Comment Re: Decline? (Score 2) 183
I admit I don't interact much but I do read regularly.
Does that mean I might as well not exist?
Does that mean I might as well not exist?
Are Social Media Companies Censoring Us? Is It Ever Justified? (msn.com) 398
The Washington Post asks what may be the ultimate question of our times. "Whether the largest social media companies have become so critical to public debate that being banned or blacklisted by them — whether you're an elected official, a dissident, or even just a private citizen who runs afoul of their content policies — amounts to a form of modern-day censorship."
"And, if so, are there circumstances under which such censorship is justified?"
The first person cited is Jillian York, director for international freedom of expression at the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation. Fighting over whether a given speech restriction is or isn't censorship, she adds, is often an excuse to avoid harder, more nuanced discussions as to exactly which types of speech ought to be restricted, and by whom, and on what authority. "There are a lot of people in the U.S. who will claim to be [free speech] absolutists but then basically be fine with censoring sexuality," she says. In contrast, expressions of sexuality are widely accepted in Germany, where York now lives, but there's broad consensus that censorship of Holocaust denial is warranted. In New Zealand, she adds, the democratically elected government has a Chief Censor who reviews the content of films and literature. "I'm very wary of censorship," York says. "But the reason is, who do you trust to do it? It's not that all speech is totally equal and valid." In other words, the problem York sees isn't social platforms banning a powerful figure such as Trump. It's their lack of legitimacy as arbiters of speech, especially when they're censoring people who lack the stature to speak out through other means.
David Kaye, a law professor at University of California-Irvine and the former U.N. Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, agrees that we should be wary of tech giants' power over discourse — especially in countries that lack a robust free press. But he balks at applying the term "censorship" to content moderation decisions taken by the likes of Facebook, Twitter or YouTube in the United States... We're better off, Kaye believes, reserving the term "censorship" for the many instances around the world in which speech restrictions are backed by the power of the state. That can include cases in which "the state puts demands on social media to take down content, or criminalizes individuals who tweet," as has happened in China, the United Arab Emirates, Myanmar and elsewhere...
"If we start to dilute the idea of censorship as a state-driven tool by equating it with what platforms are doing, we start to misunderstand what platforms are actually doing, and why they're doing it," Kaye said.
The Post ultimately cites three experts who agree on one point: that it's worth scrutinizing the decisions of social media platforms because of their growing influence — whether or not you end up calling it censorship. But they also cite a follow-up observation from Chinmayi Arun, a resident fellow of Yale Law School's Information Society Project.
Too often overlooked in the debates over what social networks take down is that they aren't just passive conduits of information: Their recommendation algorithms and design decisions actively shape what speech gets heard, and by how many, and how it is framed — often fueling the kind of divisive content that they later face pressure to remove.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube may or may not have censored Trump a year ago. But there's no doubt that for years prior, they amplified and enabled him.
"And, if so, are there circumstances under which such censorship is justified?"
The first person cited is Jillian York, director for international freedom of expression at the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation. Fighting over whether a given speech restriction is or isn't censorship, she adds, is often an excuse to avoid harder, more nuanced discussions as to exactly which types of speech ought to be restricted, and by whom, and on what authority. "There are a lot of people in the U.S. who will claim to be [free speech] absolutists but then basically be fine with censoring sexuality," she says. In contrast, expressions of sexuality are widely accepted in Germany, where York now lives, but there's broad consensus that censorship of Holocaust denial is warranted. In New Zealand, she adds, the democratically elected government has a Chief Censor who reviews the content of films and literature. "I'm very wary of censorship," York says. "But the reason is, who do you trust to do it? It's not that all speech is totally equal and valid." In other words, the problem York sees isn't social platforms banning a powerful figure such as Trump. It's their lack of legitimacy as arbiters of speech, especially when they're censoring people who lack the stature to speak out through other means.
David Kaye, a law professor at University of California-Irvine and the former U.N. Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, agrees that we should be wary of tech giants' power over discourse — especially in countries that lack a robust free press. But he balks at applying the term "censorship" to content moderation decisions taken by the likes of Facebook, Twitter or YouTube in the United States... We're better off, Kaye believes, reserving the term "censorship" for the many instances around the world in which speech restrictions are backed by the power of the state. That can include cases in which "the state puts demands on social media to take down content, or criminalizes individuals who tweet," as has happened in China, the United Arab Emirates, Myanmar and elsewhere...
"If we start to dilute the idea of censorship as a state-driven tool by equating it with what platforms are doing, we start to misunderstand what platforms are actually doing, and why they're doing it," Kaye said.
The Post ultimately cites three experts who agree on one point: that it's worth scrutinizing the decisions of social media platforms because of their growing influence — whether or not you end up calling it censorship. But they also cite a follow-up observation from Chinmayi Arun, a resident fellow of Yale Law School's Information Society Project.
Too often overlooked in the debates over what social networks take down is that they aren't just passive conduits of information: Their recommendation algorithms and design decisions actively shape what speech gets heard, and by how many, and how it is framed — often fueling the kind of divisive content that they later face pressure to remove.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube may or may not have censored Trump a year ago. But there's no doubt that for years prior, they amplified and enabled him.
Comment Re:China internet strategy (Score 2) 146
Comment Re:Missing Data (Score 1) 227
Culpability is 100% what China is trying to avoid. It could be as simple as not acting fast enough (basic denial) up to and including the world wide problem WAS CAUSED by THEM (lab accident). It doesn't matter which side of the scale they are on its only that there is any culpability at all with China that they want to avoid.
The sadist part is that which ever side of this it is, it undermines trust in the world community. Their (China's) typical response is normally: "The world didn't react fast enough" and the finger pointing begins.
Thanks for taking any ownership, really...
The sadist part is that which ever side of this it is, it undermines trust in the world community. Their (China's) typical response is normally: "The world didn't react fast enough" and the finger pointing begins.
Thanks for taking any ownership, really...
Comment Re:Reagan Star Wars - Rail Gun / Laser Power Sourc (Score 1) 113
That is a really interesting read. I'm aware that they are completely different laser designs though. The ultra powerful ones compress the light into the shortest amount of time possible. With that they can do particle physics sorta similar to the large colliders, just in less space and somewhat less energy. These navy ones need continuous beams. Both are very awesome tech.
It makes me think that for any of the claims in the article to be plausible, they must be exploiting some new material science effect much like the doped optical materials in lasers that amplify or compress the beams.
It makes me think that for any of the claims in the article to be plausible, they must be exploiting some new material science effect much like the doped optical materials in lasers that amplify or compress the beams.
Comment Re:Reagan Star Wars - Rail Gun / Laser Power Sourc (Score 1) 113
Lasers have gotten crazy powerful https://www.popsci.com/researc... however these are limited to labs. Heat up all the air in between the laser and the target causes all sorts of problems, so not many projects still attempting to use lasers for military purposes.
Also, the US Navy rail gun seems to be progressing well https://www.popularmechanics.c... not sure how long till they have it mounted on a ship though (if not already).
Also, the US Navy rail gun seems to be progressing well https://www.popularmechanics.c... not sure how long till they have it mounted on a ship though (if not already).
Comment Re:500 year disease (Score 1) 432
https://www.worldometers.info/...
Most susceptible seems to be 50yr+.
Comment Re:Slowly (Score 1) 108
I'm glad I'm not the only one who looks at the UID when reading comments.
Comment Re:Number of launches vs satellites in orbit? (Score 1) 65
I completely agree, total mass to orbit would be a better measurement. I did some brief searches but I wasn't able to find anything. However, between the Apollo program and the space shuttle that would easily put USA on top of the total mass to orbit.
More recently though, the Falcon 9 and the Atlas V are both very capable launch platforms. While China is catching up to them, most of there launches are on much smaller rockets with a little more than half the lifting capacity.
More recently though, the Falcon 9 and the Atlas V are both very capable launch platforms. While China is catching up to them, most of there launches are on much smaller rockets with a little more than half the lifting capacity.
Amazon's $1.5 Million Political Gambit Backfires in Seattle City Council Election (reuters.com) 170
Seattle voters, in a rebuke to heavy corporate campaign spending by Amazon.com, have kept progressives firmly in control of their city council, reviving chances for a tax on big businesses that the tech giant helped fend off last year. From a report: Amazon poured a record $1.5 million into a Super PAC run by the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce to back a slate of candidates in the Nov. 5 council elections viewed as pro-business, or at least more corporate friendly than the incumbent council majority. Amazon, the world's leading online retailer whose chief executive is billionaire entrepreneur Jeff Bezos, accounted for more than half of nearly $2.7 million raised by the Super PAC, a group allowed to accept unlimited sums from wealthy donors in support of their favorite candidates. Four years ago, Amazon donated $25,000. By comparison, labor unions spent more than $1 million on the council race.
The unprecedented level of spending in a Seattle municipal race drew national attention, with Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders accusing Amazon of trying to buy the council. The outcome for most of the seven council seats at stake in Tuesday's election was too close to call until Friday night, when a tally of 97 percent of votes cast showed that progressive candidates had won five of the seats, including two incumbents.
The unprecedented level of spending in a Seattle municipal race drew national attention, with Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders accusing Amazon of trying to buy the council. The outcome for most of the seven council seats at stake in Tuesday's election was too close to call until Friday night, when a tally of 97 percent of votes cast showed that progressive candidates had won five of the seats, including two incumbents.
Comment Re:First derivative of the polls? (Score 5, Informative) 308
As regards subverting and effectively eliminating the EC, this approach is close to doing so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I assume you are not familiar with the phrase Tyranny of the majority
The EC was specifically meant to prevent such a problem. Another thing that most people don't understand is the USA is actually a collection of small countries that have agreed to a federal standard of laws. The laws not specifically described by the federal standards are left to the states.
This leads to the leader of each state is being selected by the people who inhabit it (usually called the governor), and the leader of the collection of countries is elected by the states (in the USA's case the president).
If the popular vote was allowed to selected the president, the most populaces states would forever dictate who was the president, and the remainder of the country would be forever under their rule. Which is what they were trying to prevent when designing the EC.
Comment Re:Just say it. (Score 1) 29
So, it was a broadcast storm. What's with all the verbiage?
I was thinking exactly the same thing and was wondering if the network engineers were just too dumb and disabled default features to prevent this kind of problem...Then I read the FCC report. It not clear if the equipment that CentryLink uses are actually routers or just glorified switches. Also it describes how they have a intentional network loop setup for 'redundancy' but no indication of any routing or switching protocols running to prevent loops. So its probably a combination of inexperienced network engineers and equipment from the lowest bidder where the software and its defaults are not very good.
Comment Re:It's not frivolous. (Score 1) 187
And similar to this concept truck by MAN: http://blackandgold.com/ee/507...
Which seems to pre-date the Nikola design by 4 years.
Comment 36 Months? (Score 2) 183
Netflix was amenable to having their movies play on big screens in France, but a law in the country requires movies to not appear in home platforms for 36 months after their theatrical release.
Where does a law like this originate? So if it is shown is a theater, at all, it automatically cannot be shown on any other medium for 3 years? I can only see this as a law to fuck content creators over because Theater operators have more say with the elected than the electorate.
Maybe this is a sign that most of the 'would be' democracies are oligarchies as well
Comment Meh, I AM automation (Score 1) 369
I'm in the process of designing automation for our network. Some I've helped build in the past and some were working on today. A efficient company cant expect to have a million person work force to manage 100s of thousands of devices or customers. The cost to employ all those people would implode the company.
Over the last 5 years, my software team went from 7 people to 5. We managed to write said software to help the remainder of our bigger team (about 30 people) manage 50k~ non-firewall devices and the efficiency increased so much they laid off one person from that team.
My thinking is, get a job that either is making automation possible or doing something that cant be automated in at least the next 10 years. If your getting paid minimum wage your job is prime for robots or automation. You have been warned :)
Over the last 5 years, my software team went from 7 people to 5. We managed to write said software to help the remainder of our bigger team (about 30 people) manage 50k~ non-firewall devices and the efficiency increased so much they laid off one person from that team.
My thinking is, get a job that either is making automation possible or doing something that cant be automated in at least the next 10 years. If your getting paid minimum wage your job is prime for robots or automation. You have been warned
Slashdot Top Deals
"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
