pannSun

It's both censorship, you just like the excuse/justification given in one case.

> all you’ve shown is that Twitter

And Google, and reddit. Somehow, when shown the gatekeepers of online attention all censoring in concert with each-other, you see only isolated instances.

"It's completely different. They censored Bitchute before, but now it's Mastodon."

> we're talking about Twitter and Mastodon, not any of those other things.

I don't view things so narrowly. If you want to limit yourself to only Twitter and Mastodon, you are free to do so, but that does not make similar cases non sequiturs.

And the internet isn't print journalism, yet it struck a near-fatal blow to newspaper budgets. That's the economic side of it. The other side is, as you say, established media discreetly [1] censoring alternatives that don't toe the line. But I don't care to have my web browsing be censored by the ADL, no matter how they justify it.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Tartaria/comments/ktwypc/warning_re...

Censoring competition/alternatives.

This has been standard operating procedure at Twitter long before Musk: https://reclaimthenet.org/twitter-censors-all-links-to-bitch...

And at Google as well: https://reclaimthenet.org/google-play-bans-bitchute-app/

Edit: And at reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Tartaria/comments/ktwypc/warning_re...

Now ask yourself why other alleged shadowbans, pre-Musk, weren't so credulously (or at all) reported on. I guess they weren't "newsworthy".

There are plenty of limits on what contracts may contain*, so the "it's legal if both parties sign the dotted line" is, for now, fiction. It's also what every entity able to compel people to agree to its contracts is lobbying for.

*For example, in right-to-work states, employers can't agree to hire only union labor. Strange that that is prohibited, but an omerta imposed on workers is not.

"Good fences make good neighbors."

But you're conflating nationalism with imperialism, as is so common these days.

And somehow you think that in the current system where multinational corporations sneak anti-consumer legislation into trade deals, poor countries don't get the short stick. Why? Who do you think benefits when poor countries are made to agree to onerous patent and copyright protections, and forced open internal markets, that prevents them from growing or protecting local industries?

> So you think a less free trade will reduce copyright length?

Copyright length is literally written into trade agreements and other international treaties, yet you are incredulous?

> This post seem to blame victims for the problem

I interpreted the parent post as describing a mere "contributing cause", but you seem to be saying the post is assigning moral guilt to the victims. Why? And how can we discuss preventative measures that potential victims of any crime (or accident) can take, if the two are so often conflated?

E.g. is teaching people self-defense equivalent to blaming them for successful physical assaults upon them?

It is deeply concerning that the FBI would want to conduct surveillance on such a scale, that targeted operations (planting a keylogger, recording password entry, etc.) cannot support them.

> ban trade

Yes those are the only two options, totally unrestricted free trade*, or a total ban on trade. There's no middle ground, no spectrum.

*Except for what restrictions "free trade" agreements place on national legislation, of course. Can't have rogue countries reducing copyright length or the scope of patentable subject matter.

To be clear, the "reasonable policy" is "don't let your ads reveal how invasive our spying is"?

And they were only able to get Capone on tax evasion. Yet we all recognize tax evasion as totally incidental to what he did. And that power of the courts you mention would never have come to pass if discrimination was only criticized via some other, incidental harm, like false advertising in job openings if they forget to mention they don't hire blacks.

I think we're misunderstanding each-other. My point is that prominent institutions object to surveillance mostly on grounds of discrimination (and this is reflected in the masses, such as the comment I replied to). So examples of those institutions doing exactly that absolutely backs up my point.

My evidence isn't perfect - for that, I'd have to collect an unbiased sample of anti-surveillance stories, and categorize them according to which object to surveillance universally, and which mostly object to only discriminatory surveillance. But the impression I got through casual web browsing is that the latter significantly outnumber the former.

Those are all examples of stories complaining specifically about facial-recognition working worse for some races. The quantity, and prominence of the institutions spouting them, is the point.

It doesn't involve any cutting into the eye, as with regular lasik, just laser?

> We don't regulate companies to prevent "the worst of the greed" except by some naive definition. We regulate them so they mop up or don't leave messes in their wake, be these messes social or environmental.

Those messes are the worst of their greed that I was referring to. I have no idea what your objection is - that those laws didn't "mandate companies behave good", but merely "readjusted incentives to avoid undesirable outcomes"??

Of course laws are not as simplistic as "try to do good, avoid doing evil", but that doesn't mean that is not their aim.

I've seen more criticism of facial recognition surveillance on the grounds that it is less accurate for some races, than on the grounds that, if it worked perfectly, it would result in a massive loss of freedom, so this is no strawman:

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/sciencepolicy/blog/racial-di...

https://theswaddle.com/how-facial-recognition-ai-reinforces-...

https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/how-is-face-rec...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facial-recognition-systems-raci...

https://www.csis.org/blogs/technology-policy-blog/problem-bi...

https://www.cnet.com/science/why-facial-recognitions-racial-...

https://theconversation.com/ai-technologies-like-police-faci...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/19/federal...

https://exposure.org.uk/2021/09/why-facial-recognition-tech-...

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/04/racist-fa...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/technology/facial-recogni...

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2021/01/ban-...

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/24/882683463/the-computer-got-it...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/12/19/facial-recogn...

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/07/defun...

But in the interest of accuracy, "only" was hyperbole - there is some criticism on non-discriminatory grounds. It's just overshadowed by concerns on whether the hell we are building will be racist.

> There is a great reason that companies are freed from the requirement to be morally good - because human instincts are not calibrated to run an 8-billion-strong postindustrial globe.

Yet they are bound by many laws and regulations, beyond contract law and non-aggression, born of these instincts you malign, that (try to) prevent the worst of their greed. Laws covering worker safety, union-busting, antitrust and fair competition, child labor, truth in advertising, environmental protection, even requirements on the length and validity of warranties.

You have to ignore all of these constraints to arrive at the simplistic "greed is good" conclusion. A conclusion that implies not only that we should not add further prohibitions against newly-recognized "evil" behavior (e.g. web spying, devices locked against their owner, etc..), but also that we should remove the prohibitions currently in place.

Is "discrimination" really the only evil we can think of these days?

The surveillance dystopia we are racing towards is only criticized if the facial recognition cameras spying on our every move work slightly worse on black people.

In this case, a phone is a device that is known to, at minimum, track your location, and now the landlord wants to run their code on it that you have only their word to trust is not nefarious, and can log every entry and exit to your apartment.

What % of the population own such a device is utterly irrelevant to whether its use should be mandatory to obtain shelter.

It would clash with the zeitgeist currently prevalent in Hollywood. If they decided to pursue it, it would be from a "subversive" angle, as they like to boast.

Advertises, not sells. In fact, according to the article, Hikvision has been blacklisted by the US, and now the UK.

So we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief in knowing that the growing surveillance state won't be racist. There will be no place to hide from the most fair & democratic state & corporate panopticon. What joy to have your every move and word recorded and analyzed by the most equitable and inclusive system in history.

Do the car manufacturers themselves also need to abuse a vulnerability to access this data that normally only the car owner has access to? Or can we trust our benevolent corporate overlords to keep this data safe on our behalf, and not abuse it, so long as "hackers" don't get it?

Or to ensure that consumers get at least a refund when denied the goods they paid for. Or you can insist on the most uncharitable interpretation of my comment, sure.

Like we just stopped buying toys with lead paint? Or just stopped buying cars that voided warranty if you used an independent mechanic? Or just stopped patronizing businesses that have a willfully unsafe working environment?

There's a tested solution to these issues, and it's not "act as isolated consumers".

> When people start demanding refunds or even start a class-action suit

You can thank a clever lawyer for thinking of mandatory arbitration clauses that are making class-actions a thing of the past.

Funny. One would naively assume that administrators are there to make the faculty's job easier. To take care of administrative work so that you can focus on teaching and research.

Instead they think their role is to create administrative work.

Other than this strawman mischaracterization of the article*, the rest of your comments seem almost entirely unconcerned with whether the author's allegations are true. Are you hoping that, if you can associate him with the wrong people, you can avoid addressing the factuality of the article? How much longer do you think such deflection will keep working?

*The claim is not "all historical immigration has wiped out the current inhabitants", but the weaker and obvious claim that "some historical immigration has to varying degrees wiped out the current inhabitants". To dispute that would be to argue that throughout all of its history, all of humanity has been perfectly pacifist.

The same S&P that had no trouble rating billions of worth of worthless CDOs as AAA quality, has suddenly become much more cautious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_%26_poors#Role_in_the...

"I don't understand why people are upset when they get banned from the 40% of all roads, parks, and sidewalks that are owned by GloboCorp. In the old days of private homes, sure it sucked when you got thrown out of a houseparty, but that's just the game. It's both private property, there is no difference."