Polar ozone layer opens. Polar regions most affected. Ice melt. Global impact.
Somehow the definitions change constantly. Ozone was a global problem once, now I'm not sure it's being presented as such. But that's the plan, keep us arguing over the details while the strategy proceeds.
It seems trivial to use paper ballots, give the voter a receipt, and let them check online to see if the ballot was counted - not how they voted, but that the ballot was processed. Vote by mail only requires that the receipt be included in the ballot materials mailed to voters.
God this is simple. I get this sort of service with product rebates and even those sub-dollar class action settlements. The tech is straightforward, the cost reasonable, it's just that easy. Yes, it will require decommissioning some voting machines, and some of those are due for retirement, so yes some cost.
Now, if you reject this idea because it cannot ensure your vote was counted ACCURATELY, well, rather than simple bookkeeping, you're concerned with fraud. That's different. One way out, mandatory recounting/reprocessing. Another idea, multi-partisan observers at all steps of the process. I observed a recount more than 20 years ago, and it was instructive, but in that instance it didn't diminish my faith in my election officials, just in the partisan political hacks trying to destroy the process, even then. A few years later and when a recount was called for by the law, the kerfuffle over finding the ballot boxes, stored in a locked room overnight, were unsealed, opened and cigarette butts/ashtrays/ashes were found on them. That worried me, and state police stood guard after that, though the recount proceeded without controversy and confirmed the original results.
I only listen for 8 seconds. After that, it's a hangup.
My point about political robocalls is that letting carriers block them risks censorship. The DNC doesn't apply by law, but again, an imperfect ban of political robocalls would be indistinguishable from censorship, not intentionally, but by practice.
Hard issue, political speech. It's not as if such censorship in other media isn't practiced already, even this very day.
I've been getting calls form a debt collection firm for a year now, and finally got an identifier that worked. A formal complaint stopped the calls.
Their excuse was that 'someone was using my number'. My response was that I had repeatedly told them I was not that person, stop using my number. Back and forth. Finally, with the corporate ID, I got them to stop for now. I know they get paid to try, but the DNC exception for debt collection doesn't cover mistaken identity, does it?
* It is unacceptable that any robocalls exist at all.
- Any such problem will arise. IF it arose this morning, did you expect a solution by noon? Substitute any time frame and explain how you can dictate the solution with your emotional response.
* It is unacceptable that these companies can fake their numbers.
- Technical capabilities care not for your emotional response.
* It is unacceptable that there aren't criminal penalties for spam calls. Civic penalties are a total waste of time.
- What prison term is appropriate for the 8 seconds I was distracted? Multiply it by 10,000 calls? Actually, you've gotten to about a day per 10,000 calls...
* It is unacceptable that the do not call list is ignored.
- Agreed. But the complaint that they are breaking a law is a certain way to impose more laws for them to break.
* It is unacceptable that there is no easy way to report abusers.
- Easy. Good idea.
* It is unacceptable that there are any exemptions for "charities" and "political use".
- Political robocalls are a First Amendment issue in America. Consider the possibilities for carriers to be discriminatory in blocking political robocalls, and the certainty that political campaigns will demand that the opposition be prohibited because they are 'abusive', 'deceptive', etc... Charities may not justify the same treatment.
* It is unacceptable that even what puny laws do exist are not enforced.
My co-admin laments the move to systemd, first because it assures him that system updates require a reboot. there go the fabulous uptimes I used to pull up just for grins. Remember the Novell days, when your client would ask why the server was only up for 240 days or so, and you'd 'splain that was the second rollover? Yeah, good times. Ignore the new epochs while Novell fixed the IDE driver...
Things are not quite yet better in my experience. Windows 10 has moved some pain points around. MacOS? um... iOS? Restrictions? Android? Do you know how to turn off sounds in the Facebook app? Why does IHeartRadio start when my phone is in my wife's 2008 MKX with SYNC2? Why does the movie theatre app keep popping notifications when I turn them off, and why does the help team keep telling me my SMS is turned off, when I specifically tell them the app notifications keep coming? Not SMS, APP! APP! APP!
I remember when you were a hero for working 80 hours a week to get the network stable, servers all responsive, and email flowing. You were the wizard. Then it became making it all work in 40 hours a week, because you had the levers and the knowledge. Now I would not want to be help desk at a SMB, security alone is an outsource unless you want to share the load with your second and third, it's not worth taking that all on by yourself. I've been in this role for 12 years now, but it's a maze. 30+ systems to use, passwords changing every 20 days, disabled access if I take more than 14 days vacation, and then the incessant releases with now using IE for some, Chrome for others, Edge for others, Firefox recommended for one but denied by corp. policy... It's different than it was 10 years ago. And I've been called to task for not recalling a known issue I see every perhaps 2 years... yeah, that and the saga of being bitten to death by ducks.
In talk radio, if you're not pissing off at least a quarter of your listeners every hour, every HOUR, you're failing.
Phone customers think they can dictate specific design decisions. So they wail about notches, which if they serve a purpose are going to stay, and they do (the cosmetics of having narrower bezels except for where the sensors/cameras sit, a big woop), customers have to vote with their feet. Headphone jacks are gonzo. If you're still wired, please 'splain the big deal having to use an adapter. I'm wireless, at the cost of fidelity, but if you're all about quality you've lost that fight with the DAC inadequacies in virtually every phone, and then the source, since you're either flinging gigs of truly lossless that wasn't previously sampled like sh*t, or you've given in to better-than-128k-mp3 quality, which is pus. Or, in simpler terms, audio quality is an oxymoron in phones. Get a player.
OnePlus is doing what it needs to do to expand, and those early adopters that thought the pwned the company are being told what their place is. Better hold on to that treasure you bought last year.
This spew brought to you by a now 10 year HTC customer who has, finally, bought his last HTC anything. The U11 cured me, I'm free.
The future of real warfare between states isn't limited to military force. It's likely that any military actions will be preparatory and sustaining, but not decisive. Attacks on infrastructure, denial of access to critical information and resources, and isolation from allies can all be accomplished with information technology.
This example is most instructive in that it shows how states with limited resources in some areas can be capable, even formidable adversaries in others. The US has the most capable military assets available, with only a few (but notable) exceptions where adversaries have sufficient assets to cause major losses to US forces and potentially prevail in regional conflicts. But in so-called 'cyber' warfare, the US has no discernible advantage. Relatively small, impoverished, or militarily weak states have equal capabilities. And non-state players can be just as capable.
For the US, the only real hope is that it has undisclosed capabilities, which is entirely likely, or that it will focus on developing those. Sadly, unlike military force, which takes in some instances a generation to develop new and overwhelming advantages, cyber warfare changes year,y, actually, monthly, and these advances are shared virtually instantly among allies, requiring no factories, manufacturing techniques, or natural resources beyond manpower, intellect, and thought. Ask aerospace engineers - it takes so much less time to devise a new weapon system than it does to actually manufacture and refine it to the point of usefulness. And cyber warfare is cheaper too, by every measure, to develop and deploy.
I'm confident in assuming that the US and others have the means to detect and monitor electronic communications among allies and adversaries worldwide, with few exceptions. And they constantly have to refine those methods to keep up with the changing landscape. And the only way to do that is to deploy an intercept system that captures everything, everywhere, all the time, and keeps it for analysis and exploitation. All this means our government is compelled to violate our privacy and civil rights, if not explicitly, then implicitly, as it captures all the things always, just to be able to find the enemy's vulnerabilities and secrets.
It's a nasty business. We have no other choice. Our enemies will certainly do so, and without a shred of restraint. If they can prevail at our expense, they will indeed. And this example shows that there is no hope of ever turning back from this state. It will only get worse. All attempts to secure our information systems will only succeed in making it more difficult to find the enemy. They will use all security measures to improve their methods. But we must improve security, no matter, for all the other reasons. A vicious circle, one impossible to stop.
It only cost $4.7B to put a telescope in space that provided a unique capability to observe the universe. Worth it? Probably, yes.
Solar works, as in *works* if you pay for it. It's economics. We should as a nation pursue long-term energy independence, beyond our current gas-fed mostly independent state. And if it takes decades, so be it. But arbitrary schedules don't make sense to me.
We have one car manufacturer producing electric vehicles at a profit. Others will follow. The industry will change in 20 years. And during that time I suspect point sources of electricity will become very attractive. The 'problem' will be solved. Watch.
How many days of sunshine does your city get yearly? Is public transit getting cars off the road? Is residential heating a need, and if so what is being used to provide it? And if not, then is cooling needed, and what's that solution?
Not knowing what city is yours, I'm not able to consider the sources of the smog. I'm hopeful, however, that it's not on the West Coast. That smog usually comes from cars, since the westerly sources are a longs ways off and we aren't legislating anything to solve those any time soon. Electric vehicles are not going to solve this any time soon either, though solar then is probably a winner, and no constitutional measures will be needed.
Do those cost estimates include unpredictable maintenance costs? Look at nuclear - the first nuclear plant shut down was killed off by repair and maintenance costs. Wind plants seem to be suffering from failures here and there, and the costs have rendered at least one dead. We don't really know how these are going to hold up. Gas turbine plants are fairly well understood.
And solar requires storage or alternative backup sources. That's not part of Prop 127.
Despite the complaints of the supporters regarding the ballot description, it does appear that the proposition mandates the use of renewable energy sources, as defined in the proposition, without consideration of the cost to ratepayers. This got the attention of many of us in Arizona.
It's a laudable goal to use renewable sources, but somehow I cannot reconcile the complaints of the proponents of this measure against utility company profits with the apparent intention of the measure to mandate these changes no matter the costs. It's as if they don't mind if the utilities double their rates, with the attendant increases in profits, so long as it's renewable energy they are gouging us for. Or something.
I also don't much care for the government being put in charge of determining what energy sources will be installed. If renewable energy is desirable, or in some way 'better', this will become evident soon enough. Leave it alone.
Oh, and then I consider Tom Steyer, a nice enough guy, who lives in San Francisco. Perhaps, tom, you should be working on the problems your home town has, and leave us in Arizona to deal with our problems? Not enough problems in San Francisco? Just go away.
Yes, I've already voted 'no' on this. Not necessary, not helpful, not now.
"...Facebook's new political ad transparency tools..."
It would seem that Facebook developed these 'transparency tools' for a purpose. If that was to ensure greater transparency, well, they are in the business of enforcing something, just not law. If not, well, was this an exercise in avoiding criticism and responsibility?
If indeed this is an example of the impossibility of guaranteeing the identity of these advertisers, well, stop pretending and drop the pretense of having 'new political ad transparency tools'. they either have none, they are ineffective, or they are playing us. Or some combination thereof.
Municipal broadband service might be well described as a 'lifeline'-like service, intended to be lowest cost, minimum necessary, to provide access to government services, universally required services such as job search, bill payment, enrollments, etc. It may not be intended to, nor even provide, access to a variety of services or sources. If this is disclosed, is it a problem?
Disclosure would be the first step.
So would LinkNYC be deficient if it did not provide access to pornography? Or games? Or would it be efficient? And if kiosks were relatively public, would pornography be a tolerable use, since it might, possibly, offend some casual observers? Should LinkNYC spend more money on privacy filters and such?
Of course, when we move on from pron and consider access to news, information, and opinion sources, we get into significantly less obvious use cases. But I, sadly, know people who are just as offended by seeing certain 'news' and opinion sources as they are seeing pron, even by accident, and they plainly tell me that these need to be kept off of municipal broadband systems.
Well, since this is becoming both more common and more visible with commercial platforms, and there is no reason to believe 'Hate Speech' filters won;t be implemented by commercial service providers, I doubt municipal providers will be unique or worse.
Possible discriminatory account deletions and manipulations by Internet social media platforms seems like both:
'News for nerds' - tech stuff potentially being used to manipulate news and opinions is pretty geeky, even though it's also mainstream...
'Stuff that matters' - seems like Twitter in particular messing with your followers might matter to some of you. Or not, but I betting the interest is nonzero.
And you can expect even the non-right-wing news sites to run the story, perhaps with a different analysis.
Of course they can. They can even lie about it, or ignore the complainants.
It's not impossible that a competitor will come and cost them some money, and that's about the worst thing that can be done to Twitter and the other platforms that also engage in discriminatory* account management.
* Discriminatory" Treating particular people, companies, or products differently from others, especially in an unfair way. Especially not necessarily indicating exclusively.
Slashdot Mirror
Polar ozone layer opens.
Polar regions most affected.
Ice melt.
Global impact.
Somehow the definitions change constantly. Ozone was a global problem once, now I'm not sure it's being presented as such. But that's the plan, keep us arguing over the details while the strategy proceeds.
It seems trivial to use paper ballots, give the voter a receipt, and let them check online to see if the ballot was counted - not how they voted, but that the ballot was processed. Vote by mail only requires that the receipt be included in the ballot materials mailed to voters.
God this is simple. I get this sort of service with product rebates and even those sub-dollar class action settlements. The tech is straightforward, the cost reasonable, it's just that easy. Yes, it will require decommissioning some voting machines, and some of those are due for retirement, so yes some cost.
Now, if you reject this idea because it cannot ensure your vote was counted ACCURATELY, well, rather than simple bookkeeping, you're concerned with fraud. That's different. One way out, mandatory recounting/reprocessing. Another idea, multi-partisan observers at all steps of the process. I observed a recount more than 20 years ago, and it was instructive, but in that instance it didn't diminish my faith in my election officials, just in the partisan political hacks trying to destroy the process, even then. A few years later and when a recount was called for by the law, the kerfuffle over finding the ballot boxes, stored in a locked room overnight, were unsealed, opened and cigarette butts/ashtrays/ashes were found on them. That worried me, and state police stood guard after that, though the recount proceeded without controversy and confirmed the original results.
It's a tricky business, apparently.
I can wear UV-protective clothing, even in Arizona. Sometimes I do, like when I'm outside in the sun for prolonged periods.
I already wear UV-protective glasses.
Ozone layer depletion is a regional phenomenon, with regional (even hemispheric) effects?
Who knew... I thought (was told, actually) it was a global thing.
I only listen for 8 seconds. After that, it's a hangup.
My point about political robocalls is that letting carriers block them risks censorship. The DNC doesn't apply by law, but again, an imperfect ban of political robocalls would be indistinguishable from censorship, not intentionally, but by practice.
Hard issue, political speech. It's not as if such censorship in other media isn't practiced already, even this very day.
I've been getting calls form a debt collection firm for a year now, and finally got an identifier that worked. A formal complaint stopped the calls.
Their excuse was that 'someone was using my number'. My response was that I had repeatedly told them I was not that person, stop using my number. Back and forth. Finally, with the corporate ID, I got them to stop for now. I know they get paid to try, but the DNC exception for debt collection doesn't cover mistaken identity, does it?
* It is unacceptable that any robocalls exist at all.
- Any such problem will arise. IF it arose this morning, did you expect a solution by noon? Substitute any time frame and explain how you can dictate the solution with your emotional response.
* It is unacceptable that these companies can fake their numbers.
- Technical capabilities care not for your emotional response.
* It is unacceptable that there aren't criminal penalties for spam calls. Civic penalties are a total waste of time.
- What prison term is appropriate for the 8 seconds I was distracted? Multiply it by 10,000 calls? Actually, you've gotten to about a day per 10,000 calls...
* It is unacceptable that the do not call list is ignored.
- Agreed. But the complaint that they are breaking a law is a certain way to impose more laws for them to break.
* It is unacceptable that there is no easy way to report abusers.
- Easy. Good idea.
* It is unacceptable that there are any exemptions for "charities" and "political use".
- Political robocalls are a First Amendment issue in America. Consider the possibilities for carriers to be discriminatory in blocking political robocalls, and the certainty that political campaigns will demand that the opposition be prohibited because they are 'abusive', 'deceptive', etc... Charities may not justify the same treatment.
* It is unacceptable that even what puny laws do exist are not enforced.
- Repeating your fourth point.
"can't possibly originate from that source"
And how, with VOIP, would you determine the call could not 'originate from that source'?
As if you can reliably determine the source. The 'V' in VOIP seems to make that difficult to impossible.
I doubt this can be fixed, but I would be happy if it could. For now, sadly, I need to trust my carrier's call ID, and ignore the 'SCAM LIKELY' calls.
My co-admin laments the move to systemd, first because it assures him that system updates require a reboot. there go the fabulous uptimes I used to pull up just for grins. Remember the Novell days, when your client would ask why the server was only up for 240 days or so, and you'd 'splain that was the second rollover? Yeah, good times. Ignore the new epochs while Novell fixed the IDE driver...
Things are not quite yet better in my experience. Windows 10 has moved some pain points around. MacOS? um... iOS? Restrictions? Android? Do you know how to turn off sounds in the Facebook app? Why does IHeartRadio start when my phone is in my wife's 2008 MKX with SYNC2? Why does the movie theatre app keep popping notifications when I turn them off, and why does the help team keep telling me my SMS is turned off, when I specifically tell them the app notifications keep coming? Not SMS, APP! APP! APP!
I remember when you were a hero for working 80 hours a week to get the network stable, servers all responsive, and email flowing. You were the wizard. Then it became making it all work in 40 hours a week, because you had the levers and the knowledge. Now I would not want to be help desk at a SMB, security alone is an outsource unless you want to share the load with your second and third, it's not worth taking that all on by yourself. I've been in this role for 12 years now, but it's a maze. 30+ systems to use, passwords changing every 20 days, disabled access if I take more than 14 days vacation, and then the incessant releases with now using IE for some, Chrome for others, Edge for others, Firefox recommended for one but denied by corp. policy... It's different than it was 10 years ago. And I've been called to task for not recalling a known issue I see every perhaps 2 years... yeah, that and the saga of being bitten to death by ducks.
In talk radio, if you're not pissing off at least a quarter of your listeners every hour, every HOUR, you're failing.
Phone customers think they can dictate specific design decisions. So they wail about notches, which if they serve a purpose are going to stay, and they do (the cosmetics of having narrower bezels except for where the sensors/cameras sit, a big woop), customers have to vote with their feet. Headphone jacks are gonzo. If you're still wired, please 'splain the big deal having to use an adapter. I'm wireless, at the cost of fidelity, but if you're all about quality you've lost that fight with the DAC inadequacies in virtually every phone, and then the source, since you're either flinging gigs of truly lossless that wasn't previously sampled like sh*t, or you've given in to better-than-128k-mp3 quality, which is pus. Or, in simpler terms, audio quality is an oxymoron in phones. Get a player.
OnePlus is doing what it needs to do to expand, and those early adopters that thought the pwned the company are being told what their place is. Better hold on to that treasure you bought last year.
This spew brought to you by a now 10 year HTC customer who has, finally, bought his last HTC anything. The U11 cured me, I'm free.
And neither the first nor last example.
The future of real warfare between states isn't limited to military force. It's likely that any military actions will be preparatory and sustaining, but not decisive. Attacks on infrastructure, denial of access to critical information and resources, and isolation from allies can all be accomplished with information technology.
This example is most instructive in that it shows how states with limited resources in some areas can be capable, even formidable adversaries in others. The US has the most capable military assets available, with only a few (but notable) exceptions where adversaries have sufficient assets to cause major losses to US forces and potentially prevail in regional conflicts. But in so-called 'cyber' warfare, the US has no discernible advantage. Relatively small, impoverished, or militarily weak states have equal capabilities. And non-state players can be just as capable.
For the US, the only real hope is that it has undisclosed capabilities, which is entirely likely, or that it will focus on developing those. Sadly, unlike military force, which takes in some instances a generation to develop new and overwhelming advantages, cyber warfare changes year,y, actually, monthly, and these advances are shared virtually instantly among allies, requiring no factories, manufacturing techniques, or natural resources beyond manpower, intellect, and thought. Ask aerospace engineers - it takes so much less time to devise a new weapon system than it does to actually manufacture and refine it to the point of usefulness. And cyber warfare is cheaper too, by every measure, to develop and deploy.
I'm confident in assuming that the US and others have the means to detect and monitor electronic communications among allies and adversaries worldwide, with few exceptions. And they constantly have to refine those methods to keep up with the changing landscape. And the only way to do that is to deploy an intercept system that captures everything, everywhere, all the time, and keeps it for analysis and exploitation. All this means our government is compelled to violate our privacy and civil rights, if not explicitly, then implicitly, as it captures all the things always, just to be able to find the enemy's vulnerabilities and secrets.
It's a nasty business. We have no other choice. Our enemies will certainly do so, and without a shred of restraint. If they can prevail at our expense, they will indeed. And this example shows that there is no hope of ever turning back from this state. It will only get worse. All attempts to secure our information systems will only succeed in making it more difficult to find the enemy. They will use all security measures to improve their methods. But we must improve security, no matter, for all the other reasons. A vicious circle, one impossible to stop.
Perhaps then a meaningful penalty?
And let the class members queue up themselves. Surely someone involved could whack up a website to get the info. Fraud? Turnabout may be fair play.
It only cost $4.7B to put a telescope in space that provided a unique capability to observe the universe. Worth it? Probably, yes.
Solar works, as in *works* if you pay for it. It's economics. We should as a nation pursue long-term energy independence, beyond our current gas-fed mostly independent state. And if it takes decades, so be it. But arbitrary schedules don't make sense to me.
We have one car manufacturer producing electric vehicles at a profit. Others will follow. The industry will change in 20 years. And during that time I suspect point sources of electricity will become very attractive. The 'problem' will be solved. Watch.
So what comes first, solar sources or electric car demands?
I'm hopeful I live long enough to justify solar on my roof to help power a useful electric car. And the A/C. Moderately affordably.
How many days of sunshine does your city get yearly? Is public transit getting cars off the road? Is residential heating a need, and if so what is being used to provide it? And if not, then is cooling needed, and what's that solution?
Not knowing what city is yours, I'm not able to consider the sources of the smog. I'm hopeful, however, that it's not on the West Coast. That smog usually comes from cars, since the westerly sources are a longs ways off and we aren't legislating anything to solve those any time soon. Electric vehicles are not going to solve this any time soon either, though solar then is probably a winner, and no constitutional measures will be needed.
Do those cost estimates include unpredictable maintenance costs? Look at nuclear - the first nuclear plant shut down was killed off by repair and maintenance costs. Wind plants seem to be suffering from failures here and there, and the costs have rendered at least one dead. We don't really know how these are going to hold up. Gas turbine plants are fairly well understood.
And solar requires storage or alternative backup sources. That's not part of Prop 127.
Solar will sell itself soon enough. Let it.
From the ballot description, which was contested:
"irrespective of cost to consumers"
Despite the complaints of the supporters regarding the ballot description, it does appear that the proposition mandates the use of renewable energy sources, as defined in the proposition, without consideration of the cost to ratepayers. This got the attention of many of us in Arizona.
It's a laudable goal to use renewable sources, but somehow I cannot reconcile the complaints of the proponents of this measure against utility company profits with the apparent intention of the measure to mandate these changes no matter the costs. It's as if they don't mind if the utilities double their rates, with the attendant increases in profits, so long as it's renewable energy they are gouging us for. Or something.
I also don't much care for the government being put in charge of determining what energy sources will be installed. If renewable energy is desirable, or in some way 'better', this will become evident soon enough. Leave it alone.
Oh, and then I consider Tom Steyer, a nice enough guy, who lives in San Francisco. Perhaps, tom, you should be working on the problems your home town has, and leave us in Arizona to deal with our problems? Not enough problems in San Francisco? Just go away.
Yes, I've already voted 'no' on this. Not necessary, not helpful, not now.
"...Facebook's new political ad transparency tools..."
It would seem that Facebook developed these 'transparency tools' for a purpose. If that was to ensure greater transparency, well, they are in the business of enforcing something, just not law. If not, well, was this an exercise in avoiding criticism and responsibility?
If indeed this is an example of the impossibility of guaranteeing the identity of these advertisers, well, stop pretending and drop the pretense of having 'new political ad transparency tools'. they either have none, they are ineffective, or they are playing us. Or some combination thereof.
The problem isn't FB.
The problem is the people that MAKE it.
Social Media is a scourge on our world.
FTFY
Actually, consider an alternative:
Municipal broadband service might be well described as a 'lifeline'-like service, intended to be lowest cost, minimum necessary, to provide access to government services, universally required services such as job search, bill payment, enrollments, etc. It may not be intended to, nor even provide, access to a variety of services or sources. If this is disclosed, is it a problem?
Disclosure would be the first step.
So would LinkNYC be deficient if it did not provide access to pornography? Or games? Or would it be efficient? And if kiosks were relatively public, would pornography be a tolerable use, since it might, possibly, offend some casual observers? Should LinkNYC spend more money on privacy filters and such?
Of course, when we move on from pron and consider access to news, information, and opinion sources, we get into significantly less obvious use cases. But I, sadly, know people who are just as offended by seeing certain 'news' and opinion sources as they are seeing pron, even by accident, and they plainly tell me that these need to be kept off of municipal broadband systems.
Not simple, but worthy of discussion.
Well, since this is becoming both more common and more visible with commercial platforms, and there is no reason to believe 'Hate Speech' filters won;t be implemented by commercial service providers, I doubt municipal providers will be unique or worse.
Forgive me, please, but evidence for what?
Actually, 'blaming' the algorithms isn't avoiding responsibility at all. This is all their stuff. They are responsible.
Possible discriminatory account deletions and manipulations by Internet social media platforms seems like both:
'News for nerds' - tech stuff potentially being used to manipulate news and opinions is pretty geeky, even though it's also mainstream...
'Stuff that matters' - seems like Twitter in particular messing with your followers might matter to some of you. Or not, but I betting the interest is nonzero.
And you can expect even the non-right-wing news sites to run the story, perhaps with a different analysis.
Of course they can. They can even lie about it, or ignore the complainants.
It's not impossible that a competitor will come and cost them some money, and that's about the worst thing that can be done to Twitter and the other platforms that also engage in discriminatory* account management.
* Discriminatory" Treating particular people, companies, or products differently from others, especially in an unfair way. Especially not necessarily indicating exclusively.