constantius

Charitable prediction: It'd only take 1 big name debate to happen for this idea to become viable. Once people know about it, and the most interesting debates get funded, the debate becomes like any other desirable speaking gig: a performance with a big paycheck and audience attached.

Less charitably, however, as soon as Logosive takes off a bit, the existing debating venues (news channels, big podcasts, etc.) can just look at what debate ideas are popular and make them happen, with the promise of a bigger paycheck and a bigger audience.

Can't really find a moat for Logosive here.

> bellwether for what the british elites wants people to think

This is accurate: the BBC is definitely not seen as speaking truth to power by anyone, independent of their political allegiance.

Their coverage of the genocide was revealing of this, if one only cared to look.

> slight leftward skew, and scores highly for accuracy/reliability

Nuance matters.

That it's generally accurate and generally leans left doesn't contradict the issues raised in the article and comments. Most topics MSM reports on are not critical for artificially pushed narratives, so MSM can afford being generally accurate.

The Guardian leans way left, scores highly on accuracy, but, for a lot of leftists, has demonstrated its bias and subservience to the elite narrative by cheerleading the slander efforts against Corbyn.

Those people should have resigned in any case: whether it's over their coverage of the genocide or over some right-coded scandal doesn't matter much.

> commenters showing up suspiciously quickly > useful canary for that persons own biases

Thinking that HN is a prime target for organised covert BBC defacement (?) and making dark implications on the BBC critics' character is ridiculous. Get out of American team-based politics.

Seems to conflate capitalist elites with old people for the sake of internet clout...

The NIMBYism by people in the 70s is not related to their age, but to their acting in their own interests, as anyone else today would almost certainly have done too. The issue is lack of regulation.

The other points have literally nothing to do with old people.

What prevents us from thinking of class instead of race/gender/age/anything else?

I think people disagree with you because you take the position that, because the worst that could happen (I'm assuming nuclear war or something else "unrecoverable"?), those people are not that bad. This is a bad faith argument, because the lower end of your badness scale is pretty much unrealistic. What has been unrecoverable in human history up to now? Does that mean that no person/ideology has been "terribly terrible"?

Your debating style in your thread is also very patronising, which doesn't help.

If you fail to see the perspective of all those killed, or of the whole of the Middle East region, but only choose to see it from the point of view of the US or humanity as a species, then of course you're right.

Indeed, this might have been laudable if a lifestyle company that makes CRMs did this, but some sectors and companies are, for lack of a better word, nefarious to society, and some of the most insidiously nefarious are also adept at hiding it. How many on HN/in hacker communities boycott Meta products vs the general population, how many despise OpenAI?

Obvious watermarking that consistently gets a lot of hate from vocal minorities (devs, journalists, etc.) would probably be simply removed for the benefit of those other layers you mention.

But the watermarking layers is a fascinating idea (and extremely likely to exist), thanks!

It's rather obvious to me that the commenter is sad and pessimistic about humans' ability to do the right thing when our interest stands in the way.

The outrage is unwarranted, however pleasant it might feel. In some way, it illustrates the problem: empathy is too bothersome.

Balanced article.

This actually seems positive, if it wasn't for the huge limit on freedom of expression.

The main effect of something like this is to limit divergence from accepted wisdom.

As far as I know, these people are not contributing in any significant way to innovation, so this law is not hindering the progress of science/tech/whatever (compared to if that law applied to people posting on arxiv for example).

Their main contribution seems to be the spreading of bullshit, and degree-holders are less likely to do this (be it thanks to competence or desire to conform to their field's conventions). The law also addresses bullshit explicitly (ads and AI content).

But it's a limit on human rights, so overall worrysome.

The effect they seek could be achieved through some kind of independently granted certification displayed on videos. So degrees are optional, but not having that seal of approval and talking about technical topics would increase viewers' scepticism.

> as per this article

This is one article that says the European Commission is not aware of 90% of EU fraud cases: at this scale, this can't be brushed off as being the fault of member states.

> and the articles in ftm.eu

No. That is not what FTM investigations show. At all.

You're right, Slack/Trello alt is what I view it as, but the Trello part was more relevant for me.

For anyone reading, Zulip (for Slack) and Wekan (for Trello) are good replacements.

I needed to switch an org away from Slack, seems like Zulip has a new customer :).

https://zulip.com/ https://wekan.github.io/

We seem to be exposed to different information on the EU.

> notorious for rich people to lobby

I don't know about rich people, but companies seem to have a lot of success in doing so.

> Murdoch backer of Brexit

This is not evidence that the EU is hard to lobby. People across the political spectrum can be anti-EU: Corbyn, who's as left and as anti-corruption as they come, was a Leaver (and a UK with Corbyn as PM would have arguably been better off outside the EU, but I digress).

> Ursula, scandal only about transparency and not personal enrichment

I don't know how awarding billions of public funds in contracts and then deleting all messages, something she's done before while working for the German gov, is "not that bad" and not about personal enrichment, but about her great care for efficiency and the European pop...

> Those involved in the Qatar scandal went to prison, how many local politicians you have who go to prison for anything other than political reasons?

You're cherry-picking, powerful EU officials are as immune to justice as anywhere else, and plenty of examples exist in Member States of people going to prison for corruption. The former president of France just started his prison sentence, you might have heard. Those cases are the exceptions that prove the rule.

> Have you noticed what has been happening in US since February for example?

Few countries would look good on corruption if you compare them to "What has been happening in the US", FULL STOP. That the EU is not as far gone as the US has been for decades (thank fuck) is, again, no evidence of anything.

I invite you to peruse ftm.eu, as I'm on my phone: look at the criticism of OLAF's selective investigations, the watchdogs lacking any independence and finding that everything's just dandy with EU officials, the revolving doors across so many industries, the bribes and gifts, the insider trading, employment of family members, mismanagement of funds, etc. etc. etc.

One article that I enjoyed is this:

https://archive.is/YieBg

Edited to address more of your points.

The EU has its advantages, but I'd never list "more pure" and "not corrupt" among them. The EU introduced lobbying (=legal corruption) into European politics when most countries historically didn't have much of it. It also has a massive amount of normal, God-fearing illegal corruption.

Many of the biggest stories about the EU are about or have a sizable aspect of corruption. Chat Control amd Thorn, Ursula von der Leyen and Big Pharma, Ursula von der Leyen and $anything.

Follow the Money is a thriving investigative journalism publication that lives off uncovering corruption in the EU.

https://netzpolitik.org/2022/dude-wheres-my-privacy-how-a-ho...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizergate

https://www.ftm.eu/

When did they go from being a nice FLOSS Trello alternative to becoming a defense contractor? They mention this everywhere in their communications and have enough military jargon, uniforms, and even fucking weapons on their homepage that you'd think they're an Anduril offshoot. What the hell?!

Thanks Steve, and for the tutorial too!

I have a question and you might have an idea about this:

I have a workflow where I have my main and a bunch of branches that are children of other branches. So: main, branch_a, branch_a_1, branch_a_2, branch_a_1_x, etc. Probably not a good workflow, but that's what I do.

I keep editing old commits in my branches to have clean, atomic commits, which fucks up my branch structure and I need to cascade-rebase everything manually.

Do I understand correctly that jj does it automatically?

Thanks for posting, an insightful overview of the ramifications of the Online Safety Act on online freedoms.

> Perhaps most troubling, the UK’s approach sets a dangerous precedent for global internet regulation. If every country can claim jurisdiction over any website accessible within its borders, the internet becomes subject to the most restrictive speech laws anywhere in the world.

Another interesting point is that the UK could just ban the websites it finds objectionable, but that'd expose them as a censor, so instead the strategy is to basically force those websites to withdraw from the market voluntarily (or comply), which is a much less revolting story to sell to its population.

Circular reasoning that is completely ignorant of the last 2 years of analysis of media reporting on Gaza.

The evidence of media bias is extensive and extremely blatant: it spans framing ("[horrible event, war crimes, etc.] happened, according to Hamas" vs no such qualification for Israeli claims, "20 people killed in Gaza" without mentioning who or what killed them), dehumanisation ("2 people killed" when reporting on children deaths in Gaza vs "2 teenagers in hospital" when talking about IDF soldiers), selective reporting (remember the pogroms in Amsterdam that got debunked on social media while every chief of state was sending their condolences?), constant repeat of Israeli "right to self-defence" while Palestinian context is not mentioned, etc., etc., etc.

One of many, many, many reports/investigations on this: https://cfmm.org.uk/cfmm-report-media-bias-gaza-2023-24/

If you need something more visual/real-time, Newscord has been been reporting on this consistently: https://newscord.org/editorials

The media might be largely a reputable source, when it doesn't contradict the preferred narrative, and the Gaza genocide was probably the strongest example we could have had of this.

I'm not sure why I even wrote this out, because 2 years in calling it "subjective opinion" is obviously not a position that is based on facts or reason.

Do you run Yunohost in production? Did you consider Cloudron/Coolify/etc.? I use Yunohost for personal services, it's extremely robust, but has a few lacking features that you'd expect to have in more professional setups.

Fascinating piece of analysis! Makes one want to re-orient their own thinking to a similar scale.

Maybe you're in a bubble in terms of knowing how people feel about out-parties, as your descriptions of right-wing parties are too caricatural for you to not be biased. I'm in the same bubble and don't think most people view things that way.

Your point about skewed results is right though: reading through the paper's annex on dataset construction, no distinction is made between out-parties. An analysis based on political spectrum-based clusters of parties would have been more telling, though the current methodology is probably on point for the more echo-chambered people.