lovecg

47 ms·

601.
by lovecg 6y ago
Yes, it depends on the voting mechanism and other aspects of how the government is set up, as other commenters pointed out. I was talking about the US specifically.
602.
by lovecg 6y ago
The argument has been beaten to death so I’m probably not saying anything new to most people here, but two parties is the only stable configuration. In a first-past-the-post system, the smaller parties after the first two will be very quick
603.
by lovecg 6y ago
> Poor living conditions for the bottom half of society has given this legs. Debatable. There are many conflicting explanations about the current phenomenon and some of them talk about the role of the solid and relatively secure middle c
604.
by lovecg 6y ago
But the whole idea of attaching a one dimensional number to a preference seems flawed. How do you even compare movies, books, songs you enjoy? There’s a broad sense of liking or not something in general, but attaching a 4.1 stars to this an
605.
by lovecg 6y ago
But that’s sort of how the whole thing tends to work. If a topic is niche and one sided, you’ll get your small filter bubble which doesn’t really hurt anyone. If it’s controversial, the writing will tend towards the careful middle. It’s not
606.
by lovecg 6y ago
Could you share an example of a biased article? I haven’t really noticed that (at least for the visible, high profile articles) - the coverage has been as balanced as anywhere. Where it might get “extreme” is on niche topics that few people
607.
by lovecg 6y ago
That’s one thing that’s hard about it. Scaling and running the service reliably is far from trivial and this tends to be severely underestimated by “let’s just build a competitor” crowd.
608.
by lovecg 6y ago
You’re underestimating the value of immediate, global, and easily accessible coordination. Trump can try to build his own Twitter but it’s nowhere near the trivial proposition you’re making it out to be. Without this coordination mechanism
609.
by lovecg 6y ago
I admittedly don’t know much about this space, but there must be a reason these solutions didn’t take off (I don’t know whether it’s fundamental scaling issues, lack of a centralized group driving product design, or just lack of user intere
610.
by lovecg 6y ago
The point I’m making here is that a world where these companies have the power to go against the public opinion and the elected government officials would be a scarier one to live in. If Google and Apple feel powerful enough to uphold the p
611.
by lovecg 6y ago
I’ve just read the other HN post about Section 230 so I’m obviously an expert: Section 230 is incredibly important in protecting the internet. It’s why no one can sue HN for what you and I write here, and even why no one can sue _you_ for s
612.
by lovecg 6y ago
It would greatly streamline the NSA operations for one.
613.
by lovecg 6y ago
I had a similar experience. Twitter was amazing in the early days of Covid for discovering high quality information when following researchers and front line workers. But all my efforts to keep politics out of my feed were futile. All it ta
614.
by lovecg 6y ago
In this case you had people with flags bearing a specific person’s name on them. Certainly muting the only person bearing that name will have a direct effect.
615.
by lovecg 6y ago
It does have a moderating effect in a literal sense: it takes more than a few seconds to arrange a press conference.
616.
by lovecg 6y ago
There’s a general anxiety of a big company taking a way a big chunk of your life on a whim. It’s not fun to be banned by Google or Amazon. I’m not doing anything wrong to get banned, but that seems backwards somehow. (“don’t break the law a
617.
by lovecg 6y ago
That’s an interesting train of thought. I also wonder about content that’s been modified in some significant way (fact check labels not clearly separated from the content itself for example) by the provider: is there a point where the prov
618.
by lovecg 6y ago
So in other words you want them to remove even more content (no one wants to be held liable for Trump’s tweets)? Sounds pro-censorship to me.
619.
by lovecg 6y ago
Let me introduce you to centuries of thinking on this subject and the concept of “natural monopoly”.
620.
by lovecg 6y ago
It’s good that corporations care about (or are afraid of) the government and public opinion. The alternative would be worse.
621.
by lovecg 6y ago
Once we live in the world where the iPhone is the only option then yes, you can make the case that it’s anti-consumer.
622.
by lovecg 6y ago
I agree. It would be very dangerous if people in charge, say, prohibited Apple (a private company) from removing Parler. Thankfully, the 1st amendment is still in power and Apple is free to express itself as it sees fit.
623.
by lovecg 6y ago
You can... buy a different phone?
624.
by lovecg 6y ago
s/express themselves peacefully/spread lies and coordinate attacks with impunity/
625.
by lovecg 6y ago
That sounds plausible. Police do not calmly wave rioters through in one area while their colleagues are getting beat up elsewhere. Once us vs. them mentality settles in it’s game over.
626.
by lovecg 6y ago
The links don’t open for me, sorry. I’ve seen the first video judging by the thumbnail; it shows a cop waving to someone offscreen. Other cops maybe? Given that we have plenty of video of police being attacked I’ll need stronger evidence fo
627.
by lovecg 6y ago
Yes I understand where you’re coming from. To me, if these are the facts it just seems like your garden variety bureaucratic screw up. I agree it’s bad optics, and I’d like all of my government agencies to be supremely competent but we have
628.
by lovecg 6y ago
> If Trump intent was to overthrow these legacy fossils it would have happened yesterday. And Putin said that if his security forces wanted to kill the opposition politician, they would have succeeded. If it didn’t work, it’s not a big d
629.
by lovecg 6y ago
Yes I have, thanks for your concern. I have a cache of these links from earlier when I cared enough to argue. So you agree that the framing of “they pulled out a mysterious box from under the table” is completely false? That was the part be
630.
by lovecg 6y ago
Honest question, by that logic, do you think Charles Manson was wrongly imprisoned?

More ›