nonotreally

Be a consultant.

Bill more, work less and you don't have to do internal politics.

Bail at 3 and go for a walk.

I find your entire position very upsetting. Compassion for everyone should be the ideal.

The notion that very human laws, can lead to very negative outcomes for people seems like a terrible system.

In addition, an estimated 40,000 people are wrongfully imprisoned in the US right now.

https://www.orentcriminallaw.com/wrongful-convictions-infogr...

How do you reconcile cases of wrongful imprisonment?

"A restorative justice program aims to get offenders to take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves and to discourage them from causing further harm."

What about this idea doesn't appeal to you? Why do you prefer to have them suffer?

I encourage you to do some reading about the difference between Retributive Justice and Restorative Justice.

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

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

I'm in the don't buy a ring club and it has never come up in social situations.

No one cares about your stuff as much as you do.

In the strongest possible terms, I reject this entirely.

I'm trying to put into words how much I disagree and why, but I'm failing. Others have done a better job than I can.

I can only recommend you read the strong counter opinions to your position.

I wish you well. But I wont participate in these groups.

I accept this.

But I don't actually see how that is different than religion. Religions have failed many times throughout history.

Modern society has been working well enough for a while now. How long do we have to do it before we can ditch these superstitions?

Humanity doesn't have a single example where the opposite has been true.

Yes. I am speaking for all of humanity here.

I welcome evidence to the contrary.

But that is kind of the point...

Isn't that just anecdote?

Yes to all of this. I have either participated in or can think of examples of all of these examples from this gym group.

People are people. We don't need gods to make us care about each other.

Exactly this.

In addition, the default shouldn't be "therefore miracle".

The default assumption should be "humans are easy to trick".

My claim here, is that if we put our brightest minds on this, they will come back with a terrifically mundane explanation for it. In the same way that weeping statues are always just water from a pipe somewhere.

More judgemental than the church? How do you reconcile the entire gay communities experience with this statement?

Every single miracle we have investigated seriously has been proven to be perfectly normal.

As an example:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/23/india-blasphem...

Just because something is unexplained currently does not give any weight to the idea that it was a miracle.

Millions of people saw David Copperfield vanish the Statue of Liberty as well... But I certainly wouldn't be tempted to pretend he actually made it vanish

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=823GNH4Rczg

We don't have a single example where the opposite has been true.

I think you've conceded too much ground here.

There is no evidence for the divinity of Jesus. These are simply stories from ~2000 years ago.

This isn't true.

Secular society is an example of this. We have common goals that we work towards.

We don't have words for "gather once a week and do xyz" in many context, but that doesn't stop us for doing it.

Join an electronics club and meet up every week for the next 10 years. People do this ALL the time and it isn't an issue.

That's a lie that religions keep perpetuating. Many social groups exist that are just as fulfilling.

My gym for example is full of people who actively work in the community, help each other and gather multiple times per week to better themselves and encourage their community.

Religion has nothing to offer that secular society cannot offer.

It does offer a lot of downsides though.

I think you should have stopped at "this is circumstantial".

Anyone who has had their GPS suddenly think they are 30 meters to the right of the road knows this is possible.

That is a really good point - HN is much smaller and attracts a very different audience.

I agree, they have created a really unfortunate situation for us and for them.

In principal, forgetting the practicalities, would you support HN style moderation on Twitter/FB?

My gut reaction is yes. It seems to be a good balance of gut check and "we don't have time for this".

o/t

5 star online conversation dude.

It can't be that simple. This is a private company.

Isn't this where the entire problem is coming from? If this were a state run service, we know the answer and can apply it easily.

The confusion is coming entirely from it being something other than the state.

What if it's a private company?

Hackernews famously moderates their comment section, to the benefit of all.

Why can't this happen on Twitter?

I'm not suggesting that I've stumbled into some new idea.

I'm trying to understand what people mean when they say "free speech platform".

It seems to be a get out of jail free card of sorts.

"Free speech" without any limits obviously doesn't work. Where are the limits of the parent comment? The devil is in the details.

Sounds like we agree on this. I want to push you here though.

Did twitter contribute to the events on the 6th? Do they have any role to play?

Do you have to use the words "go and kill them" in order for it to be violence?

I'm trying to be genuine here, because I don't know. I will say it certainly feels like we saw the violence being induced for months ahead of time on twitter without explicit calls for violence.

Should we just allow this?

It's happening still. We have members of congress calling the election stolen. This is how more violence happens. It's a slow burn, but it's a burn.

I'm trying to find the limits of Freedom of Speech.

Are we agreeing that there are in fact limits on Freedom of Speech?

Are there any cases where more speech is not the answer?

Can we agree that calls for violence is a limit of speech that is good?

I didn't raise the point. I haven't formed an opinion on this particular issue.

Why did you offer this data?

My gut says that you are right.

I think the election fraud nonsense suggests it might not be that simple. Bad actors in positions of power are abusing these services to the point where we have real conflict occurring.

How do we account for these edge cases?

I think this is a useful idea. They have platforms already, and we give them platforms on TV and in papers.

Unfiltered access to their hyperbole seems to be a net-negative.

Can I call for the death of someone on this platform?

I'm not seeing your point here.

Do you like this? Not like it? Why?

I feel like this is exactly the type of feedback they're asking for.