the "wrong" sort shouldn't be allowed to vote. They won't say it out loud though.
Yes, the wrong people shouldn't be allowed to vote. I've never had a problem saying it out loud, even though you usually try to put words in my mouth by trying to tell me what I mean by "wrong". Wrong means "people who should not be allowed to vote". People who are not US citizens should not be allowed to vote. People who don't live in the voting district should not be allowed to vote there. People who are not registered to vote should not be allowed to vote.
Most commonly they say that voting should take some work because if you're not willing to put the effort in you shouldn't be voting.
Yes, if you can't be bothered to pay attention to what is being voted on, then you should not vote. Your vote will be noise. It will not represent the will of the people, it will represent random data.
I suppose the problem is that you cannot tell the difference between "should not be allowed to vote" and "should not vote".
What it comes down to is conservatives want to keep progressives out of the political system.
Just as much as progressives want to keep conservatives out. That's what happens during any vote -- people vote for the ones they want, which excludes the ones they don't. Have you never voted?
America's entire system is built to do that. It's why we have a Senate and Electoral college.
If you don't really understand why we have the system we do, please don't make up absurd nonsense about it.
For some folks they can't even wrap their heads around how little actual Democracy exists in America.
Yes, and so they come up with absurd claims about why the Electoral College exists and yammer on about "voter suppression" when people who should not be allowed to vote are prevented from voting. Some folks think that "able to breathe" is sufficient to have the right to vote in any election, because 'democracy'! It's amazing that they cannot wrap their heads around what the US political system was designed to be, and what voting is supposed to accomplish.
Self sustaining? How much wood grows in an area with a recurring water shortage?
The device uses "biomass", which can be "wood".
Remember that there are other things that are "biomass".
A fully-functioning water-maker in an arid land will significantly reduce the supply of soylent green, but will also significantly reduce the demand for soylent green, and also reduce the demand for water. Thus it helps solve the disaster situation by lessening the required rebuilding.
It is a government rule, therefore applies to only where the laws applies, i.e. to the American people on American lands.
If you look up the laws regarding monetary contributions to US candidates, you will find that it applies to any foreign national who attempts to donate money or provide services as contributions to a US Presidential candidate. That's why there's all the broohaahaa about them damn Ruskies allegedly giving money to Trump's campaign. It's illegal for them if they do it; it's only illegal for Trump if his campaign solicited the contributions. I.e., them damn Ruskies can't scuttle the next Presidential campaign simply by sending the campaign money he didn't know about. Just like nobody could prove Gore knew about the real source of the money from the Buddhist monks.
The day our own government is unable to inform it's own citizens more effectively than a foreign state is the day we deserve invasion and likely need it.
This is a very scary statement. It implies a mandatory data channel under the sole control of the government to every citizen. Otherwise, the "foreign state" will just use the same data channel to speak, and the citizen will be left trying to judge the truth -- just like now.
Handing out ballots to everyone means everyone can vote, even people who shouldn't. The "Russian influence" has never been alleged Russian voting. Your proposed solution is not a solution to whatever problem there is with Russian influence.
I don't know what fear you smell. I'm not afraid to point out your mistake. Are you?
So, what you're saying is that Russian misinformation is bad. Really bad. Prison time bad.
No, I was actually saying that by-mail voting has nothing to do with any alleged Russian influence over voters by using carefully crafted sarcasm. The part about if WillAffleckUW says it, it must be true, should have been a giveaway. Sorry.
Your entire rant about the First Amendment and stuff was wasted. And it was so pretty.
You know, I prefer American misinformation as much as the next guy, but the choice to be "swayed" one way or another is entirely personal.
I know that, and you know that. But apparently a lot of people do not. It would appear that posting misinformation about political things is an attempt to defraud the United States. (That usage refers to the government of the US, not "everyone in the US".)
I was pointing out that the proposed solution -- which if accepted at face value would make the majority of those political subdivisions within the US that think they are states actually not be states after all -- doesn't solve the problem it is being proposed to solve. It was just an attempt at using a completely irrelevant problem as an argument for a broken voting system. It's kinda like "hey, a UAV in Arizona ran down a pedestrian -- we ought to have by-mail voting like real states do."
Whether the problem is self-inflicted by voters on themselves is a different matter.
I'm sorry I confused you by using a standard colloquialism that most, if not all, native English speakers would understand. It leaves unanswered the main issue with your original comment, in that using mail-in ballots will do absolutely nothing to deal with external influences on the voters. In fact, it will allow more influences on them, like spouses, employers, random people who find the discarded ballots, etc.
Just use mail-in paper ballots like real states do, and register everyone everyday whenever they apply for any license of any type at a county or state office.
Yeah! That'll solve the problem of Russian misinformation trying to sway the voters, it sure will! I don't know how, but if WillAffleckUW says it will, then it must be true.
Oh, wait, I missed the patent insult about "real states" using mail-in ballots. I know of a few that throw ballots out to the four winds so anyone can get their hands on one, but I also know a lot of states -- real states -- do not.
No moron. The fact that the Pacific moron is poluted that bad.
This is a story about the British Isles in the South Atlantic, not the Pacific Ocean. It is about beaches that were "near pristine" thirty years ago, not the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The comment was about not having pictures of the plastic on beaches of the British Isles in the South Atlantic. It had nothing to do with the "Pacific moron". I don't know what the "Pacific moron" is, I usually call it the "Pacific ocean", but I'm not a moron. I can tell Pacific from Atlantic, at least.
Look up pictures from space of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
Is this what they teach in modern geography classes? That the Great Pacific Garbage Dump is in the waters surrounding the British Isles in the south Atlantic?
Then tell me that it isn't as bad as they are saying.
Someone else managed to provide a link to a picture from the actual place. Yes, it looks bad. But I'd say that 1/100 of that amount would also be bad. The scientists are calling 1/100 "nearly pristine". I do not think that word means what they think it means.
The other pix, from Antarctica, also aren't from the British Isles. You can't prove that the waters of the British Isles are infested with plastic garbage by showing pictures of other places.
the skeptic in me feeling that it's not as bad as it sounds.
Millions of bits of degraded plastic should create a photo-op.
But so would hundreds of thousands, which is what we had a decade ago.
And tens of thousands three decades ago.
Most people get upset if they see tens of pieces of crap on the beach. But tens of thousands, not so much? Tens of thousands of bits of degraded plastic is "near pristine".
I'm a bit concerned when the beginning of a story talks in hyperbolic terms. ("Near pristine", "flooded".) It is nice that they start using actual numbers, even if they aren't very quantitative. I mean, even saying "a hundredfold" is pretty meaningless if the starting point truly is "near pristine".
And I'm saying it's better than nothing, because fake information
And I'm saying they cannot determine it is fake based on the criteria they are using. If you cannot determine whether it is fake or not, then removing it is not the right solution.
So, in the case of fake news, your deciding factor is that false positives are disqualifying.
Stop putting words in my mouth. You're doing it deliberately now.
It is amazing our system of voting includes this level of bullshit.
Our system of voting operates under something called a "Constitution", the first addition to which is a clear statement that congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is ugly but necessary. It is hard to look at things like McCain-Feingold as anything but unconstitutional, but the legalites twist things enough to allow it.
Our candidates could change this if they wished, but they only make promises and then it all comes right back. Wyden promised during his first Senate campaign where he was running against Gordon Smith (R) that he would run an honest, ethical, non-attack campaign. That announcement came one day before the ads claiming that Gordon Smith killed a teenager started running. (The Smith family operate(d) a farm and a tragic accident resulted in the death of a teenager. The family of the teen appeared in the next Smith ads exonerating him and calling the ad using their son's accident reprehensible.) Wyden denied any responsibility, claiming that it was a PAC supporting him that did it. That's all it takes to get out of such a promise -- have someone else do it for you. Plausible deniability.
The determination of legal/illegal migrant is often quite arbitrary, depending on what the current administration is enforcing or tolerating and what laws have been signed in.
Yes, what is illegal or legal is always determined by what laws "have been signed in".
but a lot are people who tried to do the right thing but a random judge decided to deny them.
Whether they are denied entry or not is not the issue. It is when they enter illegally, which can be either "without trying" or "trying to get legal access and are denied". I.e., they aren't illegal because the judge denied entry, they are illegal because they entered illegally. "Try[ing] to do the right thing" and then doing the illegal thing is still illegal.
Now we're getting somewhere. So let's also say that any election security that might disenfranchise a single legitimate voter is also bad.
You are free to have whatever opinion you might have, but you are not free to put words in my mouth.
The fact is, that what a corporation that publishes stuff, like Facebook, chooses to do with fake accounts and bots is totally up to them.
Yes, I don't think anyone has said otherwise, except the ones who cry "censorship" when Facebook manages what their servers do. Perhaps you haven't paid attention, but I've been the one objecting to the use of the term "censorship" when a publisher controls his own services.
What I have been saying is that removing posts based on some guess as to source is not a valid way of dealing with the problem. They can't tell where my post comes from, and in fact, may have incorrect information in their own database about it. Claiming that they are removing comments based on the location of the source is ridiculous, because they just don't know. As I've already pointed out, I've moved at least twice since I created my account there and I have never updated the demographics, so they think my account is based somewhere other than where I am right now. As well, the IP address is not proof of location.
Fake news is like meat that's infected with Mad Cow Disease. When there's an outbreak, it's best to just shut entire markets down
Except that the cost does not justify the benefit. That's one thing that makes voter ID a different issue altogether.
Don't you agree?
I do not agree with the words you attempted to put in my mouth, no.
Cold weather is clearly racist. Ever notice that snow is white, hmm? Hmmm????
Clearly you've never heard of yellow snow (a reference to Orientals), or that much of the snow in some neighborhoods has so much soot mixed in that it is black. (You can also make "black snow" by igniting the acetylene from an oxy-acetylene torch without turning on the oxy.)
Or maybe, just maybe, I understand that Facebook inherently control a vast element of global discourse, and through censorship can drive the direction of that discourse far more effectively than almost any government.
Facebook doesn't inherently control anything other than their own servers, which you are trying to castigate them for doing. They control a large part of the social media market because people use them, and they own the servers.
If this censorship issue is such a great deal to the large number of people who use Facebook on a daily basis, they wouldn't use Facebook on a daily basis. Proof is in the pudding.
Perhaps, just possibly, censorship is more serious with Facebook than anything else ever in history.
And perhaps not. You cannot be put in prison for posting something Facebook doesn't like. That makes it less serious from the get-go. You can't have your broadcast license yanked for violation of Facebook regulations. You can use some other medium if Facebook won't let you use theirs, which makes it less serious.
But you wouldn't understand that because you think it's an ad hominem attack to correctly call you a fuckwit.
If you don't understand the word, look it up. Calling people names doesn't change the argument you make, it only shows you don't have one.
These two yutzes cause a crash on the freeway and they don't even bother to stop and check if the other people are injured?
If you don' t know something, just make it up? Who said they didn't stop?
They don't even bother reporting the crash to the authorities, they just driiive on back to HQ and hush it up?
Who said that? From TFA:
"On our end, we have always abided by all reporting requirements, including those covering regular car accidents, as well as the CA DMV regulations on autonomous testing that went into effect in 2014."
Do you have some cite for information that says they did not report this accident, one that you're keeping secret from the law enforcement authorities who would like to know about it?
Quite the opposite. I use the word because its negative connotations are explicitly appropriate for Facebook's actions.
Facebook has every right to control what appears on the systems it owns, just as you have the right to decide what appears on a webserver you own. That's why calling it censorship dilutes the bad meaning. "Censorship" applied to Facebook may be accurate according to the dictionary, but it changes the word from describing something bad into describing something legal, ethical, and what the vast majority of people expect Facebook to do as part of its service.
You may not like what they do, but they have every right to do it, and trying to gin up outrage by mislabeling the action is just hurting the cause when it happens for real.
I have every right to correctly identify their censorship as censorship.
Yes, you have every right to use a word in it's most absolutely meaningless variant, and to do so in an attempt to draw upon its historical negative meaning. I have every right to tell you that you're doing that.
Crying "fire" when things are burning only dilutes the significant use of the word when it needs to mean something.
Yes, crying "fire" when someone lights a birthday candle is technically correct but only desensitizes other people to the serious meaning of the word.
Crying "idiot" when describing you only dilutes the significant use of the word when it needs to mean something.
However, crying "ad hominem" when you resort to personal insult is using the phrase in its correct and proper meaning.
I understand that you want to create outrage at an action that Facebook is taking
You understand very little. I don't even use Facebook.
I didn't say you used Facebook. I said you were trying to foment outrage over what they are doing. There is a difference.
I'm relying on the word "censorship" to help succinctly and pithily describes acts of, well, censorship.
And thereby removing the negative connotations from that word.
Maybe you don't realize you are doing that. Maybe. Maybe you don't realize that the vast majority of people, when you tell them "Facebook is censoring you!" will say "Yawn. We expect them to moderate their discussion fora, and it does belong to them. Tell us when something important happens." The next time you cry "censorship", people will remember that you tried getting them upset about Facebook and expect that it is just another cry over something innocuous. That's the moral of the story in The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I guess you didn't look it up. You're crying wolf over Facebook. You know you're doing it.
They hide the knobs that would endear them with the tech community, source is not prominent/shared, and you can't subscribe to the serice using existing hardware.
If you are that kind of user, there are existing solutions. They aren't the target market. It's "plug and play", like IoT, for people who aren't tech savvy enough to set up their own.
It appears to be, as someone else commented, just a different third party through whom your email passes and info is harvested.
like you said, it's opinion-based: in my undestanding, zero-rating infringes NN
Whether NN is bad or good is an opinion. Whether zero-rating infringes NN or not no longer is. It is codified into the CA NN bill as infringing. It will now be the opinions of the court that matter.
If Facebook don't allow you to post "man, the queues are insane today, I've had to go back to work and I'll try again later" then they're censoring you.
You can call it what you want, but by calling it "censorship" you remove any negative connotations to the word. They have every right to not let you post on their servers, and crying "censorship!" only dilutes the significant use of the word when it needs to mean something. "The government will put me in jail if I say this" is censorship to be upset about. "Facebook won't let me rant" is not.
I understand that you want to create outrage at an action that Facebook is taking and are relying on the word "censorship" to help do that, but you're getting diminishing returns on that kind of rhetoric. It plays well to the choir, but the rest of the congregation is not paying much attention to that word anymore.
Our local newspaper editor is continually begging for letters, except during election season, so "limited space" is not an issue. Also, there is an online version of our local newspaper (and I believe many other "local newspapers" are also online) which has unlimited space. "Limited space" is not an excuse for "censorship", and even were it true, is it not censorship in any meaningful use of the term.
Which leads directly to the second way you are wrong: Newspapers choose not to publish.
I'm sorry, what? They choose not to publish, which is, in the meaningless sense of the word, censorship. It is a block to someone's voice being heard. Choosing not to publish is no different than publishing by default and then removing. And I'll tell you a secret: newspapers ALSO go back and remove things that they've published. Our fine local newspaper editor published a letter from a local nut who said, in no uncertain terms, that all Trump supporters were child rapists. That letter could not be withdrawn from the print edition, but it has completely disappeared from the online one.
Further, our fine local newspaper editor just recently decided that the public comment section of the online version of the paper could no longer exist. Not only could people not post comments in reply to articles, all previously posted comments were removed. They also had a "report abuse" option for every comment, and many comments would appear online as "removed". Ergo, they removed things that had already been published. A LOT of things that had already been published. And in exactly the same way that Facebook does.
Finally, on a different note, you do realize that the television censors (that was their job title) were in charge of deciding which bits of TV were not to be published, right?
Yes, based on legal considerations and in an official capacity. They still exist. But they were also not called "censors" except by people who saw every act of self-control or control over media they owned as censorship. Their official title was "Standards and Practices." But those damn censors would keep the "cutting edge" comedians and comediennes from saying certain things -- to stay within FCC regulations.
Slashdot Mirror
the "wrong" sort shouldn't be allowed to vote. They won't say it out loud though.
Yes, the wrong people shouldn't be allowed to vote. I've never had a problem saying it out loud, even though you usually try to put words in my mouth by trying to tell me what I mean by "wrong". Wrong means "people who should not be allowed to vote". People who are not US citizens should not be allowed to vote. People who don't live in the voting district should not be allowed to vote there. People who are not registered to vote should not be allowed to vote.
Most commonly they say that voting should take some work because if you're not willing to put the effort in you shouldn't be voting.
Yes, if you can't be bothered to pay attention to what is being voted on, then you should not vote. Your vote will be noise. It will not represent the will of the people, it will represent random data.
I suppose the problem is that you cannot tell the difference between "should not be allowed to vote" and "should not vote".
What it comes down to is conservatives want to keep progressives out of the political system.
Just as much as progressives want to keep conservatives out. That's what happens during any vote -- people vote for the ones they want, which excludes the ones they don't. Have you never voted?
America's entire system is built to do that. It's why we have a Senate and Electoral college.
If you don't really understand why we have the system we do, please don't make up absurd nonsense about it.
For some folks they can't even wrap their heads around how little actual Democracy exists in America.
Yes, and so they come up with absurd claims about why the Electoral College exists and yammer on about "voter suppression" when people who should not be allowed to vote are prevented from voting. Some folks think that "able to breathe" is sufficient to have the right to vote in any election, because 'democracy'! It's amazing that they cannot wrap their heads around what the US political system was designed to be, and what voting is supposed to accomplish.
Self sustaining? How much wood grows in an area with a recurring water shortage?
The device uses "biomass", which can be "wood".
Remember that there are other things that are "biomass".
A fully-functioning water-maker in an arid land will significantly reduce the supply of soylent green, but will also significantly reduce the demand for soylent green, and also reduce the demand for water. Thus it helps solve the disaster situation by lessening the required rebuilding.
Win-win-win-win!
It is a government rule, therefore applies to only where the laws applies, i.e. to the American people on American lands.
If you look up the laws regarding monetary contributions to US candidates, you will find that it applies to any foreign national who attempts to donate money or provide services as contributions to a US Presidential candidate. That's why there's all the broohaahaa about them damn Ruskies allegedly giving money to Trump's campaign. It's illegal for them if they do it; it's only illegal for Trump if his campaign solicited the contributions. I.e., them damn Ruskies can't scuttle the next Presidential campaign simply by sending the campaign money he didn't know about. Just like nobody could prove Gore knew about the real source of the money from the Buddhist monks.
The day our own government is unable to inform it's own citizens more effectively than a foreign state is the day we deserve invasion and likely need it.
This is a very scary statement. It implies a mandatory data channel under the sole control of the government to every citizen. Otherwise, the "foreign state" will just use the same data channel to speak, and the citizen will be left trying to judge the truth -- just like now.
Let the people vote. Not the Russians.
Handing out ballots to everyone means everyone can vote, even people who shouldn't. The "Russian influence" has never been alleged Russian voting. Your proposed solution is not a solution to whatever problem there is with Russian influence.
I don't know what fear you smell. I'm not afraid to point out your mistake. Are you?
So, what you're saying is that Russian misinformation is bad. Really bad. Prison time bad.
No, I was actually saying that by-mail voting has nothing to do with any alleged Russian influence over voters by using carefully crafted sarcasm. The part about if WillAffleckUW says it, it must be true, should have been a giveaway. Sorry.
Your entire rant about the First Amendment and stuff was wasted. And it was so pretty.
You know, I prefer American misinformation as much as the next guy, but the choice to be "swayed" one way or another is entirely personal.
I know that, and you know that. But apparently a lot of people do not. It would appear that posting misinformation about political things is an attempt to defraud the United States. (That usage refers to the government of the US, not "everyone in the US".)
I was pointing out that the proposed solution -- which if accepted at face value would make the majority of those political subdivisions within the US that think they are states actually not be states after all -- doesn't solve the problem it is being proposed to solve. It was just an attempt at using a completely irrelevant problem as an argument for a broken voting system. It's kinda like "hey, a UAV in Arizona ran down a pedestrian -- we ought to have by-mail voting like real states do."
Whether the problem is self-inflicted by voters on themselves is a different matter.
I'm sorry I confused you by using a standard colloquialism that most, if not all, native English speakers would understand. It leaves unanswered the main issue with your original comment, in that using mail-in ballots will do absolutely nothing to deal with external influences on the voters. In fact, it will allow more influences on them, like spouses, employers, random people who find the discarded ballots, etc.
Just use mail-in paper ballots like real states do, and register everyone everyday whenever they apply for any license of any type at a county or state office.
Yeah! That'll solve the problem of Russian misinformation trying to sway the voters, it sure will! I don't know how, but if WillAffleckUW says it will, then it must be true.
Oh, wait, I missed the patent insult about "real states" using mail-in ballots. I know of a few that throw ballots out to the four winds so anyone can get their hands on one, but I also know a lot of states -- real states -- do not.
No moron. The fact that the Pacific moron is poluted that bad.
This is a story about the British Isles in the South Atlantic, not the Pacific Ocean. It is about beaches that were "near pristine" thirty years ago, not the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The comment was about not having pictures of the plastic on beaches of the British Isles in the South Atlantic. It had nothing to do with the "Pacific moron". I don't know what the "Pacific moron" is, I usually call it the "Pacific ocean", but I'm not a moron. I can tell Pacific from Atlantic, at least.
It is even more amazing when you consider her day job is in New York and her music gig is in Japan. Some commute, I'd say.
Look up pictures from space of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
Is this what they teach in modern geography classes? That the Great Pacific Garbage Dump is in the waters surrounding the British Isles in the south Atlantic?
Then tell me that it isn't as bad as they are saying.
Someone else managed to provide a link to a picture from the actual place. Yes, it looks bad. But I'd say that 1/100 of that amount would also be bad. The scientists are calling 1/100 "nearly pristine". I do not think that word means what they think it means.
The other pix, from Antarctica, also aren't from the British Isles. You can't prove that the waters of the British Isles are infested with plastic garbage by showing pictures of other places.
the skeptic in me feeling that it's not as bad as it sounds.
Millions of bits of degraded plastic should create a photo-op.
But so would hundreds of thousands, which is what we had a decade ago.
And tens of thousands three decades ago.
Most people get upset if they see tens of pieces of crap on the beach. But tens of thousands, not so much? Tens of thousands of bits of degraded plastic is "near pristine".
I'm a bit concerned when the beginning of a story talks in hyperbolic terms. ("Near pristine", "flooded".) It is nice that they start using actual numbers, even if they aren't very quantitative. I mean, even saying "a hundredfold" is pretty meaningless if the starting point truly is "near pristine".
And I'm saying it's better than nothing, because fake information
And I'm saying they cannot determine it is fake based on the criteria they are using. If you cannot determine whether it is fake or not, then removing it is not the right solution.
So, in the case of fake news, your deciding factor is that false positives are disqualifying.
Stop putting words in my mouth. You're doing it deliberately now.
It is amazing our system of voting includes this level of bullshit.
Our system of voting operates under something called a "Constitution", the first addition to which is a clear statement that congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is ugly but necessary. It is hard to look at things like McCain-Feingold as anything but unconstitutional, but the legalites twist things enough to allow it.
Our candidates could change this if they wished, but they only make promises and then it all comes right back. Wyden promised during his first Senate campaign where he was running against Gordon Smith (R) that he would run an honest, ethical, non-attack campaign. That announcement came one day before the ads claiming that Gordon Smith killed a teenager started running. (The Smith family operate(d) a farm and a tragic accident resulted in the death of a teenager. The family of the teen appeared in the next Smith ads exonerating him and calling the ad using their son's accident reprehensible.) Wyden denied any responsibility, claiming that it was a PAC supporting him that did it. That's all it takes to get out of such a promise -- have someone else do it for you. Plausible deniability.
The determination of legal/illegal migrant is often quite arbitrary, depending on what the current administration is enforcing or tolerating and what laws have been signed in.
Yes, what is illegal or legal is always determined by what laws "have been signed in".
but a lot are people who tried to do the right thing but a random judge decided to deny them.
Whether they are denied entry or not is not the issue. It is when they enter illegally, which can be either "without trying" or "trying to get legal access and are denied". I.e., they aren't illegal because the judge denied entry, they are illegal because they entered illegally. "Try[ing] to do the right thing" and then doing the illegal thing is still illegal.
Now we're getting somewhere. So let's also say that any election security that might disenfranchise a single legitimate voter is also bad.
You are free to have whatever opinion you might have, but you are not free to put words in my mouth.
The fact is, that what a corporation that publishes stuff, like Facebook, chooses to do with fake accounts and bots is totally up to them.
Yes, I don't think anyone has said otherwise, except the ones who cry "censorship" when Facebook manages what their servers do. Perhaps you haven't paid attention, but I've been the one objecting to the use of the term "censorship" when a publisher controls his own services.
What I have been saying is that removing posts based on some guess as to source is not a valid way of dealing with the problem. They can't tell where my post comes from, and in fact, may have incorrect information in their own database about it. Claiming that they are removing comments based on the location of the source is ridiculous, because they just don't know. As I've already pointed out, I've moved at least twice since I created my account there and I have never updated the demographics, so they think my account is based somewhere other than where I am right now. As well, the IP address is not proof of location.
Fake news is like meat that's infected with Mad Cow Disease. When there's an outbreak, it's best to just shut entire markets down
Except that the cost does not justify the benefit. That's one thing that makes voter ID a different issue altogether.
Don't you agree?
I do not agree with the words you attempted to put in my mouth, no.
Cold weather is clearly racist. Ever notice that snow is white, hmm? Hmmm????
Clearly you've never heard of yellow snow (a reference to Orientals), or that much of the snow in some neighborhoods has so much soot mixed in that it is black. (You can also make "black snow" by igniting the acetylene from an oxy-acetylene torch without turning on the oxy.)
Or maybe, just maybe, I understand that Facebook inherently control a vast element of global discourse, and through censorship can drive the direction of that discourse far more effectively than almost any government.
Facebook doesn't inherently control anything other than their own servers, which you are trying to castigate them for doing. They control a large part of the social media market because people use them, and they own the servers.
If this censorship issue is such a great deal to the large number of people who use Facebook on a daily basis, they wouldn't use Facebook on a daily basis. Proof is in the pudding.
Perhaps, just possibly, censorship is more serious with Facebook than anything else ever in history.
And perhaps not. You cannot be put in prison for posting something Facebook doesn't like. That makes it less serious from the get-go. You can't have your broadcast license yanked for violation of Facebook regulations. You can use some other medium if Facebook won't let you use theirs, which makes it less serious.
But you wouldn't understand that because you think it's an ad hominem attack to correctly call you a fuckwit.
If you don't understand the word, look it up. Calling people names doesn't change the argument you make, it only shows you don't have one.
These two yutzes cause a crash on the freeway and they don't even bother to stop and check if the other people are injured?
If you don' t know something, just make it up? Who said they didn't stop?
They don't even bother reporting the crash to the authorities, they just driiive on back to HQ and hush it up?
Who said that? From TFA: "On our end, we have always abided by all reporting requirements, including those covering regular car accidents, as well as the CA DMV regulations on autonomous testing that went into effect in 2014."
Do you have some cite for information that says they did not report this accident, one that you're keeping secret from the law enforcement authorities who would like to know about it?
Quite the opposite. I use the word because its negative connotations are explicitly appropriate for Facebook's actions.
Facebook has every right to control what appears on the systems it owns, just as you have the right to decide what appears on a webserver you own. That's why calling it censorship dilutes the bad meaning. "Censorship" applied to Facebook may be accurate according to the dictionary, but it changes the word from describing something bad into describing something legal, ethical, and what the vast majority of people expect Facebook to do as part of its service.
You may not like what they do, but they have every right to do it, and trying to gin up outrage by mislabeling the action is just hurting the cause when it happens for real.
I have every right to correctly identify their censorship as censorship.
Yes, you have every right to use a word in it's most absolutely meaningless variant, and to do so in an attempt to draw upon its historical negative meaning. I have every right to tell you that you're doing that.
Crying "fire" when things are burning only dilutes the significant use of the word when it needs to mean something.
Yes, crying "fire" when someone lights a birthday candle is technically correct but only desensitizes other people to the serious meaning of the word.
Crying "idiot" when describing you only dilutes the significant use of the word when it needs to mean something.
However, crying "ad hominem" when you resort to personal insult is using the phrase in its correct and proper meaning.
I understand that you want to create outrage at an action that Facebook is taking
You understand very little. I don't even use Facebook.
I didn't say you used Facebook. I said you were trying to foment outrage over what they are doing. There is a difference.
I'm relying on the word "censorship" to help succinctly and pithily describes acts of, well, censorship.
And thereby removing the negative connotations from that word.
Maybe you don't realize you are doing that. Maybe. Maybe you don't realize that the vast majority of people, when you tell them "Facebook is censoring you!" will say "Yawn. We expect them to moderate their discussion fora, and it does belong to them. Tell us when something important happens." The next time you cry "censorship", people will remember that you tried getting them upset about Facebook and expect that it is just another cry over something innocuous. That's the moral of the story in The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I guess you didn't look it up. You're crying wolf over Facebook. You know you're doing it.
They hide the knobs that would endear them with the tech community, source is not prominent/shared, and you can't subscribe to the serice using existing hardware.
If you are that kind of user, there are existing solutions. They aren't the target market. It's "plug and play", like IoT, for people who aren't tech savvy enough to set up their own.
It appears to be, as someone else commented, just a different third party through whom your email passes and info is harvested.
like you said, it's opinion-based: in my undestanding, zero-rating infringes NN
Whether NN is bad or good is an opinion. Whether zero-rating infringes NN or not no longer is. It is codified into the CA NN bill as infringing. It will now be the opinions of the court that matter.
If Facebook don't allow you to post "man, the queues are insane today, I've had to go back to work and I'll try again later" then they're censoring you.
You can call it what you want, but by calling it "censorship" you remove any negative connotations to the word. They have every right to not let you post on their servers, and crying "censorship!" only dilutes the significant use of the word when it needs to mean something. "The government will put me in jail if I say this" is censorship to be upset about. "Facebook won't let me rant" is not.
I understand that you want to create outrage at an action that Facebook is taking and are relying on the word "censorship" to help do that, but you're getting diminishing returns on that kind of rhetoric. It plays well to the choir, but the rest of the congregation is not paying much attention to that word anymore.
First, newspapers have very limited space.
Our local newspaper editor is continually begging for letters, except during election season, so "limited space" is not an issue. Also, there is an online version of our local newspaper (and I believe many other "local newspapers" are also online) which has unlimited space. "Limited space" is not an excuse for "censorship", and even were it true, is it not censorship in any meaningful use of the term.
Which leads directly to the second way you are wrong: Newspapers choose not to publish.
I'm sorry, what? They choose not to publish, which is, in the meaningless sense of the word, censorship. It is a block to someone's voice being heard. Choosing not to publish is no different than publishing by default and then removing. And I'll tell you a secret: newspapers ALSO go back and remove things that they've published. Our fine local newspaper editor published a letter from a local nut who said, in no uncertain terms, that all Trump supporters were child rapists. That letter could not be withdrawn from the print edition, but it has completely disappeared from the online one.
Further, our fine local newspaper editor just recently decided that the public comment section of the online version of the paper could no longer exist. Not only could people not post comments in reply to articles, all previously posted comments were removed. They also had a "report abuse" option for every comment, and many comments would appear online as "removed". Ergo, they removed things that had already been published. A LOT of things that had already been published. And in exactly the same way that Facebook does.
Finally, on a different note, you do realize that the television censors (that was their job title) were in charge of deciding which bits of TV were not to be published, right?
Yes, based on legal considerations and in an official capacity. They still exist. But they were also not called "censors" except by people who saw every act of self-control or control over media they owned as censorship. Their official title was "Standards and Practices." But those damn censors would keep the "cutting edge" comedians and comediennes from saying certain things -- to stay within FCC regulations.