hndudette2

I think Trump's allure is going to mostly survive this event, he will figure out a way to brand it as not being his fault or intention. I could be wrong about that though.

While AWS will act on anything that's reported, they are well known to do absolutely nothing in addition to that to stop the rampant usage of their platform to spread child pornography, unlike FB and other platforms which invest heavily in stopping the spread of child abuse material.

Amazon AWS really don't care about what goes on their platform unless it becomes a potential PR issue.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/09/us/internet-c...

Regarding Parler: it is a large platform with a mixture of conservative speech and outright violent rhetoric. Does that justify its ban? The same is true for Twitter and FB (ie there exists a large amount of unmoderated extremist speech and calls for violence on these platforms). What makes it right to ban only Parler? Is there evidence that the density of such speech is higher there?

No, they are technically incorrect. As other posters have pointed out, it literally is censorship. Whether a private company or government is doing it is irrelevant to the definition of that term.

Then why not ban Twitter as well? I could show you hundreds of tweets from little known left-wing activists inciting violence during the BLM protests. This double standard tells us that the rationale given for banning Parler is just an excuse. The real reason is that executives in these companies are doing what their most vocal employees and the liberal media are pressuring them to do.

The BLM riots resulted in 19 dead, and thousands of properties damaged. It's equivalently true to say "Trump protests/rallies are mostly non-violent", since the majority of them (probably rivalling the 96% in the article you mention) have had few issues with violence until the recent insurrection. But that would just be a vacuous talking point.

Bitmex, Huobi, etc.

Were the other four too lazy/orthodox to read the papers you're referencing? Or they read the papers and still thought it wasn't a good idea? I'm going to presume that the former is the case, unfortunately.

But if we really can't attribute blame to specific individuals, your proposal is effectively collective punishment where individuals that are genuinely innocent are punished because of wrongdoings of other members of the group. From a justice perspective, we're in murky moral waters. An analogy would be to punish everyone in a shared household if we know that one member of that household committed a crime but we can't determine which one specifically (and let's assume that the innocent members of the household don't know and aren't hiding information). This would be a state of affairs that everyone would rightly protest. So we need to think carefully as to whether we want to enact your proposal.

(1) a lot of retail investors loading into the stock & call options, primarily because it's a momentum hype/meme ticker with Elon at the helm, and easy access through Robinhood et al combined with stimulus money.

(2) large cap tech stocks have been rallying during COVID; capital has had nowhere else to go with the Fed crushing the USD and non-tech companies suffering,

(3) shorts have been repeatedly obliterated and are now mostly staying away. Short interest is now only 6%.

(4) TSLA was recently included in the S&P 500 at a ~1.5% weight, so index funds and ETFs have been forced to buy it due to a mandate to track the index.

Maybe he would've left the country and tried to build something elsewhere. If he didn't, you also can't proclaim to know that he would've pursued his projects with such vigor in the presence of a wealth tax. The wealth tax idea has been tried before and has failed, so whoever is promoting it at least has to explain why this time is different. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/what-happened-when-the-we...

> Or do you think the single mom ... cares about electric cars and rockets?

Climate change (EVs) isn't only going to impact the rich. Also, reusable rocket tech is massive value add to our society including to regular people; satellites - which working class people rely on, plus diversifying life in order to reduce existential risk which is something everyone should care about.

Disagree on that point. Allowing riots creates a lot of anger on the other side of the political isle. Also, the rioters are often not representative of the majority of protestors and undermine the entire movement (think about the BLM rioters' impact on how the overall movement was perceived). They also often lead to a violation of rights; property destruction, assaults, deaths, etc. Almost nobody - on any side - wants a small number of thugs to run the show.

I don't know if this is what you meant by mechanical checking, but I highly rate two things to reduce bugs:

(1) Checking that the output of the entire system is 100% (and I meant 100% literally in every sense of the word) accurate, not just that the smaller unit tests pass or that the output "looks right".

(2) Scrutinizing the logic of the code line by line at least 2 times after you've finished writing it.

As a dev with a data science background, I'm always impressed how many bugs pure devs are able to smuggle in whenever the task involves any kind of data, despite extensive unit testing. I check out their code, run it once, and immediately see the output is wrong and then they have to go back and debug. If we just check our output that wouldn't be the case!

- One dev has a twitter account that's a nonstop stream of pro CCP ("Tiananmen is Western propaganda") and anti HK propaganda. I found it because it's named the same as his stackoverflow page which is a very unique identifier with the same uppercasing on specific letters.

- Another doesn't believe there were famines under Mao (we were discussing the Wiki page on it) and calls it propaganda. This was from a Uighur emigrant.

- Another agrees fully with the CCP ocean territory claims in the SEA that take basically all the oceans to the west of Philippines etc.

- Another thinks China can't be a democracy because the logistics of over a billion voting are too hard

- Another left HK early on because of disdain towards the democracy protests (long before attacks on mainland businesses)

I'm sure you're right that there's heterogeneity there (that almost goes without saying and is true of any group of people) and a public vs private distinction but that doesn't contradict what I've said.