Facebook ‘looking into’ hiding of posts calling for PM’s resignation in India

As an example, I believe that things usually fall to the ground when dropped, but I've seen a number of counter-examples, and I'm aware of some disagreement at the margins over exactly how quickly those things fall. An extremist would say "Anyone who disagrees that things fall with an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 is a transgressor".

edit: format

Extremists believe many of the ideas of their religion with certainty, and act in accordance which can lead to behaviour that is illogical from an outside perspective or ethically unhinged. Extremists are the ones who take their religion too seriously.

You can be an extremist about other ideas too. Like a raw vegan. Arguably regular vegans too - there's no health reason to be 100% vegan vs 95% - probably the contrary.

A union cabinet minister of the country tried to personally reach out and failed. sent cops to help who now suspect foul play.

Unsurprising, and not necessarily unwanted. IDK if you mean people or politicians by "they," but (in a democracy) they're the ones who make rules. Whether it's mandating access, limiting access, moderating, censoring, allowing freedom of speech or just mandating that stated policies are followed consistently... I think social media is unquestionably a "public concern" currently.

That doesn't mean that I support Twitter censoring on behalf of Modi. But, it does demonstrate on how broken the new media is. Zuck and Dorsey have no sense of responsibility, and no idea how to take responsibility even if they did have the sense.

It goes without saying that Zuck and Dorsey have no journalistic ethic. They're not journalism, they just ate journalism. No counterpart to a journalistic ethic, or even a lip-service to one. So... they control the important chunk of media worldwide, and they truly don't know what an ethical approach would even be.

Makes Murdoch look like a saint.

A big part of the problem here, ironically, is that Twitter and FB can get away with absolute arbitrariness. It makes it easy for thuggish political types to get their way.

And hospital with on-site O2 generation should've never had any issue. Any industrial scale O2 production machinery would've had many times the capacity reserve.

But they didn't. Double digit of hospital O2 generators were out of service, and LO2 tanks were never filled to full because hospitals were saving on LO2 service.

Some hospitals with central O2 systems from either tanks, or generators simply had them disabled for unfathomable reasons, had them broken down years ago without any attempt at repair, or simply never ever used them, so they don't know how to operate them.

Right now, I believe from reports on the ground, that they need just any oxygen to hold on for 2-3 more weeks.

First hand report I got is that LO2 tankers been all around on TV, but despite that all hospitals in the area been empty of oxygen for 3-4 weeks without any resupply coming in sight, and this is in one of richest cities in India.

> Chemistry experiments won't solve this.

Tell this to people about to die. You are so cynical. 1.5-2 kg of oxygen per hour should be enough to support 2 people. 20 at least 10.

The mess, depravity, and despair I heard is such that people have already tried just anything.

Zeolite has been sold out across India for a few weeks.

Hydrogen peroxide sold out.

Any chemical which can be used to produce oxygen chemically is out of stock.

People are already blowing themselves up, and causing blackouts by following Youtube voodoo science trying to make completely unsound electrolyzer designs.

You are not getting any "proper" oxygen concentrators coming any time soon with all of above.

This design is at least less of a voodoo science than ones telling people to breath brown gas.

Ad hoc O2 is better than no O2.

200A service... , can't say how it's now, but even like 20 years ago, 100A was omnipresent in larger cities. Even with just few kilowatts you should still be easily producing above a kilogram per hour.

I'm not suggesting 200A at electrodes. The actual current will be much less with water resistance, you will obviously melt plastic if you put full short circuit current into it.

It's also welding machines themselves are not created for continuous operation, especially electronics based ones. A 100A ones will croak, and go into safety shutdown even from operating at 10% of load continuously.

> You first need a clean and secure place to store it at pressure enough to be continuously consumed by a living breathing human.

You don't have to store it, it's about continuous generation.

> Salts mixed into lye, soda, or other salts added to increase conductivity, can result in toxic chlorine and chloride fumes.

Obviously you will electrolyze chlorine if there is enough of it, but you need to really be electrolyzing sea water like salt concentration for it to be an issue.

> Please refrain from posting such garbage, especially medical information.

I will not refrain. I will talk more with you once I will see your engineering credentials, which I believe you don't have after reading all of above.

[1]https://twitter.com/elsamariedsilva/status/13867600304818954... [2] https://twitter.com/amethipolice/status/1386982878328758273?...

I myself is in the process of scouting an opening for a satellite office in India now.

The progress India made towards freer markets since a decade ago is this ->_<- much.

Best to compare it with Bloc of late eighties, early nineties.

Why should I let you scream "fuck you" over and over again in my coffee shop?

Yeah yeah, maybe social networks are the new town square blah blah. My point is that the line isn't so black and white.

> Now I'm a bit older and the Right is pro free speech and against big corporations and corporate censorship.

I'm not sure when you were talking about; since at least the 1980s the positions have been basically identical—to today, both sides complaining of institutional biases cutting against them (often both accurately, though selectively), both sides claiming support for free speech but disagreeing that what the other side advocated for was genuine freedom. The big change is that the Right recently adopted the phrase “cancel culture” after nearly 4 decades of using “political correctness” in exactly the same arguments.

Sounds more likely that as you’ve gotten older you’ve just gained more sympathy for the right and thus have given more credit to their claims of support for free speech than you used to.

>Now I'm a bit older and the Right is pro free speech and against big corporations and corporate censorship.

100 percent. When I was growing up, the Christian Right wanted to pass anti-flag burning amendments, because veterans were offended. Pornography, because children might see it. Bad words. Unpatriotic stuff, defined as socialism or communism, was a few decades before me. Also to protect morality.

Today we ban so-called hate speech and X phobic speech because 'it hurts'. And in the same way, there's a religious zealotry where if you attempt to use reason you'll be psychoanalyzed and motives attributed.

My advice is, don't engage with these people. If someone uses phraseology like words kill, words are violence, silence is violence, there is no such thing as neutrality, megaphone, we need to do better, systemic Xism, and so forth, run, don't walk away. It's a secular religious movement.

My main problem is the secular religious movement of banishing naughty thoughts has taken Silicon Valley and Madison Avenue by storm.

This is an oversimplification to the point of not agreeing with reality in any useful way.

Just a few months ago the party in power was “for free speech” while the party out of power was arguing for “limiting the reach” of certain content.

It might me more true to say that each party wants there to be more speech that it agrees with (i.e. speech that preserves or gives it more power) and less speech that it doesn’t like. There are more strategies than plain old censorship; as we saw recently drowning out the discourse with falsehoods works just as well. Few people care about some abstract ideal of “free speech”.

Why are these portrayed as hypotheticals?

Bottom line: Silicon Valley techies often suffer from a lack of education in civic matters and liberal democratic values in particular. They believe as long as Bad People have their, here's another term they often use, megaphones, taken away, then ethically it's a thumbs up.

The lack of civic education and historical education becomes evident when you ask them, OK, you support censorship and cleansing misinformation: now who decides?