julianmarq

12 ms·

31.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> I think [recognizing nazi ideology is] easy for humans to do so. It isn't, not even when you are one of those who thinks "anyone who disagrees with me must be a nazi"—meaning that in theory you could just train a model
32.
by julianmarq 6y ago
I commented how I already read the comments (particularly those by the green usernames) and they didn't change my mind about that particular situation; I don't understand what is going to be accomplished by yet another comment sim
33.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> Both manslaughter and murder count as "killing." Your use of quotations seems to imply that you're saying that GP used the word "killing". That's incorrect; the word used was "murder" and, as GP
34.
by julianmarq 6y ago
I read the question and answers and felt a little cheerful at the idea of someone turning his life around and even thought to myself that maybe the system works sometimes. Then I came back here and read a few of the comments, particularly t
35.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> hating on React It would be great if developers stopped treating tools they like with this much sentiment. For starters, it would mean fewer flamewars. They're just tools, criticizing them is not "hating" and your liki
36.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> people who like open source (generally left-wing people doing stuff for betterment of society) Do you really think that liking open source is in any way correlated with politics?[1] I'd like to read a source on that one, because i
37.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> In HN, I've been seeing way more comments supporting the "freedom of speech" for those who stormed the Capitol In HN, I've seen people saying that the concept of free speech is outdated and that societies that suppo
38.
by julianmarq 6y ago
I'm not really surprised that governments (or similar, such as the EU) are starting to become suspicious of the issue that private companies—who primarily profit off their users' data—have somehow anointed themselves as arbiters o
39.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> I don't have much confidence in how to counter it. It feels like a big chunk of our population have got sucked into a cult - how do you deprogram so many people? Up until this point, I was very much agreeing with his take, but fro
40.
by julianmarq 6y ago
The comments here confuse me. Over the past months/years, I've read many a comment here insisting that whatever Facebook/Twitter/etcetera allow or don't allow in their platforms is absolutely not censorship[1]... Bu
41.
by julianmarq 6y ago
Up until this point, I thought that when you bought a domain from a registrar, the domain was yours (since you can transfer it, after all), but now I'm not sure, and the article is not clear. How could godaddy "boot" someone?
42.
by julianmarq 6y ago
I replied this to someone else, but I think it works here too: The irony, for me, is that if I were in favor of censorship, I would be the first person I censor, instead of using an online forum to speak in favor of censorship. I feel tha
43.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> Do you see how by using the word “censorship” [...], you have made it difficult to continue this conversation? Not really, no, what makes it difficult for me to continue this conversation is that I had no interest in having this conv
44.
by julianmarq 6y ago
Just in case, the irony, for me, is that if I were in favor of censorship, I would be the first person I censor, instead of using an online forum to speak in favor of censorship. I feel that there's irony in using a widely accessed m
45.
by julianmarq 6y ago
Before I give you one of the recent examples I saw, I'm curious about why you're asking for examples in the first place. You already seem pretty disinclined to agree with me as evidenced by how you keep trying to suggest that I&#x
46.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> Maybe downvoted far down the thread No, and no. Please don't tell me what I have or have not seen myself. > [Trump and parler again] Okay, this is the third time so I won't try again to tell you I have no interest in talki
47.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”. I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are &quo
48.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected I didn't use the word "bizarrely" and I&#x2
49.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> [US limits on free speech] seem to be relevant to this discussion. But not to my comment, and not just because I'm not from the USA. I'm not speaking in favor of parler if that's what you assumed (for some reason). Speci
50.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> best to just scan and pattern match the kind of exchanges occurring before moving swiftly along. How do you do that? I've noticed lately that HN commentary (at least in threads like this) has trended increasingly pro-censorship[
51.
by julianmarq 6y ago
What point am I missing exactly? I don't understand how that sentence is apropos. Sure, fact-checking has never been so "fast or efficient"... But it clearly is still not yet fast or efficient, or perhaps promoted, enough .
52.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> I still believe in the merits of free speech as regards reasoned good-faith open debate [...] such communication is in fact significantly dangerous. These two sentences cannot be true at the same time; one is either in favor of free
53.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> If you post something to say, Twitter, that is now their content that you have given to them for their benefit with the sole purpose of extracting value from the attention the content you handed over to them brings through the sale
54.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> they'd have lost my support. The implication being that everything the EFF has done against corporate control of the internet is only good as long as their criticism doesn't extend to corporate censorship? I hope I'm mis
55.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> In some parts of the United States being denied utilities can (and does) lead to death as a result of exposure. I don't believe comparing this to deplatforming from the internet is a good faith argument. Without getting into the p
56.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> I hope I'm wrong about [society being doomed to collapse because of free speech] I'm confused, then why did you say this? > I used to agree with this line of thinking Unless I'm misinterpreting this, you seem &quo
57.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> We should be far more worried that Twitter gave the president a free ride for so long Twitter has given and continues to give people just as or even more deranged than Trump free rides. They don't care, because either a) they agre
58.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> does sound like a racist caricature But it isn't. How about we stop assuming offense by default and instead we try to expect that other people are as reasonable as we are? For that matter, that one is in the guidelines here.
59.
by julianmarq 6y ago
> but mockery seemed plausible How about we stop assuming mockery just because it might seem plausible and instead we lean toward "no offense intended" by default?
60.
by julianmarq 6y ago
It's very interesting how upon news like this, everyone rightly jumps at the throat of the evil corporation pushing for more control of everyone's information. But when the discussion is about free speech—which this stuff is direc

More ›