rscoots

? Or these highly-paid & pampered university admins could simply grow a spine.

And we can call them out on it in the interim which seems to have some impact.

Actually this messaging has achieved significant impact in the past 3 years. They might not have the majority of the public on board, but they do have the majority of Dems:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/18/more-americ...

Unfortunately for them it seems to be having the opposite affect on Republicans, but not to the same degree.

I notice those lists do not include the exact same materials.

So you've proven the point that there is debate to be had on these matters.

That line is hidden and opaque by design.

Why is targeted political messaging inherently immoral though?

It seems the crux of the issue here is that people are being fooled into supplying data about themselves in a non-consentual manner.

The former has been happening in politics forever and imo the latter has been every tech companies MO essentially for the last decade.

From what I'm reading online it seems to be legal to leave Texas to get an abortion currently.

Maybe Apple has some framework for medical privacy in place they could leverage for this, and I've read Salesforce has already done it.

If we're talking about conditions for Apple employees, could they secure travel to another state for anyone wanting an abortion?

Granted that comes with a substantial can of worms around privacy.

Now that I think about it though, the 'conditions for employees' argument is pretty much just as morally hypocritical as a boycott when you bring China into play.

Another thread mentioned that as a figurehead of Facebook, Zucc being named in this could conceivably lead to bad outcomes for shareholders via bad press.

My question is, if he was named would that lead to an investigation of his personal actions and dealings becoming public? If visibility into internal workings of the CEO is bad for shareholders then that's the way it ought to be I feel.

Hmm then possibly Apple could simply allow consenting users to install software by means other than their highly-regulated appstore cash grab.

Every major cosumer 'computer' in history has allowed this as far as I can tell. Yet for some reason now in the last few years its unthinkable on specifically Apple devices. I'm sure it's merely a coincidence they make billions of dollars off of this overly draconian "security" framework.

Ahh nice, a planned obsolescence piece of junk that prohibits any other connection to the device while using it.

Why would they have to be stored near populated areas for this purpose?

Even if you were gonna hit the meteor during significant downward trajectory (which seems unlikely), that would still have to be done at quite a distance from the impact location.

Also wondering when there was ever a "politically stable world without conflicts"

If you're looking for lost and re-found civilizations, maybe look into the archeological history of Troy, or maybe the Olmec culture of south America. (There are many)

My favorite though is this documentary series on YouTube. The 2nd installment is especially good. Highly recommend:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwB8gn3XsXHiHDhY3e8XsavyS...

Well not clear enough I guess since my comment just got downvoted 4 times lol.

That's still begs the question though, why not simply hide or abridge that video. Or add a disclaimer?

How can deleting the entire channel without warning possibly be the ethical move here?

Glad you've acknowledged there is a difference between this and recruiting for terrorist orgs.

>I also don’t think anything can be excused as morally acceptable because it’s decided democratically.

Wasn't asserted.

>The thing though is that abortions are now in that category too!

The website is not providing illegal abortions. Or else sadly goDaddy would probably be required by law to take it down.

Anyways, I've learned from other comments that these laws are so broad that even activism supporting the right to abortion can be deemed illegal. So inadvertently you might've made a point if that proves true.

Clearly my point was to highlight your prejudicial instincts around this issue.

For all you know the entire team that worked on this project could've been black. Or zero of them could've been white etc.

We can and should have a conversation about training sets and ML ethics. Resorting to unprovoked racist attacks is quite a counterproductive approach imo.

Interested in hearing how you obtained the proprietary training material for this algo from Apple. Can we see it?

Also which teams at apple made the algorithm? Since you claim to know they were all 'white'.

In reality, I'm sure everyone working on this team was well aware of these potentials for training set bias before most of us even knew what ML was.

Even if this was considered it'd be pretty risque to have an employee dedicate time specifically to differentiating black ppl from apes in the algorithm.

It is not a government website.

(Asking as someone who thinks these laws are among the worst passed in the US in recent memory)

What would you say to the charge that recruiting for terrorist organizations is actually illegal, and that the Texas laws were created legally by democratically elected officials?

Surely there is some daylight between the 2.

Couldnt Apple just say apple pay is required but other processors are allowed? Think you're being a bit obtuse here.

Thanks for reminding me about those efforts. Glad they've mostly petered out by now.

>that Facebook and Twitter should not be forced to support insurrection and violence masquerading as free speech.

Where is "force" coming into this other than various government demands and threats?

There are obvious ways the govt can pressure people who've committed no criminal act.

Being put on a no fly list or terrorist watch list are some examples. Happened all the time during the war on terror.

Lol your comment reminds me of this statement by Chuck Schumer. Weird thing for us to be proud of, as noxious as Gab is.

https://youtu.be/6OYyXv2l4-I

How is not allowing any 3rd party payment processors a feature may I ask?

Well the strategy was technically always to bribe the warlords, bribing random citizens is ineffective.

But I'm confused why you think we disagree.

Even if we believe it's overblown, it seems to me cancel culture is THE preeminent gripe against our side that gains traction virtually anywhere it is invoked.

For this reason alone it's essential to fight and fight hard.

Overblown? Depends who you ask.

What I've noticed is that it can be highly selective and random in both it's targets and intensity.

See Apple's firing of Antonio García-Martínez while simultaneously employing Dr. Dre and giving him billions of dollars.

You'll notice the post you're responding to never mentioned anything close to "standing on the sidelines".

A common tactic used by evangelist partisans is to paint centrists as 'undecided' on some issues and therefore just as evil as the enemy.

In reality these people are as opinionated as any partisan on individual topics.