greatgirl

Most hard problems are not solved simply by creating a technically superior product, they are often unsolvable due to mundane factors like user adoption, distribution, financial issues, server issues, etc.

We have been attempting our best to come towards the most correct answers for everything, since forever. To suggest all of a sudden that this method is irrelevant is odd. It is to suggest that we should no longer pursue truth and instead lay everything on the table and say it's all correct and you should just pick whatever makes you feel the best.

> Show me a rigid decision procedure proving it right or misinformation.

You and another commenter missed a crucial part of my sentence: dialectics.

The method of isolating the contradictions of a system so as to arrive at the best possible answer. No one said there is a quick formula for this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

Dialectics. Immanent critique. The method of isolating the contradictions of a system so as to arrive at the best possible answer. No one said there is a quick formula for this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

I don't make policy proposals, I just want people to think about whether deliberate misinformation infringes upon the rights of others.

> Could you show me such a decision procedure?

Sure, it's called reason, philosophy, and the scientific method, all of which influence a dialectic which is a method of arriving at the truth.

It's not a person, it's philosophy, logic, science, etc.

If you only believed lies, your thoughts can never truly be free. However if you believe some truths, your thoughts as expressed and built on top of those truths are free, whereas those built on top of lies are not. Freedom here means freedom of expression. You can still tell lies, but you will never truly be free to produce confident thought because your mind is trapped in a prison of delusion.

Something i rarely see come up: misinformation is itself an assault on free speech. You are confusing the minds of people who have a right to the truth and therefore the freedom to express themselves. If someone believes a lie that was told to them, their thoughts aren't really their own. They were manufactured by a people whose goal was to gain something out of their ignorance. By contrast, if you were told the truth, you actually have the axiomatic foundations necessary to produce unique thought.

Your right to spread misinformation cannot be justified on the grounds of free speech.

I've always felt this, I've never seen a business actually _do_ this. Why don't businesses just stop employing so many people? Stop expanding? Stop trying to acquire more users?

I mean, I know from my economics studies that businesses kind of have to keep competing or they die. It's just really sad.

So what's your solution then? Would you be in favour of democratising the workplace so the workers own and have a say in the company?

It's pretty naive to think this is the extent of it. They didn't make a billion dollars by sending people information about how much time you spent on the app. They analyse your chats and posts to see what kinds of things you're interested in so they can build a sort of 'person data structure' full of data points unique to you that they can package up and sell to advertisers.

This is just my best guess anyway, based on what I've seen elsewhere in the industry. It's safe to assume Facebook is hoarding any data about you they can legally get their hands on, including contact info, speech info, facial info, information of people who don't even use Facebook.. There's almost no laws for this industry yet, you can collect anything.

I am for legalising drugs if the evidence suggests it works. I'm not for legalising drugs because of some free market ideology.

> Only 2% of federal criminal defendants go to trial, and most who do are found guilty

From pew research

That's about where i expected it to be actually, and that's about 200k people, so it's pretty bad.

Eh, plenty of studies I've seen, from economics to environmental science, has some policy recommendations at the end. It's a problem but if you're going to discard this study you have to discard many others.

I am not insulting you, and I think you are smart. I'm saying that it's unreasonable to expect that banning people is a slippery slope unless you already think corporations and government have too much power, in which case the conversation becomes something entirely different and unbanning these people is not going to solve anything.

This is literally how it used to work before the FCC removed the FCC fairness doctrine in 1987. Fox news was then founded in 1996.

Or... competition responds to other competition. If your competition fires 50 employees, you no longer have the pressure to keep an extra 50 employees just to compete with them. Same principle here, that's why all these bans are happening together.

Liberals own the media companies that are doing the banning. The government has no role in this. My claim is that if you don't like what the companies are doing, you don't like free markets. If you don't like that the government can change every 2 years, you don't like how American government works.

Both of these are the smart opinions to hold.

Read what you just wrote 3 or 4 times over. Who is the mob? Stripe? A billion dollar company who has one small board of directors who made this decision?

What am I underestimating? The power of a company to deprive people of their income? Oh, you mean every single company on earth?

History is riddled with stories that start just like this? Yes, history has one example of a story that starts with a fascist mob invading the government, and then the liberal mob banned them and then... wait a second that's not how the story went.

I'm tired of people who have only read one book in their entire lives (1984) trying to explain to me how banning Trump is going to lead to an angry leftist mob throwing me in jail (because leftists have power right?) for speaking.

I have seen this exact phrase like 500 times in the past week. Do you guys all read the same books or something?

It's such a huge exaggeration to say that stripe's decision was motivated by a 'mob'... Wait, it was motivated by a mob, the mob of right wingers. And they DID come for me. That's why we ban them from our websites.

It's just pure fear mongering and outrage news to say that liberals are mobbing together to force companies (as if its not ultimately the choice of the company) to ban people, and that somehow this will lead to them turning on each other... and then i'll be sorry i banned Trump? I don't get it.

This isn't even arguing with what I said. I said at the point of starvation, being obese is only going to let you live for a few more days longer than a skinny person assuming you dont get any more food until death.

This paper is arguing that they are more likely to survive in general, which is obvious.

Being obese doesn't allow you to outlast starvation longer than a skinny person by more than maybe a few days.

I doubt that https://github.com/cabal-club/commons/blob/master/values.md#...

Not user friendly. Not everyone is an internet nerd like us.

That is the market deciding. Twitter's market is liberals and leftists, so twitter changes the platform based on their demand. If you don't like this, then you don't like free markets.

That is how the market works. Nothing in capitalism says 'you must be transparent in how you conduct business'... in fact, it's literally the opposite! Most things must be kept secret if you don't want your business to get outcompeted.

Businesses are almost as big as state governments, but are undemocratic. They are run like dictatorships. If you don't like this, you don't like markets.

Am I the only one being very smug about all this? Not only am I glad the president is gone, but watching everyone who otherwise defends free markets tooth and nail get mad when the free market does what it's supposed to do is very gratifying also.