod points. There is a probably a bit of crowd mentality going on too where people follow the prevailing trend, so that very first +1 is actually worth a hell of a lot.
The UI needs fixing for mobile though. The page isn't wide enough due to the ad. Could probably be fixed with some CSS that detects mobile screens.
I hope subscriptions come back too, I'm more than happy to pay for this.
And why isn't there a -1 Misinformed or -1 Stupid, instead?
That would just encourage people to down-mod things they disagree with. There are plenty of examples of where facts are disputed too, e.g. climate change and Trump.
Down modding should be reserved for spam and pretty much nothing else. Better to have some bigoted asshat modded up and then ripped apart by insightful replies than have some unpopular opinion labelled trolling.
Soylent News has a -1 Disagree and it doesn't work.
Limit people to 1 down mod per day, and spot when people are modding the same person multiple times (i.e. stalking and sock-puppetry). That's all that needs to change.
I like that idea, but in the mean time (because it's not trivial to develop and test) I'll propose something even simpler.
Limit people to 1 down mod per day. There are occasional needs for down-mods, but most of the time they are simply abused. I'd rather see a bigoted or trolling post rise up and get shredded in the replies than see an unpopular argument modded down.
Another longer term fix would be to spot when someone moderates the same person's posts multiple times. That would prevent people mass-down-voting people they don't like and fix a lot of the sock puppetry going on.
Thanks. I was getting withdrawal symptoms. Got so much work done. It was awful...
Who is good girlfriend? I know there are a few anti-feminist women on YouTube, but they are mostly harmless.
What about all the left leaning channels that were hit with flagging, de-monetization, removals and bans?
How can you say that YouTube ignored left leaning channels when so many of them were hit hard by the AI ban-hammer?
Meanwhile YouTube is dominated by far right redpill/alt-right/anti-feminist channels. People like Sargon, Armoured Skeptic, Bearing, TL;DR, The Golden One, Paul Joseph Watson... How many interviews with Richard Spencer are up there? Interviewing a self-proclaimed Nazi seems to be the latest fad.
And in all the outrage over these latest bans, the fact that YouTube said they were a mistake and reversed them seems to have been ignored.
But in this case it was the left that was hit first. When it was just AI looking at videos a lot got de-monetized. Then the waves of false-flag attacks from 4chan started, and a lot of left leaning channels like Contrapoints and Kevin Logan got videos removed or even entire channels taken down.
So YouTube started hiring human beings to review videos instead, and of course mistakes were made.
Read your Declaration. The right to free speech isn't only the right against government censorship; it is a Natural Right that you have by virtue of sucking down oxygen. The government is there to make sure no one takes it from you. That includes other private actors to whom you have not ceded it. YouTube's community guidelines do not constitute an agreement to relinquish the right to make right-wing statements. If YouTube is treating it as such, that would be a breach of contract between customer and service provider.
That akin to requiring the local theatre to give you a stage, the local restaurant to tolerate your offending their other customers. And does it just apply to businesses, or can I come to your house and lecture you whenever I feel like it?
The lack of explicit terms disallowing specific speech doesn't mean anything. And if you read those terms carefully, they surely include a "we can ban you for any reason we like" clause.
we constantly curate the front page and trending vidlist to exclude viewpoints we don't like
Nope.
The front page is by default full of popular but bland videos, determined by things like the ratio of up/down votes. If you create an account it starts to customize it for you. For example, I get both left leaning and some really extreme far right stuff recommended to me, because it knows I'm interested in politics and recommends both videos similar to the ones I've liked and counter-arguments/responses to those videos.
If you have evidence of a conspiracy then post it, but since YouTube has also killed left leaning channels and de-monetized videos about things like make-up for trans folks it's hard to argue that there is any systemic bias.
Who the Hell would apply for a job as a YouTube political correctness moderator anyway?
People who like money?
Really?
http://news.gallup.com/poll/16...
Polls suggest they are on the side of the majority on gun control.
"more evil than cash"
He didn't say that though. That phrase does not appear in any of his posts, nor anything like it.
He was just saying that it's unusual for technology to lead directly to deaths, by which I think he meant computer technology because obviously military tech is pretty common.
Gates has done a lot wrong in his lifetime, but that doesn't excuse attributing things to him that he didn't say or believe. Like the classic 640k meme.
Most of the industrial diamonds are artificial though. Much easier and cheaper than trying to find and dig them up.
The only people who care about getting their diamonds out of the ground instead of out of a factory are people looking for an expensive status symbol.
This actually happened to someone where I worked. She started, was getting on fine, but about a month in someone googled her name and found an old BBC article where she was interviewed about something illegal and embarrassing. Word spread quickly and in the end she quit.
At the time there was no right to be forgotten, but I hope she took advantage of it when it came in.
Many keyboards have a simple volume up, volume down and mute key arrangement. That's ideal because you generally only want to adjust the volume slowly and over a short range.
Sliders for volume are not a great idea, because one slip and you get blasted with loud, ear damaging, speaker-destroying sound. That's why an decent hifi equipment has a fairly stiff volume knob, or requires a lot of turns to make big changes.