skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So in your mind the choice is between gulags and concentration camps and you are saying you want the concentration camps, noted.

I want neither options and behold the screams of people like yourself this is unprecedented that we the people or companies have the power to surpress calls for violence and sedition from a government working on a coup to stop the will of their own people. I am glad that we try it with whatever will come of it because we know from history what will happen if we do not.

If you look at the media outlets left and right they decided to pull trump of the air for much less and we don't see even fox, oan or other right wing media giving him a platform. 90% of the censorship calls are one-sided as well I see no one screaming about parler or thedonald.win banning progressive politicians or users on sight. your bias shows and it's abhorrent.
Is your social media account private property?
In the light of recent events.

Let's try to think about a world where a social media account will be declared private.

Obviously, in this case, a tax (subscription) on "property" will be introduced. And users will have the right and the power to vote.

What other properties will appear in such an entity as "a social network in which the user's account is private property"?
I didn’t mention AWS.
In my (short opinion), that tech is a sexist boys club, and that for many people the use of porn backs up this idea -- else why not use anything other than porn? Or also a clipping of a picture of a naked man?
I don't think anybody has proposed forcibly deplatforming everybody with "right-leaning views", so that sounds like a straw man. If, as you seem to suggest, divisiveness is your primary concern, it would seem to make a lot of sense to deplatform the small number of people very eager to create it through lies, organized violence, and overthrow of the government.
What are they supposed to back it up with?

A headline of "Local President admits focus on internet censorship is driven by personal greed, not economic protectionism?"

I'm from Ghana, a country that's been touching the line of internet censorship from time to time, and I see nothing wrong with their statement.

It's laughably naive to imply that they're censoring outside services to prop up the local tech scene when they can hardly be assed to get kids a proper education without using it as a political bargaining chip.

Like saying they're playing 4d chess when they're not interested in checkers unless it suits them...
This makes me ask the question: Is it possible for a cellular automata to measure its state in one region without getting inconsistent results, since the simple act of measuring means changing its state?
Right but you can't put videos in an img tag so they can't really replace GIFs. E.g. in GitHub issues you still are forced to use GIF.
Parler CEO says it took down post from Lin Wood calling 4 Mike Pence's execution
Trump voters aren't being deplatformed.

Conspiracy theorists who are calling for violence against elected officials and an an abandonment of democratic processes are being deplatformed.

What I would love to finish with is "That second group is only a small percentage of the first". Sadly, that's actually not the case.

Well, then we must fall onto another maxim. Truth and reality does not have a political bias. Regardless of how many tens of millions of Americans believe that Trump is the real winner of the 2020 election, it doesn't change reality.

A comparable tens of millions believe in angels, do not think that humanity has any role in climate change, and that vaccines cause autism.

They're wrong about all these points too.
> Why did Twitter allow “Hang Mike Pence” to trend last night? Where are the suspensions and permanent bans?

Thus is a brilliantly good question!

My big takeaway from reading Twitter’s blog behind Trump’s suspension is that the words of a tweet themselves are not particularly deterministic of policy violation or enforcement. What seems to be the clincher is the _interpretation_ and their _real world effect_. For example, Trump’s recent tweets taken collectively _and_ the effect of his supporters’ March on the capitol were starkly different than the “hang mike pence” or the women’s March (for example’s sake) that happened a few years ago on the capitol.

In both the latter cases, there is no credible threat of real world violence. Similarly, “Hang Mike Pence” tweets have no predictable certainty to cause any harm to Mike Pence or anyone in the political community the same way Trump’s tweets about skipping Biden’s inauguration (and therefore being a good target to attack by his supporters etc etc), OTHOH, are.

Twitter’s blog obviously has more context and better explanation.

What I’m trying to say is that, it seems like _interpretation_ of tweets & _determination of real world effects_ is what leads to policy enforcement. Of course, that is susceptible to human judgment and error. But I don’t think it rooted in coordinated outright bias against conservative voices.
Capitol Rioters Walked Away. Climate Protesters Saw a Double Standard
"Where is this content? "

Scattered all over the web.

I do agree with that point, that for most topics there exists better quality content elsewhere. But finding it and verifying, that it is not made up, is the reason I also use mainly wikipedia first for researching a new topic. And then proceed to more detailed pages, sometimes linked in wikipedia.
I think we need a standard to specify which standards organisation to use.
Indeed. As great as wiki is (and it is, I use their data dumps), it's content at scale just like G is search and FB is for social. Scaled content. There has been a few occasions in search where I would've expected the local/primary sources to be favoured. Think if you said to someone 'give me a website where I could read more about X', wiki can be the lazy and probably correct answer.
Pen and paper scaled fine for the Stasi. They operated for 4 decades: https://www.wired.com/2017/05/adrian-fish-the-stasi-archives...
> If anything, this is a classic example of "we're going to build our own platform, with blackjack hookers and insurrection", and seeing how far that gets you.

You got it backwards. The Internet was build in such a way everyone could easily host their own platform. However due to companies like Amazon using questionable and monopolistic tactics the Internet is now build in such a way it's going to be very hard to go around these companies.

> This is a direct consequence of an attempted coup.

While a disgrace, riots and pillaging can hardly be called a coup. Read about the 2016 Turkish coup attempt to see what a real coup (attempt) looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... . Just like hard wind is not a hurricane, this wasn't a coup.
> Hang Mike Pence

Somewhere on an older hard-disk I have a copy of all the terrorist incidents starting from the 1960s up to 2006 or so (web-scrapped at the time when that data was still partially open), no-where in there had I seen this type of events, there were mostly bombings, airplane kidnapping and the like. What you are describing falls though under the "insurrection" label, heck, we were saying the same thing about Ceausescu in December 1989 and thankfully no-one branded us as terrorists (I'm from Romania).
Well maybe not an answer, but there is definitely the assumption of consensus around who "we" is.
Cases of mistaken identity lead to unjustified arrests. There are lot of such cases when human police officers are using their own senses to identify someone or to correctly read a situation.
Technology in this regard adds a couple of eyes to the force.
Ecosia – A search engine that plants trees
Do anybody has any hypothesis on why there hasn't been any successful Wikipedia copycat? I know Google attempted their variant called Knol(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knol).
Implicitly comparing two regressive and violent ideoleolgies seems extremely appropriate.

I think it says a lot that taking steps to limit violent hate rhetoric is seen as "suppressing conservatives".

If the two cannot be separated then it is in fact time to dismantle that political movement.
Part of the reason why the dominos did not fall was that it extracted a very high cost. Vietnam was devastated by the war. Same thing with Cuba. Although not a direct invasion, the US sanctions on Cuba extracted a high cost.

Sometimes resistance can make a slope less slippery. With Donald Trump’s election in 2016, I believe the US was on a slippery slope to a very bad place. A lot of stuff were being normalized that should not be (overt racism). However, there was a lot of opposition and resistance which has probably helped stabilize the situation.

So no, just because a lot of resistance keeps you from sliding down the slippery slope, it does not mean the slippery slope is not real.
> Nothing is more infuriating when people start using wrong words in a 10h telco instead of agreed upon vocabulary

Totally agree. This is also why doctors say 'pancreatic islets' rather than 'pink wibbly bit'.

Using precise technical language does create a barrier to entry but this is a side-effect of the primary purpose of precise technical language: to allow practitioners to communicate accurately and unambiguously.
The War with Grandpa 2020 HD Full
https://www.bashkiadevoll.gov.al/forums/topic/free-watch-the...
Doesn’t work
The Sia and Skynet projects are focused on achieving a vision of a decentralized future for the Internet. Pumping the token value has never been a priority. SC is a utility token, and you should buy it if you want to use the Sia network.
Politics aside, I think twitter has some of the worst UX on the web.

To this day I don't understand how people actually get useful information out of this nightmare.
None of the examples you've cited are the only option. Can't use Google, Facebook, or Twitter? Advertise on TV, buy billboards, or hand out flyers on the corner. Can't use CloudFlare? Buy another solution or spend millions to build one yourself -- CloudFlare is, by no means, the sole provider of such services.

The minute you force a company to do business with people they don't want to do business with is the minute you've nationalized the business. So that's the solution -- if the US government so strongly believes that these resources are vital to society in the way that, say, the electric grid is, they need to turn them into regulated utilities. Until then, they are profit-seeking companies who believe they are protecting their shareholders by choosing to refuse service to a customer.
Ah, I had forgotten Bitcoinica.

You have been ZhouTong'd ! [1]

I wonder what's happened to him.

[1] https://cryptoanarchy.wiki/people/zhou-tong
Home Solar Is Growing, but Big Installers Are Still Losing Money
Being conservative is "regressive and violent"?
IceScrum: Web app 4 using Scrum while keeping the spirit of a collaborative work
Getting a job interview at Google appears to be the "killer app" for golang.
Hard Work and the American Dream are some of most often repeated falsehoods about the US.

The US is one the worst Western countries when looking the actual metric of Social mobility. As of 2020 the US is 27 after Lithuania in Social mobility[1].

[1] https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-social-mobility-index...
> nuance

Do I understand your equation correctly? On one side are people under oppressive governments. And they are not oppressed only because they do not have access to free speech. On the other we have people that use baseless claims to justify violence.

Obviously this is not what you had in mind. But It can be perceived in that way.

I guess there were discussions like this after beer hall putch.
How does Skynet relate to Tim Berners-Lee's Solid project (https://solid.mit.edu/)?
Which basically means that neither Facebook, nor Twitter, could be hosted on AWS.

Amazon, Apple, Google and other companies are free to manage their platform by their own rules, in my opinion. I just want the rules to perfectly clear and enforced fairly. So that when Facebook fails to moderate their platform according to Googles rule, their app is kicked out of the Play store as well.
>>"[..] cared deeply about the content quality and also resisted to run ads [..]"

Do I remember wrong? because I remember they (the Wikipedia organization) were going to run ads at some point but it was strongly rejected by the community. I think there was even some fork because of that.
To go further: there is a configurable cross activity between instances, such that videos and comments published on one side can be seen from the other side, but only if the admins have allowed it. You can't end up accidentally showing unwanted material unless you trusted someone who publishes it, so it comes down to who do you accept in your circle
I recently learned that movies get delivered these days in a format called Digital Cinema Packages[1] - which is mostly JPEG 2000 images for each frame and PCM audio.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package
great site.
Free speech is not "without consequences". There's nothing stopping them from starting their own data centre.
Apple and Google just censored a whole social network. How can you claim it is just "people calling for violence"?

It's the oldest excuse in the book. And exactly why universal free speech is needed. Because otherwise that same excuse will be made every time.

Alternatively, I guess there simply will never be free speech and people will always have to fight to get heard.
I suspect it might have to do with the early adopters, who were not shitheads and as far as I learned, they are not soft on protecting their turf against vandals and other idiots. That created also lots of collateral damage and criticism, the loudest critic on wikipedis I usually hear is that they are too strict and eager on banning and locking articles.
Why are Reusable Components so Difficult? (2016)
People have no problem claiming Hamas, a democratically elected leading party, as a terrorist organization so...

Edit: I am only criticizing the juxtaposition of being elected and being compared to terrorists. The example itself is of no interest to me.
Very whiney.

> They work their ass of, but don’t have all that much to show for.

Labor theory of value has been long discredited. If you're tirelessly doing the wrong thing all day long, how prosperous should you be?

But most importantly, what's supposed to be guaranteed is the equality in opportunities, not in outcomes.

If you are trying to become a programmer while you could make a better living as an electrician, why should someone ("society", aka people who chose wisely and now pay tax) fund your career aspirations? Complete nonsense!

"Hard work" isn't guaranteed to make you well off, it's just an ingredient that merely increases your chances. Everything else being equal, a harder Bangladeshi fisherman will usually be better off than a lazy one. That has nothing to do with how much Norway invests in its fleet, or Bangladesh in education.

No one owes you anything. Lose that entitlement attitude.
>Giving Taiwan nukes would’ve been a casus belli situation. This would’ve caused China to invade. Damned be the consequences or cost of lives.

At that time, the PLA was in a poor state. China simply did not have the ability to invade Taiwan or even get air superiority. They'd have lost, badly, so long as the US kept supporting Taiwan, quite likely the US wouldn't have had to even get involved directly. That's a consequence the CCP can't afford, they'd have had to get used to nukes. Of course, now the balance has changed and that's not practical.

E: You're assuming China always gets stronger over time. Recently that's true, but at the time China was picking itself up from the Cultural Revolution, while the US was rearming after Vietnam. US had a far bigger advantage in 1975-1985 over China than in 1950. This scenario would have also required the PLA to make an air or amphibious assault without (at the time) sufficient airplanes or boats, while 1950 was just a land assault.
Oh, and pirateat40 ... greatest bitcoin scam ever. I had forgotten about him as well.

Great find indeed :D
It's American Privilege, pure and simple. Anything tech is pretty much American and so the rest of the world gets dragged into their bullshit.
What would you think if I said to you that there is a conspiracy so broad and deeply embedded that a small group is able to take a set co-ordinated actions, across the planet, with every country taking part that constrain individuals to their houses and restrict their movements and interactions, and to force individuals possibly at gunpoint to take injections that they object to? And that governments would be able to do so, with most cheering them on?

Is that a conspiracy? If I had said that to you last year, you would have called me mad.

Contrast that, with what would happen if you tried to prevent just one individual coming near you, even if they had provably caused you harm. You would need to go to court, prove your case, get a restraining order, etc. And you would never be able to exclude them from work, enforce a passport, mandate good citizen score for loans and travel!! Apparently none of the legal stuff is applicable if the whole world is being locked down. No one needs to go on the record to state why all this is required.

This is where we are at! Do you really want to trust CNN? lol
Stanford is a huge, sparse campus with no perimeter barrier.
Obviously, the vast majority of people with right-leaning views weren't even at the Capitol.

But if you believe the rioters were part of an attempted coup, trying to overthrow democracy and install Trump as a dictator while setting bombs to kill their opponents, that seems pretty crazy to me.

Of course, some people might argue it wasn't an attempted coup, just a mob of high-spirited protesters. Much like sports fans or anti-globalisation protesters will sometimes set a cop car on fire or smash up a starbucks, just in this case it was the capitol building instead of a starbucks. (personally I think this is dangerously naive; my impression is 'stop the steal' people are sincere and unironic in their beliefs)
I'm not a fan of the label 'neoliberalism' (outside of IR
theory where it's well-defined and different) and think it's often a marker for poor quality partisan analysis, but the fact is it's simply prepending a 'neo' in front of the well established and broad classical liberal school of thought to distinguish it from the colloquial US use of 'liberal' to mean 'left wing'. And most of the people referred to wouldn't argue with the idea their ideas are in the ideological tradition of Adam Smith, even as they take great issue with some of the nonsense written about their motives and ideals and argue a label so broad that the entire EU political project and most of its opponents falls into it isn't particularly useful for understanding politics or economics.

That's quite different from referring to the other side of a debate on sexuality as 'Cultural Marxism', despite Marx having had zero interest in sexuality, many self-proclaimed Marxist states having conservative policies on it and few people on that side of the debate having any interest in Marx. At best, you could argue right wingers describing their culture war opponents as Marxists are trying to invoke the spirit of Joe McCarthy rather than Lyndon LaRouche's ridiculous Frankfurt School conspiracy theory and literal Nazi origins of the term.
Show HN: Yet another iOS Hacker News client: Metalens
„(...) Summoned by Trump,[25] thousands of supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., on January 5 and 6 to demand that Vice President Mike Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory.[26][27][28] The rioters quickly became extremely violent, assaulting a police officer who later died, erecting a gallows on the Capitol grounds, assaulting the press, and desiring to take hostage and harm lawmakers such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Pence, the latter for refusing to invalidate Biden's victory.[29]“
The App Store is full of HN readers. However, this one is trying to be unique with some features of doubtful usefulness.

For some more context/retrospective, there’s a small blog post about the app: https://www.3am.engineering/works/metalens/
> I have not yet concluded whether I believe in free speech without limits

Check out the Paradox of Tolerance, it’s very relevant to deciding on “free speech with / without limits”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Everything scale if you are evil enough. Even doing things manually, alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Blokhin#Role_in_the_Kat...
To me any information posted in that form is rendered useless and I refuse to accept it as serious.
In my experience the vandalism was mainly due to people taken by the novelty of being able to edit the site. The vast majority isn't determined to sabotage the site and therefore it's easily overcome by determined maintainers.

The ability to vandalise is actually an essential part of Wikipedia's success, in my opinion. Most users will not continue to vandalise and some will become valuable editors after seeing how easy it is to contribute and that their changes make a real and instant difference.
> To this day I don't understand how people actually get useful information out of this nightmare.

You assume that they routinely do.
> Can you quote specific rhetoric which was violent?

Does he have to use rhetoric specifically calling for violence in order to justify the banning? At the rally beforehand he said "we can't let this happen", are you surprised at the outcome?

What the leader of the country says and how they say it matters. He doesn't need to specifically instruct them to overthrow the government... he's been fueling the fire for a long time now suggesting the election was rigged. While it's an obvious lie, because of who he is some people are going to believe him lie or not... remember the people who ingested fish tank cleaner?
I understand that this is the difference but how can you possibly live with the idea that these platforms are ok to incite revolution/insurrection in only specific circumstances?

What’s the criteria?

If it’s a successful election; then the annexation of Crimea is legal and should not come under fire by these platforms.

Additionally, the Ukrainian government should not be permitted. (They were organising via Twitter and Facebook)

I don’t like rules which are like “things I don’t agree with are not permitted but things I do agree with are”- like the people who refused to bake gay wedding cakes should not be unhappy with trump being deplatformed from Twitter. I dislike hypocrisy so I’m trying to figure a rule in my head for this.
American here and I say “et cetera” when I mean “et cetera”, but /etc is “etsy”.
Everything is relative. A couple of millenia ago, powerful technologies meant plumbing, sewage, currency, postal mail. Do you want to think about any of these things? No, you just assume they work so you can move your thinking up the stack. But you absolutely want them regulated and managed by a democratic authority too... Why is Twitter different?
Baidu's fall from grace in Chinese Tech