They aren't banning them for hate speech though. They can't provide any examples and they aren't banning 5000 other websites that post comparable or more hateful articles.
So they're lying, they're pushing a hidden agenda and they're demonstrating that they can't be trusted in a business relationship.
Sorry but that's just total bullshit. Some people with left leaning political views may fact check but there are so many gullible naive ignorant twats ranting on about gender pay gaps, rape culture, online harassment and other bullshit without the slightest understanding of the basics facts or the truths they reveal.
You don't see the difference between banning and editing someone else's words?
It's a massive difference. It's the entire difference.
4chan made the choice to ban GamerGate. Their choice, and there were consequence but those were predictable and accepted. Reddit has been banning users and discussions for years, and that causes a lot of noise but most of the moderation is "We removed your comment" and the bans (shadow or otherwise) are simply preventing people posting, not changing what they say. Youtube and twitter similarly provide a "obey or don't participate" policy.
What this CEO has done is very different and very dangerous.
Interesting that Slashdot is now preventing posts containing certain words. I hadn't encountered that and I do think it's stupid and counterproductive. It's still infinitely better than changing the content of someone's post.
Yes, he should. That's called moderation and is a reasonable activity for a site owner to undertake, in an open and transparent manner (which may preclude 'shadowban', depending how Reddit interprets/implements that).
Instead of destroyed any credibility Reddit may have had remaining by guaranteeing that you can no longer trust that anything posted there has any relationship to what the person identified as posting it intended to say. It may instead be pushing an agenda the CEO or one of his friends wants instead.
It's a grotesque betrayal of trust, an utter lack of ethics and completely fucking unforgiveable.
One hour, or even two hours, would be consistent with tradition, while waiting until the middle of the following day clearly is not.
Given the actual votes aren't cast until next month and wont be counted until 6th January, she was technically almost two months premature.
ABC or CNN or some cuntfaced news anchor called Florida for Clinton. Yeah, maybe waiting for the fucking votes would be useful, because a few hours later it turned out that people in Florida in fact voted for Trump. Your faith in the US media is pitiful, and Clinton waiting until 11am the day after the election - while votes were still being counted anyway, and two months before the electoral college votes will be known - was pretty fucking far from an unreasonable delay.
No one looks at the data available to see who is, within a truly negligibly small probability of error, the winner, and then that person begins the planning for assuming power?
Politicians in this country begin planning for assuming power long before the election. They write down those plans and share them with the electorate, and that's one of the ways in which their fitness to govern is assessed.
They sure as shit don't celebrate winning or publicly concede an election purely because national television networks feel the need to be the first people to declare the result, long before the votes are actually counted.
Sounds very inefficient and rather authoritarian actually.
Whatever the fuck is the justification for suggesting that waiting for the votes to be counted to see who won the election is authoritarian. How is this not pretty much the only possible fucking option that _isn't_ authoritarian? Do you know the meaning of the word?
I'm betting the difference between the polls and the actual election boil down to a lot of people saying 'I just can't stomach a woman in the Oval Office'.
On what grounds? I didn't see anything in the media or on the discussion forums I frequent that indicated anybody at all would be voting against her because of her gender.
A few people voting for her (and publicly demanding others vote for her) because of her gender, but not against her.
The nearest I saw were a few articles berating the 'vote for her because she is female' movement because they want the first female president to be elected on merit, not because she can cross her legs in comfort. They generally split between do and don't vote for her based on various grounds, but none of them were gender based; they just said not to vote for her because of her gender.
"I am a proud lifelong fighter for womenâ(TM)s issues, because I firmly believe whatâ(TM)s good for women is good for America." -- https://www.hillaryclinton.com...
Then launches straight into propagating the mythical pay gap and the exceedingly misandrist "violence against women" bullshit.
Anything done to improve womens pay relative to mens that doesn't include making them do the same fucking work is a direct attack on men. I've yet to see any "violence against women" legislation or government funding that doesn't demonise, penalise or heavily disadvantage men.
On the 'white' front, Clinton gave anti-white racists speaking slots at the Democratic Convention - see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
You're welcome to challenge whether this is 'actively' demonising or not, but at no point did I ever see anything from Clinton that actually acknowledged let alone support white men.
that doesn't mean a damn thing to the person who sees racist behavior associated with that particular symbol
Then they should educate themselves, not assault others.
I like the confederate flag. It's a great flag, lovely design, nice colours. Much better than the shitty red stripes on the US flag. Are you telling me that this makes my behaviour racist?
Me, I just think it's an awesome flag. But then, I liked the Dukes of Hazzard when I was a kid too.
. The fact that a recount is being suggested is solid proof that
Well, I'd say it's solid proof that someone in America has finally managed to convince an element of the media that these flawed vulnerable electronic voting machines deliver only slightly less democracy than a hardcore communist regime backed by an extensive gulag system.
Well, I pay my cleaner £16/week but I bought a £300 Dyson for her to use.
Without the Dyson I suspect the same level of care and attention to my carpets would cost me £200/week from her and still not get results quite as good.
I could pay her to do the laundry too (and did when my washing machine broke) but it's cheaper to buy a washing machine and do my own. Adding the automatic folder would be needed to really match the service she provides but it'd need to cost around £600 and last for less than four years before she became a cheaper option.
Ah, but I plan to obey the law. I find that the very best way to stay out of prison
Your plan has flaws. One is trying to obey the law - fundamentally impossible. The other is thinking you have to break the law to end up in prison. Sadly not the case, especially in the US with its for-profit prison system.
The EU does however primarily focus on data protection rather than physical location. If you can guarantee the same protections in a non-EU country then you're generally ok, and there are accepted approaches for putting data in other countries (including the US, which is how LinkedIn et al get by).
There's also just consumer pressure though, which is one reason you're seeing Ireland becoming a data haven, and a lot of commercial pressure which is why Amazon, Microsoft, Salesforce and other cloud services vendors have (or are opening) multiple EU based data centres.
Not quite the same thing as mandating it must all be held in-country though.
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. My funding goal is gross domestic product?
My point was that creating fear and using external threats to secure higher levels of funding is entirely unnecessary. Either the government offers adequate funding to meet its expectations or it doesn't. Stop scaring people to artificially boost funding.
Secure pragmatic levels of funding justified by the need to deliver on strategic and political commitments made by the people that should be running the country.
May not match current levels of funding but fuck that, just buy fewer broken F35s.
Slashdot Mirror
They aren't banning them for hate speech though. They can't provide any examples and they aren't banning 5000 other websites that post comparable or more hateful articles.
So they're lying, they're pushing a hidden agenda and they're demonstrating that they can't be trusted in a business relationship.
I hope they fail.
You're the cunt putting arbitrary constraints on definitions to assure your precious narrative doesn't get damaged.
Hardly a position of integrity from which to be challenging others.
What is fallacious about acknowledging that "white" people are globally a minority?
The Left fact checks.
Sorry but that's just total bullshit. Some people with left leaning political views may fact check but there are so many gullible naive ignorant twats ranting on about gender pay gaps, rape culture, online harassment and other bullshit without the slightest understanding of the basics facts or the truths they reveal.
You don't see the difference between banning and editing someone else's words?
It's a massive difference. It's the entire difference.
4chan made the choice to ban GamerGate. Their choice, and there were consequence but those were predictable and accepted. Reddit has been banning users and discussions for years, and that causes a lot of noise but most of the moderation is "We removed your comment" and the bans (shadow or otherwise) are simply preventing people posting, not changing what they say. Youtube and twitter similarly provide a "obey or don't participate" policy.
What this CEO has done is very different and very dangerous.
Interesting that Slashdot is now preventing posts containing certain words. I hadn't encountered that and I do think it's stupid and counterproductive. It's still infinitely better than changing the content of someone's post.
Yes, he should. That's called moderation and is a reasonable activity for a site owner to undertake, in an open and transparent manner (which may preclude 'shadowban', depending how Reddit interprets/implements that).
Instead of destroyed any credibility Reddit may have had remaining by guaranteeing that you can no longer trust that anything posted there has any relationship to what the person identified as posting it intended to say. It may instead be pushing an agenda the CEO or one of his friends wants instead.
It's a grotesque betrayal of trust, an utter lack of ethics and completely fucking unforgiveable.
Given 20% of Americans are aged 14 or younger and another 20% are aged over 60, 40% feels surprisingly lower.
I know I'd sign up my 8 year old for a year of celibacy if it guaranteed a hackproof life for her.
One hour, or even two hours, would be consistent with tradition, while waiting until the middle of the following day clearly is not.
Given the actual votes aren't cast until next month and wont be counted until 6th January, she was technically almost two months premature.
ABC or CNN or some cuntfaced news anchor called Florida for Clinton. Yeah, maybe waiting for the fucking votes would be useful, because a few hours later it turned out that people in Florida in fact voted for Trump. Your faith in the US media is pitiful, and Clinton waiting until 11am the day after the election - while votes were still being counted anyway, and two months before the electoral college votes will be known - was pretty fucking far from an unreasonable delay.
No one looks at the data available to see who is, within a truly negligibly small probability of error, the winner, and then that person begins the planning for assuming power?
Politicians in this country begin planning for assuming power long before the election. They write down those plans and share them with the electorate, and that's one of the ways in which their fitness to govern is assessed.
They sure as shit don't celebrate winning or publicly concede an election purely because national television networks feel the need to be the first people to declare the result, long before the votes are actually counted.
Sounds very inefficient and rather authoritarian actually.
Whatever the fuck is the justification for suggesting that waiting for the votes to be counted to see who won the election is authoritarian. How is this not pretty much the only possible fucking option that _isn't_ authoritarian? Do you know the meaning of the word?
I'm betting the difference between the polls and the actual election boil down to a lot of people saying 'I just can't stomach a woman in the Oval Office'.
On what grounds? I didn't see anything in the media or on the discussion forums I frequent that indicated anybody at all would be voting against her because of her gender.
A few people voting for her (and publicly demanding others vote for her) because of her gender, but not against her.
The nearest I saw were a few articles berating the 'vote for her because she is female' movement because they want the first female president to be elected on merit, not because she can cross her legs in comfort. They generally split between do and don't vote for her based on various grounds, but none of them were gender based; they just said not to vote for her because of her gender.
You saw other views?
"I am a proud lifelong fighter for womenâ(TM)s issues, because I firmly believe whatâ(TM)s good for women is good for America."
-- https://www.hillaryclinton.com...
Then launches straight into propagating the mythical pay gap and the exceedingly misandrist "violence against women" bullshit.
Anything done to improve womens pay relative to mens that doesn't include making them do the same fucking work is a direct attack on men. I've yet to see any "violence against women" legislation or government funding that doesn't demonise, penalise or heavily disadvantage men.
On the 'white' front, Clinton gave anti-white racists speaking slots at the Democratic Convention - see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
You're welcome to challenge whether this is 'actively' demonising or not, but at no point did I ever see anything from Clinton that actually acknowledged let alone support white men.
that doesn't mean a damn thing to the person who sees racist behavior associated with that particular symbol
Then they should educate themselves, not assault others.
I like the confederate flag. It's a great flag, lovely design, nice colours. Much better than the shitty red stripes on the US flag. Are you telling me that this makes my behaviour racist?
Me, I just think it's an awesome flag. But then, I liked the Dukes of Hazzard when I was a kid too.
She lost to Trump. It's pretty hard to be less popular than that.
. The fact that a recount is being suggested is solid proof that
Well, I'd say it's solid proof that someone in America has finally managed to convince an element of the media that these flawed vulnerable electronic voting machines deliver only slightly less democracy than a hardcore communist regime backed by an extensive gulag system.
Well overdue, really.
Well, I pay my cleaner £16/week but I bought a £300 Dyson for her to use.
Without the Dyson I suspect the same level of care and attention to my carpets would cost me £200/week from her and still not get results quite as good.
I could pay her to do the laundry too (and did when my washing machine broke) but it's cheaper to buy a washing machine and do my own. Adding the automatic folder would be needed to really match the service she provides but it'd need to cost around £600 and last for less than four years before she became a cheaper option.
Home automation, it's wonderful.
Don't be silly, he's clearly not using Celcius as his temperature scale.
Must admit though, wouldn't fancy a 100K bath myself.
Until and unless plea bargaining is significantly changed there is no justice in the US.
It's an inherently corrupt system.
Well, episode one had a few digs at Fiat in it.
Ah, but I plan to obey the law. I find that the very best way to stay out of prison
Your plan has flaws. One is trying to obey the law - fundamentally impossible. The other is thinking you have to break the law to end up in prison. Sadly not the case, especially in the US with its for-profit prison system.
Nonsense. LinkedIn is used as a recruitment aid but it's a single website and not even the first one I'd go to for job hunting.
When it's not the first one anybody would go to (in Russia) then others will step in and provide the needed services.
No, for personal data too.
The EU does however primarily focus on data protection rather than physical location. If you can guarantee the same protections in a non-EU country then you're generally ok, and there are accepted approaches for putting data in other countries (including the US, which is how LinkedIn et al get by).
There's also just consumer pressure though, which is one reason you're seeing Ireland becoming a data haven, and a lot of commercial pressure which is why Amazon, Microsoft, Salesforce and other cloud services vendors have (or are opening) multiple EU based data centres.
Not quite the same thing as mandating it must all be held in-country though.
The UK.
France.
Spain.
You could possibly throw Japan in there but WWII complicated that one.
You're asking me how to be a sociopath. I decline.
We're back to the initial post to which you replied; the behaviour is inappropriate and indefensible and should be derided.
Early retirement. Anybody with that goal is an idiot and shouldn't be trusted with military spending anyway.
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. My funding goal is gross domestic product?
My point was that creating fear and using external threats to secure higher levels of funding is entirely unnecessary. Either the government offers adequate funding to meet its expectations or it doesn't. Stop scaring people to artificially boost funding.
Secure pragmatic levels of funding justified by the need to deliver on strategic and political commitments made by the people that should be running the country.
May not match current levels of funding but fuck that, just buy fewer broken F35s.
There's this awkward thing getting in the way. We call it justice, and we've been promoting it since 1215.
Apologies for being civilised.