rscoots

13 ms·

91.
by rscoots 5y ago
Who at Google do you trust to decide what information you and I are allowed to know? What is this person's qualifications? How can they be held to account when they inevitably get it wrong? Where will the highly-transparent write-ups d
92.
by rscoots 5y ago
Who at Facebook do you trust to decide who is a "sober voice" that will be artificially promoted after the organically popular are censored? What is this person's qualifications? How can they be held to account when they inev
93.
by rscoots 5y ago
I couldn't find any clips. My parent comment has been downvoted a bunch. Why?
94.
by rscoots 5y ago
This part was always the most surprising to me. How are people expected to travel long distances individually in the future? Wouldn't other carbon-reducing initiatives lessen the need for banning gas-powered calls altogether?
95.
by rscoots 5y ago
When did this happen? Genuinely curious
96.
by rscoots 5y ago
> Being blocked from twitter is ... a non-event. Good, then by extension leaving the person on Twitter is also a non-event. So it seems there is no need for censorship here!
97.
by rscoots 5y ago
>Trump was a bigger threat to journalism while he was in office than any content moderation rules Twitter could ever enforce. Besides idle threats to "open up the libel laws" and temporarily blocking random journos from white h
98.
by rscoots 5y ago
Everyone mentions 'training sets' in 2021 as if the experts in this field have not been well aware of this issue for decades. Even balanced training sets produce disparate levels of accuracy between races. It would seem computers
99.
by rscoots 5y ago
Yea but I think almost by definition the software will find a person that looks very similar to the actual perp. So then subsequent humans are more likely to make the mistake. I don't see how this is much different than artist's s
100.
by rscoots 5y ago
>offer US citizenship to Hong Kong era that want it. Can someone fill me in on how this would causally improve the prospects for Hong Kong's freedom?
101.
by rscoots 5y ago
>The fact that you consider all activities queer folk do to be adjacent to politics is so frustrating. First of all I want to make clear I do not think this and never said this. But yes, many would consider LGBT groups to be a "po
102.
by rscoots 5y ago
>Because the answer is no, LGBT youth groups aren't political None of them can ever be political? Really? Obviously groups realted to any politically-adjacent topic can run the gambit from entirely political to totally divorced from
103.
by rscoots 5y ago
And the evidence given for that influence was number of channels. Same reason John Oliver gave in his segment. I don't wanna go back-and-forth on this too much tho sorry.
104.
by rscoots 5y ago
Then why talk about the number of channels they have when this is what you actually mean? Like I said, it just strikes me as dishonest in that specific way.
105.
by rscoots 5y ago
I think that was the poster's whole point though. Name the people you trust at Facebook to make that same distinction you just made in your post. Name the process you as a consumer can use to hold those at Facebook to account when they
106.
by rscoots 5y ago
Ahh yes, generating a large righteous and hungry movement with no good ideas in place. What could possibly go wrong? I'm sure there are initiatives and policy changes the govt is pursuing in this space. We'd do well to learn about
107.
by rscoots 5y ago
But for the Senate the size discrepancy is at the state level not within state races. A senator from Connecticut has less constituents than Texas but still has to win a pure majority in Connecticut. In any case I think you'll agree t
108.
by rscoots 5y ago
That comparing 2 randomly selected companies does nothing to measure the total left/right viewership and engagement of news broadcasts. Why downvote if you didn't understand my point?
109.
by rscoots 5y ago
MSNBC is not a local network and is not the only liberal TV news broadcast in the country. Neither is Sinclair the only conservative.
110.
by rscoots 5y ago
Why mention company size and not the far more relevant total viewership #s?
111.
by rscoots 5y ago
I'm on the left but I always saw the argument of >how many local news outlets are owned by the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group. ...to itself be dishonest 'journalistic' spin, in this case perpetuated by John Oliver a
112.
by rscoots 5y ago
Citing Wikipedia aside, the WHO exists in large part to get large, competing nations to cooperate on matters of public health. This often involves placating these nations. You should take some time to read up on the many respected and quali
113.
by rscoots 5y ago
Good Q. This comment and the subject of the article remind me of a very unrelated article I just read about obscenities. "...[societal] concern [about obscenety] has been transferred from the sexual and scatological to the sociological
114.
by rscoots 5y ago
Yup. Vast majority of policing jobs youre right are pretty mundane and not esp dangerous. Policing in high crime areas can at times be a different ballgame though and more stressful/dangerous than the average would suggest.
115.
by rscoots 5y ago
>The UK is 0.5. I come from the UK, it has plenty of violent people in it. Far, far more violent crime in the US. And there's essentially no guns in the UK. Even still, rates have been falling in the US to my knowledge. Edit: For pe
116.
by rscoots 6y ago
Great stuff! But where are the Windows Vista references?
117.
by rscoots 6y ago
Yes, facebook is known for its strong stances regarding "privacy and personal information" What's glaring is that there's not even a veneer of consistency in this decision. Will they now be going back and censoring all a
118.
by rscoots 6y ago
This podcast from last year answers all these questions. Although the answers are not encouraging... Very eye-opening stuff: https://youtu.be/qv_hokG2oSo
119.
by rscoots 6y ago
That post really does read like a parody haha. Such a desire to shield mega-corporations from any moral culpability since they think it serves their personal sensibilities. Very naive.
120.
by rscoots 6y ago
Then why invoke the "hundreds or thousands" point at all? Seems irrelevant and sort of crass given the gravity of the other qualms you have.

More ›