Multi-Tbps DDoS attacks, pervasive scanning of sites for exploits, comically expensive egress bandwidth on services like AWS, and ISPs disallowing hosting services on residential accounts.
Start forcing tighter security on the devices causing the Multi-Tbps DDoS attacks would be a better option, no? Cheap unsecured IoT devices are a problem.
It's not just computers anymore. Web enabled CCTV, doorbell cameras are all culprits.
And home routers, printers, and end user devices themselves. Residential ISP networks can be infiltrated and remote CVE'd through browser calls at this point from a remote website. It's not even hard.
Commercial, criminal, and state interests have far more resources than you do, and their interests are in direct conflict with yours.
That would be fine, you could walk away and go home, but if you're going to drive on their digital highways, you're going to need "insurance" just protect you from everyone else.
Ongoing multi-nation WWIII-scale hacking and infiltration campaigns of infrastructure, AI bot crawling, search company and startup crawling, security researchers crawling, and maybe somebody doesn't like your blog and decides to rent a botnet for a week or so.
Bet your ISP shuts you off before then to protect themselves. (Happens all the time via BGP blackholing, DDoS scrubbing services, BGP FlowSpec, etc).
Prices would drop where homes are commonly rented. I suppose rent could turn into lease to own in the interim period. It’s an interesting idea, I wonder if any economists have played it out.
What about those people that have homes but rent out a room? Or a townhouse that has 3 units, but the landlord lives in one?
I guess they could sell the units or move to a smaller place, but I think there may be an adverse effect of potential housing staying locked up because there isn’t a legal way to preserve options of ownership. It may decrease housing in some instances. Which force is more powerful though, I am not sure.
Am I wrong, or is this kind of a silly date range considering the housing crash was in the middle?
> According to the National Association of Home Builders, profit margins as a share of overall home-sale prices actually declined slightly between 2002 and 2024.
I bought a light fixture that had a design flaw that turned it into a fire hazard. I contacted Amazon and provided proof, hoping they’d take the product down and prevent harm to others. They did initially but within a few days the same exact item with matching SKU and photos was listed.
I have an entire category of items I will never buy from Amazon. They don’t look out for customers ahead of time, only on the backend when you complain.
My wife has bought a handful of flat-pack cabinets and shelves over the last year, and it has been an experience in frustration, and furniture half assembled for weeks while we wait on a weirdly sized bolt to arrive from china because it was missing, or in one case, an entire door, or in another case a handle had been tapped to the wrong size (too big) for the bolts.
The crazy thing is these $100-250 products ship with instructions on getting 100% of your purchase back if you leave a 5-star review and email them proof you did.
What if the reason is external to the school? Hmm, what has changed between 2004 and 2024?
We have devices and experiences that are medically classified as addictive. It can also be home life stuff, it’s kind of a difficult time for a lot of people.
We could have the best trained and supported teachers in the world, but they are up against completely different challenges.
I’m not saying we can never fire anyone. But you suggesting that if we don’t like an outcome we get rid of someone without understanding the entire problem is plain dumb.
That could very well explain the decline in Maine's scores. Do we see that decline elsewhere (other than Mississippi at least)? Maybe we can add this to the multi-page list of reasons to ban phones in schools bell-to-bell.
On the grounds that he should have been sent to literally any other country, totally inapplicable to any of the other cases without specific preexisting orders against ES specifically. And notably they have outlined exactly nothing except that the administration had better say how they plan to get him back- the SCOTUS response to the executive saying "we have no plan" was just to say again that they wanted to know the plan.
The government is imprisoning people indefinitely (forever?) for unproven allegations and misdemeanors. They should be able to file habeas petitions for unlawful imprisonment. The courts are doing fuck all about it because the government is contracting to a foreign country to physically imprison them. That's crazy.
> The government is imprisoning people indefinitely (forever?) for unproven allegations and misdemeanors. They should be able to file habeas petitions for unlawful imprisonment. The courts are doing fuck all about it because the government is contracting to a foreign country to physically imprison them. That's crazy.
This doesn't sound too dissimilar from the Guantanamo bay situation, which Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden all kept going
The now famous photo of his hands with the "MS-13" tattoo, which is the evidence of his gang ties, was taken from CECOT. It would not surprise me in the slightest if he was forced to get that tattoo there. CECOT is widely known for torturing its prisoners, and their dictator is obviously doing anything he can to make Trump happy as he's being paid millions by Trump.
This is just a conspiracy theory but it highlights the need for due process. Without it it is very easy for governments to fabricate whatever narrative they want.
What action has been taken as a result of that ruling though? The Supreme Court might as well give the president a big thumbs down if nothing actually happens.
It doesn't matter what the courts say if the executive can disregard that. But this is exactly what they are trying to achieve with this whole "unitary executive" BS, and willing abettance from Republicans in Congress.
I don't think bias is the right word. It's more that a station not bound by corporate sponsors better has the ability to reflect the voice of the people, and Americans generally lean progressive when you ask them directly about policy.
While I don't watch NBC or CNN (they talk about 5 minute topics for 2 weeks), I notice often that a progressive bias, as far as I understand, is not immediately bending the knee to any rightwing pushback. It shouldn't be biased to say climate change is real, for instance, but that has been politicized so much that it's seen as a progressive bias. It's only in recent years that Republicans have switched from "It's not real" to "well doing something about it is too hard."
A better example of a bias would be texts from Fox news anchors privately trashing Sidney Powell as a lying hack while they, simultaneously, plan to boost her appearances to make election interference seem more plausible [1]. Or saying they can't fact check Trump anymore [2].
I listen to planet money and a few other podcasts. They seem pretty fair to me. The only way I could maybe see a progressive bias is that they have representation in their staff of racial and sexual minorities. I see no issue with that.
Honest question, does NPR have any token conservative pundits or voices on their broadcasts or shows? I know they have a lot of minority representation. As usual, Trumps proposed solution is idiotic. But maybe there could be an unofficial settlement to make sure all perspectives are heard?
does NPR have any token conservative pundits or voices on their broadcasts or shows?
They do the same format almost all news shows do where they introduce an issue and have two people with opposing views discuss it (there was a recent one about fossil fuels and renewables which I can't find...). This format doesn't always fall along "conservative vs other" lines though, because issues aren't necessarily that simple.
It is important not to just have someone to represent a viewpoint, but also that they are equally "good" at it (I'm not sure what that means!). One way to be biased is to have someone incompetent represent a viewpoint - creating a strawman that is easy to knock down.
There have been loads of others but here is a prominent and slightly ironic example of what you are asking about: Tucker Carlson built his early TV career in large part as a conservative pundit on PBS.
> does NPR have any token conservative pundits or voices on their broadcasts or shows?
They used to (e.g., Bob Edwards, who founded Morning Edition) but the Overton Window shifted out from under them. Steve Inskeep today lies somewhere in the center-right (a fiscally conservative Never-Trumper is my brief take on him) but that’s not right enough to count as a conservative these days.
It's shifted so far right that looking at news headlines gives me anxiety that we're in a bad enough time / timeline that modern events will be chapters in future history books; assuming we still have books (in any form).
What he's alluding to is that currently conservative voices seem utterly incapable of just not lying. Fox has progressed from a bias, to misinformation, to now just straight up disinformation.
When that is the other "side", then honesty will seem biased. The middle is would be something like lying 25% of the time.
To wit, during the BLM riots of 2020, NPR published a piece on how looting was a legitimate form of protest. I mark that as the moment they lost both my trust and my attention. A very sad, eye opening moment for me.
What in the world are you on about? They published an interview with an author who had - admittedly - controversial takes looting. You make it sound like they were telling people to go smash windows.
The mere fact that they platformed such an extreme, insane viewpoint is the issue. If you can find a similarly sympathetic platforming of a far right nutter by NPR, maybe I’ll take you seriously. Show me one NPR story about the J6 riots that contorts this far to justify and I’ll concede the point entirely.
I listened to NPR for over 20 years and the bias became gag worthy toward the end.
bad media literacy. they even included a trigger warning for readers like that:
> This story was updated on Sept. 1, 2020. The original version of this story, which is an interview with an author who holds strong political views and ideas, did not provide readers enough context for them to fully assess some of the controversial opinions discussed.
The "admission" is irrelevant and was plainly included to appease readers like yourself. Did you actually read the piece? It's unmistakably an interview - not an article, and certainly not an editorial. It's difficult to understand how anyone could read it and arrive at such a distorted conclusion.
Right — they’re lending credibility that leftwing extremism is a valid viewpoint, but you’re unable to name a similar example of rightwing extremism they’ve hosted.
Your assertion that I am "unable to name a similar example" is as baseless as it is puzzling, given that no such request was made. Regardless, it took me roughly eight seconds to find an interview with a Christian fundamentalist expressing an equally "extreme" viewpoint.
Giving an interview isn't "lending credit" to. By that logic, the best media would be one that repeatedly tries to hide the truth, because showing the truth must be giving credence to it. This is a kind of doublespeak - freedom is censorship.
Part of whole, unbiased programming is giving interviews to people on the edges, to extremists. If you don't do that, you're intentionally augmenting the story. People do this with the right all the time. They'll purposefully ignore the extremists, which in turn creates an image that such groups are completely rational. For example, news did this constantly with covid denialists like Qanon. They seem just like skeptics of the government... when you ignore the jewish space lasers and 5G covid vaccine. And then that backfired when Qanon attempted a coup. Um, oops!
Surely if you are concerned about platforming you'd be concerned about the literal actual self-described fascists and white supremacists platformed by various now mainstream right wing news outlets, right?
The replies to this comment are untruthful. The journalist was clearly sympathetic to the author's ideology, which NPR later tried to conceal. As the diff from original to latest shows:[1]
"hand-wringing about looting" -> "condemnation of looting"
"bemoaned the property damage" -> "denounced the property damage"
"Korean small-business owner murdering 15-year-old Latasha Harlins" -> "Korean small-business owner [killing] 15-year-old Latasha Harlins"
IMO, you've been downvoted to cover up the journalist's bias and, arguably, the bias of NPR's audience.
Was it this? On August 27, 2020, Natalie Escobar for Code Switch interviewed Vicky Osterweil about her book In Defense Of Looting. The segment was titled "One Author's Argument 'In Defense Of Looting'", and was subsequently retitled "One Author's Controversial View: 'In Defense Of Looting'".
"because they had to appeal to all these new Black and Brown nations all over the world" was updated to "because they had to appeal to all these new Black and brown nations all over the world".
Are you sure that article wasn't an interview with an author who wrote a book that took that stance? Having a conversation with someone who has arguably extremist views is very different from holding that extremist view.
Funny, I was told "if a Nazi sits down at a table of ten people, there are eleven Nazis at that table" for years (and in particular by NPR listeners), but suddenly there's now a use/mention distinction for platforming extremist views when it's your side that does it? Color me shocked at the hypocrisy.
Sorry, but exactly what point are you trying to make here? Are you suggesting that NPR has never interviewed - say - Christian fundamentalists (they have)? Are you suggesting that they should interview more of them? What, precisely, would make you happy here?
As I've been told for the last decade, "everything is political" therefore NPR can't provide unbiased or neutral coverage of anything, therefore there should be no federal funding of NPR or PBS. Ideologues and corpirations donate more than enough money to sustain both without the pretense of impartiality provided by federal funding.
If "everything is political", then eliminating federal funding from NPR and PBS doesn’t solve the problem - it guarantees that only corporate and ideological interests shape the narrative. Public funding exists not to claim perfect neutrality, but to create a space where journalism isn’t entirely driven by profit motives or partisan agendas. Strip that away, and you’re not removing bias - you’re institutionalizing it.
Journalism, and specifically NPR, is already driven entirely by corporate and ideological interests. Your supposition that federal funding helps remove bias is trivially disproven by the last decade of coverage of NPR, where I literally (literally!) have not been able to turn it on without race, gender, or Trump being mentioned within a minute (it became a game).
To be fair, there was one exception. and that was a replay of a David Foster Wallace interview from 2003. Which was immediately followed by a current interview with two women talking about white men's obsession with Infinite Jest and how their podcast was helping deconstruct toxic masculinity or something like that. The comparison in quality was stark.
The time for caring about and preserving civic-level notions of neutrality and objectivity was a decade ago. I don't care anymore. If wingnuts want to unduly influence Americans through broadcasting, they can do it like everyone else--without taxpayer dollars.
If your position is "I don't care anymore", then you're not making a principled argument - you're venting. That's fine, just don't pretend it's a policy stance.
"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles." likewise isn't a policy stance, it's naked hypocrisy.
It's a free country so people are afforded the right to be hypocrites, but nobody is entitled to receive public funding when doing so.
You're not actually critiquing hypocrisy - you're just deciding whose version of it gets a microphone. Pulling public funding doesn't eliminate bias, it just ensures the only voices left are the ones with capital to shout the loudest.
Is it? Show me a similarly soft pedaled, deferential NPR interview of a right wing extremist.
Someone else in this thread posted a diffed view of the interview demonstrating how NPR reshaped the article a week after publication. Very, very instructive.
> Show me a similarly soft pedaled, deferential NPR interview of a right wing extremist.
Steve Inskeep did 30 minutes with Steve Bannon this week. They did a piece with Chris Rufo yesterday (he's the guy that got right wing media to start freaking out about CRT, and then DEI). But please, do go on clutching your pearls about the WORST POSSIBLE THING EVER: PROPERTY DAMAGE!! Nope, not civil rights violations or gleefully platforming some of the most objectively harmful viewpoints on modern politics, nope, it's PROPERTY DAMAGE that is absolutely the most important possible thing to get upset about.
This is an interview with an author that NPR acknowledges as controversial, not NPR presenting the author’s opinions as fact. But I doubt the distinction matters in the current rhetorical environment.
That acknowledgement was tacked on well after publication. Even interviewing this person was an absurdity and revelatory of the kind of bias at npr. Truly insane.
I could happily cherry-pick any of the multiple times they’ve interviewed controversial, evangelical Christian leaders and come to the opposite “revelation.”
> That acknowledgement was tacked on well after publication.
Retractions and postscripts are an accepted feature of journalism.
> Even interviewing this person was an absurdity and revelatory of the kind of bias at npr.
So news organizations should not cover things which may seem sensational, especially those which are being actively talked about in the context of the current news cycle?
Right, these people are essentially arguing in favor of censorship. Basically, we should water down views and filter out extremists. Which is a great way to make insane people seem rational... which I think is a media phenomena we should all be familiar with by now.
I'm not sure what article about looting is being referenced, but NPR did interview author Vicky Osterweil about her book "In Defense of Looting". It would be extremely surprising to hear that NPR endorsed looting as a form of protest. The interview was definitely not an endorsement.
You don’t have to agree with this take, but it has historical precedent and merits discussion. In popular culture, “Do The Right Thing” (controversially?) posed the question back in 1989. And Black leaders have been talking about it since the 60s: https://jacobin.com/2020/09/martin-luther-king-riots-looting...
That’s true, they had someone on for an interview. If that’s your biggest gripe, some random topical interview they had several years ago, then I’m not really sure what you’re looking for.
That, or the Boston Tea Party should be reframed as an illegitimate form of protest against His Majesty and His Majesty's Representatives In the New World.
When, oh when, will American classrooms stop teaching that those looters were just honest young men fighting for their freedoms? I'm tired of this propaganda in our public schools. /s
How is interviewing an author, and explicitly saying this is one author's view, the same as the three biggest hosts on Fox explicitly saying J6 was a peaceful protest and not an insurrection, even as they privately decry it as a disgusting and dangerous day for the GOP.
It's not an example. It's not even close. You can and should want something more substantial than this if you're going to make such a sweeping conclusion!
I don't think I've used any forums that at least publicly surface structured "reputation" although of course informal reputation exists everywhere, including forums.
Post count yes, that's pretty common. But if the forum you use is any good, they'd actively combat posts/threads that aren't actually contributing to the conversation.
One of the biggest and most active forum in Sweden is actually pretty good at this, probably mostly thanks to its ~100 iron fist moderators who do such a great job with cleaning up posts that aren't contributing to the discussions at hand. That it also have a really extensive set of rules also helps.
