molbioguy

12 ms·

91.
by molbioguy 6y ago
Thanks. I removed the unnecessary 'bordering on'. The intent was to say they're unconstitutional in my view.
92.
by molbioguy 6y ago
These letters are potentially unconstitutional actions. First amendment rights can be violated by entities other than the government. As pointed out in [1], the government can't induce a company to do something that were government to
93.
Ask HN: What happened to twofactorauth.org?
3 points by molbioguy 6y ago|1 comments
94.
by molbioguy 6y ago
One of the points brought up in the article that I think is becoming pernicious is dicrediting by association. Any view that is also positively regarded by an extremist group (right or left) becomes evidence of the author's support fo
95.
by molbioguy 6y ago
Perhaps you should articulate a well-defined definition of fascism and provide arguments for why you clasify someone as a fascist if you are going to criticize someone else whose viewpoint is dfferent. Calling out someone for 'obvious
96.
by molbioguy 6y ago
This is exactly what my wife said when she went to that site. Synethesia is personal in its details.
97.
by molbioguy 6y ago
Slightly off-topic, but I think it's important to recognize that Parler was placed in the unfair position of having to perfect it's moderation systems in a very short time as their user base ramped up exponentially. Twitter et al
98.
by molbioguy 6y ago
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
99.
by molbioguy 6y ago
This is misleading. The ID requirements were there to provide a 'verified' account status similar to Twitter's blue check mark. It wasn't some arbitrary requirement. I bet Twitter requires this as well for the verified
100.
by molbioguy 6y ago
Looks very "Martian". I could easily imagine this was a rover photo from the future.
101.
by molbioguy 6y ago
Then see [0] which points out that Brandenburg vs Ohio makes hate speech protected unless there is direct incitement. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...
102.
by molbioguy 6y ago
The article linked does mention Parler, but focuses more heavily on YouTube, FaceBook, Twitter and Redit.
103.
by molbioguy 6y ago
Ouch! This isn't my area and you're right I haven't researched this topic in any depth (though I did look at Diaspora), so I'm not surprised it shows. My original comment was around meta-ethics and this is pretty far fro
104.
by molbioguy 6y ago
>With federation, the content can be stored on any platform, with hooks to pull in into your feed. >At that point, the differentiators are UX quality, level and type of moderation, data licensing model and tracking/spying/ad
105.
by molbioguy 6y ago
> Unless you're trying to create a gigantic following (presumably to make money), why would that matter? Is that what you think this is about? Money? Censorship is almost always about power and the desire to destroy opposition. It i
106.
by molbioguy 6y ago
Thanks for the explanation. Sounds like it would be a move in the right direction. I think the weak link is that until there is true competion, the big platforms will simply exercise their rights to ban posts from people they dislike rega
107.
by molbioguy 6y ago
>1. All social media platforms are required to share APIs to allow other platforms (e.g., Diaspora, Mastodon, etc.) to pull as well as post content from/to the larger platforms; Genuinely cool idea, but how would this work from a te
108.
by molbioguy 6y ago
I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook. But Twitter seems to be a unique channel for global communication. You may be right that we shouldn't expect to have global reach, but if some people have that opportun
109.
by molbioguy 6y ago
I don't disagree. But to me, that concensus is embodied in laws. Morals are still relative, not absolute, though they may be widely shared.
110.
by molbioguy 6y ago
Good arguments. And I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook - I was thinking of Twitter.
111.
by molbioguy 6y ago
No argument that Facebook is currently within its rights to censor anyone they want for any reason they want. I think the debate is around whether they should have those protections, given that at present they are virtually a monopoly with
112.
by molbioguy 6y ago
According to that principle, you can do anything you want under the umbrella that you find it ethical. Who made you the arbiter of ethics or morals? That's why there are laws. Laws provide objectivity.
113.
by molbioguy 6y ago
So, at worst, delete the post, not ban the user (though I don't support that). In my view, the posts are inferred by some to incite destruction, but there are equal grounds to say that no explicit order was made in any post. Again, i
114.
by molbioguy 6y ago
> You do not have to make a Facebook account, after all, and since Facebook is not the only game in town ... Isn't that part of the problem? Facebook (and Twitter) are so common and widely used that alternatives are not remotely eq
115.
by molbioguy 6y ago
Agreed. It's not their responsibility to educate users. Maybe it's their responsibility to educate themselves on what their users assume.
116.
by molbioguy 6y ago
In some cases, yes. But in other cases they just represent the view of the vocal majority or those in power. Laws are official and objective, morals are relative. It's fine to base decisions on agreed upon laws. Appealing to morali
117.
by molbioguy 6y ago
It's treated as such by a lot of it's users. They do not have expectations of being censored. The items you mention are paid services. Facebook isn't for most of its users.
118.
by molbioguy 6y ago
The statements by Facebook and others pushing moral justifications around Facebook's censorship fail to entertain the possibility that even morality is subjective and relative. Facebook makes its decisions based on its own goals and
119.
Ask HN: Good books/resources on meta-ethics?
2 points by molbioguy 6y ago|0 comments
120.
by molbioguy 7y ago
One item mentioned in the article that matches my personal experience is the importance of sleep consistency or regularity. Waking up at the same time and sleeping at the same time each night has been beneficial, even if those regular time

More ›