The problem is that "jerk" is relative and very sensitive people will tilt the scale. Also, occasionally jerks will have interesting insights that you would miss if you blocked the jerks. It's a problem of whether your platform cares more about having diverse viewpoints or about people being polite to each other.
Very odd article. This author is trying a little too hard to poo-poo the Intercept article but has lost the plot. The reveal here was that the US government has the ability to shape and influence what people think on private platforms. Yes, maybe this has been known to people in the government watchdog space but I highly doubt the average US citizen knows. This has a direct impact on the Democratic process yet the author doesn't think this is even a little bit interesting?
I think you're partially correct but the framing is a bit off. A country's interests and security comes first. We have seen China's values and goals obviously clash with western values so why would the west let them have their way?
I disagree. One is a hatred of a an immutable characteristic (race) whereas the other is a hatred of an action. There is a big difference. This is not a justification of hatred of actions but people seem to conflate the two.
Racism as a catch-all term makes for really unproductive discourse. There's a difference between "I deeply hate people of a certain race from the bottom of my heart" vs "I generally hate the behavior I have observed of a certain race because they are different from my expectations." The latter is probably more common and it's because humans don't like things that are different from them. The former is evil and is what used to come to mind when people used the term. I would like to see these two things conflated less.
Finally, this answers some questions about the madness of the last 5 or so years. Everyone knew this was happening to some degree but the abhorrent part is how politically biased the execution was.
> Even free speech people don’t like speech that is critical of their beliefs
This is like saying people that like apple pie don't like apple pie. Yes, there are liars and hypocrites out there but those aren't the true believers.
That said, despite the challenges out there, that doesn't mean you just give up the fight for free speech. There will always be bias but the goal here is to even the playing field so we can return to a time where the rules are applied evenly to all players.
Sadly, communication and writing skills takes a backseat to algorithm interviews. I understand the company benefits massively from hyper-focusing on hard skills but quality of life suffers for your average IC mired by the daily failures of miscommunication.
Some extra nuance is that there exists people who's entire lives revolve around work. These people's whole life schedule revolves around work and their social networks revolve around work people because they have no hobbies or other avenues of socialization. These are the type of people who live solely to climb the corporate ladder and only talk shop and office politics. Despite being quite a social person, I can't stand working with these types of people and would rather be isolated at home than be subjected to these types. At least this has been my experience working in large enterprise corporations in Silicon Valley.
I don't think it ever went away. You see people getting massively flagged or downvoted and called "Republican" for going against the grain everyday here on HN.
There is a large multi-million dollar industry supporting DEI now. If there are people benefiting from racism continuing, it's people that work in this industry.
It reminds me when my childhood friend's parents moved to LA so he could attend an inner-city high school so that his scores from a lower ranking school were more heavily weighted for college admissions. They were wealthy immigrants from the middle east.
This assumes a utopia where all humans are friendly and all countries are at peace. Well-being is great but economic and capital is what gives you power and security. It gives you technology, defense, and weapons. In other words, when your economic power declines, it gives hostile foreign nations with more money (power) to dominate or invade you.
If we all spent our collective efforts to make sure everything in this world is accessible to every single human being, we would have zero progress as a society. We are not even guaranteed the right to live in this world and yet you are advocating for the right to email service? It is shocking that someone could even have a thought process like this and receive so many upvotes.
Throughout the years I'm learning that all of our leaders and major institutions are corrupt and flawed. We're just lucky that there was enough wealth to go around to placate people in the past few decades but now we're reaching a point where there isn't and people aren't happy and won't be happy until a major shift happens.
I still remember YouTube ramping up ads starting at the beginning of lockdowns in 2020. It was the first time I was seeing double unskippable ads and 14 second ads.
I work at a large Silicon Valley company and a portion of Directory/VP bonus is earned by ensuring hiring meets certain "diversity" quotas. There have been many internal stories of managers hiring based on race to make sure they receive their full bonus. Not sure how this isn't illegal.
It's not good intentions. Most of these policies are created because they sound nice and "compassionate" to your average good-hearted but naive voter. Unfortunately, the reality is that a lot of these problems require "tough love" type solutions.
Maybe the colleges and universities that made big money out of all these loans should be paying off these student loans. Why do I and other tax payers need to bail out Jimmy's fine arts degree in 14th century calligraphy?
Have spoken to some Chinese engineers in the Bay Area and most see Uyghurs as terrorists (they will point to terrorist attacks) and do not know about (do not believe) the camps or oppression.
They have been threatening the island by flying military aircraft across the Taiwan air defense almost daily for the past year and have now surrounded the island and fired missiles over the island in a show of intimidation. What definition of "threatening" are you using?
Nobody does until it affects them personally or unless they have some compassion for others in their country who don't have the same opportunities and skillset as you. Many of the drugged out people on the street without homes or a future could have been hard working factory workers but wealthy people thought it would be better to save a few bucks and boost their own paychecks by offshoring.
We can look back at history and come up with a thousand reasons to support any cause that exists today. Asians were discriminated when they were brought in to work on the railroads, are we going to factor that into the admission process too? So in the end, is it just going to be a battle of which race had the worst time in history?
The point is, instead of chasing the fool's dream of finding who was hurt the most in history, we can just make sure everybody has the opportunity to be successful. It's not perfect today but it is still better than hurting one group of people in order to boost another.
Not sure why you're being downvoted for your opinion. I think it's quite clear all we have are theories at this point and if anyone knows, it would be the Chinese government.
Media now is just another "business" or "corporation" looking to maximize profits and shareholder value and/or influence politics. And when there's not enough wealth to go around, bad people extract wealth from things that provide value and corrupt them in the process.
Most likely this was something forced by their marketing team or their office of diversity. Given the explanation of the implementation (arbitrarily adding "black" and "female" qualifiers), it's clear it was just an afterthought.