The problem with moderation systems is that they tend to support the populist view, which is not always the correct one.
The problem with that line is that it presupposes that there is one correct view. Who gets to decide what is correct?
The scientific method or, for matters based on opinion rather than scientific evidence, vox populi, vox dei.
As gratifying as it may be, no amount of berating or deriding the popular view will convince the majority that they're view is wrong. However, a compelling argument might. So long as the minority opinion can be "heard", it has a chance of becoming the majority view.
Is this the same greens which are currently in bed with the Labour party? They are the government. That they don't appear to have any clue of what they themselves, or their Labour parners are doing, doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence.
The patient system is broken but that's only a symptom. The real problem is that the people who write laws are in the pockets of the those who benefit from the system being broken.
If the patient system were to be completely re-written from scratch tomorrow, in your country or in mine, does anyone really think the politicians would create a better one than what we currently have?
I don't know how to fix it, but right there is the underlying problem.
> They should be allowed to run them, however, the consequence of them being wrong should place a large enough deterrent
> that they should not WANT to if it isn't extremely accurate.
Falsely accusing anyone of violating the copyright on X results in X being released to the public domain. Problem solved! By the way, punitive fines in the order of $22k per "lost" page-view* has a pleasing kind of symmetry.
* Everybody knows a "lost" page-view == a lost sale for whoever might be advertising on that page, right?
If Rogers were exercising their right to freedom of speech, surely their customers were exercising the same right when they agreed to pay their bills. That's how it works, isn't it?
This won't kill DNT! It was a waste of time before and it will continue to serve that function well into the foreseeable future.
It's like a "Do Not Rob Me" sign on your house. The people who honour the sign aren't the one's you were worried about in the first place.
Air superiority hasn't been in question because we made every effort to be superior. Once we lack superiority, you can bet someone else will be using their superior jets.
"Using the superior jets" to do what? Do superior fast barrel rolls while their capitol gets nuked back to the bedrock?
A failure-intolerant environment would have listened to those concerns, and the iPad never would have launched. And what a mistake THAT would have been..
OMG! One less device to watch porn on. How could civilisation have survived?
But yes, I do agree with the sentiment of your post. Looks like some VP from TFA actually had the intellect to grasp the message of the 'Three Little Pigs' story we learn as children (learn from mistakes and hopefully do better next time).
You never know. If this keeps up we might, one day (lets not get too far ahead of ourselves), get some management up to high-school comprehension level.
Those who can, do; those who can't, simulate.