Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Selectively Banning Racism (Score 3, Insightful) 201

A business deciding they're not going to allow certain kinds of messages on their public bulletin board is no more censorship than me ordering my racist uncle to stop talking trash or get out of my house.

Which is only to say that "Yes, both situations are examples of censorship."

To make the metaphor more accurate to what Twitter is doing, let's say you had two uncles, each a different color and both racist toward the other. Now let's say you picked sides and only threw out the uncle whose racism you disagreed with.

Even if you are within your rights to do that, the banned uncle (and plenty of other, non-racist folks) are right to call you out for both your hypocrisy and your own racism.

Comment First Amendment a Common Strawman (Score 2) 201

Generally when censorship is brought up here, it's an attempt to conflate First Amendment protections with a private organization's lawful right to moderate content.

That's funny, because the way I usually see it go on /. is that the pro-censorship side (i.e. you) brings up 1AM/government censorship first, as a strawman so they can claim that, because it doesn't apply, we should care about private censorship either. The concept of free speech (and censorship) still exists outside of the 1AM (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters). The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment [aclu.org] wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.

Comment More to Free Speech Than the First Amendment (Score 2) 201

And before you start harping on the First Amendment, no, the First Amendment does not require that private parties assist you in spreading your speech. It only disallows the government from making your speech illegal.

But as usual, it's the pro-censorship side (i.e. you) who's brought up the First Amendment first, as a strawman so you can dismiss it.

The concept of free speech (and censorship) still exists outside of the 1AM (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters). The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment [aclu.org] wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.

Comment hello_reality.m (Score 1) 94

Here's the only reality I need Cook to worry about getting right:

#import <Cocoa/Cocoa.h>

int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {

NSDecimalNumber *oneish =
[NSDecimalNumber decimalNumberWithString:@"1.1111111111111111111"];

NSInteger two = 3 - [oneish intValue];
NSInteger othertwo = 3 - [oneish integerValue];

NSLog(@"2 + 2 = %ld", two + othertwo);

return 0;

}

Comment Who Says That? (Score 4, Interesting) 183

This sounds like a sales pitch and nothing else:

At one moment, it feels like such a hip environment, bustling with easy communication and collaboration, innovation and headphones just behind every monitor.

How many employees have ever said this? Open spaces are cheaper per sq ft and allow easier monitoring of personnel, but that doesn't sound good in a pro/con discussion.

Comment hello_1984.m (Score 1, Funny) 70

You can run this code to see if your Apple machine is compromised by Big Brother:

#import <Cocoa/Cocoa.h>

int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {

NSDecimalNumber *oneish =
[NSDecimalNumber decimalNumberWithString:@"1.1111111111111111111"];

NSInteger two = 3 - [oneish intValue];
NSInteger othertwo = 3 - [oneish integerValue];

NSLog(@"2 + 2 = %ld", two + othertwo);

return 0;

}

Comment Contraditions in the Same Sentence (Score 4, Insightful) 91

I'm disappointed that after all these years Tim speaks mainly in slogans and generalities, and still can't avoid contradicting himself. Let's show him how it's done by talking brass tacks.

This.

From the summary:

We must push back against misinformation by encouraging gatekeepers such as Google and Facebook to continue their efforts to combat the problem, while avoiding the creation of any central bodies to decide what is "true" or not.

That is literally what "gatekeeper" means, Tim.

Comment Moz No Longer a Leader for Good Reason (Score 2, Insightful) 74

What about Moz://a? Why wasn't it included?

Because they are all but bought by Google already. Why else do you think they would fire Eich, adopt DRM, ape Chrome, and plan to kill off the browser extenstion system that gave users unprecedented control over their own browsing experience (through adblocking and script-blocking and a million other essential features).

Comment Example from Higher Education (Score 3, Insightful) 391

the girl herslef said they are false, the accusations were made by a third-side feminist who thought she knew better than both of them

Just so folks can see a concrete, verifiable example of this kind of thing . . .

Two adult students have consensual sex; third parties decide otherwise, including the university. The male student is suspended before they even do him the courtesy of a show trial, ruining his education, athletic career, and (potential) medical career.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This is how the "rape culture" myth does irreparable harm, with college students getting the worst of it through abuse of Title IX.

Comment As Much About Advertising as Copyright (Score 4, Informative) 207

Saying "universal" in this context seems more like a trick of language, tacitly admitting that DRM has to be EVERYWHERE or sane users would never put up with it.

EME proponents Netflix, Microsoft, Apple, and Google

Hey look, all the major browser makers, except one. Users still have a choice in Firefox.

Except that Youtube-owner Google spent hundreds of millions to obtain considerable financial influence over the browser maker thought most likely to resist (Mozilla). And then (what a coincidence!) Mozilla gave in on DRM, and seems perpetually bent on making dozens of other perplexing decisions that users can't stand, and seem outright designed to cost it market share.

Be assured that the other big (if not the main) reason they want DRM is to thwart adblock for videos. If they can compromise your browser/vidplayer to the degree that they've prevented you from even reading the content stream, then they've necessarily also prevented you from altering it.

Comment Narrative Pushing Will Ruin It (Score 2, Insightful) 185

It's not a terrible idea in theory. But if it catches on, then almost immediately news sites will start using it to filter out thoughtcrime (i.e. wrong opinions instead of wrong facts).

Every article on immigration will require you to agree on the unqualified benefits of mass immigration (and a gauntlet of other talking points), or an article will require you to say you believe in the wage gap, for example.

Comment More to Free Speech Than the First Amendment (Score 4, Informative) 183

First of all, it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship

Let's put this myth to rest. Free speech is a bigger concept than the 1st Amendment (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters).

The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:

https://www.aclu.org/other/wha...

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.

Was there a "Second of all"?

Comment Escalation of Terms to Justify Censorship (Score 5, Insightful) 183

They use terms to mean whatever they want anyway.

Disagreement is now harrassment.
Mockery is now hate speech.
Offense is now trauma.
Criticism is now abuse.
Compelling criticism is now violence.
Anyone who talks about subjects the MSM wants to suppress is now a troll.
Anyone at random is a racist/sexist/white supremacist/nazi/etc if they say so.

The use of this alarmist (and usually, simply wrong) language is ubiquitous and deliberate. It's all a pretense to justify a disproportionate censorial "response," especially when they know no response is warranted at all. It's also a brazenly transparent tactic, especially since Twitter/Reddit/etc rarely seem to use it against users that properly align with their politics.

Slashdot Top Deals

When in doubt, mumble; when in trouble, delegate; when in charge, ponder. -- James H. Boren

Working...