sandoooo

Is the chance of this higher or lower in a world where scientists with opposing views are allowed to deplatform one another instead of applying the scientific method?

Cancelled, I suppose.

The wsj article is actually fairly accurate, since it has basically listed all the same arguments.

The question is the last point: assuming everything else here is true, is this sufficient grounds for deplatforming? Do you want to live in a world where it is?

Edit: apparently the HN answer is: yes, we totes do.

Since twitter is horrible on mobile, here's a summary:

# Nasorg sounds like NAS and could be mistaken for it.

# Nasorg is conservative and have published material with conservative slant.

# 7 out of 21 speakers are climate denialists.

# Therefore it is righteous to deplatform them.

What happened to non-bankruptable debt before? My guess is that the vast majority of them just sat in limbo with no repayment and are effectively just as worthless as defaulted debt. Really this just cleans up the books and force people to have a more realistic assessment of what the debt being held is actually worth, which is always a plus.

There was a period some time ago when image searches are always SFW even with safe search off. I guess this is no longer the case (checked just now).

Maybe they have an AI that ingests thinkpieces and twitter feeds lambasting them for insufficient censorship, and based on the strength of sentiment and number of retweets apply additional censorship to the specific examples listed, with the cost function being something like f(likelihood_of_negative_public_opinion) + g(impact_on_search_quality).

If I were to do this I'd allow penalized results to resurface from time to time, and leave it up if nobody tweets too hard.

Notice that there are entirely no NSFW images on DDG. This is a big hole right where content should be, and basically voids all claims to anti-censorship street cred.

They need to fix that low-quality duck icon at some point. It's up there with Irfanview's 'roadkill' icon for ugliness when zoomed in, and it is unrecognizable at very small sizes (e.g. as a tab icon).

This gets harder and harder as time goes on since there's brand recognition attached.

Remember itunes? UI was horrible from day one and got worse over the years until they killed it. I don't think it was ever a dealbreaker. UI is not the whole story here.

I may not be successful or prestigious but at least I'm not Obsessed With Success and Prestige.

Yay for me.

Two billionaires walk down the street. They spot a charity drive.

Billionaire A hands over a $50 note, then asks for change. He is planning to donate $20. A reporter captures this moment, and the next day the news is about how much of a cheapscate A is. A proceeds to spend $10000 in PR crisis management.

Billionaire B keeps his head down and pretends he didn't see the charity. Nobody bothers him.

Total donations to charity: A:20 B:0

Also the reporter gets a payrise.

The government is full of people whose KPI doesn't budge even if they piss away all the tax dollars.

And if you leave it to the private sector you get Medicare-style problems.

It's a legit hard problem, deciding which group in a particular situation can use additional resources most efficiently.

You have a signal for a go/no go decision. You know that the signal is noisy and also biased. You argue that this means you should ignore the signal completely and simply choose 'go' in all cases.

Hey, isn't that just the all-swipe?

I am going to defeat your system by swiping on the top 20% looks and bottom 20% bios.

And everybody else will follow suit once they realize it's an effective strategy. And you'll have a race to bottom.

Let's avert our eyes from the tire fires for a second: how would you actually fix this idea so that it actually works?

Let's define two win conditions, and you have to hit just one:

1. How to make this actually profitable without being more dark-patterny than Tinder?

2. How to help at least some of the people who are not finding what they need on Tinder, while expending only a reasonable amount of resources?

When you can't rely on looks, what's the next best indicator? Money and social proof, obviously! Job history / relationship history is a reasonable proxy there, in the sense of other alternatives are worse.

I challenge you to find a more succinct term that gets the same point across.

Politically correct speech pays a heavy price in expressiveness, especially of the banned ideas. It is kind of the point. What did I save up the points for, if not to spend it to say what I actually want, rather than gesture at it ineffectively?

This has open signups, so yeah.

Here's a common sentiment amongst those with too much time on their hands:

"When I am on my deathbed, I don't want to look back on my life with regret."

The deathbed part of your life isn't even that long. Probably a week or something. And probably you'll spend much of it being distracted by morphine and excruciating pain, leaving no room for feeling sad about how shit your life was. Maybe you should just tell future-you to suck it up and let you play your xbox in peace.

>As a psychologist, I specialize in mental health challenges associated with high-pressure careers. People like Dan show up in my office every day — so often, in fact, I had to build a company, Azimuth Psychological, to focus on serving their needs.

Native advertising.

Let me just remind everybody that Bioshock is a computer game, its plot is fiction, and it constitutes no evidence whatsoever tht a real-life scenario that start the same way would end the same way.

Sure, it is obvious when spelt out, but it is less obvious when it is a game of implications.

If I were running the whole show, I'd introduce new laws that classify any private for-profit corporation with valuation above a certain percentage of the GDP as special entities that are not allowed to express any political opinion whatsoever. They would also need to accept additional auditing and transparency measures to enforce this. I'd set this limit high enough that only 50 or so companies need to do this at any one time.

I would set up a dedicated department whose entire job is to watch Google - and only Google - like a hawk. Same with FB.

Alas, I am not actually running the show, so for now I would just like people to realize that we're all in a big hole here and they should stop digging.

>Social Justice isn’t mainstream left, it’s a very loud and quite powerful subculture.

Seems to me that it's becoming the mainstream left, considering the demographics are younger and more migrant-y than the old-mainstream of the Clinton era. The exact rate this is happening is up for debate, of course - we'll see after the primaries.

As for why anyone would be more motivated to go after SF rather than Detroit: because SF has lots of money. Because after a certain unknown period, the budget deficits plus medicare plus social security etc will become bigger and bigger issues, and SF is just there, looking plump and delicious and terribly unjust.

well, ideally they'd take the extra money and pay the people responsible for fixing bugs just a little bit more.

Google runs... Google. As in the search engine that pretty much the entire internet uses. It controls the algorithms that decides what everybody will actually clicks on.

Plus a bunch of other internet-plumbing stuff that everybody uses. It really should not have a political opinion, but not because it's technically infeasible. It is feasible and easy to create a slant. And if done right nobody will even know.

Oh, it will be very bad. Nobody voted for google. And nobody can vote out google, once it's in. How the hell do you even organize a campaign without the internet?

I doubt it. I notice you are only agitating against specific donations toward Republicans, rather than all contributions in general. What's the least-effort way for Google to avoid the bad publicity you are seeking to inflict? Stop donations to those specific people, obviously. And let the ratio of donations get skewed.

I think you would find that this is the exact outcome that many people on 'your side' are hoping for.

What's better for your average Google employee with unpopular opinions:

'Google donates to cause I don't like! Let's name and shame! Boooo!'

'Famous senior engineer at Google donates to cause I don't like! Let's name and shame! Boooo!'