skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think your point would be stronger if there was only one newspaper (Twitter) and the someone said “if you don’t like it, make your own newspaper (Parler)”... and then they banned your new newspaper.

Ignoring the monopoly aspect of this conversation is unhelpful.
Apologies, It's from 2006 even. I'm clearly getting old.

The reason it can be used to debunk the 2017 study is because said study is working with an old idea that already existed in 2006.

Aaron Swartz posits that at the very least you should not discount the importance of the long tail.
Disinformation, as determined by minimum wage experts hired as YouTube moderators.
AWS and Google just showed how extremely untrustful their platforms are. If they can just close any account with a very short notice, without any court decision, then I don't really want to use such a horrible cloud system.
From the linked article: The idea for a ship made of ice impressed the United States and Canada enough that a 60-foot (18 m)-long, 1,000-ton ship was built in one month on Patricia Lake in the Canadian Rockies.
The way you know other people are sentient is that they act like it. If something else starts acting like it that's a pretty good argument that it too is sentient. It's hard for me to imagine something that could convincingly act sentient but not be.
That is decidedly opposite of how I see the immediate political inertia. It might help to revisit previous times the democrats took over all three legislative branches. They’re not unified ever and dissent is assured. Meaning there are conservative wings which will welcome and work with the far right even after this. If you’re referencing the deplatforming going on from corporate entities that’s a whole another phenomenon and legally forced.

Edit-if you’re referencing just how people treat one another 1-1 in culture, well, the forever trumpers just need to learn to treat people like people again. Apologizing helps, but simply being friendly and polite goes a long way.
Oct. 4, 2013
That doesn't follow it all. Sentience concerns an internal state of mind, and we simply do not know if simulating the behaviour of sentient organisms requires underlying sentience. It even seems unintuitive because me not being able to distinguish Stockfish from Magnus Carlsen doesn't imply that Stockfish experiences chess the same way he does.

A more accurate conclusion is that, if I can't tell the difference precaution dictates that I treat the robot as if it were sentient, just in case it is, but it by no means follows from observation alone. Just because my cat thinks the laser pointer is alive, doesn't mean it is. And like cats, humans are likely to be way too easily fooled by fairly simple systems that just emulate external behaviour. Story comes to mind of soldiers developing trauma after seeing bomb defusing robot spiders flail around.

"Every time it found a mine, blew it up and lost a limb, it picked itself up and readjusted to move forward on its remaining legs, continuing to clear a path through the minefield. Finally it was down to one leg. Still, it pulled itself forward. Tilden was ecstatic. The machine was working splendidly. The human in command of the exercise, however -- an Army colonel -- blew a fuse. The colonel ordered the test stopped. Why? asked Tilden. What's wrong? The colonel just could not stand the pathos of watching the burned, scarred and crippled machine drag itself forward on its last leg. This test, he charged, was inhumane."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/0...
There are posts on this site almost daily talking about rolling your own infrastructure.

If you want to be a sensationalist go back to reddit, because you are speaking to the wrong audience here.
I think that this is a really bad idea. I believe that this is selective enforcement because on Twitter there is a ton of incitement to violence. I think it's worse on Twitter because it happens all of the time, and Twitter seems fine with it when it's far left folks. During the George Floyd riots in Portland, at least a few Antifa groups were using Twitter to organize their "protests". If you think that Trump's tweets were incitement, then those tweets were just as bad or even worse. Those protests didn't result in any police/feds dying, but a ton of police/feds were injured, and a lot of antifa type people were trying to kill, they just weren't very good at it.

But in my view, I see this idea that people are being radicalized through social media (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook) will be the same as the video games are causing violence ideas. I think what we are going to find out in the future is that allowing people to vent their crazy on the internet was more likely to let people blow off steam and wind them down. The few people who do act violently and vent about it on places like Twitter, were people who were already prone to violence. Kind of like in the video game blame game when people who were violent, the news always said that they played violent video games. In that case, those people were already violent and liked violent video games. Even those people who are "radicalized" by social media are probably people who could be radicalized by watching cat videos.

Now that's not to say that some people who are on the fence might be radicalized by social media, but I think it's also possible that more people are being deradicalized by allowing them to see all the things, bad or good. Of course, illegal threats should still be removed, but if these social media sites came up with a set of rules and actually followed them even when they didn't like the person, I think that would also go a long way to calming things. Some people will still cry about getting punished unfairly, but I think it's more likely fewer people will agree when they claim they were being persecuted when the rules are followed to the letter.

The biggest worry I have is that all of these deplatforming actions are actually going to lead to violence as people feel like they no longer have any way to express themselves. I really fear that tensions are escalating and these companies are making worse, not better.
In Wikipedia parlance, this is called "due weight" and "neutral point of view".
I’m not sure if you are joking or not.
A few years ago Silicon Valley was populated with (and run by) people like Brendan Eich. We've spent the intervening time replacing those people - now it's time to finish the job. I wouldn't call it unfocused.
Isolation Solutions for the Sane Mind
As Einstein once said, “in the midst of every crisis, lies great opportunity”. We never had so much time for ourselves and that can be our great opportunity.
The joy of tube equipment is they look cool. Hence putting the tubes outside of the enclosure.
Thanks I’ll read in to it.

Doesn’t 230 protect websites from moderation because it would be completely untenable?

Some of the most extreme speech I’ve seen have been on Facebook and Twitter. However I don’t hold them responsible since they’re providing communication infrastructure.
It's because they see that they will be held accountable if they don't start policing themselves.

They should have started doing this 4 years ago, then maybe we wouldn't have witnessed the first coup attempt in our history and 350k people wouldn't have died from a preventable illness.
The internet is already decentralized, the masses willingly choose to use the same handful of sites.
Exactly. If you want to be fair and balanced, you only devote 66% of the article to globe cucks, and the rest to people who are actually rational.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/04/04/only-two-...
Indeed. They can be fun and consider what your child’s interest is, his aptitude, as well as the language’s popularity so that it will benefit them in the future.
A conservative viewpoint.. I feel I'm still a bit(just a tad) more risk tolerant than this, but I do empathize with this viewpoint.

Basically; call me when there is a real problem, 'cause this ain't it.
Those pesky little buggers..
I would propose an expansion to your boundaries because even if someone wasn't born someway, I don't see why it's any more morally clear-headed to treat someone better or worse just because they're an atheist or like anime, neither of which are obviously biologically inherent.
> you also have a much larger labour pool of people dedicated to helping, not for a paycheque, but their own personal reasons.

This is often not true. There's a whole industry of W editors who charge corporations a monthly fee to guard their pages.

It's supposed to be against the W ToS, but whenever foreign W editors are interviewed, they readily admit it (to gain more paying clients.)

The "no paycheck" trope is almost as bad as saying ebay is about selling beanie babies.
How does content like child pornography dealt with on peertube?
This is how you de-escalate, you relate.

Standard practice[1]:

1. Actively Listen

2. Build Empathy & Rapport (recognize each others mindset)

3. Exert Influence & Change

It's also likely, he wasn't 100% aware of the circumstances.

Coming out and saying, "I abandon you, you traitors" wouldn't help. Imagine if there were hostages or more bombs! Saying it in a nice way could defuse the situation. Damning it while they are still at or in the building is not a good idea.

In a later video Trump said "they'll be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law" and "we need Law and Order". So, I don't think it's a fair characterization given the context.

[1] https://www.inc.com/thomas-koulopoulos/how-to-negotiate-usin...
You are comparing the choices of an individual to those of the app distribution mechanisms which are nearly-universal.

It's true that you _can_ find Parler out of those app stores, but a significant fraction of people would not be able to do so; nor would people encounter Parler as a popular app they might consider installing.

(The web hosting is a different issue since there are a bunch of hosting options.)
Cho-oon is one syllable? No way :)
You're missing some crucial facts:

* Politics (and similar stuff) can creep into any topic

* It takes a lot of effort to verify a Wikipedia article and assess neutral point of view and other stuff. My point is that you won't know that you're reading a biased or hoax article while you're reading it.
Carrot juice is IMO very tasty and just have a third of the sugars orange juice have. Also has quite a lot of antioxidants.
Yes, I believe that Wikipedia and its authors never put much thought into SEO. They just think about how to best structure the information and make heavy use of links, which also happens to be a good strategy for SEO.

The Google search rank algorithms changed a lot more than the overall structure of a good Wikipedia article in the last 20 years.
Ask HN: Is an average programmer able to implement the Ethereum specification?
Simplicity is the first design principle of Ethereum.[0] The whitepaper declares, "an average programmer should ideally be able to follow and implement the entire specification." A note then links directly to the specification in the yellow paper.

Has this been the case presently or historically, that an average programmer is able to implement the Ethereum specification? How simple can a decentralized Turing-complete blockchain be?

[0] https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/#philosophy
[1] https://ethereum.github.io/yellowpaper/paper.pdf
This is not censorship, it is private companies deciding they no longer want a toxic customer.

Would you be happier if they banned gay wedding cakes too?
Fundamentally, Deno works way more like the language JavaScript is meant to be according to the vision of the ECMA committee (the ones who add features to the language).

Problem is that a lot of software was built upon areas where Node deviates from this standard (things like module system, language features, async management, etc) so there can't be a 1:1 translation in some cases
Make a web app that works well on mobile browser and escape the App Store police.
Perhaps in theory, but in practice (in the US) freedom of speech is limited to government intrusion only, as defined by the constitution’s first amendment. There is no legal application, to private entities, of free speech.
They are still dependent on Cloudflare.
And their datacenter can cut off their power in theory.
Yep, 100% agree. It's pretty cool.
Most content creators need to be compensated to continue making content.

Most videos are made by professionals? That's not my experience.
A single point of failure, so easily subverted by nefarious actors, seems like a grave architectural flaw on the iPhone to me.
>free-market-participant

We're talking about the situation in the United States, not a free market. If there were viable alternatives, nobody would care about being blocked from Twitter or Google or Facebook. The fact that these monopolies collude in their censorship campaign makes the impact that much more severe. The situation with these monopolies colluding to block an aspiring competitor is clearly an anti-trust issue.
It's an interesting point I had not yet considered that most private internet censorship seems to relate to some political issue or moral value that primarily plays in the U.S.A..

That, and of course financially complying with pressure from the Chinese government to be tough on whatever independence movement it struggle with now — Catalonia was of course free to chant it's independence.
Surprisingly, Orlando is apparently also one of the most violent city in the US.
It's an oxymoron: the way the evidence is acquired is how to assess its validity.
It's time we stop treating scale as an inherent good or an excuse for bad behavior. If you can't scale without major societal harm, you shouldn't scale.
I searched this and it looks like it was already explained over this 6 years ago?: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2014/03/a-twitte...

I searched that and the top result was a tweet insulting anyone who even says it.

-

Overall that looks like a pretty hyperbolic statement rather than a credible threat.

Whereas "kill Mike Pence" after a group storms the Capitol building sounds a lot less hyperbolic.
> I'm totally okay with suppressing the influence of an apartheid state. Are you?

It looks like you just are OK to suppress any point of view that you don't like. And not OK with freedom of speech. Fortunately for you - and unfortunately for everybody for whom it's still valuable - US is no longer a country where freedom of speech exists. I am not OK with this, and I think we are entering a period in American history which will be looked by descendants with deep shame and disgust, and this is due to people like you. Welcome to your 1984, and hope you never utter an unpopular thought.
The trend is your friend until it ends
Can you give me an example of recent moral insurrection?
When freedom of speech was codified as a value in the constitution, it made sense because the government is realistically the only entity that could engage in mass censorship. Nobody predicted a private company would get to that point, which is why those laws don't exist.

We must decide if that needs to change.
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/support/shield-tv/ai-ups...
One of my professors who taught an OS class pronounced fsck as "eff suck".
That's because you have no idea what's happening elsewhere. Here in Czechia we have our own version of the problems USA faces (regarding "censorship"/deletion of content), and nobody has any idea what's happening in the USA.
You're talking about services that are "common carriers".

They have special legal obligations to, within reason, facilitate every legal transaction that comes their way. The scenarios you describe therefore cannot happen with them.

If you want internet platforms to have that same level of "anything goes", then you're arguing for them to be classified as common carriers.
There are already decentralized Twitter-esque alternatives, but they are hardly used, because without centralization no one is making money, and thus it cannot be advertised to the same magnitude.
So if Amazon decide that some company is a dangerous competitor to them, and that company uses AWS, then they could just immediately shut down their competitor, because they could find some "hate content" on their website. What about thousands of hate articles sold in Germany by Amazon? Amazon is even selling "Mein Kampf" - a nazi book that is forbidden in Germany. Yeah, a terrorist content is absolutely OK if it's sold by Amazon.
> Taking Parler off the app stores seriously de-legitimizes their cause and their celebrity

Does it though? 21% of voters approved of storming of the Capitol. That's not something that can be cancelled by banning a single app. I can see these bans biting the liberals in the back the next time Republicans take control of the federal government.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
At least in Taiwan everyone also wore masks, which was the opposite of what Western experts prescribed at the time. Telling people to wear masks was even banned in some places (though not on YouTube):

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51729647

(Note that this is from March! When I left Taiwan in late January, everyone at the airport was masked up and slightly paranoid.)

Taiwan and NZ also closed their borders while Western experts "knew" that the coronavirus was just the flu, and that closing borders was xenophobic, racism is the real pandemic, etc. etc.

2020 is easily the year when Western experts failed the hardest I've ever witnessed. Absolutely surreal. Maybe we should fire and replace our current selection of experts before we ban everyone else.
The title do not accurately reflect the true content of the article..
Is it still the ethically right thing to do even if it results in more violence? In my opinion, as a practical matter, near absolute freedom speech is good policy because speech is a buffer between wanting to get your way and doing violence to get your way. An increasingly large swath of American society believes that not only is our democracy corrupt, but they can't say anything about it. What's left? It's not at all obvious to me that taking away someone's ability to effect change through their speech will reduce the likelihood of people coming to harm through violent conflict.

Now, free speech _can_ also be used to spread lies and incite violence, and maybe banning Trump before he had a chance to spread unsubstantiated claims about election fraud would have prevented this recent chaos, but it seems to me that doing it afterwards will increase the chances of violent conflict, at least in the near term. Moreover, the possibility that he might have eventually conceded or placated his supporters is now nil. So, as a consequentialist, I'm dubious of the notion that banning him can be justified on ethical grounds.
The greatest delusion free-market proponents seem to have is that there will always be a "viable alternative" in a free market. And that there will be no monopolies.

There's literally no reason for a "viable alternative" to not appear. I mean, Parler is a "viable alternative" to Twitter, isn't it? It got kicked off AWS? Go ahead, and create your own viable alternative, there's literally nothing stopping you, just like in a "free market".
There’s no practical or ideological need to create a separate society—or really a separate anything—simply because of a difference in political opinion. The left and right are technically in agreement on a huge number of issues and could easily compromise on many others. There has always been room for these discussions within civil society.

A major issue seems to be literal lies and disinformation spreading over social media which makes that divide appear
to be much greater than it actually is. If these blatant lies can be prevented then the left and right will have a much easier time coming to political compromises when running the country. Having shared primary ballots would also help a lot to prevent the most radical wings of each party from dominating, because then each party’s candidate would have to appeal to all voters rather than their own.
Only if there is collusion opposed to simultaneous independent consideration.
180 Upvotes on my database of biz strategies
It is turning into a police state and I think that the crime rates have never been lower.

"In the long term, violent crime in the United States has been in decline since colonial times."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
I've got an idea, you take people with unapproved ideologies or from communities that tend to have these people and put them in reeducation facilities. Because this is all expensive to do, they will need to work as well.

Sarcasm aside, we are moving quickly to a straight up authoritarian apparatus of state sanctioned discourse enforced by a handful of corporations. This will be used against _anything_ that challenges those in power or goes against the approved narrative. For those cheering this on, realize this will applied to you in one form or another with no recourse. Here are a few scenarios off the top of my head: being a pacifist or home schooling advocate, posting on social media something tacky like "Prominent figure X is a fat idiot", or personal medical decisions having a direct impact on your ability to: travel, access jobs, housing and financial systems.
You are limiting their ability to recruit and viralize their message.

These are terrorists we are talking about, not conservative grandparents sharing memes on facebook.
I’m not here to argue or anything, but I vaguely recall from reading from the federalist papers way back in high school that free expression without fear of reprisal was what we were going for. Is that not the goal? I feel like some really distorted arguments have flooded the internet recently, and I’m doubting my own recollection now.
That's completely different statement. The first one was about the objective state of an external thing, the new one is about interaction with it.
It’s not auditable and scale can make it a substantially different problem altogether. But, if you’re in a restricted area or a public building I think it makes sense.
Logically, if Parler should be removed from the app store, Safari should also refuse to connect to it. Either way, it's Apple providing your access.
I think he is known for being the creator of Brave nowadays, and most likely that's how he will be remembered, thanks to the SJW-leftist overreaction to his rather insignificant donation of $1000, and his own subsequent creative output while working on Brave of course.
I definitely was -- appreciate the clarification!
Hmmm I would backtrack on saying bitcoin cash..
Bitcoin lightning works, is in production and has real usage
There’s no “right to tweet.” I feel like this line of thinking takes social media way too seriously.

There’s nothing legally or ethically wrong with having something like Twitter that is more of a neutral communication channel. I’m sure it exists. It’s just that Twitter is popular. Regulations that make something like the-Twitter-we-actually-have illegal are a step in the wrong direction. Twitter was started by human beings with certain values and goals, like making it easier to tell your friends what you are up to, and making money. If they don’t want blood on their hands, that’s
their choice.