So the doctor is sick and is wearing a mask so that the patient “and others around him” dont get sick even though he’s treating a sick patient? It’s really simple your health your responsibility just like when you go eat McDonald’s. Can you go work out for me to while you’re wearing a mask for my sake I’m getting a little chubby from being confined to my house Just like a criminal. Why do I have to care about other people again as long as I’m not hurting them and how can you prove someone gave you an airborne virus again? In a free Society these questions all need to be answered first
Yes, doctors wear masks to protect the patient, like, you know, they wash hands before sugery, to protect the patient, look into this, it was not always so, and somehow, it was that those doctors who washed hands before surgery, their patients didn't die as much. It's basic fucking hygiene. :)
It's an interesting idea "everyone else is responsible for avoiding the invisible thing you're spreading around", interesting in a stupid way, but interesting.
It’s was already drawn in 1789. It’s far worse to accidentally suppress the truth than to share a lie. Falsehoods will reveal themselves in time because of the very fact that they are not true. The opposite is not the case. There are infinite lies but only one truth
You're making this too easy for yourself. Modern communication technology didn't exist in 1789, and the truth can be difficult to determine for people -- even scientific truth. Outrage cycles are very powerful.
Clearly suppressing a truth is bad. But modern technology causes massive amplification of falsehoods in a way that just didn't exist in the past, and that's bad, too.
The format of communication is irrelevant. At the end of the day, I make my own decisions and so does everyone else. You cannot suppress the bad out of life because its humans that cause the bad by accident or on purpose. Why are people so worried about proving a false hood is it that hard for you? You need to run and hide from a difficult conversation? How do you ever expect to change your mind oh yeah you want the government to make them. You’re motivated by hate against a fictitious enemy of the past because it makes it easier to justify your extremely pitiful fortitude
From a libertarian, individualistic perspective, there is much in what you say. But telling people off for being easily persuadable isn't a viable solution. You have to deal with people as they really are, not as you wish them to be.
From a utilitarian perspective, fake news and persuasive technologies do real harm, and not just to the people who are persuaded. Unless something is done at the group level (i.e. by the state) the harm will continue. You might consider that an appropriate trade-off for liberty, but others can reasonably disagree without being weak.
It’s far worse to accidentally suppress the truth than to share a lie. Falsehoods will reveal themselves in time because of the very fact that they are not true.
A lot has changed since 1789, and there is no reason not to re-examine the assumptions that were made then in light of technological developments over the past two centuries plus.
It tramples curiosity when no one questions why the Russians are blamed for everything which is intellectually dishonest. A few hackers isn’t indicative of the entire country. It’s almost starting to border on bigotry
Nobody is blaming Russian people, they’re blaming the Russian government. All large foreign powers engage in espionage of their rivals and have done so for literally millennia.
Because why do some of the smartest and highest paid people on earth need to form a coalition against their highly benevolent employer compared to most. It's hard to feel the plight of a Googler when compared to alternatives. It's not enough to show up and do your job, they want to be able to tell the bosses to fuck off with impunity too. Free speech doesn't apply to the workplace.
Google has a lot of employees and contractors and the ones trying to unionize are neither the smartest nor the highest paid. That you describe the most profitable monopoly in America as "highly benevolent" from a 48 minute old account is also hilarious.
Calling Google benevolent is laughable, but even if the aren't the most highly paid workers, these still pretty highly paid workers are stretching the original function of a union to my mind.
Its almost like unions are highly politically motivated and only there to feed the pockets of the political parties that run them, and not to protect the stable salary of workers.
If anything, Google's employees are in the best position to unionize. The original concept of organized labour was conceived with skilled tradesmen in mind, since they would be the hardest to replace, and therefore would have the most bargaining power. The concept of the unionized factory floor worker came much later.
From a pure leverage perspective, Google employees, especially in highly specialized areas like ML, are in an excellent position. They are legally entitled to that power, so why shouldn't they wield it?
Perhaps what you're saying is a better way of expressing it, but I meant nameless as in being able to put a name to a specific form, identifying it.
I think most corporations don't even have a name anymore. It's X (Google for example) until it rebrands to Y (Alphabet in that case), then it's one of their acquisitions that you're working for, then it's one of the companies they use to avoid having you be associated with them and demand equal benefits or whatever etc.
Maybe you just don't know? The simple fact that some people want to unionize shows your picture may differ from reality.
I know some people at lower levels (blurring, moderating) being laid off just before one year just because they don't want to consider them as full blown employees.
"Free speech doesn't apply to the workplace"? What a fascist view. We're supposed to shut up and happily serve our corporate overlords for the majority of our waking lifes?
Funny how it's always brand new throwaway accounts that pop up to do this grovelling corporate apologetics for these poor innocent long-suffering megacorps.
I like the feature on slack where you can see a graph of private vs public discussions. If the private discussions suddenly increase dramatically while public discussion cease and you aren't involved, something bad is about to happen
One leaves control of speech up to the individual speaker while the other leaves it in the hands of an Oligarchy of people who think they are know better than everyone else because they have more money. There's a degree of arrogance behind the thinking, "I'm smart enough to discern fact from fiction but those less intelligent than I must need my help or else they might believe a falsehood"
Everyone ought to be allowed to speak but networks ought to shut down organized campaigns to spread disinformation and networks that exist purely to spread hate and misinformation ought to be challenged by the people lied about on such platforms. Its not an ideal solution but none is probably possible to implement or live through.
Almost entirely because of misinformation we just spent 4 years with a complete idiot having the key to nuclear weapons that if used will almost certainly lead to at minimum crashing global civilization as we know it. His mishandling will ultimately be responsible for hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.
We can probably make individual expression possible without allowing organized disinfo campaigns to continue unchecked.
Acting like this is an unsolvable problem is an intellectual disservice.
You’re missing a key point — journalistic integrity. It’s something that can be measured and validated.
Second is experience in discerning fact from fiction — not everybody has it. And example is that guy who believed that the earth was flat, so he jury rigged a rocket and shot himself straight up in the air. He then died from his injuries. Elementary school mathematics taught us that he wasn’t going to be successful, yet he chose to reject even the most foundational verified truths.
Third are the mathematical concepts of probability versus possibility. People who choose to believe things that are untrue tend to lean on the idea of “possibility“ without considering it’s likelihood (“probability“).
And there are people who question things simply for the purpose of questioning them. This is where fear, uncertainty, and doubt comes from. These are things that hold us back rather than pushing this forward. This is also known as “conspiracy“.
But there is a dramatically smaller group which aims to _seek truth_. These are the people who not just have an opinion, but are willing to put in the effort to evaluate evidence and allow their opinions to be changed by what can be proven. They recognize that it’s easy to want to look for patterns which support their existing biases, and they do their best to guard against that. They also recognize that psychology has taught us the humans like to look for patterns in data which suggest cause-and-effect, even if none exists. An example of this is when someone correlates the will of God to finding a $20 bill on the ground, when in reality it’s simply coincidence.
When you see hoof prints, you should think horses, not zebras. The simplest conclusion is usually (has the highest probability of being) right. One simply has to look at Trump’s track record with the truth to realize that he’s probably just lying.
And finally, the word “censorship”. This is an accusatory word used by people who think it relates to their non-existent “freedom of speech”. The first amendment applies to the agreement between the US government and its citizens. It does not apply to your relationship with YouTube. YouTube is a corporation that has an entirely separate agreement with its users, which does not include freedom of speech. Therefore, it’s not censorship — by definition. You’re not being censored, if you’ve broken the rules of that agreement. And in the end, it’s YouTube’s decision since it’s their platform you’re using.
"And finally, the word “censorship”. This is an accusatory word used by people who think it relates to their non-existent “freedom of speech”. The first amendment applies to the agreement between the US government and its citizens. "
The US Constitution restricts the Government from infringing on rights we, as citizens, already have.
The Constitution does NOT grant us rights. The whole freaking point of our revolution vs., say the French Revolution, is the PEOPLE have the rights and government is restricted - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
YouTube's unequal and arbitrary application of rules is EDITORIAL CONTROL. As such they fall FAR more on the side of a publisher than platform and that's the part of 230 that needs SERIOUS overhaul.
Then again maybe not. Their latest antics have pushed even more people off onto other platforms; and ultimately that will be the best correction. De-aggregation is the best antidote.
> And finally, the word “censorship”. This is an accusatory word used by people who think it relates to their non-existent “freedom of speech”. The first amendment applies to the agreement between the US government and its citizens. It does not apply to your relationship with YouTube.
> YouTube is a corporation that has an entirely separate agreement with its users, which does not include freedom of speech. Therefore, it’s not censorship — by definition.
The first amendment and freedom of speech are not synonyms, quite obviously because there can be freedom of speech outside of the jurisdiction of the US government; and similarly, Youtube is a trans-national corporation with more than just US citizens using it.
Even if it were wholly within US jurisdiction and Youtube only served US citizens, the first amendment is still not a synonym for freedom of speech. The word censor comes from a Latin word for a governmental position in ancient Rome but it does not follow that all censorship is therefore only possible or enacted by government. Not only is there no supporting logic for that, it's not evident in practice. Companies like Twitter[1], Facebook[2] and Google[3] remove things from their platforms for political convenience (or, as Anand Giridharadas points out[4], for any convenience):
> When you look at the ways in which the winners of our age give back, help out, make a difference, they are often designed to protect the system - above all - that the winners stand on top of.
As ever, I suggest getting a copy of On Liberty[0] by J.S. Mill, where he goes over both the tyranny of government and the tyranny of non-governmental actors, with regards to speech.
