Note how they always ignore parental controls, and skip straight to deanonymize everyone.
2,025 karma · joined March 23, 2024
You can try to dismiss it with "just a standard heartbeat accidentally left in" [1], but until such plausibly-deniable malice is treated as malice, it will only get worse, while remaining plausibly-deniable - until that pretense becomes unnecessary.
[1] Though if we are being honest, such a "standard" feature is already malicious.
I guess when people get banned, and only get cited a vague "violation of our terms of service", they should be grateful for how much professionalism and respect they're being shown? And actually being told what you are accused of is equivalent to wearing flip-flops to a wedding?
That's not the right thing. According to Stallman, that's the opposite of the right thing.
[1] "Its experts there couldn’t get their heads around AQR’s innovation"
They most assuredly do not ensure equality, which is exactly why there is such a push to eliminate standardized tests from college entrance criteria:
The Time Is Now: Eliminating the LSAT for the Sake of Diversity - https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/03/09/the-time-is...
ABA votes to end law schools' LSAT requirement, but not until 2025 - https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/aba-votes-end-la...
Universities Dropping Admission Tests Experience Boost in Student Diversity - https://scienmag.com/universities-dropping-admission-tests-e...
Eliminating Standardized Tests To Achieve Racial Equity In Post-Affirmative Action College Admissions - https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaunharper/2023/07/09/eliminat...
So, according to Emma, officers did everything they could, even to the extent of lying, to prevent contact between the families of Valdo Calocane’s three victims. [..] As the relationship soured the police’s tools became cruder — they ‘were told we couldn’t say anything’ until ‘sentencing had been done’ because of the risk of contempt of court. Emma described this as ‘the managing down bit from the police — you know you cannot, you must not say this’. Officers even tried to ‘manage’ the families’ ‘victim impact statements’ — even demanding to ‘see them all in advance’, telling them that ‘you’re not allowed to say anything…too contentious about the verdict’. Emma told me they ‘were made to feel’ that if they didn’t comply with the ‘guide’ which the police provided their victim impact statements might not be allowed at all. Emma also said she was left with the very clear impression that they weren’t allowed to say anything suggesting they ‘didn’t agree with the process’.
[1] Sheetz Inc., which operates more than 700 stores in six states, discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job seekers by automatically weeding out applicants whom the company deemed to have failed a criminal background check, according to U.S. officials. - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/sheetz-convenience-store...
[2] Biden Admin Threatens Banks That Refuse To Lend Money To Illegal Immigrants - https://dailycaller.com/2023/10/12/biden-admin-threatens-ban...
[3] [UK case] Wanting to hire “fewer white men” for a job is not discrimination, a tribunal has ruled - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/19/wanting-to-hire-...
[4] After the controversy broke out over Damore’s memo, Google’s Vice President of Diversity, Integrity, and Governance Danielle Brown wrote a response saying that “discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.” [i.e. "anti-discrimination" laws have been reinterpreted into censorship] - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/pc-corpor...
Wrong. Great effort goes into ensuring only the desired statements are regurgitated, and the undesirable ones omitted: https://www.foxnews.com/media/ap-report-slain-north-dakota-t...
This is not a cherry-picked example, but the policy of most major media, explicitly outlined in their style guides: https://jfulford.substack.com/p/hiding-the-race-of-criminals...
I don't like Google very much, but making it illegal to scrape public data enables way too much abuse, so this is for the best.
Why give children the option to make the wrong choice? If they were wise and disciplined, they wouldn't be children.
I'm against ugly soulless buildings. Those buildings can't be a symbol for anything, because they, like all modern [1] buildings, were deliberately designed to remove all identity. They are completely generic, no different from modern buildings in Beijing, New York, or Dubai. The only thing they represent is a capitulation, or refusal, of making things beautiful.
I'd vastly prefer some national landmark of the nation that committed war crimes against us in WWI & II, than that.
[1] Or is it "modernist"? Whatever the "style" of basic geometric shapes in steel and glass is called.
To clarify, this is not content that a court or even just the police has determined to be illegal - this is merely content alleged to be illegal by any random complainant. So a company can remove content and suffer no consequences, even if it was perfectly legal, or it can risk an up to 5M Euro fine if it keeps the content up but gets it wrong.
Every free speech and human rights organization under the sun warned them this would result in unchecked privatized censorship, yet they did it anyway. The result was not unintended, but 100% deliberate, and the politicians that voted for it are not stupid, but simply malicious.
In 1975, the single motherhood rate was 15%. In 2015, it was 40%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parents_in_the_United_S...
"communities like their own,"
In 1970, the US was 83.5% non-Hispanic White. In 2020 it was 57.8%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...
"and would speak English as a first language"
In 1980, Spanish speakers were 5% of the US. In 2024, it was 13.9%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States...
So the claims are factual. Do you just object to pointing it out?
In contrast with the (single) mention of open-source on Mozilla's website that the BBC article cites: https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/nothing-personal/period...
These articles are always so vague, never explaining the difference between proprietary and free software, and even treating sending data to company servers as some kind of acceptable default, only raising privacy alarms when the data is also sent (directly) to some 3rd party server. As if that makes any difference once the company has your data - they can sell it to whoever themselves.
Right. Take away the pervasive, organized, even official measures aimed at driving out the right from academia, and maybe there are also some other minor reasons we can shift blame on instead.
"Maybe our extensive efforts to purge institutions of our ideological enemies had no significant effect, and they voluntarily purged themselves!"
Are you saying the well documented examples of discrimination I posted [1] are caused by, and do not affect the under-representation of the right in academia? Because that's what reversed directionality means in this case.
[1] I can add about three alternative, trustworthy sources for each, if that's an issue.
Academia used to be much more politically balanced: https://www.independent.org/tir/2022-23-winter/the-hyperpoli...
It would be very illuminating to compare academics' political leanings in other countries as well, but I am not aware of any such studies.
Now it is basically officially banned to hire conservatives: Diversity Statements Required for One-Fifth of Academic Jobs - https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...
Even if hired, bias persists: The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi...
When polled, 4 in 10 academics admit to discriminating against conservatives: https://www.cspicenter.com/p/academic-freedom-in-crisis-puni...
> So why are we [..] assuming there’s a problem with equality of opportunity?
To answer your question: we're not assuming anything - they have official policies to that effect, they openly say so when polled, and it has been measured in studies.