No one is forced to read Gab's content, if they don't want to. Its users, whatever you think of them, are no no longer free to associate with the site. That ought to concern anyone claiming to worry about "Internet freedom"...
that content wouldn't even have a chance of being hosted in Germany.
Exactly! And yet, Germany is rated higher than the United States in that report... According to the report-publishers, TFA, and the other so-called "Liberals", America's freedom of speech — what's left of it — is detrimental to "Internet freedom". Which tells you all you need to know about this report...
preventing a private entity from [...]
The report — and TFA — both mention pure-private concerns like "fake news" and absence of "net neutrality" as valid. That means, they disagree with you regarding the role of private entities — and what can and cannot be done with them by government to improve "Internet freedom" (as they define it).
certain opinions completely, commercially-speaking, toxic
As I argue elsewhere, providing a forum for the despicables is not — should not be — any more toxic, than defending same in court. If a private Internet-company is toxic over allowing Robert Bowers to speak his mind before he committed his atrocity, a private law-firm defending him in front of a jury after it ought to be toxic as well — their bank-accounts closed (Paypal did stop accepting Gab's payments), the lawyers involved disbarred (GoDaddy not hosting their domain-name).
Heck, the private doctors treating him for wounds sustained in a firefight with police must be toxic too, by the same logic... Would you have approved of such boycotts too? Probably not...
no one has to pay for the bits which make up your speech
Gab.com pays its own bills. They get persecuted anyway...
and the government isn't involved
No government is involved in Net Neutrality either — not any more, much to the chagrin of the folks pretending to be concerned for the "Internet freedom". And yet, they cite this withdrawal of government as a concern.
Can't have it both ways, can they?
I'm not sure this is the exact hill on which to die.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." — remember that grand-standing ditty?..
The report also cited "disinformation and hyperpartisan content" -- or fake news -- as a "pressing concern."
Freedom of speech must — in a society without the Ministry of Truth — include the freedom to lie.
But the targeting of "hate speech" ought to be a "pressing concern" — and for the same reasons. No one lamenting the demise of the "Net Neutrality" would agree, that the regulation would've prevented the persecution of Gab.com, for example. On the contrary, these same people claim "free speech" has become a very lazy excuse to tolerate hatred and the ignorance".
It immediately follows, US still has "too much" freedom — unlike the enlightened and sophisticated Europeans.
Unless you're sitting on a big fat pile of start up capital, tough luck.
Facebook was able to rise — and to take over established players — without any such:
Facebook was initially incorporated as a Florida LLC. For the first few months after its launch in February 2004, the costs for the website operations for thefacebook.com were paid for by Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin, who had taken equity stakes in the company. The website also ran a few advertisements to meet its operating costs
In the summer of 2004, venture capitalist Peter Thiel made a $500,000 angel investment in the social network Facebook for 10.2% of the company and joined Facebook's board. This was the first outside investment in Facebook.
Having gotten that measly $500K in 2004, FB were able to take over MySpace in 2008, despite the latter belonging to a multi-billion dollar corporation...
This is commonly referred to as "late capitalism".
Never heard this term before — cannot be as "common" as you think it is. I had to look it up and, guess what? The Commie term has nothing to do with newcomers competing with the incumbents.
What naturally happens is you end up with one company dominating the field so through history there is no alternative to really coming in and breaking things up
Bullshit, Sir Lee... Historically, to warrant the actual breaking-up, the following conditions had to hold:
The targeted company uses its monopoly position in one market (such as desktop operating systems or search-engines) to target competitors in another (such as web-browsers, or cellular phones).
For example, if Twitter — the dominant player in its field — is really behind the troubles Gab.com is experiencing (if — I make no such allegations), the first item holds. But, given the ease, with which one can start an Internet web-site, the second condition does not hold — and there is no reason to even investigate Twitter in this case...
Simply doing something somebody does not like is not a good justification to use the force of government — however much the bunch of little authoritarians would like it to be.
Don't fall into the trap of believing, that experience in something — such as hyper-text — makes a man an expert in everything.
Is 8 years (2008->2014) enough time to develop the technology to intercept Kepler and refuel it?
They didn't need to know about it. They just had to provide for the the externally-reachable fuel valve or some such.
It seems unlikely that one could get there so much faster
Faster than what? We know the exact position of the telescope at any time. The intercepting mission could aim for where the craft will be years after it is launched — and get there, slowly...
Absence of the vagaries of air-currents — which aerial refueling is subjected to — makes space refueling much simpler...
I think they agreed to work for $DOLLARS per $TIME prior to working.
Karl Marx' argument is clearly lost on you. The capitalist (or, rather, the KKKapitali$st) paying you a fixed sum profits from the Surplus Value — the benefit, Marx' adherents claim to be undeserved.
You are being exploited — a word with very negative connotations — and simply must be unhappy about it...
But it is still reachable — if we were able to send Kepler there with the 2008 technology, we could've sent a refueling craft with 2018 (and even 2014) technology... If, that is, we allowed for it back then.
But, hey, maybe not. Maybe, it really was — and still remains — an impractical thing to do and the obsolescence planned by NASA in 2008 is reasonable and proper. Which, in turn, ought to remove the stigma from the very term "planned obsolescence" and we should stop blasting private companies for it too...
How would you plan to refuel something that is ~150 million kilometers, roughly 100 million miles, away from your planet?
The distance is irrelevant — if a maintenance craft can get to it at all, it can refuel. International Space Station is 254 miles above Earth, but is routinely resupplied (and refueled) despite this much higher altitude.
The process of refueling in space is, likely, even easier than it is for airplanes. And American airplanes have been refueling in flight for decades. It is a solved problem. Indeed, NASA are already researching robotic refueling of satellites themselves. Back, when Kepler was designed, they could've provided for a possibility of a manned refueling mission...
Claims of exceeding the initial plans look much better than "oops, we didn't provide for refueling".
Managing expectations is the key — remember, for another example, the Mars vehicles? How every report about their adventures included a reminder, that they've exceeded expectations and therefore we ought to welcome whatever results we got from them, instead of asking, why this or that subsystem stopped functioning...
Excellent PR-job, NASA. The private sector, often blamed for planned obsolescence of consumer devices, ought to take notice. If your iPhone still works after one year, that is a wonderful feat of technology — quit whining, rejoice, and pay us for a new telescope, er, phone.
Kepler discovered over 2,600 exoplanets
Yes, enforcing laws, defending borders, and searching for exoplanets — exactly the things government is supposed to be doing...
So, you are seeking to contradict me on the basis of the synonyms I chose? "Right wing" and "Right-minded" are the same things, dear. Interchangeable synonyms, like "sex" and "gender".
Nor is there a difference — in this context — between the terms "umpire", "referee", as well as "judge" and "arbiter".
And they're generally pretty fair because of how the rules work
The rules work because these moderators (yet another synonym) are picked to not have their own affiliation with either side. This is a concept long-known in the world of sports — next time you watch Olympics or World Cup, pay attention... Never is a match judged by arbiters from the same country as one of the teams, for example. Indeed, often the referees are from a different continent.
But we don't have to limit ourselves to the domain of sports. For example from a different world, you and the majority of Twitter employees would always point out the inherent unfairness of any criminal conviction, rendered against a Black by a White jury...
Don't like it? Make some rules.
Quite amazing for you to insist on it being "pretty fair", while still inviting me to "make some rules" to address the unfairness...
No, Twitter is not fair, we both know it, Jack Dorsey knows. No, it is not for the government to make rules for them — that would be tyranny.
Lastly, my disliking something is not a good enough reason for me to demand it legally banned — this is something you, a Left-minded, would do good to understand (if not accept).
He then proclaimed, that "need to remove our bias from how we act and our policies and our enforcement" — which is like a Boston referee promising to not favor Red Sox...
So, yes, Twitter are biased, that's a fact. It is also a fact, that it is legal for them to have such a bias.
Finally, I think it is self-evident, that they should not be biased — both for reasons we have the First Amendment in the first place (the Amendment does not apply to them, but the reasons do), and because it hurts their business. And here Jack Dorsey agrees with me, thankfully...
Anyone deliberately evading arrest does not want to be arrested. An arrest would be viewed as very harmful by the individual — even if it gives him a chance of redemption, paying debts to society, etc. An AI seeking to avoid harming anyone would be useless — like humans, it has to balance the different harms.
I fear for the day we're 100% efficient, since NO ONE'S innocent of everything.
I, actually, long for that efficiency — because then we'll begin abolishing the laws, that make all of us guilty today. Because today they are applied selectively and can be used against a particular individual for dishonest motives.
Consider speeding, for example. Everyone does it, few get caught — and accusations of racism are rampant (along with debunkings). Why not simply issue a ticket automatically to everyone arriving to a toll-gate too quickly? Once everyone begins getting these tickets, speed-limit will rise...
Don't be so bloody-minded to think that competition is a necessary state for all systems
Unlike a teddy bear or a saucer, AI is as multipurpose as a mind... Indeed, it is — or ought to be — a mind. To be useful in a real world, it has to know about all aspects of it, even if the degree of knowledge can differ between domains.
Now, maybe, you can train a limited one — aimed at solving a particular task. But that really is no different from rearing a child teaching him only one thing (dancing, serving tea, tending cows) — and keeping him ignorant of all else... Unfair to the kid himself and (largely) useless to his future employers.
I hope the end state for AI isn't something as mundane as law enforcement or military applications
End state? Certainly not — if there is an "end" at all. But they'll certainly be used for that — indeed, already are used for that.
And adversity is not going anywhere, unfortunately — with competing entities (corporations, nations, criminal enterprises, terrorist groups) using AI to their own ends. Just as you can not raise a child unprepared for adversity, you can not develop an AI unprepared to compete...
Why would you make "dog-eat-dog" a trait, when AIs don't need to eat?
ICBMs don't need to eat either... Putin needs to eat. Guess, how he'll program his AI?
Why should AIs compete at all, is the question.
Because some of the tasks we may wish to entrust them will have adversarial aspects. If AI is charged with picking out wanted criminals from the crowd, it will need to weight severely harming the criminal — by having him arrested — vs. harming the rest of us a little bit — by letting him slip. Such an AI will need to compete with the criminal's efforts to disguise himself.
Similar considerations apply in military applications — though the stakes are higher there.
Slashdot Mirror
No one is forced to read Gab's content, if they don't want to. Its users, whatever you think of them, are no no longer free to associate with the site. That ought to concern anyone claiming to worry about "Internet freedom"...
Exactly! And yet, Germany is rated higher than the United States in that report... According to the report-publishers, TFA, and the other so-called "Liberals", America's freedom of speech — what's left of it — is detrimental to "Internet freedom". Which tells you all you need to know about this report...
The report — and TFA — both mention pure-private concerns like "fake news" and absence of "net neutrality" as valid. That means, they disagree with you regarding the role of private entities — and what can and cannot be done with them by government to improve "Internet freedom" (as they define it).
As I argue elsewhere, providing a forum for the despicables is not — should not be — any more toxic, than defending same in court. If a private Internet-company is toxic over allowing Robert Bowers to speak his mind before he committed his atrocity, a private law-firm defending him in front of a jury after it ought to be toxic as well — their bank-accounts closed (Paypal did stop accepting Gab's payments), the lawyers involved disbarred (GoDaddy not hosting their domain-name).
Heck, the private doctors treating him for wounds sustained in a firefight with police must be toxic too, by the same logic... Would you have approved of such boycotts too? Probably not...
Gab.com pays its own bills. They get persecuted anyway...
No government is involved in Net Neutrality either — not any more, much to the chagrin of the folks pretending to be concerned for the "Internet freedom". And yet, they cite this withdrawal of government as a concern.
Can't have it both ways, can they?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." — remember that grand-standing ditty?..
By that site's charts, Bush was far more popular than Obama — do you think, DNS-and-BIND thought Bush "acceptable"?
Crappy excuse — violating the spirit of the moderation rules...
Freedom of speech must — in a society without the Ministry of Truth — include the freedom to lie.
But the targeting of "hate speech" ought to be a "pressing concern" — and for the same reasons. No one lamenting the demise of the "Net Neutrality" would agree, that the regulation would've prevented the persecution of Gab.com, for example. On the contrary, these same people claim "free speech" has become a very lazy excuse to tolerate hatred and the ignorance".
It immediately follows, US still has "too much" freedom — unlike the enlightened and sophisticated Europeans.
Facebook was able to rise — and to take over established players — without any such:
Having gotten that measly $500K in 2004, FB were able to take over MySpace in 2008, despite the latter belonging to a multi-billion dollar corporation...
Never heard this term before — cannot be as "common" as you think it is. I had to look it up and, guess what? The Commie term has nothing to do with newcomers competing with the incumbents.
"Trumpism" may not be acceptable in your circles, but the President's approval ratings are steadily hovering around 50%. He is "acceptable".
Comfortably and confidently, thank you for asking.
The same way Facebook dethroned MySpace and a bunch of others, they can themselves be taken over the minute they lose it...
A looser's argument...
Bullshit, Sir Lee... Historically, to warrant the actual breaking-up, the following conditions had to hold:
For example, if Twitter — the dominant player in its field — is really behind the troubles Gab.com is experiencing (if — I make no such allegations), the first item holds. But, given the ease, with which one can start an Internet web-site, the second condition does not hold — and there is no reason to even investigate Twitter in this case...
Simply doing something somebody does not like is not a good justification to use the force of government — however much the bunch of little authoritarians would like it to be.
Don't fall into the trap of believing, that experience in something — such as hyper-text — makes a man an expert in everything.
But, but, ... the best things in life are free!
They didn't need to know about it. They just had to provide for the the externally-reachable fuel valve or some such.
Faster than what? We know the exact position of the telescope at any time. The intercepting mission could aim for where the craft will be years after it is launched — and get there, slowly...
Absence of the vagaries of air-currents — which aerial refueling is subjected to — makes space refueling much simpler...
Karl Marx' argument is clearly lost on you. The capitalist (or, rather, the KKKapitali$st) paying you a fixed sum profits from the Surplus Value — the benefit, Marx' adherents claim to be undeserved.
You are being exploited — a word with very negative connotations — and simply must be unhappy about it...
Ooops, you are right, I misread the numbers.
But it is still reachable — if we were able to send Kepler there with the 2008 technology, we could've sent a refueling craft with 2018 (and even 2014) technology... If, that is, we allowed for it back then.
But, hey, maybe not. Maybe, it really was — and still remains — an impractical thing to do and the obsolescence planned by NASA in 2008 is reasonable and proper. Which, in turn, ought to remove the stigma from the very term "planned obsolescence" and we should stop blasting private companies for it too...
The distance is irrelevant — if a maintenance craft can get to it at all, it can refuel. International Space Station is 254 miles above Earth, but is routinely resupplied (and refueled) despite this much higher altitude.
If we can send a car into space just for the heck of it, we can reach any object in the Earth orbit...
The process of refueling in space is, likely, even easier than it is for airplanes. And American airplanes have been refueling in flight for decades. It is a solved problem. Indeed, NASA are already researching robotic refueling of satellites themselves. Back, when Kepler was designed, they could've provided for a possibility of a manned refueling mission...
Claims of exceeding the initial plans look much better than "oops, we didn't provide for refueling".
Managing expectations is the key — remember, for another example, the Mars vehicles? How every report about their adventures included a reminder, that they've exceeded expectations and therefore we ought to welcome whatever results we got from them, instead of asking, why this or that subsystem stopped functioning...
Excellent PR-job, NASA. The private sector, often blamed for planned obsolescence of consumer devices, ought to take notice. If your iPhone still works after one year, that is a wonderful feat of technology — quit whining, rejoice, and pay us for a new telescope, er, phone.
Yes, enforcing laws, defending borders, and searching for exoplanets — exactly the things government is supposed to be doing...
Yes, of course, capitalization changes meaning — here are some more examples.
Everybody's got a left hand, very few people have a Left idiot-nephew, that they are embarrassed to talk about.
Yeah, dear, one of us really is stupid, but it is not me...
If it was designed by the team that developed the AI, yes, I'd be suspicious.
I deliberately Capitalized the word "Right" — to avoid any allusions to "correctness".
I choose my words carefully. I suggest, you do the same, dearest.
So, you are seeking to contradict me on the basis of the synonyms I chose? "Right wing" and "Right-minded" are the same things, dear. Interchangeable synonyms, like "sex" and "gender".
Nor is there a difference — in this context — between the terms "umpire", "referee", as well as "judge" and "arbiter".
The rules work because these moderators (yet another synonym) are picked to not have their own affiliation with either side. This is a concept long-known in the world of sports — next time you watch Olympics or World Cup, pay attention... Never is a match judged by arbiters from the same country as one of the teams, for example. Indeed, often the referees are from a different continent.
But we don't have to limit ourselves to the domain of sports. For example from a different world, you and the majority of Twitter employees would always point out the inherent unfairness of any criminal conviction, rendered against a Black by a White jury...
Quite amazing for you to insist on it being "pretty fair", while still inviting me to "make some rules" to address the unfairness...
No, Twitter is not fair, we both know it, Jack Dorsey knows. No, it is not for the government to make rules for them — that would be tyranny.
Lastly, my disliking something is not a good enough reason for me to demand it legally banned — this is something you, a Left-minded, would do good to understand (if not accept).
There is. Twitter CEO admitted prevalence of Left among the employees, to the point, where the Right-minded do not feel safe expressing their views.
He then proclaimed, that "need to remove our bias from how we act and our policies and our enforcement" — which is like a Boston referee promising to not favor Red Sox...
So, yes, Twitter are biased, that's a fact. It is also a fact, that it is legal for them to have such a bias.
Finally, I think it is self-evident, that they should not be biased — both for reasons we have the First Amendment in the first place (the Amendment does not apply to them, but the reasons do), and because it hurts their business. And here Jack Dorsey agrees with me, thankfully...
The document used for testing was not created by an AI, was it?
Anyone deliberately evading arrest does not want to be arrested. An arrest would be viewed as very harmful by the individual — even if it gives him a chance of redemption, paying debts to society, etc. An AI seeking to avoid harming anyone would be useless — like humans, it has to balance the different harms.
I, actually, long for that efficiency — because then we'll begin abolishing the laws, that make all of us guilty today. Because today they are applied selectively and can be used against a particular individual for dishonest motives.
Consider speeding, for example. Everyone does it, few get caught — and accusations of racism are rampant (along with debunkings). Why not simply issue a ticket automatically to everyone arriving to a toll-gate too quickly? Once everyone begins getting these tickets, speed-limit will rise...
Unlike a teddy bear or a saucer, AI is as multipurpose as a mind... Indeed, it is — or ought to be — a mind. To be useful in a real world, it has to know about all aspects of it, even if the degree of knowledge can differ between domains.
Now, maybe, you can train a limited one — aimed at solving a particular task. But that really is no different from rearing a child teaching him only one thing (dancing, serving tea, tending cows) — and keeping him ignorant of all else... Unfair to the kid himself and (largely) useless to his future employers.
End state? Certainly not — if there is an "end" at all. But they'll certainly be used for that — indeed, already are used for that.
And adversity is not going anywhere, unfortunately — with competing entities (corporations, nations, criminal enterprises, terrorist groups) using AI to their own ends. Just as you can not raise a child unprepared for adversity, you can not develop an AI unprepared to compete...
ICBMs don't need to eat either... Putin needs to eat. Guess, how he'll program his AI?
Because some of the tasks we may wish to entrust them will have adversarial aspects. If AI is charged with picking out wanted criminals from the crowd, it will need to weight severely harming the criminal — by having him arrested — vs. harming the rest of us a little bit — by letting him slip. Such an AI will need to compete with the criminal's efforts to disguise himself.
Similar considerations apply in military applications — though the stakes are higher there.