Basically what they're saying is that banning tiktok or forcing the sale of it to protect user data is a band-aid solution while the underlying problem remains. If the goal is to protect user data then the bill should be to protect user data (but of course US corps would lobby hard against that).
If the EFF actually cared about freedom, they would want section 230 gutted.
No, that's what people who don't understand the internet want. One of two things happen without section 230:
1. Sites perform moderation and are held liable for all comments. The result of this will be the sites will not allow any comments (including messages boards like slashdot). Possibly some sites will have an option to review each one, but no company wants that liability.
2. Sites don't perform moderation and are not liable for comments. Without moderation, sites will become cesspools of spam and scammers while trolls run rampant. While this is typically what people with abhorrent views are in favor of, it will result in basically all message boards becoming unusable.
Option 3.
Sites perform reasonable moderation, but users are liable for what they post. This is what we have now and matches what public forum IRL are like. People have the freedom to post but with that freedom comes responsibility and consequences. One of those consequences is that they might not be allowed on that site anymore.
Good thing analog locks have no vulnerabilities!
After watching the launch, I can confirm the final answer is "all of them"
That said, it's not clear if it was the tiles falling off that caused it to die
What I implied
What you meant*
That was the implication
Basically the tests suck. There's a lot of stuff on the SATs that isn't particularly useful, but you can study for so kids that get tutors or enroll in programs specifically to get good scores on the test can get better scores.
Making less of it means less of it gets released. Pretty basic stuff.
That standardized test is (ab)used to determine a “grade” for the school itself, which directly drives funding for that school.
???
Where is that the case in the US? It's certainly not common. Usually schools are given testing requirements but they don't get more money if scores are higher. I suppose it's included in a teacher's performance review so in the sense that the teacher wants to remain employed it's about money, but basically that's just policy.
But that's still not entirely clear. Are fannypacks an item? What about an extra pair of shorts with pockets? Bottle of water?
The problem isn't the number of items but the amount of space they take. If you can fit 15 items under your seat then it shouldn't make a difference than if you put them all in a bag. The airlines should just say passengers can only put one item in the overhead bins, but that means that the flight attendants needs to enforce it
It's not legal to use it in a new system or produce more of it. It's "used" legally only in systems that it was installed in before the law. Reducing the consumption of it will absolutely reduce the amount used and released.
Yep, there are bunch of decisions that theoretically sound like they're great, but in practice don't really work any better than the alternatives. Just to be clear here, there's the moderation done by "official" moderators that will delete posts of certain nature (spam, illegal, etc), and then there's the moderation done by the users which is used to highlight or hide posts. We're only talking about the second one.
If you allow people to moderate and post, people will routinely downvote comments that disagree with their own comments.
Who cares? One person can only moderate a handful of posts anyways and there should be lots of people moderating. If the moderation system worked then this would be a non-issue. What it DOES do is punish people who participate in one way from participating in another way.
Moderation should be an occasional privilege not another channel to participate in the thread as it is on Reddit.
That's the philosophy used by the slashdot mod system, not a fact about moderation.
Also necessary. The Slashdot system forces people to think about why they are moderating and expressly omits "disagree".
Generally worthless however. No one really cares if a post is scored 4 because it's "interesting" instead of "insightful" and people have no problem modding something "overrated" if they disagree with it.
What the Slashdot system does best is create a nicely categorized thread at the end of the day that no one will read again. For people engaged in discussions it's pretty bad. Just check threads at the start of the day and at the end, you'll see wildly different posts
It's Meta/Instagram's version of twitter. Came out like a year ago
Same goes for former senators and VPs. Might be time to stop worshipping a criminal
The major issues are:
No reordering of threads so you get the "first" posts stay on top for the lifetime, even if they're low quality. This tends to drive the discussion more than it needs to.
Only posting or Moderating. I can see the thought behind it, but it doesn't really make sense in practice unless the community is the exact right size. Either the community is large enough that there are more moderators to balance things out or the community is small and it reduces the moderation/posting because people can't do both.
Similarly, random moderation is just a hinderance. I guess it goes with the rarely used meta-moderation, but that depends a lot on user interaction to work.
Too many moderation categories. It could probably be reduced to just 3 which would basically be: Good, Bad, Funny
The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.
