Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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 Re:Sunk cost fallacy (Score 1) 199

How does forcing them to use a different communication medium stop them from spreading ideas you disagree with?

If all the newspapers and TV stations in the world refuse to run a news story, then it'll prevent the story from spreading. It doesn't entirely stop it, obviously. Even before the Internet, there would have still been word of mouth. Still, it prevents it from spreading to the extent that it would have otherwise.

It seems to me that giving them the allure of being the 'stuff THEY don't want you to see' only helps promote it, instead.

You're conflating two things. You're talking about something like the Streisand Effect, where trying to hide information paradoxically causes it to spread. That can happen, although if reputable sources of information refuse to acknowledge it, it might still be relegated to the status of rumor. I'm talking about a different thing, which is more about whether credence and credibility are given to speech. Racism, for example, isn't a secret that people are curious about. No one is sitting at home thinking, "I heard something about this white supremacism. No one has ever been willing to advocate lynching, so the idea is so much more alluring now!"

It's more like, there are various people who are racist to varying degrees and in different ways. That's already in their lives. If the people around you who are credible members of the group you perceive as belonging to are all lynching people, talking about lynching, and advocating lynching, then there's a much greater chance that you'll end up lynching someone. If the suggestion of lynching elicits a response of "Hell no. That's fucked up. What's wrong with you?!" then you're less likely to lynch anyone. That's just how people work. If services like Twitter promote and amplify hate-speech, you're going to end up with more people thinking it's a normal and acceptable thing. If Twitter bans it and sends the message that it's unacceptable, then its prevalence lessens.

And yes, I know there will still be some backlash. There are white supremacists who are going to be irate any time you imply that white supremacy is not acceptable. There are some occasional assholes who will say the exact thing that that they think will be most offensive and get them the most attention. However, ultimately most people will generally adopt the social mores of whatever group they perceive themselves to be a part of. A responsible member of society tries to avoid and discourage horrible behavior and speech in order to encourage better social mores.

Comment Re: then go somewhere else (Score 1) 417

My guess is that Uber won't want to sink without a fight. They might even become desperate enough to pay a living wage and find a way to make it work. In the end, the market abhors a vacuum. Someone would come along paying a living wage and filling the void. So long as there's a void to fill.

One way to balance the negotiation would be the UBI. Give people enough that they can walk away from a bad deal and the deals will get better fast.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 330

If this means they can make some money by selling my info then perhaps my internet bill out-of-pocket will come down over time.

No, it just means they'll make more money.

Here's the key idea you have to understand when you see moneyed interests enabled to make yet more money:

"Trickle down" is a metaphor for the moneyed interests pissing on your head.

Also, this.

Comment Re: then go somewhere else (Score 1) 417

UBI is fine by me. A gig economy would be just fine as long as the UBI was covering at least the basic cost of living.

But we don't have the UBI now, and so the gig economy isn't supportable. One or the other condition must go.

Right now, it seems more likely that the Troglodytes running things will impose some limits on the gig economy (if only because of bribes) than they are to implement UBI.

Comment Adam Smith noticed everything your talking about (Score 1) 417

and declared it pretty much inevitable. Hell, by today's standard's he'd be a bomb-throwing leftist.

You're living in a dream world if you think you'll ever see the world of small communities you're talking about. You can't have it because the ruling class doesn't want it. You have to bend or break the ruling class to your whim with the shear weight of numbers that is the working class. That's what the laws, regulation and wealth redistribution of socialism does. You have to be equally careful that the powerful apperatus you built to do that doesn't get turned against you.

Government is a tool. A powerful, and dangerous tool. Like fire, guns, electricity or any of our other major discoveries you don't just give up on it because it's dangerous. You can't. If you leave a tool like that lying around unattended somebody else is gonna pick you up and brain ya with it.

Comment Until 3rd world countries join the 2nd world (Score 1) 167

Until 3rd world food-producing countries become hostile to the US, such as if they join the 2nd world by becoming more closely allied with Russia and China than with North America and Western Europe. Domestic production must be prepared to cover for sudden interruptions in the flow of imports.

Slashdot Top Deals

There must be more to life than having everything. -- Maurice Sendak

Working...