trafalgarcircle

Imagine someone wanted to open a new service for let’s say video hosting and is doing so for political reasons (e.g. the creators feel that YouTube is banning/“deboosting” anyone posting Islamic content). The operators would be well served to manually verify new accounts when starting that service to keep things such as anti-Islamic material, child sexual abuse material, other illegal content, etc. off the service until they have a scalable and automatic moderation solution which has been battle-tested. I think most people would agree that simply putting up a new service like that with no guardrails will go badly. Therefore, please keep in mind that Parler was a new entry into the social media scene and lacked the opportunity to develop robust community content/sentiment controls over the course of a decade such as Facebook and twitter. The generally stated purpose of Parler was to provide a safe space for individuals who were banned from Twitter or Facebook for what Parler operators would consider political reasons. Parler certainly does not want (in the long term) individuals removed due to highly incivil or illegal behavior (from Parler’s perspective). Requiring a manual verification before the account begins algorithmic “boosting” is reasonable in this situation, at least to me, until Parler can develop better automatic/scaling moderation tools.

Verisign did not take a risk by developing the dns system - network solutions did that. Verisign maintains a perfect monopoly over the addition of records to a central database, with minimal operational costs. Their business is almost pure profit by operating a mandatory service with highly inflexible demand. If they were forced to compete on providing access to a core internet infrastructure (e.g. allow competitors to also add records to the .com registry) the price would lower to the actual cost of providing the service, which for an update/add query, I suspect would be in the pennies.

Apologies for the source of this, I couldn’t find a neutral organization hosting the excerpt. https://mises.org/library/broken-window In short - the $3 billion would be spent on improving the local economy of those individuals who would otherwise retain the money. Technically nothing is being destroyed, but the point of the article stands.

Linux allows individuals to override tx frequencies and power on many devices, but at least that’s done in software. I could understand if the dips were for setting bits on a frequency divider and could allow selecting any frequency, but having them directly correlate to reserved frequencies is beyond the pale.

This is my first post on hackernews, I registered as I feel this perspective isn’t but should be considered: Many had already came to this conclusion based on available data around the middle of 2020; however, the body of this report (that the virus mainly harms already-unhealthy individuals, not the majority of the population) as well as the corollary (widespread lockdowns are not required/will statistically do more harm than good as only at-risk individuals should self-isolate) were universally regarded as a “wild, baseless, unhinged, and potentially sinophobic conspiracy theory” by most social media, “fact” “checkers”, and large news organizations; sharing this CDC report’s sentiment would result in the individual sharing it experiencing “de-boosting” and “‘platform integrity’ moderation activity” (hidden post and banning). Is it the case that earlier insistence of “the science is settled” and the corresponding moderation activity was too confident? Major news organizations were stating as solid facts their position on COVID-19’s origins, as well as information surrounding it, but are now walking back those claims - should we reevaluate our confidence ratings we assign to news agencies’ outputs, or was this a special case? If so, why?