...some speech is that it emboldens people who do bad things...
Citations? Or at least try to explain to me how this is different from discredited "video games cause violence" trope, only with "ideas dinkypoo finds objectionable" substituted.
Speech is not itself violence, but some speech does legitimize violence in the minds of the willfully or otherwise spectacularly ignorant. It might not be direct harm, but it's still contributory.
"Legitimize violence" is a nonsensical standard, as it uses judgment and actions of external actors that you have no control over to judge your actions. That is, how other people might react isn't a good standard for evaluating one's actions. For example, if someone goes on a killing spree after reading this post, am I contributory to the resulting violence? More so, should I be prevented from posting just because someone could react with violence? What if in order to silence me, someone decided to react with violence to anything I say?
It is not obvious to me that "after developing industry and copying technology" the next step is inevitable progression to original solutions.
Do you have any evidence of anything being developed in-house in China that isn't copied? Even military technology is copied from the West, like laughable attempts to reverse-engineer stealth technology, that failed even after purchasing US wrecks from Pakistan for hundreds of millions.
There isn't much conformity in the West on anything, and in the West hierarchy is one based mostly on competence. Unlike China, where hierarchy is mostly based on seniority and connections.
The West can innovate because the best and brightest raise to the top. China can't innovate because the most connected and people who put in most time-in raise to the top.
Intellectual property theft is existential necessity for China. Its culture of conformity and rigid hierarchy greatly impedes home-grown innovation. So they have to steal tech from the West or fall behind.
I don't know you or your past conduct, but unless you were casually dropping N-word or viciously going after someone in other ways, you were not "actually hurting people" with things you used to say.
Speech is violence is a discredited trope and an excuse used to try to justify censorship.
You're going to have to grow up sometime or another, and going by the state of the UK. You'd be better off doing it now.
In modern society there is absolutely no requirement to have your worldviews to have any kind of predictive power or even correlation with reality. As long as you don't get into toxic cleansing or extreme diets like frutarian.
My prediction that AmiMojo will continue living happily disconnected life by masterfully avoiding cognitive dissonance of his strange views.
Tow operators are largely predatory businesses that are absolutely against consumer's interests. Only AAA is half-decent, and this is because their core business is insurance product that also happen to have in-house tow operation.
I really like the idea of Tesla, but lack of privacy and control over platform is why I would never buy one. I would be very unhappy if my car decided it may be unsafe to drive, pull over on its own, and call tow operator.
I disagree with you fundamentally, and I think that trying to convince you that this is a serious ongoing issue with dire downstream societal consequences is futile as you are too closely ideologically aligned with Twitter to clearly see the issue.
Consider the following hypothetical situation. In an alternative universe Twitter was invented during Jim Crow period and is controlled by "Southern Strategy" types. These people are using biased moderation, shadow banning and so on to enforce their agenda. Two questions: 1) can you identify anything in how Twitter currently governed or operates that would make that scenario impossible 2) What would you change (e.g. laws, ToS) that would mitigate the worst abuses ?
Communicable diseases, especially incurable, lifelong and fatal ones (HIV) should be public knowledge!
I see on your public record you have type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and genetic predisposition to prostate cancer. I think I will hire that other less qualified candidate that doesn't have life expectancy in low single digits.
You contradicting yourself. If they have "any notes made by other moderators", then this fits definition of on-going monitoring. If they have single "incident" and then they dig through history to justify bans, then it is arbitrary enforcement.
This is bridge too far. You are assuming that Twitter has resources to monitor on-going behavior and make a complex and nuanced "body of work" determinations for a massive amount of people. Do you have any idea how expensive such moderation would be to implement?
Instead, I propose that simpler explanation is that Twitter bans people arbitrary, based on instances of snowflake meltdowns and reporting backed up by a hasty review by ideologically-driven moderators that results in very clear anti-conservative bias.
I hope this practice get squashed under avalanche of privacy-related lawsuits.
What Evoogle doing with this is in effect asserting that if they can track any electronic device that you have on you, then they can associate it with your identity and sell resulting location data to the highest bidder in any form without you having any say in this. They don't need to actually have any business relationship or agreement with you, it is sufficient that they can fingerprint and identify your electronic device to own your data.
Slashdot Mirror
Wind turbines and solar panels have to be manufactured, and that takes emissions.
Please, you can do better than "Orange man bad" shitposting. Plus, Trump in context of free speech is clearly a red herring argument.
My apologies, I will issue you a full refund of the fee you paid to read my post as it doesn't appear to meet your needs.
Citations? Or at least try to explain to me how this is different from discredited "video games cause violence" trope, only with "ideas dinkypoo finds objectionable" substituted.
Speech is not itself violence, but some speech does legitimize violence in the minds of the willfully or otherwise spectacularly ignorant. It might not be direct harm, but it's still contributory.
"Legitimize violence" is a nonsensical standard, as it uses judgment and actions of external actors that you have no control over to judge your actions. That is, how other people might react isn't a good standard for evaluating one's actions. For example, if someone goes on a killing spree after reading this post, am I contributory to the resulting violence? More so, should I be prevented from posting just because someone could react with violence? What if in order to silence me, someone decided to react with violence to anything I say?
5G is Qualcomm technology, licensed by Huawei. It wasn't invented in China.
It is not obvious to me that "after developing industry and copying technology" the next step is inevitable progression to original solutions.
Do you have any evidence of anything being developed in-house in China that isn't copied? Even military technology is copied from the West, like laughable attempts to reverse-engineer stealth technology, that failed even after purchasing US wrecks from Pakistan for hundreds of millions.
There isn't much conformity in the West on anything, and in the West hierarchy is one based mostly on competence. Unlike China, where hierarchy is mostly based on seniority and connections.
The West can innovate because the best and brightest raise to the top. China can't innovate because the most connected and people who put in most time-in raise to the top.
Nah they're just saying the same old shit, and automation has made it boring
Someone should suggest this project adopt Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct.
Intellectual property theft is existential necessity for China. Its culture of conformity and rigid hierarchy greatly impedes home-grown innovation. So they have to steal tech from the West or fall behind.
I don't know you or your past conduct, but unless you were casually dropping N-word or viciously going after someone in other ways, you were not "actually hurting people" with things you used to say.
Speech is violence is a discredited trope and an excuse used to try to justify censorship.
Ask me again when he goes away.
I read at -1 and will see your replies regardless of moderation.
You're going to have to grow up sometime or another, and going by the state of the UK. You'd be better off doing it now.
In modern society there is absolutely no requirement to have your worldviews to have any kind of predictive power or even correlation with reality. As long as you don't get into toxic cleansing or extreme diets like frutarian.
My prediction that AmiMojo will continue living happily disconnected life by masterfully avoiding cognitive dissonance of his strange views.
It is 100% Beef(TM) of cellular connections.
Also, you want to drive an unsafe car?
Yes, because I don't want others have the power to decide what is a safe car.
Tow operators are largely predatory businesses that are absolutely against consumer's interests. Only AAA is half-decent, and this is because their core business is insurance product that also happen to have in-house tow operation.
I really like the idea of Tesla, but lack of privacy and control over platform is why I would never buy one. I would be very unhappy if my car decided it may be unsafe to drive, pull over on its own, and call tow operator.
Both are very reasonable choices. You don't want foreign power have control of your critical infrastructure.
The world needs report column adjusters too.
Not if a programmer tasked with coding auto adjust does his or her god damn job and fixes the auto adjust bug.
Speak for yourself. Tax money is mostly graft.
No it is not graft. Taxation is explicitly legal. Taxation is also necessary to maintain society.
I disagree with you fundamentally, and I think that trying to convince you that this is a serious ongoing issue with dire downstream societal consequences is futile as you are too closely ideologically aligned with Twitter to clearly see the issue.
Consider the following hypothetical situation. In an alternative universe Twitter was invented during Jim Crow period and is controlled by "Southern Strategy" types. These people are using biased moderation, shadow banning and so on to enforce their agenda.
Two questions: 1) can you identify anything in how Twitter currently governed or operates that would make that scenario impossible 2) What would you change (e.g. laws, ToS) that would mitigate the worst abuses ?
Communicable diseases, especially incurable, lifelong and fatal ones (HIV) should be public knowledge!
I see on your public record you have type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and genetic predisposition to prostate cancer. I think I will hire that other less qualified candidate that doesn't have life expectancy in low single digits.
You contradicting yourself. If they have "any notes made by other moderators", then this fits definition of on-going monitoring. If they have single "incident" and then they dig through history to justify bans, then it is arbitrary enforcement.
This is bridge too far. You are assuming that Twitter has resources to monitor on-going behavior and make a complex and nuanced "body of work" determinations for a massive amount of people. Do you have any idea how expensive such moderation would be to implement?
Instead, I propose that simpler explanation is that Twitter bans people arbitrary, based on instances of snowflake meltdowns and reporting backed up by a hasty review by ideologically-driven moderators that results in very clear anti-conservative bias.
I hope this practice get squashed under avalanche of privacy-related lawsuits.
What Evoogle doing with this is in effect asserting that if they can track any electronic device that you have on you, then they can associate it with your identity and sell resulting location data to the highest bidder in any form without you having any say in this. They don't need to actually have any business relationship or agreement with you, it is sufficient that they can fingerprint and identify your electronic device to own your data.
Were they hand crafting these things?!
I don't think typical Apple consumer would accept anything other than hand-crafted organic and renewable screws in their iDevices.
No keyboard next, and hopefully permanently so we don't read about this stupidity. Mouse exists for a reason.