I didn't mean this as a real example, I meant it as illustrative. I've never seen anyone banned for supporting Reform (I've never seen anyone banned at all! I try to limit my internets).
975 karma · joined January 20, 2020
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/protester-outside-colum...
Without knowing the denominator (# of accounts, # of posts, # of new accounts), I'm not sure what to make of it.
Even then, we want the subset of bans that were for political reasons (i.e., supporting Labour is fine, supporting Reform is hate speech). According to the actual report (which can be found here: https://transparency.x.com/content/dam/transparency-twitter/...), of 5,296,870 account suspensions only 2,361 were for "hateful conduct", while 57,185 were "violent and hateful entities" and 1,102,778 were for "abuse and harassment". Eyeing the categories, those are the only ones that seem plausible for political motivation.
So it's some subset of that 1,162,324 (22% of total) that we're interested in. I would bet the vast, vast majority of those either aren't politically motivated, or are politically motivated but in such a way that virtually everyone would agree (e.g., torturing puppies for fun).
And, of course, among politically-motivated bans, not all will be in support of Red Team / against Blue Team. Some will be bans of Red Team supporters, and for some the valence won't be clear.
Totally. The pro-Palestine protesters at U.S. universities are often overtly pro-HAMAS too (or instead).
I don't think that's what's at stake here. I would assume the vast, vast majority of deportations are some version of "You're here illegally because you snuck in / overstayed your visa / lied on some form. Here's a ride back to $COUNTRY"
I think what is at stake is the small, small % of deportations that are because of particular speech or actions that aren't transparently crime (e.g., stealing a car is transparently crime).
And to answer your question, I don't know. While it doesn't appear to me that the Americans are reaching the highest possible standards of due process, "no" due process is pretty obviously false. And I don't think it's an issue of the accusations being true or false, either--my impression is the facts aren't in dispute, it's what happens based on the facts that is.
OK, all of that said: my guess is the people being deported for supporting HAMAS aren't HAMAS supporters in some sort of deep, true, essential way. They're kids or young people who are swept up in a fad.
idk if there's much I can do here. Carole is a respected scientist. So is Steven. Carole is a fellow of this institute as a result of having to find new patrons because of her cancellation, not the other way around. Your understanding of the situation re sex and gender is completely incorrect.
My impression that the rate of censorship overall has plummeted. Pre-Elon, it was easy to get banned for wrongthing. People would gang up on wrongthinkers, mass-report them, etc.
I wonder what the rates of actual bans have been.
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/02/15/carole-hooven-wh...
It's quite simple, IMHO, and not a free speech issue. Americans don't owe entry to everyone who shows up at their borders, nor do they owe them a full suite of rights and legal protections once they're admitted.
The "diversity" thought police had very strong views about what the only acceptable thoughts were. These people are like, "if we could get it up to 30% that would be a huge victory". Actual diversity in thought at top American universities would be a boon.
There are real people, even smart people, on the other team. They have thoughts, kids, impressive degrees, goals unrelated to politics. They enjoy sunshine and hiking. They think they're doing what they're doing for good reasons. They believe themselves to be good people. They might even believe you to be a good person.
Also, if you're an academic seeking employment, your work and professional connections will make it clear.
If you let Harvard do "merit-based hiring", they'll move a little in the direction of actually complying with employment law, but not much. If you institute a regime such as the one that existed for race and sex for decades (i.e., if you don't have "enough" black people, you need to show how your recruitment pipeline means that's necessarily the case, like not enough get the required type of degree), you'll get much better compliance.
These demands seem on point to me. I see a lot of uninformed opposition in this thread, but I think most of you all don't have any idea how it actually is at elite universities.
- Political tests for employment, or continued employment. The UC system (a public system!) is one of the worst offenders here, but Harvard is really, really bad.
- Overt discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion (or lack thereof). The number of academics who aren't even aware that this sort of discrimination is illegal is mind-boggling. I would say 9 months ago it was 80% or more. The number of emails I've received either indicating a candidate isn't viable because of his genitalia or skin color, or telling me this is the reason I didn't get the job is crazy. They literally don't know and don't care.
- Compelled speech. This is a bright line we have so far, as a society, successfully succeeded in not crossing. Harvard and other elite universities were crossing it, and the Biden admin's Title IX rules overtly crossed it. A bad look, to put it mildly.
- Widespread censorship, to the point where we (social scientists) have developed code to talk about certain things "nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry on our campus" hahaha...dear lord.
And these aren't small effects. It's not 55% / 45% type scenarios. You have to view the Administration's requests in the light of: Harvard is 95+% Blue Team, and that's largely because they actively filter. There are plenty of people who aren't willing to bend the knee who don't have jobs because of it. Harvard has created an intellectual monoculture. They want "diversity" in the sense that they want people who look different on the outside, but who are all the same on the inside.
Asking for monitoring to make sure they're no longer illegally and immorally discriminating in hiring and admission is warranted, indeed it would be kind of crazy to not monitor. They'll just continue racist and sexist hiring otherwise.
What's in this letter is a reasonable set of asks in response to a situation that is so off the rails it's hard to describe.
Steelman, don't straw man.
One of the advantages of hardware kill switches, shutters on cameras, and the like is social signaling: other people can see them, and can see them being used. If I put my mass-manufactured phone on the table, and you can see the hardware sensors switch is "off", you can be quite sure I'm not recording you.
I think there's a chance for us to normalize this sort of thing, and make it table stakes for a lot of interactions. In a meeting room and there isn't a shutter on the camera? That's breaking the rules and we need to find one. And so on.
Relevant to this discussion, another thought I had is location- and QoS-aware enabling and disabling of the cell radios so I'm using wifi whenever I can, automatically. If I have a good internet connection other than through the cell radio, the cell radio is shut off.
Thank you again for your thoughtful reply and your work.
GrapheneOS gives us a way to resist. The convenience of having a modern phone is hard to give up, and with GrapheneOS you can have 90% of that convenience while reducing much of the surveillance and attack surface. Now, we just need a pixel phone with two big hardware switches, sliders on each side of the phone: one kills the radios, and the other kills the sensors (cameras, microphones). When you want to take a call, just flip the big slider switch up to activate cameras and mics.
Thank you to strcat and the rest of the team! If you don't use GrapheneOS, I would consider it. You can donate here: https://grapheneos.org/donate And if you have the right kind of programming skills, why not help out?
"A variety of designs and colors" I only see a very few actually available, even via the internet (when I've looked). But you're probably right. I lived in the U.S. for a while, where variety in receptacles is easily obtainable.
Leave it to the British to shoot themselves in the foot for no reason. Why not Schuko / Europlug? Because we have to have our own standard that's worse, that's why.
The entirety of Europe would not come close to making a majority of countries. Even if I grant you the "entirety of Europe", I bet I'm still right that most (i.e., more than half) of countries reserve the right to search your device at the border, and will compel you to give the password.
For instances where the authorities wish to suspect you of a crime, looks like France was prepared to compel you to give a password in 2022: https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/news/french-court-rules-...
EU-wide, 2024: https://www.politico.eu/article/police-can-access-mobile-pho...
In the U.S., I believe you are covered by your 5th Amendment self-incrimination protections. I have some recollection that there are situations where authorities will compel you, like if you're not the one being accused of the crime.
Should Americans be subject to search-for-no-reason at their own border? No, and I hope that as these border issues work their way through the legal system this will get sorted out. Please note that the CBP can say whatever they want about you having to give them a phone password, but you don't have to. They might keep your phone for a while and fuck around with it.
"Which one's the donation to the rebels?"
"The Monero, obvously..."
I bet there's a small difference in the means between red and blue, but not much. The available literature exaggerates it because of publication bias / for political reasons. I guess what I'm saying here is: most people are idiots on both sides of the spectrum.
Team Blue has managed to capture more of the intellectual elite (nearly all of the institutions except the Supreme Court), which is probably the thing you're feeling here. I don't think they've managed to capture the hearts and minds of that much of the intellectual elite, though...they've just managed to create chilling effects, spirals of silence, suppress free speech, compel other speech, etc. Which is a huge part of why we are where we are.
In any event, I stand by my original comment. Painting them as one-dimensional doesn't help you. They aren't. Trump is...hard to understand, but Musk and Vance are smart people. There are a lot of other smart people involved on Team Red. Insofar as you operate on the assumption your opponents are as simple as you claim, you shoot yourself in the foot.
Enjoy your week!
Happy to engage, just need to understand :-)
There are real people, even smart people, on the other team. They have thoughts, kids, impressive degrees, goals unrelated to politics. They enjoy sunshine and hiking. They think they're doing what they're doing for good reasons. They believe themselves to be good people. They might even believe you to be a good person.