skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The problem is who arbitrates which speech is good. If you look back at history there are many examples of speech that was suppressed because it was considered blasphemous or immoral only to later become orthodoxy. I think we are better off focusing our efforts on building back trust in journalism and teaching and empowering people to be skeptical and good critical thinkers. I do not think repression is going to work.
They can't distribute a native app. They can continue to operate on Apple devices as a website or a PWA (whatever "PWA" means).

Is the distinction between these two important?
Yes. If the content is illegal, it's up to the government to censor it.
I've played Endless Sky and liked it a lot; although I'm pretty bad at combat.

Some other games:
https://store.steampowered.com/curator/38475471-Libre-Open-S...
https://github.com/Martin-Pitt/awesome-frontend-games (<- I haven't checked if these are FLOSS, but I had this in my bookmarks)

There are also many mods for games available in GitHub such as: https://github.com/cybrxkhan/VIET-Events-for-CK3
https://github.com/kiooeht/ModTheSpire
Totally insane. Information warfare is escalating dramatically and is poised to turn into real violence.
> As a result, American influence is kind of inevitable.

Yeah and it's only a matter of time until youtube will start de-platforming mainstrem hungarian vloggers because their values don't align with american

Not related to social media but this stuff even happen IRL
https://www.euronews.com/2019/04/09/hungarian-opera-asks-whi...
I don't think blaming Nixon is right. His action arguably made sense at the time, and didn't require sacrificing Taiwan.

The US had plenty of time to safely pivot to a different position regarding China/Taiwan (e.g. letting Taiwan get nukes in the 70s-80s; Shifting diplomatic position and recognizing Taiwan right after the Cold War was over; Not allowing Globalization to go so far in the 90s-00s). If the US didn't take that option, one can blame successor presidents rather than Nixon.
Then when I mention the notion of the truth, why is it received with hostility, and downvoted, universally?

Here, I'll give you a chance to see if you care about the truth:

SpicyLemonZest says:

> The people that stormed the capital have been pretty clear about their position here: they plan to continue escalating unless Trump is installed into power for a second term.

Can you come up with a plausible explanation for how this can be known?

> There's nothing we can do to meet people who think like that halfway; the only course of action which might avert further tragedies is to convince them that they aren't very powerful and won't be able to achieve their goals.

Can you come up with a plausible explanation for how this can be known?
> and that is the sole purview of monopolies.

No actually. According to the wikipedia definition on censorship, there is no requirement to be a monopoly, in order for a private business to engage in censorship.

Instead, according to the actual definition of censorship, censorship is any sort of "suppression of speech, public communication, or other information", and private, non-monopolies can absolutely engage in censorship.

You are simply incorrect about what the definition of censorship is. The actual definitions, that are all over the place, do not require a monopoly.
As someone else commented, this is apparently a known mitigation for diy tear gas/pepper spray relief.
US Yaris was disconnected in 2020. Even the Mirage jumps 9% this year from 14k to 15,290 in 2021 with a hefty 995$ destination charge.

Companies really have been abandoning this sediment because as I said it’s unprofitable.
Trump support is now synonymous with fascism. The die was cast when Congress was attacked in an attempted coup.

Not all conservatives are Trump supporters.
Sure? It was an illustration of supply and demand as I envision them operating as a bubble pops. I think narration is a good way to convey it. Do you follow it but disagree that it's a possible outcome, or something else?
My team agrees with you :)

https://developers.cloudflare.com/stream/

Happy to take any critique y'all may have.
This is a fairly unpopular opinion but I've experienced some benefit from smoking weed before a run, too. I find running to be extremely tedious, but if I'm stoned, it's fine. Kinda helped that my running partner had a low alcohol tolerance and would slug a beer before our runs.

A couple of points to consider. First, CBD and alcohol are painkillers -- I don't like using anti-inflammatories during exercise for fear of overdoing it -- that's an issue here. Second, drugs make you stupid -- don't be a stupid in traffic, y'all.
Maybe they felt switching to 1 would feel like too much of an effective increase of the character limit?
Imagine a TV news network with audience of 1 billion people which will give free airtime to one political party only, especially during the election cycle. How big of an advantage this is and how much is this kind of reach worth? Aren't there campaign laws about this kind of thing?
You're missing the fact that this is a suspension, which can be reversed if Parler takes the required actions.
I Immediately Lowered My Heart Rate by Switching My Yogurt
It's less sexist now because we removed all the women.
The typically suggested counterproposal is state control of what is functionally a utility.

And while the First Amendment definitely applies to political speech, it does not apply to threats, which are a large part of Parler's stock in trade.

So what's your alternative?
This is the dictionary definition of the slippery slope logical fallacy.
Do you think that by NOT responding to such violence, a Democratic congress wouldn't say "regulation is needed, since Big Tech is dropping the ball"?

Which is more likely, congress deciding regulation is needed when Big Tech acts proactively to take care of the worst of it, or congress deciding regulation is needed when they don't do anything?
Sure it does. They made this decision based on what they thought would be best for their company, by both satisfying advertisers and buying favor with the new administration. They balanced those benefits against the users they'll lose based on this decision and decided it was worth it.

Maybe we'll get lucky and find that they were wrong, and that this move causes enough public backlash to give other social networks a chance to thrive (if we're really lucky, maybe even decentralized ones!)
I haven't encountered a tool that uses an XML parser against HTML in over a decade.
The vast majority support overturning the election to install their own leader.

What would you call that?
You think Apple should allow people to promote and plan violence on their platform? Really?
Nio launches first electric sedan
Again, get known for being the place where coups are planned, and you won't enjoy the consequences. The free market is a lovely thing.
That's an answer to a different question. You and I might agree there, but that's not an answer to the question I asked.
I hope tech companies will also do a purge amongst their employees.
Something like that might work.

Their goal so far has been avoiding casual exposure to anything less than family-friendly. If a user has to go out of their way to procure offensive content it seems Apple is not that concerned - browsers, mail clients, IRC clients, etc is fine.
When I suggested AWS would do this yesterday, I was downvoted like crazy. Same with the Apple/Parler ban.

What reality are people living in? Because whatever it is, your ability to predict actions in the real world is poor.
AWS is hardly a single vertebra in the entire backbone of the internet. I’ll start worrying when Tier 1 carriers start blocking traffic. Until then, Parler is free to find another hosting solution.
I think a good example here is Telegram. Telegram did not used to surface NSFW chats on iOS to comply with the App Store. But you could still join the channels manually. However, on a whim Apple decided that wasn't enough and now you cannot access those at all on iOS, you get a message saying it's blocked.

Of course, it wouldn't be able if they were committed to equal treatment, so the counterexample here are the many Reddit apps on iOS. You can join NSFW subreddits and they are allowed so long as they aren't shown by default. The only explanation is here Reddit is used by Apple employees or they know there would be an outcry if the rules were evenly applied.
There's no real dangerous slippery slope. Don't kill people, or threaten harm, and you'll be fine.
How do you classify an “actual terrorist grouping site” versus a “collection of fringe political ideological groups who happens to have a lot of content which looks suspiciously like the same content you’d find on actual terrorist groups’ sites” without using a broad brush?
They probably owe a modifier to violence. I mean, plenty of government agencies involved in national security use AWS.
Brought tears to my eyes. Vividly written, with a keen appreciation for her mother’s considerable accomplishments. Reminiscent of my own mother-in-law, who is my hero.
A line of "cannot police their userbase and prevent them from violently threatening other people on a regular basis" seems to pass the reasonable-person test to me.

(To be clear: I think Mark Zuckerberg and the actors at Facebook who have not handled their fomented genocides on Facebook and WhatsApp belong in the Hague. I am not precious about them, either.)
Incidentally, this is the legal standard you'd have if you get rid of Section 230 - you can either do literally no moderation at all (and be immediately overrun by spammers, scammers, and people using you as a numbers station for hosting pirated content), or you can employ a team of professional moderators such that no user-generated content says anything you wouldn't be willing to be legally seen as the speaker of.
Why do these companies suddenly now care about enforcing the mantra of the integrity of the electoral system now, and not in 2016?

Why do these companies suddenly now care about sites hosting content that encourages violent activity now, and not in June?
True, but the violent content is an extremely small portion of the content on their sites, and they act quickly (and sometimes over-zealously) to remove such content when they find it.

Parler does not, and in fact their lack of moderation was their key selling point.
Yep I think its fine that parler is getting booted based on the content that is getting posted. Lets not pretend that all these companies are trying to squash people of a certain political group, they are simply banning users posting borderline illegal and violent content. You can quite easily use mainstream social media as long as you aren't posting about how someone should be beheaded.
So they slept through four years of Trump and this outrage is the first step in their Great Awakening? I'll go out on a limb and suggest that they were never going to be "open to liberalism" in the first place.
That's not a best alternative to the negotiated agreement. They should just sideload android or develop their own "Freedom Phone."
I have to give AWS some credit for this exchange with the customer. Normally in a situation like this the hosting company will never give you specifics and just ban your account. The fact that they specifically point out which user generated content is specifically breaking ToS is a refreshing change of pace.

It's also hard to argue whataboutism as more and more news and political websites shut down comments and user generated content and easily finding posts from nutjobs gets rarer.
Absolutely, but funny how often the fallacy plays out time and time again.
You could reverse that no? The same people who think you should force someone to bake a cake now thinks a private company should not be forced to do anything. Just playing devils advocate.

By the way completely agree with you on antitrust. And its not a free speech issue.
Great! lets have ISPs start blocking these sites. I am looking at you Verizon and ATT.
> GP may have confused SPARC and Alpha

I seem to have confused which of the 3 memory ordering states was the default and supported on all models. I'm well aware of the Alpha.

> e.g. if you load a pointer then read the value at that pointer you may get stale data

For anyone thinking that sounds horrifying, a single core doing the writes and read won't observe anything out of the ordinary.

The designers of the Alpha thought "Okay, we can simplify and speed up the cache coherency logic if the "happens before" temporal dependency introduced by a memory fence between two writes won't make any guarantees about two reads on another core, unless there's also a "happens before" temporal dependency introduced by a memory fence between the two reads". This sounds totally reasonable, particularly at a time when lockfree data structures weren't as popular. Reads and writes done while holding a mutex work just like any other processor: the memory fence involved in acquiring a mutex guarantees that any reads made while holding the mutex will see all writes made before the previous release operation on that mutex.

The difficulty with the Alpha memory model comes mostly in writing lockfree data structures, where the safety comes from modifying some data structure while no other threads can see it, then atomically changing a pointer (usually a load-locked/store-conditional or compare-and-swap) to make that pointer available to other threads. On most architectures, you only need a memory fence right before (or a part of) the write operation that changes the pointer. On most architectures, this happens-before guarantee will be seen by all normal read operations. On Alpha, you also need a memory fence between reading that pointer and chasing it. In C, the loading the pointer and chasing it happen in a single expression *p, so you need to load the global pointer into a local variable, execute a memory fence, and then deference the pointer (or else use inline assembly, C11 atomics came out way way after the DEC Alpha AXP).

Lockfree data structures become more popular well after the Alpha was released, so it's understandable why the Alpha designers were willing to make these optimizations that don't affect code that correctly uses mutexes to protect global mutable state.
> No machine messiah can help us - we need to get our acts together as humans and fix some of these ills.

Its impossible to expect the very cause of the issues, Humans, to solve an issue with any realistic timeline as we are drawing ever closer to our own collective demise as a Species.

We've proven that much: we knew about climate change since the early 2000s and did nothing it was seen to adversely effect the economy, we knew about the dangers of nuclear plants like Fukushima in 2011 and did nothing and now it continues to spill nuclear waste into the Pacific unabated while Japan plans for the Olympics, we knew about our over reliance on fossil fuels and pesticides but our voracious and seemingly insatiable need to consume cheap trinkets from the China and reliance on nutrient deficient and processed foods that made the CCP and Big Pharma even more powerful and did nothing.

No, I think its clear tech may not be the entire answer (Human conduct is ultimately dependent on free will and compliance) but is the only thing that scales enough to align certain incentives in such a way to actually make progress, we just need to iterate in such way that we start from low hanging fruit on to more important substantial policies.

And that in turn means phasing out the Nation State model as that seems to be the source for most of these problems.
Are all of the people here who are saying that parler is full of all sorts of bad things actually on the website, or are you just sortof assuming that?

I went to go look at the site, and it requires me to sign in to do anything, and that requires a phone number. I don't want to give them my phone number.

Have you guys all seriously gone and signed up for accounts, given these people your phone number, and actually gone looking around?

I have family members who use this website. They're not neo nazis who are planning political violence, and I know for a fact that they would be mortified to know of somebody who fit that description in their social group. They're your standard issue Irish Catholics from northern Minnesota who heard that conservatives weren't allowed on twitter anymore, so they went and signed up for parler accounts (a petty revolution, but there isn't a lot to do in N. Minnesota in January except ice fish and snowmobile).
Not just "unable to moderate". Every platform has some content that they struggle to moderate due to scale issues. The issue with Parler is that they purposefully attracted the absolute dregs of society, and now there isn't much else on it other than plans and threats of violence. They're a half step above Gab, barely.

Edit: I'll note that Parler banned the DevinNunesCow parody account. They are fully capable of moderating when they want to, they just don't want to moderate calls for violence.
With only a slight difference...if there is an all out war, 75 million people show up only to counter 6. My opinion is strictly based on the turnouts I’ve seen at their rallies.
So if the argument is around lack of moderation, where can an E2E encryption service exist in the cloud? They’re literally unable to moderate in a meaningful way.
They will, of course.

No need to make it easy for them to do it. Keep them off large-cast channels, let the FBI watch the small-cast.
Brass tax. The righteous do not incite violence. The unrighteousness do. They have been for decades. The righteous finally fight back and Big Tech and media convinces those brainwashed by the media, to believe what they say because their indoctrinal tactics have absorbed their individuality for decades. They are mentally ill people siding with big media and big tech because they are like those they follow... they cannot compete on even playing fields wearing the garments of inferiority complexes, embarrassment and low self esteem.
I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them had some kind of underpants gnomes plan to snatch a Senator.

But, really, it was a protest. The point was to engage in drama and theatrics. Why break into the Capitol? Even more drama.

Now people are dead, it's managed to tar even Trump's public image, and they're going to get hit with federal charges.
“Perhaps there is a situation where a society says "no further" and is correct to actively shun a political stance.”

Just remember that we live in a world where a subset of people genuinely believed Obama is a Stalinist. Once you define whatever is beyond the pale, people will just shove everything they don’t like into that bucket.
I agree that Parler should be shut down, but going forward I think we need to rely on court systems with due process (or some new alternative system that specifically addresses digital censorship). I’m afraid of this becoming the norm.

Public discourse increasingly relies on these corporate platforms. I don’t think everyone quite understands the implications of normalizing this behavior, and to me that’s frightening.
What guy?
>This will force people into camps and the camps will not see each other creating a massively re-enforcing echo chamber that will further inflame things.

Honestly it's already happened in my view, even when conservatives were not being purged wholesale from these platforms by administrators they were already being purged from user-moderated communities on these platforms. This is largely about people who already don't engage with conservatives wanting to leverage whatever power they can in order to disrupt the ability to communicate and associate with one another online. The pretext is of course stopping violence, but even a lot of people on the left see the rank hypocrisy of this hand-wringing given the kind of rhetoric that the left has been producing over the past several years.
I fully agree but it's getting increasingly hard to make this argument with a straight face given that the tech companies in question still host numerous other hate groups. Twitter still allows the leaders of the Taliban and the Nation of Islam to post.

It's clear that the "line" we're talking about is arbitrarily set for different groups based on some unknown criteria, and that IMO is part of the problem.
> Absolutely no soft drinks at all.

I don’t get this - what do you drink then? You can’t literally mean you only drink alcoholic drinks? Is water not a soft drink? Surely you drink water?
Question: Would this mean that Signal's backend would be prohibited from running on AWS?

After all, it's almost assuredly the case that at least some Signal users are actively plotting violence. Yet end-to-end encryption by definition makes it impossible for Signal to identify that content.
No, I don't.

And I frankly don't care much for your example. My grandfather was a Pole who had to fight Nazi invaders, and I have no reservations about him having to put a few bullets over them.

Nazis and fascists do not want a free and fair society. They delight in the violence of it and have no interest in a marketplace of ideas.
Or, fuck them for choosing to work for a company that at best is a racist cesspool and at worst is abetting an attempt to steal an election.

Every single thing that has happened with Parler was foreseeable and forseen on the day it was announced. It was never about free speech, and everyone knew that.
No it won't, because they aren't going to apply the standard consistently. It will be used against specific sites for political reasons.
Algorithms are not simply math, in the same way mechanical engineering is not simply math.

The patents are the result of engineering to create very precise and complicated tools.

And if it were simply math, then there would be no way to work around those patents, which plenty of open source codecs have done in various directions.

Unfortunately, most open source codecs are not as good at compression, mostly since the patented ones have a massively bigger pool of engineering behind them from dozens of companies banding together their work to develop best of breed solutions.

And eventually the patents expire, and the world gets these codecs free to use.
Signal will be dead soon enough then too.
Why does it feel more murky than that? There are actual threats being posted against lawmakers, and then we had a violent storming of the capital by those people, many of them armed, asking where those lawmakers are.

I mean...that image alone. "Violence works. Make them afraid", accompanied with text then saying "How about make them hang?", and showing lawmakers hiding in the Capital.

The fact it's a third party forum that these terrorist threats and planning are taking place doesn't really change the fact it's still facilitating terrorism.
Companies want to cover their asses and protect their own interests. Customers are essentially paying for usage of a company's services and don't actually own anything besides their own code and IP. If company decides it's worth it to them to remove customer, then they will do that. Companies have no reason to care what their customers do, as long as it doesn't adversely effect the company (see also: Apple clamping down on companies avoiding the 30% revenue cut).

I think what will be interesting to watch is how the government responds with legislation/mandates.

Will the government require they can ask for people be removed as customers from certain companies? Or require companies share data about customers with the government? Or give the government a backdoor API?

In the name of using it for good, in some ways it makes sense. Then, how does one trust the government to only use the tools for good - and who judges what "good" is?

If a 17 year old gets the keys to a Ferrari to only drive to school at 35mph, can they be trusted with that responsibility?