charliesharding

This view was a major building block of civilization for thousands of years. Weird how willingly people throw it away these days and then wonder why family is collapsing and mental illness is widespread and increasing

I see what you're saying but it's already a problem for them. 100% of videos coming onto the platform will be . Instead, the discussion we're having is where they should draw the line on what gets removed. Is it videos that break the law? Or videos that they deem inappropriate? We can vote to change the law, we can't vote to change their policies. Users can go to a new platform but there is nothing close to an equivalent competitor. (Name me one popular, full time content creator who did it without YouTube)

I don't like the sound of government interference at all, trust me. However when people are being silenced and demonetized because they hold political views that YouTube doesn't like I feel that it's necessary in order to uphold the users constitutional rights. Many experts have speculated that YouTube operates at a loss - is it fair that they gain market dominance this way and then flex their power to remove ideas they don't like?

That isn't what I said nor what I meant. They are overstepping on the censorship front by continually constricting their "acceptable" guidelines based off of their very fluid internal rules. "In 2018 alone, we made more than 30 policy updates. One of the most complex and constantly evolving areas we deal with is hate speech" They even state it as a point of pride - they continually shift the lines on what is "hate speech" and because of their market dominance, those they target are effectively shut down entirely just because the execs at YouTube/Google are intent on pushing their political viewpoints into company policy. I'm saying that this behavior shouldn't be acceptable for a company that has such a strong grip on societal discourse. Either curate, publish, and be accountable by law, or be a platform that removes only the videos that break the law and allow users to filter out content they deem inappropriate.

True, however this wraps back to the publisher vs platform debate. If they don't want the government forcing them to host content and uphold free speech then they have to take responsibility for the content in the eyes of the law. Currently they're having it both ways, free to ban ideas they don't like and control the content they deliver without being responsible for libel/slander.

Expecting more from the BBC will only result in further disappointment. They know their audience and know that they can drop a word like science for immediate, unquestionable authority on the topic without having to provide substantial evidence.

This is why I bristle when people use that word these days. It's used as a trump card and as a way to castigate those who people disagree with politically (science deniers) without having to have a real conversation. Science is messy, contradictory, and constantly evolving and that's why true scientists love it! It is by no means something to stand blindly behind and to use as a baton against your enemies.

They are left leaning according to mediabiasfactcheck and gender discrimination is a heavily politicized topic. Their agenda is also about clicks; gender discrimination claims will generate more clicks than a science article

What were the primary motivations for homeschooling? Cultural? Political? Quality? Access?

Also how do you go about socializing them? I've been considering it myself

This title is misleading considering their findings. Only in states that were already moving towards legalization and reduced bias did you see a sharper reduction after federal legalization. States that weren't moving towards legalization only dug in their heels and had increased bias after federal legalization. Looks like another case of the government trying to speak for everyone with a one-size-fits-all solution and only serving to polarize people further.

"Although states passing legislation experienced a greater decrease in bias following legislation, states that never passed legislation demonstrated increased antigay bias following federal legalization."

Would you want alcohol to be banned because it causes harm as well? It's about losing personal liberty - people will dig in their heels.

As someone who drunkenly bought 10 keys and unboxed gloves I can confirm. I'm now competing at a much higher level.

Seriously though I think the loot box model is ethically wrong. However, I don't believe it's wrong to offer skins for sale - this is no different than people wearing different brands of clothing when they compete in sports

How would they get anyone to pay anything if their services are being offered by the government as a basic human right? They lose all bargaining power if they can't refuse their services.

Interesting solution - I don't know how the visa system works but if these doctors decided to switch careers after they got here in order to provide better for themselves/their family is there anything stopping them? It still seems like it's misaligning the incentive structure to produce the desired results.

At the base of the issue is that being a doctor is a difficult, stressful job that requires high intelligence and sometimes even high physical dexterity. While it's nice to think that people would choose to do it because it's moral to take care of people, I don't think it's fair to expect that these people wouldn't want to be appropriately financially rewarded for their gifted skillset.

People want to go because it is a lucrative career. Lowering the education requirements would result in lower quality of care.

Compressing "unnecessarily" high wages will inevitably cause less people to want to assume large amounts of debt for the necessary education and training to become doctors. The doctors that I know chose their career explicitly because of the salary and status that comes with being a doctor. Remove the incentive and you will diminish the supply. Diminishing the supply while also promising free care to all (increasing demand greatly) will result in very long wait times and diminished quality of care.

You're right and evolution is easily misunderstood as deterministic when it is only the result of random mutations in a population over time. Every variation you see does not mean it has a positive evolutionary advantage, only that those it wasn't prohibitive to reproduction

No, and ironically the poster of that comment is doing the exact same thing, judging people for judging people.

Judging is a natural, normal, unavoidable thing we all do.

Every human is "on the spectrum". The guidelines are extremely flimsy and if you've ever been stressed in a social situation you're essentially on the spectrum. In software engineering I hear it almost as a joking term of endearment.

Ironically, conversations geared towards reaching real solutions are not as prone to receiving widespread attention since they involve multivariate discussion and critical thought. Meanwhile, flimsy grandstanding is a popular way of making people feel moral while pushing any real conversations aside and therefore making the problem worse.

I think evolution must have affected it strongly, right? I imagine the men who weren't very good at this were more likely to be killed in battle and therefore not able to reproduce

As opposed to leading to prosperity? Call me crazy but that makes sense

Right, for getting in good physical shape. It can't hurt - but in terms of direct impact to your gameplay, I think the meditation/calming exercises of yoga would be more beneficial

Yoga specifically makes a lot of sense to me. Recently I've been getting back into playing CS:GO and it's shocking how much your physical state affects your gameplay. Tense up and you become much more erratic with your aim and movement. In games where the margins are so thin and twitchy reactions are required, anything that can calm you down and set your mind right are vital.

Not so sure about doing squats though..

Hot on the heels of their announcement yesterday. The irony is sweet

Never claimed they were.

"it would really depend on what you want to use it for" It was my understanding that social media platforms were for connecting with people and sharing content/ideas with them.

If you're trying to rebut my claim, you're going to have to actually do it, not point to something else and claim that it does.

Right, because it's extremely easy to find other brands that are effective in the same way. A social network's purpose and efficacy is directly related to the number of users in that network. Not at all analogous

A 15 second google shows the top social media sites based off monthly active users. Tell me an equivalent, viable platform to rival Facebook/Instagram that doesn't share the same political values.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/247597/global-traffic-to...

I get what you're saying but if they're going to curate what content that they put forth, then they cease to be a platform and they become a publisher. Publishers are liable for much more under the eyes of the law. They can't cherry pick the advantages from the two systems without any of the drawbacks.

It's the publisher vs platform debate. If you're curating content based off of promoting your company's vision of acceptable free speech, then you become a publisher and a whole different set of rules apply to you. You're liable for much more in the eyes of the law.

You can't cherry pick the advantages of both and hide under the guise of being an open platform.

As a non-white person living in America, this is scary to see. It's a policy targeting a specific race of people's content... How is that not racist? It will only foment more resentment and retaliatory sentiment while serving to make "certain kinds of racism" socially acceptable as long as it's the "right race" to discriminate against. Ban ethno-nationalists if you feel so inclined, not {{insertRaceHere}} nationalism. Otherwise this is a slippery slope to head down

I thought the same thing until I got to this part:

"Based on white and black U.S.-born adults ... Asians and Hispanics, who would make Americans appear even shorter, are excluded to better illuminate how the U.S. compares to Western Europeans."

Turns it from a "well, duh" to a "wow, interesting".