Plus, that sentiment is only true with a narrow set of upper middle class, white collar assumptions. What about hard working retail workers or factory workers? Or look how vast the race and gender disparities are...

maybe they don't want to be anything other than factory workers. That doesn't mean that they are fundamentally less valuable and less worthy of being paid their fair share.

But the point isn’t the individual. The questions we need to ask are - why did people feel empowered to do what they did? Why wasn’t there anything in place to hold these people accountable for their actions? And what are the larger patterns and their consequences (e.g. widespread sexism and sexual harassment pushes women out of the workforce/positions of power)

Usually the answers are the same. People feel empowered most often by the prevailing attitude of their societies. If we want to see less of something then we (all) need to speak up against it. Can we raise our hands when someone asks us if we ever went against prevailing culture and stood up for someone (or ourselves), even at a grave cost?

Also some are psychologically disturbed due to various reasons and those people need therapy and mere reactionary punishment will not improve matters in the long run (for society).

Seems like the same question as that religious one about what would keep a person honest in lieu the wrath of a higher power/promise of eternal life/whatever external motivator.

I’ve found it pretty unreliable. I was researching Teflon pans the other day, and all the instant answers were myths about how Teflon pans will give you cancer. And when you click no the sites, it’s usually clear if their answer is at all reliable or not. Stuff like that means I always have to do more work with instant answers than if I just ignore it.

This is nonsense both-sides-ism. The right very obviously redacts true data (just look at Fox News re: Mueller). And the issue is not just whether people lie and omit facts. You have to consider the the magnitude and motivation behind those mistruths (Obama is a Muslim, Clinton conspiracies, climate change denialism), and what people do with that. Are they open to fact checking, or openly hostile to it?

you haven't negated my point, nor are you self-aware enough to realize that obviating "fact checking" is a primary goal of redaction (the typical strategy of the left). an idea that is absent is by definition excepted from scrutiny

frankly you are just echoing the Vox/Atlantic script...alternative viewpoints are "fake" or "conspiratorial"...because obviously no one armed with the facts could possibly disagree with the prevailing worldview of the NYT, HuffPost etc

critical thinking in 2017 isn't about filtering out obvious BS like Fox news...it is about filtering the much more subtle BS from Vox, Atlantic etc

and just to show you this isn't political for me...I at least have respect for sites like TheTrace that clearly present themselves as issue PR platforms, even if I 100% disagree with their views

Instagram’s CEO has said one of the most valuable parts of being acquired by FB is they could just hook into their vast revenue org (probably thousands of employees, and battle tested ad targeting tech and expertise). Twitter has to build its own, and I’m sure that accounts for most of their headcount.

Eh, conservatives have been making this complaint for ages. It’s really not new. Take the Vietnam war and civil rights protests of the 60s and 70s for example. Tech has changed some dynamics, but in this case, it hasn’t introduced something completely new.

Could you clarify what the complaint is they're making? I'm confused.

I think, but don't know for sure, they are arguing that "elite, progressive professors are indoctrinating our kids." Limbaugh has been making this claim since '89 at least when I first heard it.

Yeah, like, those are actually the extremist groups with ties to terrorism that this kind policy is designed for. It’s not Twitter’s fault that mainstream politics has gone haywire... I mean maybe it is, but point stands

> as soon as someone who's willing to consider only the rules of the game in constructing their strategy comes along, and easily crushes all their competitors

Also relevant to codes of conduct unfortunately.

* Links are 20 characters, flat (could be less, but users would spam 100+ links).

* Images aren't counted (unless they come from links).

* @handles were moved out of the text for replies.

* Threads have improved a lot over the past year.

* Thread composer is apparently on it's way.

Just don't follow spam accounts? Not that hard...