skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
They're not, but they can be ministry of their terms and conditions, which don't allow blatant propaganda posts (regardless of whether it's from a citizen or from a government representative) that claim victims of forced sterilisation are simply emancipating and choosing to have fewer children as an explanation for dropping birth rates.

China is free to publish its nonsense on its own channels. why should Twitter agree to be a propaganda platform for China?

Twitter can't police every post, but if a post gets a million views and is a blatant lie about human rights abuses, it's a bit silly to argue they should let that slide because it's an 'important statement from a foreign government'.

If the NYT tweets about this statement, and attaches the proper context based on generally accepted standards of proper journalism, it wouldn't have been an issue. You can talk about things without being a propaganda piece. Hitler advertising in the NYT in the WW2 shouldn't be accepted. Journalists writing about something Hitler said and putting it in the context (i.e., mentioning the human rights abuses), is fine. Apologies for the obligatory nazi reference but it makes explaining the principe so much easier, even if China isn't as bad.
> It’s the vehement majority of Hong Kong people who gave rights to reinterpret Basic Law to stem the flow of people from mainland China (since court of final appeal was going to allow spouses and children of Hong Kong residents from other parts of China to settle in HK)

> So in HK people got what they asked for and also majority Chinese supported this action on HK. So like any democracy like USA and India a law which appease majority pass easily same happened here.

Both statements are false. The first reinterpretation of the Basic Law on the right of adobe in 1999 wasn’t the result of ANY DEMOCRATIC PROCESS involving the majority of Hong Kongers.

Some polls may show that a large fraction of Hong Kongers prefer the RESULTING VERDICT on right of adobe, but the reinterpretation is unlike any democratic process as in the US or India, that has a rigorous and formal voting process. And certainly not a majority of Hong Kongers support repeated interpretations of the basic law by people not directly elected in Hong Kong.

The end doesn’t justify the means. You have confused the end and the means.
Open source code and developers community of the Italian government
Nietzsche predicted the current course of events:

"Step by step, private companies incorporate state businesses; even the most stubborn vestige of the old work of governing (for example, that activity which is supposed to secure private parties against other private parties) will ultimately be taken care of by private contractors..."
How is this not collusion? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/collusion.asp
You may mostly forget about Trump, he'll be out in a fortnight.

The problem now is your tech overlords, who have shown that they are very willing to silence and deplatform their political opponents, and who seems closely aligned with your new government. Good luck voting them out next time.
okay mr oligopolist
No one reads the tos. Clicks are not agreements.
If the complete list is available, can’t anyone simply download it and DDOS the entire network indefinitely?

One of the roles of a good DHT is to localize any DDOS and refuse to propagate it further.
Or else!
Buying your own servers is no use if you can't get them connected to the Internet. Next step, build your own Internet?
I've given them far more than the benefit of the doubt. If you think your movement can survive without trolling, you're free to demonstrate that over the coming months.
> Having free speech tied to current moral fashions seems disastrous.

Well, the entire point is that free speech is not the same as broadcasting rights. You can still have free speech. You just don't get a "free platform".
This is so so many words about a overly discussed slippery slope, that do not address a very simple point.

You said this:

> All of the major social media companies blocked a significant portion of the population because of the attempted subversion of democracy in the country.

Where is this large population? Who is this large population?

Thus entire comment you typed is an distressingly large stretch if you can't identify the population you're using as a diving board to truly go into the deep end here.
> Every time you decide to solve a problem with code, you are committing part of your future capacity to maintaining and operating that code. Software is never done.

Notice that this includes using code written by other people (e.g., dependencies).
This is indeed a massive undertaking. Beyond this point I can only speculate, but it is really interesting to have these kinds of debates.
I know some folks who used to have a Marxist reading group. My recollection is that they bogged down on the 3rd volume of Capital. One of them had a doctorate in economics, and all were well educated.
Hm. I didn't consider that interpretation.
This concur with my research paper how OPEC plans to rise the price of fuel in future. To read my findings, follow this link https://varsitypapers.com/opecs-determination-to-rise-oil-pr...
Previous comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23842179
Gab was indeed blacklisted in many (though not all?) Mastodon apps.

My point is that, since Gab "joined" Mastodon, nothing of what you have predicted happened to Mastodon. My hope is that the same things will (not) happen to Peertube, for the same reasons.
Twitter runs on public infrastructure. It's beholden to the community in the same way trucks are.
Capitalism, that's why. Daddy's gotta get paid.
If used as part of a holistic risk-hedging strategy, they aren’t necessarily zero sum from a portfolio theory perspective.

But purchased on their own as a stand-alone bet, all options and futures contracts are by definition zero-sum games.

So 99.999% of the retail investors (robinhood et al.) trading options are playing a zero sum game. Hence why I didn’t feel the need to elaborate.
Here's a list of the Great Books of the Western World, which is a pretty good place to start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_Wor...
From an engineering standpoint, this is definitely a cautionary tale about why you should be worried about vendor lock-in. If you don't own/maintain your entire deployment stack (right down to the bare-metal servers that your code is running on) you need to have some kind of plan for being able to migrate to a new vendor (whether because of a TOS violation or just the original vendor shuts down).

I don't know the technical details of the Parlor setup, but depending on how integrated they were with the AWS ecosystem, (e.g. using Lambda executors instead of just running services on EC2) moving off of AWS could mean huge changes to their architecture....

That being said, even in the best case scenario this kind of migration would be very expensive (S3 data egress fees??) and a 24 hour timeline seems absurd! Can anyone with experience in this area speak to if this kind of accelerated timeline is normal when it comes to web-hosting TOS violations? I just cannot imagine signing a contract with a hosting company that would allow them to unilaterally cancel my service with only 24 hours notice. (Admittedly, the NYT article references prior communication between Parlor and Amazon, so this is obviously not totally out-of-the-blue. Still, 24 hours from the final decision to account-deactivation seems insane for an enterprise offering....

(To be clear, I am not trying to argue for or against Amazon's decision to drop Parlor's account. I am just shocked that their AWS contract allows such a limited migration window for something like a TOS violation.)
SSB is such a wonderful idea. There’s no global timeline — just archipelagos. It assumes that network heterogeny is the default, and is transmission layer agnostic. Breakages will occur. Maybe you’re living on a catamaran in the South Pacific and you only have connectivity once a month — SSB will work even then.

Your own timeline is a sigchain — a sequenced list of signed messages. You replicate the content in your network (2 hops away). Bridges between communities can be built or burned. Many islands can exist without needing to erase the others from even existing — mutual separation is possible. Consensus is not necessary.

Is global network culture still possible? If it is, in the midst of the national internets we now live inside of, I suspect it will look something like this. A little different from what we were promised, but maybe a little better too.
i'm arguing against advocating lying, which is what saying one thing while believing another is. it's preferring a truthful, if self-serving and vindictive, trump over a lying, self-serving and vindictive trump.
Journalists on Covering the Capitol Siege: ‘This Could Get Ugly’
One the one hand, I laugh at the fools in government who make such pronouncements. The big social platforms are *Private Companies*, NOT public utilities. They can do whatever they want.

On the other hand, these platforms have amplified voices that would otherwise not even attain local coverage. Being coldly objective, they also make it possible for State Actors to punch way, way above their weight in an information warfare perspective (see Russia).

It's also very important to remember that social media and modern 24 hour WWF-style "Journalism" WOULD NOT EXIST without near constant levels of conflict content to drive engagement. So there are entire very large business domains where there is existential threat were there to be regulation of content.

Net-net, the best possible outcome of all of this would be the demise of platforms like FB, Twitter, FoxNews, CNN, BBC, et. al as they really only serve to rapidly diminish the IQ's of the electorate/culture.... Of course that won't happen because culturally we are beyond weak and have long since surrendered our future to a small group of people with the wealth to supersede most if not all Government controls (including the UK of course, I mean do you really think Boris Johnson has the stones for doing anything other than running his pie-hole like Trump has for the last 4 years??).
Previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19324766
Is inciting violence allowed?
I totally agree with this. But I believe we can only find something better by changing democracy's rules in an incremental manner.
Democracy vs fascism is the discussion I hope you can win on merits. In fact I wouldn't mind honest debates on this topic at schools: it can serve to vaccinate people against intolerance and extremism.

Communities that shut down such discussions are usually authoritarian sects built on faith in a leader's guidance, not enlightened democracies.
> First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

> Because I was not a socialist.

> [...]

> Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Be careful in the application of your apathy.
No problem, my friend who studies law has just started it and is finding it super interesting.
Only by US media and politicians. Nobody in Europe, nor elsewhere, refers to Europe as EU for short.
For real. If its not acting the same, then its not the same thing, give it a different name and release your 0.1. I guess maybe we run out of namespace with this methodology? Suddenly we end up with software named axsladkjfaksldjf, and then hackers start camping on axsladejfaksldjf
If it's not superficial, it's offensive. Only prestigious people are licensed to have an opinion that's not superficial.
Sure there are. You can use Parler... oh wait they were just banned by Google, Apple, and Amazon. I'm sure this isn't any kind of collusion though. Free Market, yeah!
Or, man up and recognize that Twitter can ban whomever they want. They are not bound by the 1st amendment (at least in the American context).
I don't understand this comment -- what are the "absolute extremes of some hypothetical principles" you're referring to?
It's a blanket reason to not overreact.
People here complaint about moderation is being moderated here, and they are OK with it. OK meaning they are not actively pushing back on such moderations.
Those things still exist today, they didn't vanished. And none is stopping you creating new IRC channels or Usenet groups.

Oh, wait, your problem is not that those things vanished, is that people no longer use them in large numbers. So what you want is to impose your will on others to use the technology that you want instead the one that they want, yes? I think this is called dictatorship.
The last few iterations, Congress has actually given them more budget than they asked for
Handshake x Skynet tutorial: decentralized storage with decentralized naming
He says what every Republican leader ought to be saying, loudly and publicly.
For society to decide it needs to hear the view.

If early abolitionists were deplatformed, you think the idea of abolition would still magically arise in everyone's head at the same time? Nope,society would never heard the concept, never adopt it and we'd still have slavery.

Let's be a society of adults. Allow voices to be heard and be rejected or accepted by people as makes sense to them. Otherwise you are moving the decision power from the people to the silencers.

There's no precident in history for that working out well.
I don't even know what "fascist" means any more. :(
is there a standard of proof these sites can provide about not sending data back to the servers? besides checking the network data, which it could delay to another visit or obfuscate easily
2021 will demand new kinds of video conferencing
If I remember correctly Twitter had RSS functionality and then removed it when they got big enough.
> absolutely suicidal TFR of 0.85

The implications of high global population are also (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) "suicidal."

With the exception of figuring out how to care for elderly with a declining population, there are many advantages to a declining population. Specifically, the planet only has so many natural resources. We can only pollute so much. If we had significantly less people, things like limited resources and pollution wouldn't be that big of a deal.
I'd say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Maybe there is an argument for banning the opposition, but "They say evil stuff" doesn't seem like a good one to me. In adherence with Godwin's law, I'll point out that very few people actually read Mein Kampf. If more people had, it might not have been such a surprise when Hitler started doing exactly what he said he was going to do. If you want to succeed in suppressing the opposition, anything short of gulags and secret police, (which do work, but obviously have no place in a democracy), is just going to enrage them. History has shown that the best way to change minds is to expose the baddies, not to force them underground to conspire outside the public eye. I could be wrong, but to me it just seems like bad strategy.
The demands have been made abundantly clear: they want demilitarization, and other health-focused services to take over in areas where police response is overkill and inappropriate. That's literally it. This isn't hard to find.
Just go to a gym and start working with a trainer, either one-on-one or in small classes. It is important to find a trainer who recognizes where your father is, and scale exercises accordingly. You have to talk to the trainer himself, not just the guy on duty that day. Probably best at a small. Independent gym, not a chain.

This might be expensive, but it is so worth it.
> But the real advantage of the CRDT approach is that, if you can limit your entire operation set to CRDTs, you can forego consensus algorithms such as Paxos, Multi-Paxos, Fast Paxos, Raft, Extended Virtual Synchrony, and anything else along those lines.

Things like this are said a lot, but I don't believe CRDTs provide the same consistency guarantees as Paxos/Raft.

Anyone have thoughts on why CRDTs might be favored over the internals of something like a well written eventually consistent datastore like Cassandra that doesn't use Paxos/Raft?

Is he just saying that your consensus algorithm then just becomes that math of CRDTs and not the careful complexity of a distributed consensus protocol?

(the interviewee then goes on to describe that CRDTs fit their use case well, so maybe that is all he is saying...)
That would be a terrible idea.

In times gone by, that would have prevented people spreading information about the world being a sphere and orbiting the sun. The flat earthers and proponents of the earth being the centre of the universe would have suppressed Copernicus' and Kepler's discoveries of heliocentrism and elliptical orbits.

New ideas displace old ideas all the time, and that displacement can only occur if there is both a rational evidence-based reason for displacing it and there is the opportunity to do so. To suppress an idea is to remove opportunity for discussion and to entrench the established viewpoint irrespective of its merits. It's the very antithesis of modern liberal thought.

Suppression of ideas also conversely prevents the objective discussion of bad ideas and dismissing them. Too much conversation in the present days is not grounded in objectivity, and this lets bad ideas fester. Open and fair minded discussion is a basic requirement for living in a free society.

There is a disturbing tendency to wish to suppress discussion of "sensitive" or "controversial" topics in recent years. That is a path which will lead to tyranny. Because it boils down to other people telling us what we are and are not allowed to say, think and do. This would not be a fair or free society.
You mean like the bad reputation that has been established for ages that decentralized technologies are "only good for" piracy, CP, etc.?
We shouldn't need to even be discussing the ethics of regulating statements made by those in government (or opposition).

It's due to the unbelievable amount of manipulative statements and outright lies (e.g. many of the statements made by the current UK government and the "Brexiteers" - not just Trump) that this is even an issue.

A platform labelling or blocking repeated offenders seems sensible to me - however I do think the rules they are enforcing should be fair and equally applied.
A related project is Lite, a graphical text editor that's a bit further along the frontier of useful features vs code simplicity.

It includes lua 5.2 and SDL.
On top of that, it's a few c files to handle input and rendering, and a set of neatly written lua modules for the logic.

Repo and author write-up:

https://github.com/rxi/lite

https://rxi.github.io/lite_an_implementation_overview.html
We have a Android Keyboard, a working application. However, we know it needs more work and some more killer features. In that sense it's half-baked.

Lipee Keyboard ( https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=in.svayu.lipi ) is a keyboard for Indic scripts and languages that uses gestures to speed up typing by 100%. I am also my own prime user, typing various texts (messages, social media, etc.) in Indic scripts, so I can also vouch of its utility myself.

A video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgW9V4YOHGQ

The first novelty is that it solely focuses on people who do NOT read/write English, but know their own mother tongue and script well. So, a native Kannada user (of Kannada script) or Bhojpuri person (of Devnagari script) are our prime targets.

The second novelty is that almost all Indic scripts add an extra line/symbol next to consonants, called "maatras" to create sound out of a consonant. Each sound has a unique maatra, for any consonant. We use gestures to add such a maatra to all consonants, which speeds up the keyboard typing hugely.

We know we can add more features and killer technologies to make typing in Indic scripts very smooth and fast.

We need more tech talent and support to make this happen, and I hope to on-board a CXO or a senior free-lancer for rapid development.

Do up-vote if you like this project, and spread the word!

Thanks!
I think this comment comes closest to the "correct" answer here:

> It's p2p, no webapps.

That is to say, this is not a "service" that you use, so there is no scuttlebutt.com where you just sign up. The software running the replication, and the storage backing it, will be local. Insofar you will always eventually want to run this locally.

Now, of course some fine folks are working around that with modern web tech (see @arj's sibling comment) but the whole idea of this project is that you will locally control your data.
And we've had an unusually warm end of December and start of January. Only one big dumping of snow and then hovering around freezing. Not normal where I am. It's too warm here.

I see we are supposed to get snow end of Jan now. Of course weather forecasts here really suck and you can't trust the weekend forecast until its Friday afternoon.
Do you think that inciting a government insurrection, then expressing your love for the perpetrators, shouldn't be a bannable offense?
A tech group aims to help more eligible people get the earned-income tax credit
As living creatures these people are not ostracized. They can still eat and get healthcare.

They choose to go beyond that.

They’re not owed the fealty of others above and beyond supporting common human needs.
GCC Rust: GCC Front-End for Rust
Both are simultaneously true.

You get such a strong impression of Pliny from his letters: a sensible chap, a bit Pooterish, really a classic organisation man, but good-hearted. And his appreciation of his new wife is so touching! Then you discover he was 39 and his new wife was about 14.
Gandhi himself says you can’t fast against a tyrant.

He also says that you can’t wake a person pretending to sleep.

I enjoy learning about the tactics used by non violent approaches - and it has shown a realistic and clever tactical approach to your political reality.

Gandhi’s approach was always about both - morals and practical tactics.

Take Mandela- he adapted Gandhi’s approach because he realized that the approach was contingent on his operating environment.

So acknowledging Gandhi means acknowledging Popper.

You can’t convince someone who is only deigning to speak to you, or worse - sees you as a chance to broadcast their poison while appearing legitimate.

Bad faith arguments are not solvable in the modern public squares.
>Can you give a reasoned, principled argument against open borders, transsexualism, liberalism itself?

I've heard plenty of reasoned arguments against those things. Here's the problem: they weren't given by Trump supporters. They came from moderates, or in some cases, from Marxists.

Trumpism isn't just opposition to what Fox News says the Democratic Party supports. It's the belief structure that convinces people that "open borders" is even on the table in modern politics at all (it isn't). If you think that "open borders" is more likely in the next two decades than the country being destroyed by an asteroid impact, you're already in the disinformation hole.
Yes. There are other ways as well of course, but less people
will be great for the world.

Its basic stuff really http://www.vhemt.org/