skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Tagging onto the top comment here. I work at Twilio and this is our official statement on the enforcement of our AUP with Parler.

---

With regards to reports of cyber security issues Parler experienced and have been attributed to Twilio, our security team investigated the claims and found no evidence indicating their security issues were related to Twilio or our products. Per our Website [0], Twilio has not issued any press releases pertaining to or referencing Parler.

Furthermore, Parler was using Twilio to send out identity verification codes for new downloads or password resets. Once a user was verified, security protocols were independently handled by Parler and did not involve Twilio or its products. On Friday, January 8th, we sent Parler a letter informing them they were in violation of our Acceptable Use Policy [1] and notifying them that we would suspend their account if they did not make efforts to remediate multiple calls for violence on their platform. Shortly after receiving our letter, Parler informed us they had already turned off their integration with Twilio.

Any cyber security issues experienced by Parler were completely unrelated to Twilio or any of its products.

[0] https://www.twilio.com/press/releases

[1] https://www.twilio.com/legal/aup
If a company doesn't want to distribute a certain type of content (whether it's for political reasons or because they genuinely think it's better for society that some voices aren't heard), they're under no obligation to do so.
We have two coalition parties and it’s not the same people saying the same things: https://ibb.co/mbTycKP

For one thing, your argument is reductionist. Just because Republicans complain about how CNN chooses to run its newsroom doesn’t mean they want a government takeover of CNN. You can say that something private actors are doing is bad or risky without there being an implication that the government should stop that bad behavior.

I mean you can flip this around just as easily? Where are all the Fairness Doctrine liberals?

For the other: quite a few Republicans, especially the folks Trump brought in, are economically quite liberal. See: https://ibb.co/mbTycKP Trump took changes to social security and Medicare off the table during his campaign. The laissez-faire economic libertarian wing long held the advantage within the coalition, but a bunch of them have become Democrats over the last couple of decades, especially with the rise of Trump.
Their coworkers will tell you.
To be fair, Michael Moore didn't try to assassinate the Vice President and hold Senators for ransom.
Right then they get regulated as utilities without a choice in which content they serve.
> The Republican party (vs "conservatism") is in a slow and gradual decline.

Or is it america, especially the younger generation, that is gradually becoming more leftist?

Realize that this movement you see could be due to your own displacement.
I am not sure I am following, can you elaborate? The way you wrote it sounds impossible.
Legally, you're allowed to use emergency powers to suspend open/concealed carry. As open/concealed carry is a privilege granted by legislative law, not a right granted by constitutional charter.

Furthermore, most states only permit open/concealed carry if no laws are being broken. So if you're breaking curfew, entering a restricted area, unlawfully assembling, etc, you lose the privilege of carrying.

Real question is whether the governments in those states have the political will to act against carry laws.
You said we need to:

> take away large platforms for spreading lies

And also that we should not:

> [Ban] these people from Twitter

For a liar, Twitter IS a "large platform for spreading lies."
This example is probably corporate propaganda.

WRT RoHS, as someone who works with electronics, I'm glad RoHS is enforced at least as much as it is. We are exempt so far, so our old-school technicians use leaded solder for cobbled-together boards that I prefer to stay away from, especially their desks.

AFAIK, all components/equipment we buy is RoHS compliant and we had 0 failures from lead-free solder issues. Lots of bad connectors, cables, heat on SSDs and batteries, short circuits, power applied at inappropriate places, botched soldering on leaded! boards in an assembly house, but I don't think we had solder issues with industrial RoHS boards. Even if we counted all unattributed component failures that could plausibly have something to do with solder (likely not), it would still be a small minority, maybe 10% of failures.

Lead-free solder had issues while manufacturing adapted, but most issues have been mitigated, unless you're taking shortcuts for devices in harsh conditions. And if you really need it, there is high-reliability lead-free solder.
It could be calculated to further inflame, radicalize and marginalize people.
I believe pornhub was under fire for not moderating user-submitted content, which was allowing child pornography and other exploitive content to get through.

No matter stance you take on it, the CESTA amendment to 230 protections holds pornhub accountable, meaning they nuked all their non-verified user content.
So you actually want them to wrap RDRAND in their own random number generator?

> UUID generation should be robust to random number collisions.

The UUID standards say that nowhere at all, it is only acknowledged that collisions may happen even if they are unlikely.
And just one post back you recommended a Philosophical essay ;)
> Facebook is finally waking up to the reality that lies about our elections are well on their way to starting a civil war.

I think it more likely that Facebook is finally waking up to the imminent risk of heavy and heavy-handed regulation, possibly destroying its business model. I haven't seen evidence that Facebook cares about anything but Facebook.
It does actually, as the important part is if the people accessing the site are in the EU: https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/

> If your organization uses web tools that allow you to track cookies or the IP addresses of people who visit your website from EU countries, then you fall under the scope of the GDPR. Practically speaking, it’s unclear how strictly this provision will be interpreted or how brazenly it will be enforced. Suppose you run a golf course in Manitoba focused exclusively on your local area, but sometimes people in France stumble across your site. Would you find yourself in the crosshairs of European regulators? It’s not likely. But technically you could be held accountable for tracking these data.
There are two contentions:

1. Russia bought ads and manipulated social media to influence the 2016 election.

2. Trump was an active participant and collaborator with Russia in doing 1.

I don't think anyone disputes 1. 2 was the basis of the failed impeachment and investigation and for which no convincing evidence can be produced. That is what people are generally referring to when they mention the "Russia hoax".
> Now where I could see it getting interesting is if consumers in the area don't have an alternative way to access content.

Assuming private companies have the moral right to fully regulate their services, they're just blocking a specific resource for violating their policy. If you build your case on blocking Facebook, you must argue that the utility chain leads all the way to Facebook. It is all or nothing.
You misquoted me there. For the sake of his argument, all the actual journalism can be ignored.

Perhaps I'm indeed massively misinformed, but then again that is the problem. That problem doesn't disappear just because according to you all this more nuanced reporting exists. People just don't read it, it's not dramatic enough.
FBI has indicated that they are in the process of putting together a larger case.
While under duress from the threat of prosecution by the federal government for republishing academic research while MIT stood by silently.
Umm I knew of them, I was being sarcastic as I had to do your job of researching something rather than you actually spending some effort to do your own job.

I think everyone's threshold for what constitutes breach of trust is different. If you accept content injection, unreported whitelists and other similar behaviour from a browser which touts privacy as its selling point ok, then thats your call. But this kind of behaviour is unacceptable from my and many other people's perspective. Which other major browser injects any content in to a website without the users request? Do you see people being ok with being impersonated by Brave without their knowledge? Especially when these mistakes just seem to keep happening, at some point you have to question the intention. Again maybe you are ok with it, but people should be informed about these practices and make their own call. To most people, this is not ok. What other browser has had this level of controversy (outside of chrome possibly) and they have been in business longer than brave.
BLM protesters were mostly non-violent.

https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/16/this-summ...

====================

In many instances, police reportedly began or escalated the violence, but some observers nevertheless blame the protesters. The claim that the protests are violent — even when the police started the violence — can help local, state and federal forces justify intentionally beating, gassing or kettling the people marching, or reinforces politicians’ calls for “law and order.”
I haven't really made my mind up one way or the other about FB, Twitter, et al.'s actions these past couple weeks, but simultaneously believing that corporations should be limited in their electioneering activities and that they should be allowed to moderate the content that appears on their platforms does not seem like a contradiction to me.
Without any real insight, my hunch is the FAA did that because they are probably too strapped/underfunded to do the proper due diligence. It’s tough to know enough about multiple complex airframes enough to ferret our interaction failures so they defer to the teams that supposedly do know enough... which creates an inherent conflict of interest.

It will be interesting to see how regulators treat autonomous vehicles. I have a feeling they will defer to the existing recall mechanism rather than completely grounding a fleet
Because Russians want easy access to conversations.
Good point. We will have to wait and see how the rest of the world will judge Twitter, Facebook, AWS et al.

I suspect other countries and their citizens wouldn’t want American corporate interference. Free market forces will certainly cut down these corporate influence to size.

That’s my prediction. We will have to wait and watch. Time will tell.
i was reading about it, and they are almost using more than one social network and cross-posting through them.. I don
´t see Twitter or Facebook less responsible for the invasion than Parler.
`White Anglo-Saxon Protestants`

Maliciously categorizing someone based on skin color, race, income, social status and religion in an attempt to denounce hate speech.

Poetic
I called a lawyer when the incident happened where I couldn't file the application.

I do feel like part of the problem is they don't actually want to give me anything in writing.

I've got a scheduled meeting with the mayor, my lawyer, the fire marshal, and the main zoning officer on the 21st of this month.
The best thing that I love about the Slashdot moderation system is that you can't moderate and post in the same discussion.

It keeps people from simultaneously expressing their opinion and downvoting other opposing opinions.
Microsoft or Sony have a golden opportunity to come out as the champion of consumer protection here, by guaranteeing refunds if games don’t meet some quality standards. They could have independent quality reviewers (it works in almost every other industry) and make all contracts with publishers require the refund clauses. Perhaps ms/Sony could even sit on the money for a while after release (a few months?) to ensure companies aren’t defunct after a big release. If the game is a dud, the money is refunded.

Even if publishers fix critical issues, the stores could have a system of fines for games that aren’t good enough initially. If I buy a $60 game and it’s not acceptably playable until after the first 2 weeks - that’s a 50% refund and I also keep the game.

No publisher should get away with pushing a half finished buggy game a few weeks to soon just because the holidays are close. Basically there should be financial incentives in the console stores that always makes it less expensive to slip the release and fix the bugs. L

I’d buy the console that did this.
Which is exactly the problem with trying to put a box around these things, and classify tools as the problem. The problem is people, not platforms, and trying to sort platforms into "full of hate" and "not full of hate", especially with some sort of coherent, crossable line that gets you shut down is never going to work, let alone work equitably.
“Well regulated” simply means “in a good working condition” (like, e.g., a watch).
It should, but until legislators act, it's legal. That's the issue will the law.
Crushing competition is certainly a thing that can happen in a free market.
In the book "Moral Tribes", Joshua Greene outlines a great point that rights are not arguments. I think the Facebook/Twitter censorship issue demonstrates this pretty clearly. Rights always have some context and without specifying that context, they can be used to justify almost anything. For example, depending on whether I'm under oath or not reasonably determines whether I can be persecuted for lying or not.

Personally I think it makes sense for Twitter and Facebook to use their power to prevent Trump's false claims about election fraud, especially given the harm it appears to be fostering [1]. That said, I believe there are many good faith arguments about why censorship in this instance could be harmful to the aims of a free society. However, I don't believe "right of free speech" or "censorship is always bad" are good arguments, instead I would like to see arguments about the purported benefits/harms to society of this censorship.

[1] I'm not the arbiter of truth here, there are many court cases affirming no voter fraud and the recent Capitol Building invasion is demonstration of the potential harm.
> In principle, we probably also agree that all people should be equal, but if you follow that principle to the end, you get Communism.

That's a caricature. The actual principle is "equal justice before the law" (there are variations). Justice is an important part of the principle since otherwise "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread". Not to mention such evils as selective enforcement and prosecutorial discretion.

Few people these days would insist that equality of outcomes is a legitimate goal, though the extent to which disparity of outcomes is treated as a "code smell" at least potentially indicating a societal problem worth examining does vary fairly predictably across the US political spectrum. The appetite for instituting solutions when a systemic problem is demonstrably found also varies fairly predictably.
Ok, Merkel's opinion is invalid because she is "baffling hypocritical". Why is the opinion of the French finance minister invalid (he said he was "shocked" to hear what twitter did)?
Why is the opinion of the Russian opposition leader Navalny invalid?
There was a lady with a don't tread on me flag that was trampled to death in a crowd/mob squeeze against the police:

https://www.revolt.tv/news/2021/1/8/22221070/woman-trump-sup...

If it was a heart issue there was a bit more to it than simple heart attack.
That's not censorship. It's Fb's and other social media's desperate attempt to appease new government to prevent strong legislation, such as being held liable for their user's content, forced real names, regulation, and breakup.
1. Scroll up in the same file, there's a lengthy comment about it.

3. You don't. The `nordrand` argument is a kernel argument that tells the kernel to disable rdrand; so then when systemd asks the kernel if rdrand is supported the kernel says "no". The `SYSTEMD_RDRAND=0` argument is indeed a systemd argument, but it's absolutely normal to pass init arguments on the kernel command line.

4. Because hacking around hardware bugs isn't systemd's job. It's the kernel's. You shouldn't be filing a systemd bug, you should be filing a Linux bug to disable rdrand on that cpuid. Why aren't you asking why Linux wasn't able to provide a solution in 2 years?
The comment is too old, I can no longer edit it. I’m sorry that you were disturbed. I did not feel it needed a warning label when posting, as the video shows neither cruelty, nor did I consider it particularly gory. But I guess I could have erred on the side of caution and included a short description as not to catch anyone off guard. Then again, that’s part of what fascinated me about the video and made me post it..

For late readers who are deciding on whether to watch it: the video shows somebody butchering some deer meat, and the deer carcass is shortly seen hanging in the background.
> What we can do is call out lying

Plenty of people and organizations have been doing this the last four years and even before that.

>take away large platforms for spreading lies

... what would you say has been going on the last several days? Are you suggesting we shut down FB, Twitter, etc. entirely? Or, are you suggesting we moderate lie-spreading? Because according to the logic you've laid out, that will just feed into the victim hood mentality

To be frank, I'm coming into this in good faith. I actually have waffled and entertained the thoughts you're suggesting over the last couple of days and while they're worth considering, I don't think they are acceptable solutions.
Here's the site in Aurora, Illinois. Note that their permit expires next month.

https://goo.gl/maps/boqMG4aCrShatHtq8
If you pardon the insurrectionists, you guarantee another insurrection. Actions require consequences. You can't have unity and healing without accountability first.
Well, unfortunately they can't be charged with the most serious charges until Trump leaves office, as it's highly likely that he would pardon them. If anyone is shocked by this... why? He pardoned mass murderers that were employed by Betsy Devos's family's mercenary company a few weeks ago; pardoning his supporters is what he's hoping to do.
Parler was filled with posts urging the killing of jews, lefties, BLM supporters, democrats, university professors, and millennials.

It should have been dropped a long time ago, as should any platform that allows that kind of talk.
How can you tell if someone cares if someone else is vegan? They'll tell this joke
Rec Room reports 1M MAU users on Quest 1/2 and higher CCU than VRChat
This is more complicated than it seems. You are comparing a job (HFT) with a pursuit (science). The actual comparison is HFT with academia (the job part). Academia is a terrible job and getting worse over time. Academics have been talking about how the job is bad and getting worse for 100 years. There is a long list of problems. Working in science is also an exercise of joining a community where your peers seem willing to put up with the terrible working conditions, almost to the point of masochism or martyrdom.

The other issue is that intelligent people tend to feel entitled to success, particularly if they succeed on traditional measures which rank them according to others. This makes them less likely to enter very difficult and uncertain fields when there are other options. Science is often inhumane in a sense, you can waste your life on the wrong idea, certainly many people have. You can also be right, but only proven so after you die.

Science also has developed a large swarm capacity, which reduces the ability of an individual to succeed and make an impact. The best example is deep learning... the explosion in deep learning research output is frankly astonishing. In real terms, a lot of researchers outside the field managed to drop whatever they were doing at the time and switch to deep learning research. Along with the excellent tooling, accessible hardware and data and low barrier to publication, there is literally a flood of papers. It is now very difficult to get noticed, and much harder to make any progress. This has happened in the space of one PhD duration. It is reasonable to assume this will keep happening as new fields open up. I presume it is because there are large numbers of people waiting for the next big thing, underemployed or underutilised in their own current work. In this scheme, research success comes to either those that found a field (even more difficult and unlikely) or have the best resources (often corporate research these days). Your talent, intelligence etc all become secondary. You can say that this is just 'rapid progress' and good for humanity. Maybe. There is also a lot of low quality work. But in the end one is an individual, not humanity, and you need to act on that basis.

All these factors conspire to send smart people away from science, and it is hard to blame them.
I wonder how their customers will react, including finding a new service.
yes everyone who disagrees with you is a hypocrite and dumb and it’s impossible they may have actual reasoning behind their thoughts. you’re very empathetic
Israel announces 800 new settler homes in occupied West Bank