I got a notice that registered mail failed to deliver from the IRS. Since I have no other dealings/reason for them to send me mail, I'm assuming I'm one of the ones. Will find out Monday.
And for the record, all my bitcoin dealings have been this year (late starter) so I have nothing to worry about with unclaimed income. (Thank you flying spaghetti monster)
I blame the internet for much of why politics is the way it is today. This is why I too like HN, it doesn't seem to take a side, as far as I can tell and I can ignore most political stuff if I want.
As others have mentioned, the Las Vegas shooter is one recent example. Congressman being shot down on a baseball field. Dismissing facts by calling it "rambling" doesn't make it any less true.
Then what do you intend to contribute by just saying yes? The congressman is a totally fair example IMO, even though he's technically not in the scope of my question. He was thoroughly covered in the news, however. Las Vegas isn't really a good example in my mind as I haven't seen any credible sources indicating it was a left wing attack or otherwise politically motivated. Either way, he too was obviously covered by the media.
You asked a question, and I gave you the answer. If you choose the believe the far left is harmless and has never killed/hurt anyone, there's nothing I can do to stop you. Enjoy your day.
Many platforms have been doing this. It's likely because the majority of tech folks are left leaning, whether leadership in the company or audience. It's basic marketing.
I'm not sad that some of these really hateful people are blocked, that's a given. But choosing sides is dangerous. Not every conservative is spewing hate speech, in fact many from the left (even celebrities) post what could be considered hate speech.
> It's likely because the majority of tech folks are left leaning, whether leadership in the company or audience
I agree. I don't think it's being done out of malice, just that tech is so politically homogeneous that not enough people realize this is out of line to keep these sorts of projects from going forward. The ball gets rolling and there's not enough people voicing a strong enough objection to stop it. I think in the future we'll see this as a failure to acknowledge that tech is not as diverse as the population in general. Car companies aren't stupid. They know they don't know everything so they do customer research, get focus groups, etc, etc, to help them determine how to tune things to be attractive to the target audience. Tech's target audience is the global population but tech mostly fails to account for all the customers that don't live on the West coast or Northeast of the US. We saw the same thing when music was somewhat democratized by the internet in the 2000s. Country and hip-hop surged in popularity because a bunch of well of white music producers in a few cities on the coasts didn't have the perfect picture of what everyone wanted.
Tech culture is somewhat homogeneous, especially in LA and SF - but I certainly wouldn't say tech itself is homogenous.
I'm fairly extreme politically, as an anarcho-capitalist - though it's important to note that despite the "anarchist" root, I'm as peaceful a person as can be and my views are literally founded upon the premise that forcing others to do something is immoral. I'm also happy to discuss my philosophy and do so under my real name. If you search me, you'll find years of posts across multiple communities where I actively discuss my views and the views of others. It's enough of a part of my life that I've decided that I can never completely separate it from my profession life because it influences the way I think about the world so thoroughly. As a result, I've even been asked about it multiple times in job interviews.
I give the above as background; my point in it is to say that I've been approached privately by many people who are outside the mainstream orthodoxy of tech. Some want to say they approve of some parts of what I profess, others want to pit their ideas against mine in a private and safe way. Others still seem to just want to be able to admit to someone that they feel that they have to hide who they are at work.
There is absolutely something of a chilling effect on political speech in tech. One of the reasons it's so difficult to discuss is because the people who are made examples of seem to go one of two ways - they flee the scene of the controversy and try to minimize the impact of the controversy (e.g. Brenden Eich), or they embrace it and push hard in the opposite direction, which makes them end up being seen as skewing very hard to the extreme right (e.g. Andrew Torba).
I don't have data to support my assertion, but my experience leads me to believe that there are more right-wing people in tech than it appears, and that there is a significantly higher number of libertarians of all flavors in tech than the general population.
How is tech "politically homogenous"? If anything, tech folks are a bit more likely to skew away from the political center, but it's not like they consistently lean "left" as a group.
I don't know if the people that make up tech lean left over all if you summed them up but the ones that don't lean left sure seem to keep their mouth shut in the workplace which has the same effect.
Not every conservative is getting banned, either. "Fascist parties and neo nazis are getting banned, therefore ordinary conservatives are also being targeted" really makes no sense.
Can you provide a couple of examples of this? In particular, I don't recognize who you're referring to in this section:
> [M]ainstream conservatives literally voted a white supremacist into government. They almost voted a pedophile into government.
--
> Sure there are jerks on the Democratic side but we tend to remove them from authority until they've shown appropriate contrition for an extended period of time.
Is it possible that you're seeing this through you own political biases? I freely admit that I generally see the issues with left-wing figures more easily than those on the right, so please don't think I'm being "whataboutist", because that's not my intention at all.
When I read the above, the first reactive thought I had was "What about Ralph Northam? He is in his college yearbook either in blackface or a Klan robe. What about Justin Fairfax? He's been accused of multiple sexual assaults. Both of them are still in their elected positions"
Of course, this isn't to say the GOP doesn't have its own members with serious problems - instead, my point is that it isn't any easier to conflate conservatives with far right extremists than it is to conflate progressives with far left extremists. From where I stand, it seems to be completely a matter of what biases the viewer holds.
Just my perspective, but I thought the Northam story got blasted for days. That he's still in office is staggering to me.
That being said, The Democratic party absolutely does not take their own medicine on this one. They're just as likely to circle the wagons, I just think they're more susceptible to a particular kind of shame (though not due to any kind of moral conviction, I'd chalk it up to something more like vanity.) I'm more or less as left as they come, but the idea that the Democrats have the moral high ground when it comes to keeping their people in line doesn't square with what I've seen.
>When I read the above, the first reactive thought I had was "What about Ralph Northam? He is in his college yearbook either in blackface or a Klan robe. What about Justin Fairfax? He's been accused of multiple sexual assaults. Both of them are still in their elected positions"
Therein lies the danger of bias and silencing "one side" of a politicial conversation. Because the mainstream media does not blast the story everywhere and call for their heads, bad people are allowed to do bad things, even if they're members of a party that does a lot of good things.
I believe the term for what you just did is 'victim-blaming'.
The alt-right label, for example, has fuzzy boundaries, and this is leveraged to apply that label to anyone without feeling the need to verify the accused's position or statements in more detail. It could be argued that the right has similar issues around applying the label of 'communist', 'socialist', etc.
The intent in these cases is to cordon the accused off, lighting a signal flare that their ideas are too extreme to be worth considering. This causes real harm to real ability to discuss things in the moderate spectrum if everyone is being labeled as being at the edges.
> But choosing sides is dangerous. Not every conservative is spewing hate speech, in fact many from the left (even celebrities) post what could be considered hate speech.
I mean, the headline talks about far-right hate groups, and not about conservatives in general. Why is it that a lot of conservatives seem to take it personally when hate groups are banned? I think this victimhood complex is unhealthy. Facebook is not choosing sides by banning hate groups.
The issue is that there is a far-right and not a far-left. When you say: this is what is acceptable to us, there has to be a way to look at a side and say there is the limit.
The other issue is that the approach these days to minimize or eliminate opposition by making them a “hate group.”
I have a standard test for this based on a very simple hypothesis: Hate is hate regardless who is targeted. If someone write a hate speech about the Jewish people and rewrite every mentioning of Judaism to Islam, then it is still hate speech. The target of hate doesn't change the fact that it is hate.
So I apply the same to feminism and rewrite every mentioning of men to immigrants and women to nationalists. Simple word for word rewrite. Hate being hate, if the rewrite look like hate speech then the original text must also be hate speech.
If Facebook is not choosing sides then such test should work to determine if something is hate or not.
It's not that conservatives don't want hate groups banned, every reasonable person does. It's because of the ever expanding definition of what hate speech is.
I'm no conservative, but I definitely see their point when "I love America" is hate speech, yet "Straight White Men should die" is not. Look at Twitter as an example.
I don't disagree that detecting hate isn't a hard problem. But I also feel it isn't as ambiguous as you make it out to be.
"X loves Y" - not hate speech.
"X should die" - hate speech.
Now, context to these could change it. But the question is, can two random person proficient in the same language tell apart similarly the two kinds of speech?
If a human can perform the task with pretty good accuracy, then it's doable.
Now if we're saying that even people can't tell apart hate and violence, we're in more trouble. But as of now, I think it's a pretty strong claim to make that people can't actually decipher hateful tones in text.
I think the enforcement is way more imbalanced than you realize.
Here's an example, how about instead of "X should die", it's "lol, can all X just die?". They give it a little jocular spin with the "Lol", but it's effectively the same comment.
Here's the deal: if X in that comment is "black people", you get banned on Twitter. If it's "white people" you don't get banned.
Now personally, I don't mind the comment in either form. I don't believe it's an actual threat to anyone. It's kind of edgelordy, but whichever. And beyond that, I'd be very unhappy if someone got banned for something like that, because it just stomps over whatever other, more legitimate commentary they might've had.
I'm interested in having conversations, even imperfect ones. All conversations are imperfect.
But OK, let's move past "X should die".
But it's not just that. Any discussion where one side can be spun as a vulnerable minority (merit be damned), that minority status can be used to silence the other side.
So for example, consider transwomen in women's sports. There's a not-insignificant push among trans activists to claim that transwomen are "biologically female". I think the logic with that is: 1. sex is fuzzier than most people realize (debatable) and 2. hormone treatments are sufficient to tip someone over the line into the other biological sex (also debatable).
Referring to a trans woman as male for the sake of argument runs you a serious risk of getting permabanned from Twitter if the person you're arguing with is particularly ornery.
Hum, you make claims of this will get you banned and this won't. What are those assumptions built on?
I'm not saying it's not the case, I don't use Twitter and don't know their processes.
That said, in my work, we deal with similar scenarios. Normally, you look for trends and you have different levels of enforcement for different risks.
So say you have automated systems doing monitoring which flags and alerts of possible bad behavior. Normally these are scored and categorized. For some score and category, you might take an automatic actions. Say, block the comment from posting at all and tell the user to reword in a non hateful manner their idea. Or you delete the comment. Now these infractions go towards the account. When there's many if them, indicating a trend, it promotes the account for manual review.
At that point, a person does a holistic overview of the account and its infractions. If they can reverse some if them, feeding back into the automated monitoring and alerting to improve its false positive rates, and they can confirm them, to add weight to those labels. Finally, they can choose to contact the account holder to justify themselves, give them a warning, take partial enforcement like deleting certain posts, or outright ban them.
Even the ban has degrees. You could have the account ban, but be allowed to create a new account. Or you can be banned with cross account detection, so your IP, email, address, credit cards etc. are all banned to make it hard for you to even sign up again.
And the processes in place and their rules are constantly adjusted and reevaluated. And there's even backfill mechanisms, so if rules are relaxed in the future, prior enforcement can be reversed if they no longer hold against the new rules for example.
Would you find that if say Facebook or Twitter were to operate in a somewhat similar fashion that it would seem reasonable?
They say "anonymous" but right after signing up with my work email they followed me on Twitter. The two are only connected by my name. Could be coincidence, but probably not.
Also, the community there is pretty toxic. I understand it's mostly the design of the app to be a place where people can say what they want, but I think it attracts a certain type that I'm not terribly interested in getting close with.
I used to view Digital Ocean as kind of a play toy, good for experimenting and not much else, but these days they're a key player for sure and they've been a super reliable VPS host. Can't wait to try out some container stuff.
>I can tell someone's political leanings just by whether or not they think Google is biased.
If someone described my political leanings they would certainly use the words "liberal," as well as "socialist," "communist," and maybe even sometimes "anarchist." Just to save you from having to engage in Strawman or false assumptions. I'm curious what my political leanings have to do with your claim.
Do you have evidence that Google search/news/other products are "biased?" I have never seen evidence of actual evidence by the company itself demonstrating bias against conservative ideologies. I have seen plenty of evidence that for example the internet as a whole is biased against conservatives, or even really reality, but never google. I would definitely agree that the majority of employees can be described as liberal, but then again, Google's headquarters are in the Bay Area, so that's hardly Google's fault.
Here's a writeup, I am genuinely trying to find evidence of this, because nobody that believes google is censoring conservatives has been able to get it for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google . Check discussion and sources for lots more info.
> I have seen plenty of evidence that for example the internet as a whole is biased against conservatives, or even really reality,
This is where I stop having the conversation.
You've lost sight of what an "opinion" is and what it means. You're not alone in the world, but it's not a discussion I care to have. No amount of evidence will convince you of anything.
I do get to pull that. I choose not to engage with people locked on to their ideas, so I don't have to. Complete waste of time. The worst thing you can do me is downvote my comments.
